[r9etb]

You are mistaken. The question is not "Do I want his car?", the question is "Would I dislike it if he stole my car?" A person might very well decide to steal a car because he wanted it and thought he could get away with it, but in doing so he would violate morality.

No, not "mistaken." You're demanding that I accept your assumptions, and operate according to your premises. But I'm challenging them instead -- I'm suggesting that logic is insufficient here: your premises must also be valid.

In essence, you're basing the "morality" of stealing on a personal view of "what I want", extending your personal view to others, and drawing a global conclusion.

The problem is that it doesn't work. I have offered an opposing alternative, also based on "what I want," which also follows logically from a set of premises, and which leads to a conclusion that contradicts what you claim to be the "moral" approach to stealing.

In this case, the car thief may well violate your morality, but in so doing, he would satisfy his own morality.

The prickly problem is that you're claiming a superior morality -- but on what basis? Are your "wants" somehow better than his? Not according to you: "Neither I nor any other human is more inherently valuable than others." So your wants are not superior to his -- nor, by extension, is your want-based morality superior to his. So he can steal if he wants, and you can not steal, as suits your assessment of the situation. And thus we reach a situation where the same underlying moral basis, "what I want," leads to opposing views of "moral behavior." In other words, your morality has no rational meaning.

Oops.

yet when I agree with that in part you contradict me!

The problem is not in the "agreement," but in the irrationality of your position. The example above demonstrates the point. The key is not in the logic, but rather in the validity of your premises.

Please try to post something that actually addresses what I said.

I did. I slapped you across the face with the cold, wet fish of reality.

[ahayes]

No, not "mistaken." You're demanding that I accept your assumptions, and operate according to your premises. But I'm challenging them instead -- I'm suggesting that logic is insufficient here: your premises must also be valid.

Please demonstrate which is invalid in what fashion.

In this case, the car thief may well violate your morality, but in so doing, he would satisfy his own morality.

It is not "my" morality, it is morality. The reasoning is applicable to every person.

The prickly problem is that you're claiming a superior morality -- but on what basis? Are your "wants" somehow better than his? Not according to you: "Neither I nor any other human is more inherently valuable than others." So your wants are not superior to his -- nor, by extension, is your want-based morality superior to his. So he can steal if he wants, and you can not steal, as suits your assessment of the situation. And thus we reach a situation where the same underlying moral basis, "what I want," leads to opposing views of "moral behavior." In other words, your morality has no rational meaning.

Nope, sorry, try again. You might try looking at the premises and pointing out which is wrong.

1. I do not wish to be harmed. This is universally true. Even a masochist has multitudes of types of harm he would object to. This premise is unassailable.
2. No human, including me, is better than any other human. In order to overthrow this premise you would need to provide a consistent external standard for evaluating the value of all objects and entities. Subjective judgements don't cut it.
3. From this it follows I should not harm other people. You already admitted this conclusion is logical supposing the premises are accurate.

I did. I slapped you across the face with the cold, wet fish of reality.

Really? Looks like the cold, wet fish of your confused misinterpretation to me.