Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
And so it's not an objective fact at all, merely a matter of personal preference. It may be an "objective" fact today, but the fact that his desire may be completely different tomorrow shows that this "objective" fact is really only subjective, and most likely contingent on some other set of circumstances. This is not much of a basis for an allegedly "absolute" Social Compact.
Consider: Suppose OWK decides that, instead of continuing his existence, he'd rather drive an airplane into the skyscraper in which Messrs. A, B, and C work. The conditions of the original "absolute" Social Compact are predicated on the assumption that OWK will always want to stay alive, and from that you've derived what you consider to be an absolute compact. But now OWK's desire has changed, and OWK has initiated a new Compact of his own devising. The original Social Compact is thus contingent on OWK's desire to live, and on his willingness to abide by the agreement. Clearly that compact was never absolute, but instead dependent on the subjective desires of those involved.
What you are telling me is, "2+3 only equals 5 as long as you retain the 3 in the equation!! Otherwise, 2+ (nothing) does not equal 5!!" Well, yes, that's true; but as long as you do have both a 2 and a 3 in that additive equation, it absolutely equals 5.
But wait: you've elevated OWK's "objective" desire to stay alive to the level of the "3" in this equation. You're assuming that "OWK's desire to remain alive" is of the same order as the value of "3" -- which it quite obviously is not.
Is it rational to eat when one is hungry?
Not always. For example, it may be considered irrational to eat food you know to be poisoned, or to eat when you're fasting prior to surgery. Obviously in this case there are higher "moral imperatives" which may trump the desire to satisfy hunger. It's easy to see that the same goes for a desire to remain alive.
The rationality in OWK's social compact is simply this: it satisfies his desire for protection against being Murdered, as eating satisfies hunger.
Killing A, B, and C would serve the same purpose, and in the long run it might well be a far more reliable guarantee against being murdered by them!
True; but "Might makes Right" offers OWK no absolute institutional guarantee of Not Being Murdered or subjugated.
Neither does your Social Compact: it merely trusts that a) all parties value staying alive above all things, and b) that they'll all abide by the agreement even if they change their minds.
However, once a party to the contract changes his mind, then what? If he acts on his new belief, has he done wrong? Or, because his "objective desire" has changed, is he merely acting rationally according to his current state of mind?
HumanaeVitae already discussed "stipulations and assertions" at length, and here is a prime example. You end up having to assert that the agreement, once entered into, not only won't, but can't be broken -- even though it rests only on a subjective and changeable desire to stay alive. Indeed, you have to make many, many assumptions and stipulations about the binding nature of agreements in order for the compact to remain binding on its participants.
That's why it's called enlightened self-interest.
Even if we grant that our desire to stay alive is truly an objective basis, "Enlightened Self-Interest" is a notoriously poor guide for telling us how to achieve it. For example, suppose I decide that I can get away with murdering OWK; that by doing so I will gain financial security for life; and that my newfound wealth will allow me to buy physical security as well. Why shouldn't I kill him?
Appeals to a Godless nature offer no help here -- nature operates according to Might Makes Right, wherein things like murder, enslavement, and rape are fine if they work. The only way you're going to call those things absolutely wrong, is by accepting what the good Rabbi says: that it's wrong because God said so.
Even thought it's 500 years older. Please elaborate on your comment. It is completely contrary to even the most tangential review of buddhism and christianity.
BTW, just because Buddhists may disagree doesn't mean they are right.
I'm not making a claim for who or what is right or wrong, in case you failed to notice. I simply stated that they would disagree with that one, particular viewpoint.
No it's 'some' type of absurd reasoning, on your part. -- We long ago decided, constitutionally, that local standards are to prevail as to public nuisance type law, as long as individual rights are not violated by such law. None of your examples, as written, violate our BOR's, imo. Thus, they are valid local law, - supportable by constitutional libertarians.
Let me ask you a question: when the Christians finally succeeded in getting the Roman Coliseum closed down--imposing their view that murder is wrong--was that the right thing to do? Many of the gladiators "freely agreed" to fight to the death. Is dueling to the death wrong? Would you stop that?
Sure. Dueling to the death is messy, and upsets the horses.
Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?
Yes. He ate the only gay activist in the county.
Finally, here is how you dismiss the "fact-value" problem: He is claiming to derive un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to his Objective of Not Being Murdered. The very term "value" implies a Moral Judgment which isn't even required for the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to accomplish an Objective. Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values. Okay? This problem is also referred to as the "ought-is" problem. Same thing. OWK is saying that he "ought not" be murdered. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Example: 2+2=4 is a fact. I ought not be murdered is a value. You cannot get from facts to values, or values to facts. Again, 2+2=4 is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact, or a "noble" fact, or a "kind" fact. It is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact or a "good" fact. It's a fact. The existence of a gun is a fact. The existence of this gun does not tell you anything about how you ought to use that gun. You can use it for good or evil, but the gun itself is neither good nor evil. Please examine this. I don't think you fully understand the implications of this...
You don't seem to really understand that the above paragraph of gibberish is indeciperable. Get some new lines.
the reason that you're giving absurd answers like "I'd allow a giant billboard of child pornography in my neighborhood" is because you don't want to concede that libertarianism is absurd precisely because objective values, oughts or maxims are not derivable from facts.
Not true at all. - You absurdly insist that libertarianism is illogical, in the face of all proof.
Libertarians honor the orginal intent of our constitutional republics rule of law, - without question. - It's a very libertarian document.
- We object to, and question strongly, many of the subsequent 'rules' made which violate it's intent.
Let's cut a little closer to the bone here. Observation of nature shows that it operates according to something very close to Might Makes Right. Murder, rape, theft, enslavement -- all sorts of things happen that we claim to be wrong. The fact is that these things happen in nature, and objective reality doesn't appear to have a problem with it -- indeed, in many species this is How Things Are Done.
Humans have tended to be against such acts -- but even among humans this is not an absolute. Recall, for example, the recent article about Ghengis Khan's family tree.
From an examination of the evidence one might plausibly conclude that respect for "unalienable" rights is a mere convenience for groups of people who are unable to gain and wield Khan-like power.
The oughts of things like human liberty and unalienable rights are contradicted by the is that they don't seem to be absolute in nature.
Which inevitably brings us back to the Rabbi's point about the necessity of God for cutting that particular Gordian knot.
Self-worship has a God that is subjective and inconstant. Hubris blinds them to that unhappy reality.
Just as Moral Values are "absolute" whether or not I desire to obey them, so a Behavioral Maxim describing the behavior necessary to acheive an Objective is "absolute" whether or not the Objective continues to be pursued.
As I said to HV: If it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain. You cannot reach the the top of the mountain by sitting around on your tuckus, you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by climbing down, you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by walking around the base in a circle... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain.
That Maxim remains absolute (admitting of no exception) even if I decide I would rather not reach the top of the mountain (maybe I'll go swim in the creek, instead). It remains the unexceptioned methodology for reaching the top of the Mountain.
I don't think that you even understand what I mean by "absolute". I am not saying that it is "impossible" for Free Agents to violate a Social Compact any more than I am saying it is "impossible" for Free Agents to violate a Moral Commandment.
What I am saying is that all of the Contractors in our scenario do realize that, in order that they all may enjoy an assurance of Not Being Murdered, it is a Reflexive Necessity that the Compact be Absolute (i.e., "un-exceptioned") in order to be efficacious.
Gosh, you realize this yourself, which is why you are asking "what if somebody changed their mind"? Well, then I suppose someone would end up dead -- as dead as if someone "changed their mind" about a Moral Commandment. Which only proves my point -- the Atheist is able to reason that any "exceptions" will undermine the efficacy of the Compact, thus the atheist realizes that it is imperative that all Contractors adhere to the Compact absolutely.
Ergo, Mr.OWK has thus rationally deduced the necessity of an Absolute Behavioral Maxim, purely to satisfy his own self-interest. Arguing that any "deviation" from the maxim will endanger Mr.OWK's security only proves my point.
Natrual Law is a contradiction of God's Law. You need to rethink what you are saying or make up your mind as to what you really believe.
Not at all. You've misunderstood me. Natural Law is self-demonstrating. It's there; no man's opinion can contravene it. If God exists, then Natural Law is God's Law. If God does not exist, Natural Law requires another explanation -- but other explanations are possible.
To believe in God is an act of faith. To accept Natural Law is a much lesser mental operation, merely the acceptance that there's an objective world, whose properties are independent of our preferences.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
The "behavior necessary to acheive" your subjective desires changes as those desires fluxuate. The behavior necessary to achieve those desires also changes as external conditions change.
God is eternal, your desires are dust.
Not at all. Self interest in staying alive drives the 'golden rule', the basis for all religious 'guides'.
For example, suppose I decide that I can get away with murdering OWK; that by doing so I will gain financial security for life; and that my newfound wealth will allow me to buy physical security as well. Why shouldn't I kill him?
Because, if you're sane, you realise that you may NOT 'get away' with murder, and, will die yourself if caught.
Appeals to a Godless nature offer no help here -- nature operates according to Might Makes Right, wherein things like murder, enslavement, and rape are fine if they work.
You are simply being irrational on what controls crime. Self interest in living free [not getting caught in crime] is the best deterent.
The only way you're going to call those things absolutely wrong, is by accepting what the good Rabbi says: that it's wrong because God said so.
Believe what you want about your god, but carry a big stick to stop crime, -- its the libertarian way.
It is "absolute" if and only if there is no other Behavioral Maxim that can achieve the Objective in question.
What I am saying is that all of the Contractors in our scenario do realize that, in order that they all may enjoy an assurance of Not Being Murdered, it is a Reflexive Necessity that the Compact be Absolute (i.e., "un-exceptioned") in order to be efficacious.
It's only absolute because you have, without justification, pre-emptively disallowed all other possible courses of action. (This is also the case with your example of climbing the mountain.)
The underlying problem is that you want us to simply accept the stated pre-conditions in your examples. But the actual effort is in defining and deciding between pre-conditions, as we'll see below.
For example, OWK certainly does have the option of entering into your Social Compact, and trusting that A, B, and C will abide by the contract. But he can also forego your Social Compact entirely, murder them, and thus assure that they won't murder him first. Either alternative leaves OWK un-murdered.
Now the question is obviously no longer one of ends, it is one of means -- whether the actions by which we achieve our Objective are permissible.
If we accept that the Compact is the only alternative, well and good. But that's just the problem: can we, through reason alone, conclude that your Compact is the only route? Observation of nature and human history provides us with objective evidence that murdering rivals can be an efficacious means to the stated Objective of remaining alive. The real heavy lifting has to do with demonstrating that murder is not a permissible option.
Ergo, Mr.OWK has thus rationally deduced the necessity of an Absolute Behavioral Maxim, purely to satisfy his own self-interest.
He has done no such thing. His self-interest may be served by entering into a Compact. But it may be similarly served by killing his rivals; or it may be served by becoming their servant/slave. The only reason your proposed maxim has been derived as "absolute" is because you've rigged the game to provide the desired result.
Arguing that any "deviation" from the maxim will endanger Mr.OWK's security only proves my point.
Not at all. The underlying assumption in all of this is that OWK's security is already endangered, and that if he does nothing he will be murdered. (Were this not the case, then the whole exercise of making mutual "don't kill me" compacts is nonsensical.) The Social Compact, or making additional security arrangements, or murdering one's rivals, are all ways to solve the problem.
And of course, no discussion is complete without addressing the companion problem of trying to select the proper "highest good" from which to derive your Absolute Behavioral Maxims. You selected that "the desire to remain alive". Ayn Rand selected "happiness." One may just as well select "the good of the species," whatever that means. The point is: there are a variety of possible "highest goods," all of which can be (and have been) ably defended, and all of which can produce logically consistent, yet drastically different "Absolute Behavioral Maxims." This is relativism, the weaknesses of which the Rabbi succinctly described.
The issue is not what happens after you select your highest good -- it is selecting your highest good. And the only source for a truly absolute highest good is, of course, "I AM."
It also drove Ghengis Khan to conquer and plunder vast stretches of Asia, leaving behind death, destruction, and apparently a whole bunch of his DNA.
Because, if you're sane, you realise that you may NOT 'get away' with murder, and, will die yourself if caught.
Ghengis Khan -- and his horde -- got away with rape, murder, theft, and all manner of other crimes. Some died, but many -- especially the Great Khan -- evidently greatly profited from and enjoyed their sins.
You are simply being irrational on what controls crime. Self interest in living free [not getting caught in crime] is the best deterent.
Only if I can't become strong enough to dissuade others from trying to stop me. (Ghengis Khan, again.....)
Believe what you want about your god, but carry a big stick to stop crime, -- its the libertarian way.
Carrying the biggest stick is also a great way to enable yourself to continue committing crimes.
The point is simply this: there is nothing that our senses alone can tell us, that will allow libertarians logically to defend libertarianism as an absolute moral philosophy. One wants to call Ghengis Khan an evil man, and his actions evil -- but the whole point of this article is that there's nothing outside of God's say-so that will allow us to do so.
It also drove Ghengis Khan to conquer and plunder vast stretches of Asia, leaving behind death, destruction, and apparently a whole bunch of his DNA.
So what? Megalomanics & criminals will always be with us.
-- Thats why we need constitutions based on law, which law is based on the reason of the golden rule, - self interest.
----------------------------
Because, if you're sane, you realise that you may NOT 'get away' with murder, and, will die yourself if caught.
Ghengis Khan -- and his horde -- got away with rape, murder, theft, and all manner of other crimes. Some died, but many -- especially the Great Khan -- evidently greatly profited from and enjoyed their sins.
Proving what? Much of the world still has despots for rulers. We don't. - We have a free repubic based on reasonable law and individual rights based on the golden rule.
---------------------------
You are simply being irrational on what controls crime. Self interest in living free [not getting caught in crime] is the best deterent.
Only if I can't become strong enough to dissuade others from trying to stop me. (Ghengis Khan, again.....)
We've had our share of wannabe 'Khan' types in america. Our system, to date, has stopped them.
Now, many like you want to change our constitution, to allow 'majority rule' schemes to over-rule our republican guarantees of individual liberties.
Why?
-------------------------
Believe what you want about your god, but carry a big stick to stop crime, -- its the libertarian way.
Carrying the biggest stick is also a great way to enable yourself to continue committing crimes.
For 'big stick' weapons control, are you? - Very telling comment.
The point is simply this: there is nothing that our senses alone can tell us, that will allow libertarians logically to defend libertarianism as an absolute moral philosophy.
How 'absolutist' of you.
Your declaration is absurd. -- Our senses tell us, - from our very mothers breast they illustrate, -- the golden rule; - 'don't bite the tit that feeds you'.
One wants to call Ghengis Khan an evil man, and his actions evil -- but the whole point of this article is that there's nothing outside of God's say-so that will allow us to do so.
Man controls his own destiny. We have free will.
You contend your God gave you that freedom. - I contend it doesn't matter how we got it, its how we use it. - Constitutionally, with reason.
Doublethink.
I'm afraid many of them consider their personal preferences to be moral absolutes simply because they hold them.
Now that's really begging the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.