EPTPolitical Roll Call - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
mptj
United States485 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Anyway the fallacy is astonshingly simple: because morality is too complex to reduce to a complete system, there is no morality. By that logic every proposition must be reduced to one of two categories: it is either completely knowable, or it doesn't exist. land mine, me take tax from you, you peasant, me boss". The claim will have to be arbitrary someway, but I find the homesteading principles to be the best that I've found so far. Homesteading cannot substitute permanent, inheritable property in its ability to negate the tragedy of mortality. Like it or not, permanence is necessary to the human psyche, in contrast to the tendencies of nature. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Once I moved close to the inner city, my politics changed completely. Social democrat. | ||
|
Macavenger
United States1132 Posts
 I've always found politicalcompass.org to be a pretty good site for these kinds of comparisons. I just took it for the first time in a while and scored -8.38 economic left/right, -6.26 social lib/auth, which makes me pretty liberal even if applying European standards, let alone US. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 31 2010 12:24 MoltkeWarding wrote: Denial of moral truth merely means your arguments have no validity in this debate . Without morality there is no successful argument outside the restrictions of pure logic, and that includes politics. Anyway the fallacy is astonshingly simple: because morality is too complex to reduce to a complete system, there is no morality. By that logic every proposition must be reduced to one of two categories: it is either completely knowable, or it doesn't exist. Homesteading cannot substitute permanent, inheritable property in its ability to negate the tragedy of mortality. Like it or not, permanence is necessary to the human psyche, in contrast to the tendencies of nature. I'm not unfamiliar with argumentative ethics if that's what you're doing, it still doesn't convince me. And it's not because there isn't a complete system of ethics that morals can't be asserted, it's because of hume's is-ought dichotomy which I think you know about. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
And it's not because there isn't a complete system of ethics that morals can't be asserted, it's because of hume's is-ought dichotomy which I think you know about. Is-ought has nothing to do with whether morals can be asserted. The only relevant conclusion is that ought is not a function of is. That is far from stating that all "ought" statements are illegitimate. BTW, this may be an opportune time to post this skit of The Man who was Thursday  | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
You can't, that's proof that objective morals cannot exist. Morals only exist for subjective ends. Only with a given end is a moral statement logical. If the cop were only protecting property rights I'd see him as legit. But the very act of taxation determines that someone's being stolen just to pay his wage. So essentially, the cop is stealing from people to protect the people. What his ends are, I don't care, I see it as illegit and no amount of positivist pandering is going to change that... When someone's able to cross that is-ought gap let me know. edit: to make a clear example, both the cop and the clueless guy seem to be assuming life as a common end. Nowhere do they make that explicit, so they're not even aware they're committing a mistake. Or perhaps they're not really committing any mistake and they're just speaking of oughts non-objectively, I don't know. It wasn't clear to me. There were a lot of "is" but not that many "oughts" | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
However, I care more about the money system we use than politics. I would literally vote/participate in most of the political systems listed in the OP as long as they outlawed fractional reserve banking and usury. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
In the end, business is about making money, and small businesses are often corporations themselves to begin with. However, it's disingenuous to argue that there's no difference between the two just because businesses usually strive to expand. The active policies of a small business, even when in the process of expansion, are rarely exploitative. Both the possibility and the risks for corruption and misuse of power are much larger in a corporation. There's also that little question of neoliberalism - something a small business could never partake in. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
I couldn't recommend a type of government that would suit every place in the world. In America the speed at which money is flowing to a select few is very scary. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 31 2010 17:08 ShaperofDreams wrote: All I can really say is that a lot of the highest rated "living conditions" countries/cities have very social governments, high taxes and lots of benefits of being in that society. But of course every situation is different and calls for different things. I couldn't recommend a type of government that would suit every place in the world. In America the speed at which money is flowing to a select few is very scary. Money isn't going to come out of the closet and rape you! What you can be scared of however is money being used for violence, people paying people to be violent. Guess what's the cheapest mafia-for-hire out there, one that pays for itself? Yep. I babble too much. I'm done. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On January 31 2010 15:46 Yurebis wrote: And how do you expect to infer that I should be this or I should be that without committing a logical mistake? You can't, that's proof that objective morals cannot exist. Morals only exist for subjective ends. Only with a given end is a moral statement logical. If the cop were only protecting property rights I'd see him as legit. But the very act of taxation determines that someone's being stolen just to pay his wage. So essentially, the cop is stealing from people to protect the people. What his ends are, I don't care, I see it as illegit and no amount of positivist pandering is going to change that... When someone's able to cross that is-ought gap let me know. edit: to make a clear example, both the cop and the clueless guy seem to be assuming life as a common end. Nowhere do they make that explicit, so they're not even aware they're committing a mistake. Or perhaps they're not really committing any mistake and they're just speaking of oughts non-objectively, I don't know. It wasn't clear to me. There were a lot of "is" but not that many "oughts" How about an objective set of ethics? ^^ | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
How about an interpersonal set of ethics and not something to make-believe we're universally the same?  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8166 Posts
Society and politics should never been ruled by private interests and egoism. Or, as Sartres was saying, we don't worth much more than ants or termites. Maye that's the case, but I prefer being optimistic. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
And how do you expect to infer that I should be this or I should be that without committing a logical mistake? You can't, that's proof that objective morals cannot exist. Morals only exist for subjective ends. Only with a given end is a moral statement logical. A thing being logically sound is no proof of its existence. Similarly, because a thing cannot be proven, does not mean it does not exist. Your wife says she loves you. Can't be proven, has to be either believed or disbelieved. This belief is irrational, yet fundamentally rests on some kind of external knowledge and eventually self-knowledge. Therein lies the irony. You say that you disbelieve moral standards, yet everything you write suggests that you have one. You say that people are essentially subjective thinkers, yet everything you write suggests some attempt to pursue objectivity. It's the same kind of self-stifling humdrum philosophy as that of those objectivists who deny free will by choosing to believe certain doctrines. Subjectivists only invert the mistake: they elevate free will to supremacy by declining to believe anything. It is thus that objective and subjective absolutists have a mutually vampiric relationship. Without each other, neither would exist. The there is no greater proof of the objectivists' point than the subjectivist, and there is no greater proof of the subjectivists' point than the objectivist. In America the speed at which money is flowing to a select few is very scary. Don't you think that money flowing quickly to a select few is the same phenomenon as how quickly money generally flows in America? You have to have money to make money, and Americans usually don't have money, because they don't want money. The average American is concerned with consumption, not production; with spending, not saving; with living the moment and not investing in the future. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On January 31 2010 20:14 Yurebis wrote: How about an interpersonal set of ethics and not something to make-believe we're universally the same? What is in man's nature is a terribly big field! | ||
|
FonzeXD
United States220 Posts
| ||
| ||
