tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5501842553408811340..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Taxation is Theft?Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33931082043703435342010-06-17T13:37:48.823-06:002010-06-17T13:37:48.823-06:00> You cannot claim that your ideas are as objec...> You cannot claim that your ideas are as objective as scientific conclusions until you can show us the property of good and the property of bad under a microscope.<br /><br />Can you show me the property of "distance", "weight", or "speed" under a microscope? Until you can do that, then all of physics is subjective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71875536330432306452009-01-17T20:16:00.000-07:002009-01-17T20:16:00.000-07:00People will just sit on their hands and not provid...People will just sit on their hands and not provide education, arbitration and other things the state has taken over?<BR/><BR/>Where does this argument come from? The fact we all tacitly value these things, and thousands are employed in these public industries prove that people will assume these roles. People become teachers and civil servants because they want to do those tasks, no different than someone who becomes a car salesman. All the things you mentioned have been done voluntarily through private means, before government welfare and in other freer societies in historyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52358049752377480262008-08-03T04:07:00.000-06:002008-08-03T04:07:00.000-06:00The problem inherint in your claims of realism is ...The problem inherint in your claims of realism is that you are basing them off of non-epistemic facts. You cannot claim that your ideas are as objective as scientific conclusions until you can show us the property of good and the property of bad under a microscope.<BR/><BR/>You claim your system is realist and non-subjective simply because it is internally consistent. However your attribution of good and bad have no value outside of the semantic confines of your own system. <BR/><BR/>Therefore your basis for ascribing good and bad are both subjective and arbitrary. You have found <B>a</B> system of moral appraisal but cannot use objective methods to compare it to other systems of moral appraisal. You can, and have, only compared other systems to the conclusions of your own. It is highly suspect to not judge both your own and other moral systems by a more impartial rubric.<BR/><BR/>You can claim that something is good or bad when compared to your criteria but that does not make that criteria objective, scientific, or real. This is especially true since you not only go beyond a non-cognivist subjectivism (desires shaped by beliefs) to state a moral truth that desires which fulfill others are superior to other desires. Superior how? Show me how you come to this conclusion without using your own system's semantics as a basis.<BR/><BR/>Until you can show me the existence of moral facts, not descriptive values, then we can discuss realism. Until then you are postulating no objective criteria for moral evaluation and then declaring your own arbitrary criteria as objectively true, even going so far as to compare them to scientific truths.<BR/><BR/>Tell me, do you do this because you honestly don't understand the difference or are you intentionally creating a rhetorical facade to sell your ideas to others?<BR/><BR/>Your idea of ethics begs too many questions and ignores too many meta-ethical problems. Too many holes to be taken seriously I'm afraid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-38231319007027881292008-08-03T03:02:00.000-06:002008-08-03T03:02:00.000-06:00"This is a poorly formed question - like asking "w...<I>"This is a poorly formed question - like asking "who are we setting up as the arbiter for the speed of light?""</I><BR/><BR/>That's an incoherent answer. A moral question is not one of fact. It's like asking "what color should we paint the car", instead.<BR/><BR/>You claim to disbelieve in inherit value but your arguments rely on moral judgments being objective. The speed of light is an objective property that can be discovered through mechanical means. Moral properties exist only in regards to personal perspective, thus subjective.<BR/><BR/>Your example is simply wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>"Desires are reasons for action. A 'desire that P' is a mental state that provides the agent with a 'reason for action' to realize any state of affairs in which P is true. 'Altruism' is not a reason for action - not unless it is expressed in terms of a desire to help others."</I><BR/><BR/>Except that you consistently say desires that fulfill the desires of others are superior to other desires. So you are claiming that altruism is a higher moral value.<BR/><BR/>You cannot demonstrate moral principles or oughts the same way you can properties of nature. They are fundamentally dissimilar and none of your semantic tricks change this.<BR/><BR/>Fire is hot is an objective fact that can be determined regardless of beliefs or mental states. 'Murder is immoral' is a statement whose veracity cannot be determined objectively or independent of a human mind.<BR/><BR/>Moral objectivism/realism is as absurd as humorism or the aether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-12608841471562556742008-08-02T15:03:00.000-06:002008-08-02T15:03:00.000-06:00anonymousSo the ends justify the means?Well, since...<B>anonymous</B><BR/><BR/><I>So the ends justify the means?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, since every end is, at the same time, a means . . . and since every means has the potential to contain within it an end . . . this rather simplistic cliche is actually pretty meaningless.<BR/><BR/>The end cannot justify the means if the means are, themselves, in conflict with other ends.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36122712073848925152008-08-02T15:00:00.000-06:002008-08-02T15:00:00.000-06:00j. a. warnerAnd whom are we setting up as the arbi...<B>j. a. warner</B><BR/><BR/><I>And whom are we setting up as the arbiter of what people should want?</I><BR/><BR/>This is a poorly formed question - like asking "who are we setting up as the arbiter for the speed of light?"<BR/><BR/><I>I thought you were a subjectivist?</I><BR/><BR/>It depends on what you mean by 'subjectivist' - but I would answer that I am not.<BR/><BR/><I>How is "tends to fulfill the desires of others" any different from "altruism as the highest value"?</I><BR/><BR/>Desires are reasons for action. A 'desire that P' is a mental state that provides the agent with a 'reason for action' to realize any state of affairs in which P is true. 'Altruism' is not a reason for action - not unless it is expressed in terms of a desire to help others.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62276818276278274072008-08-02T10:45:00.000-06:002008-08-02T10:45:00.000-06:00So the ends justify the means?So the ends justify the means?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8731148028918525212008-08-02T07:37:00.000-06:002008-08-02T07:37:00.000-06:00And whom are we setting up as the arbiter of what ...And whom are we setting up as the arbiter of what people should want? I thought you were a subjectivist? So how can you set an objective universal ought? Sounds hypocritical to me.<BR/><BR/>How is "tends to fulfill the desires of others" any different from "altruism as the highest value"? I didn't think anyone believed that outside of a an Any Rand novel.<BR/><BR/>Since there is no empirical basis for a "one true" should and I don't trust anyone to decide for me your utilitarianism is little different from any other. So long as your arbitrary criteria is met we can do whatever we want to the minority. Greatest (blank) for the greatest number.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8693460341525762582008-08-01T23:21:00.000-06:002008-08-01T23:21:00.000-06:00J. A. WarnerThis is part of the problem I have wit...<B>J. A. Warner</B><BR/><BR/><I>This is part of the problem I have with any utilitarianism. You are justified in doing whatever you want with 49 percent of the population as long as it in some way benefits the other 51.</I><BR/><BR/>Not on the type of utilitarianism that I use in these posts.<BR/><BR/>This form of utilitarianism says that you are justified in doing whatever 100% of the people should want (where what a person 'should want' is that which tends to fulfill the desires of others).<BR/><BR/>If what 51% of the people want is something that tends to thwart the desires of others (or, possibly, of themselves as well), then it gets pretty poor marks on a desire utilitarian theory.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7766892625943730522008-08-01T21:58:00.000-06:002008-08-01T21:58:00.000-06:00This is part of the problem I have with any utilit...This is part of the problem I have with any utilitarianism. You are justified in doing whatever you want with 49 percent of the population as long as it in some way benefits the other 51.<BR/><BR/>In your example for instance you not only assume all desires have equal weight but see the non-fulfillment (not just "thwarting") as a moral evil. That reeks of a spoiled child's morality. I don't know about you but keeping my hard earned money is far more moral and desired than having it taken and given to politicians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65642839484137557822008-08-01T21:24:00.000-06:002008-08-01T21:24:00.000-06:00For example wouldn't private charity be a sound an...For example wouldn't private charity be a sound answer to this issue?<BR/><BR/>"<I>In fact, it is possible to argue that we are better off foregoing the benefits of public goods then we are establishing a system of taxation to provide public goods. The latter will inevitably be corrupted, with the corruption thwarting more desires than the public goods would fulfill. However, this is an empirical question. Furthermore, it does not refute the principle that where providing public goods does more good than harm, then taxation for the purpose of providing public goods is morally legitimate.</I>"<BR/><BR/>You get desires fulfilled, more good tan harm done, and avoid the pesky nuisance of an inherently corrupt bureaucracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71798596707713278672008-08-01T21:08:00.000-06:002008-08-01T21:08:00.000-06:00I never said taxation is theft, just giving you i...I never said taxation is theft, just giving you ideas for another post. Oh, and you forgot about the role of private charity as an alternative to redistribution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4922706770232484232008-08-01T00:35:00.000-06:002008-08-01T00:35:00.000-06:00Oh-oh, here come the libertarian :POh-oh, here come the libertarian :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com