NationStates

Shilya wrote:Exclusive right to usage doesn't also mean ownership. I'd say humans are unowned but have a permanent, unrevokable right to the usage of their own body, mainly because what you own, you also can sell.

Eh, it sort of does. I'm actually readily confident in that being the definition of ownership, even.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:The legalisation of rape would by definition legally legitimise it, but not necessarily morally - that really depends on one's ethics. For most people, rape is immoral.

As an ethical nihilist, I reject all prescriptive ethics. Only descriptive ethics and ethology are relevant. Identifying what I think is right and why, as opposed to what I should think is right. (Because answering questions about "should" is futile, with all answers being artificial and ultimately baseless, given that our behaviour and character is beyond our control anyway - they are products of causality.)

I can assure you that I do not consider rape to be ethically legitimate, even if it is legal.

Why is rape not ethically legitimate, then? On what grounds do you object to it? Isn't it hypocritical to claim to be an ethical descriptivist and claim that "one ought not rape" in the same post?

I didn't claim that "one ought not rape". I thought that was clear. I was describing what I think is right/wrong (a description), not what people should think is right/wrong (a prescription).

I only have ethics in the sense that there are (neurological/psychological) principles that regulate my behaviour/character - I am amoral from a prescriptivist perspective. Even nihilists have a conscience - they just don't pretend that these feelings reveal any sort of moral truth.

Why don't I consider rape to be ethically legit? The only explanations are psychological and ethological. I'm not going to pretend that I understand my behaviour and character - I only understand the basics. I am a chiefly student of chemistry and biology, not psychology and ethology.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Rather like this guy did:

Exclusive right to certain property, yes, which we all have by virtue of being ourselves and being supported by the existence of ourselves.

Preposterous. We have property by virtue of law, not by virtue of being a conglomeration of proteins and solutions.

Arkolon wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Geez, is Ark still going at this?
I got to give a hand to the stoicism, i do.
It's sadomasochism to me.

Hey, I never thanked you, by the way. That TG on Stoicism made me find out about hylomorphism. Wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you, TLT.

I thought you'd have dropped that hylomorphism nonsense after I pointed out you weren't even arguing in favour of hylomorphism at all.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Why is rape not ethically legitimate, then? On what grounds do you object to it? Isn't it hypocritical to claim to be an ethical descriptivist and claim that "one ought not rape" in the same post?

I didn't claim that "one ought not rape". I thought that was clear. I was describing what I think is right/wrong (a description), not what people should think is right/wrong (a prescription).

Then why do you think what you think? Which moral basis hides behind it, and why?

I only have ethics in the sense that there are (neurological/psychological) principles that regulate my behaviour/character - I am amoral from a prescriptivist perspective. Even nihilists have a conscience - they just don't pretend that these feelings reveal any sort of moral truth.

What in their conscience decides what is right and what is wrong? There is obviously some kind of logic to it; otherwise it can be safely disregarded as useless. Nihilism, or simply just anomie, totally disregards the social aspect of life, which only amounts to, I can guess, somewhat retarded social skills and a globally perpetually-unfulfilled life. Not to mention that, even on a logical or ethological basis, it stands as false, and provably so. But perhaps a different thread, hmm?

Why don't I consider rape to be ethically legit? The only explanations are psychological and ethological. I'm not going to pretend that I understand my behaviour and character - I only understand the basics. I am a chiefly student of chemistry and biology, not psychology and ethology.

Suddenly, a dramatic change to a morphed form of mind-body dualism, where the mind (the behaviour, the character) is distinct from the self, the body (the me, the I).

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Exclusive right to certain property, yes, which we all have by virtue of being ourselves and being supported by the existence of ourselves.

Preposterous. We have property by virtue of law, not by virtue of being a conglomeration of proteins and solutions.

The conglomeration of proteins and solutions that we are also, by all the quantum mechanics and causal actions since the dawn of time, are conscious, which grants us a "mind", which actually grants us "exclusive rights" to, or ownership of, ourselves.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Hey, I never thanked you, by the way. That TG on Stoicism made me find out about hylomorphism. Wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you, TLT.

I thought you'd have dropped that hylomorphism nonsense after I pointed out you weren't even arguing in favour of hylomorphism at all.

I offer more than one perspective on self-ownership from dependence (and not from the perspective of ownership as control) in the OP, and have continued this throughout the thread. Hylomorphism is still relevant in the discussion, from a sort-of-dualist perspective, and was how I began my journey into this DIY side-kink of a thread.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Preposterous. We have property by virtue of law, not by virtue of being a conglomeration of proteins and solutions.

The conglomeration of proteins and solutions that we are also, by all the quantum mechanics and causal actions since the dawn of time, are conscious, which grants us a "mind", which actually grants us "exclusive rights" to, or ownership of, ourselves.

No, the law gives us ownership.
The collective action of multiple minds creates the law, as I've previously explained, and you did not seem to object to.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:The conglomeration of proteins and solutions that we are also, by all the quantum mechanics and causal actions since the dawn of time, are conscious, which grants us a "mind", which actually grants us "exclusive rights" to, or ownership of, ourselves.

No, the law gives us ownership.
The collective action of multiple minds creates the law, as I've previously explained, and you did not seem to object to.

How many minds does it take to create a law, and why?

I did object to it. I threw a heap of sand at you in retaliation, too.

I'm just a subject of my government and big corporations.

Lindhartia wrote:I'm just a subject of my government and big corporations.

No, you really aren't. Intrinsically, at least.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:I didn't claim that "one ought not rape". I thought that was clear. I was describing what I think is right/wrong (a description), not what people should think is right/wrong (a prescription).

Then why do you think what you think? Which moral basis hides behind it, and why?

The answer was provided further down the post.

Arkolon wrote:

I only have ethics in the sense that there are (neurological/psychological) principles that regulate my behaviour/character - I am amoral from a prescriptivist perspective. Even nihilists have a conscience - they just don't pretend that these feelings reveal any sort of moral truth.

What in their conscience decides what is right and what is wrong? There is obviously some kind of logic to it; otherwise it can be safely disregarded as useless. Nihilism, or simply just anomie, totally disregards the social aspect of life, which only amounts to, I can guess, somewhat retarded social skills and a globally perpetually-unfulfilled life. Not to mention that, even on a logical or ethological basis, it stands as false, and provably so. But perhaps a different thread, hmm?

Conscience, like the rest of our psychology, is the product of causality. Given how relatively young the scientific field of psychology is, I doubt we have answers to satisfy many of the basic questions about the origins of conscience. Though, quite obviously, the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.
Nihilism does not totally disregard the social aspects of life. You don't understand nihilism at all.

Arkolon wrote:

Why don't I consider rape to be ethically legit? The only explanations are psychological and ethological. I'm not going to pretend that I understand my behaviour and character - I only understand the basics. I am a chiefly student of chemistry and biology, not psychology and ethology.

Suddenly, a dramatic change to a morphed form of mind-body dualism, where the mind (the behaviour, the character) is distinct from the self, the body (the me, the I).

Again with the lies. I've made no such distinction.

Arkolon wrote:

Lindhartia wrote:I'm just a subject of my government and big corporations.

No, you really aren't. Intrinsically, at least.

I can't do mith me what I want, that's why.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:No, the law gives us ownership.
The collective action of multiple minds creates the law, as I've previously explained, and you did not seem to object to.

How many minds does it take to create a law, and why?

I did object to it. I threw a heap of sand at you in retaliation, too.

Law is socially defined. Society is the term used to refer to human superorganisms.
I have already explained this to you.

When?

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:I thought you'd have dropped that hylomorphism nonsense after I pointed out you weren't even arguing in favour of hylomorphism at all.

I offer more than one perspective on self-ownership from dependence (and not from the perspective of ownership as control) in the OP, and have continued this throughout the thread. Hylomorphism is still relevant in the discussion, from a sort-of-dualist perspective, and was how I began my journey into this DIY side-kink of a thread.

So you are playing devil's advocate?

Arkolon wrote:

Shilya wrote:Exclusive right to usage doesn't also mean ownership. I'd say humans are unowned but have a permanent, unrevokable right to the usage of their own body, mainly because what you own, you also can sell.

Eh, it sort of does. I'm actually readily confident in that being the definition of ownership, even.

Leases grant exclusive rights of use, but don't transfer ownership.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:What in their conscience decides what is right and what is wrong? There is obviously some kind of logic to it; otherwise it can be safely disregarded as useless. Nihilism, or simply just anomie, totally disregards the social aspect of life, which only amounts to, I can guess, somewhat retarded social skills and a globally perpetually-unfulfilled life. Not to mention that, even on a logical or ethological basis, it stands as false, and provably so. But perhaps a different thread, hmm?

Conscience, like the rest of our psychology, is the product of causality. Given how relatively young the scientific field of psychology is, I doubt we have answers to satisfy many of the basic questions about the origins of conscience. Though, quite obviously, the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.

Survival isn't the ultimate raison d'être for the human race. There is no raison d'être. What you can deduce from society, however, is that humans are social creatures, and ethics have to do with how humans do live with each other, and how they should live as well (as a continuation of how they live). You can empirically back this up, what with Universally Preferable Behaviour (although objective universalism does, again, seem to freak you out), but also rationally: from which axioms, factual assumptions, can we arrive at this Universally Preferable Behaviour? Humans are more social creatures, especially as to how we have evolved in this day and age. Survival makes but a small percentage of our achievements on this Earth, even more so when compared to our social and cultural achievements (the fact that these things even exist renders your claims baseless), and even more again compared to our technological advancements since Day 1.

Nihilism does not totally disregard the social aspects of life. You don't understand nihilism at all.

I went down that road when I was thirteen, actually. Didn't take a long time for me to give up.

Arkolon wrote:Suddenly, a dramatic change to a morphed form of mind-body dualism, where the mind (the behaviour, the character) is distinct from the self, the body (the me, the I).

Again with the lies. I've made no such distinction.

So we'll have to attribute that to poor wording, then?

Lindhartia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:No, you really aren't. Intrinsically, at least.

I can't do mith me what I want, that's why.

You have typed those words on your keyboard, and they are somewhat intelligible (small typo, but a minor discrepancy in the analogy, so whatever). Ergo, you can think. If you can think, you have a mind. If you have a mind, you have a body. If you have a mind and a body, or even just a body that is self-aware (which is what "mind" means, after all), then you own yourself.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:How many minds does it take to create a law, and why?

I did object to it. I threw a heap of sand at you in retaliation, too.

Law is socially defined. Society is the term used to refer to human superorganisms.
I have already explained this to you.

When?

A society is a large group of individuals. Law can be defined between two people. Law can be defined by three people. Law can be defined by whoever >50%+1 of people want to define the law. Law is, after all, decided by the state, ultraminimal states, or polycentric legal institutions. It is defined by legal institutions, which "society" isn't.

A heap of sand is a sorites.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:I offer more than one perspective on self-ownership from dependence (and not from the perspective of ownership as control) in the OP, and have continued this throughout the thread. Hylomorphism is still relevant in the discussion, from a sort-of-dualist perspective, and was how I began my journey into this DIY side-kink of a thread.

So you are playing devil's advocate?

No, I'm simply explaining more than one mind-body perspective in relation to ownership.

Salandriagado wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Eh, it sort of does. I'm actually readily confident in that being the definition of ownership, even.

Leases grant exclusive rights of use, but don't transfer ownership.

So you've taken a radical departure from your stance that you are, in fact, owned by "no one"?

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Conscience, like the rest of our psychology, is the product of causality. Given how relatively young the scientific field of psychology is, I doubt we have answers to satisfy many of the basic questions about the origins of conscience. Though, quite obviously, the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.

Survival isn't the ultimate raison d'être for the human race. There is no raison d'être. What you can deduce from society, however, is that humans are social creatures, and ethics have to do with how humans do live with each other, and how they should live as well (as a continuation of how they live). You can empirically back this up, what with Universally Preferable Behaviour (although objective universalism does, again, seem to freak you out), but also rationally: from which axioms, factual assumptions, can we arrive at this Universally Preferable Behaviour? Humans are more social creatures, especially as to how we have evolved in this day and age. Survival makes but a small percentage of our achievements on this Earth, even more so when compared to our social and cultural achievements (the fact that these things even exist renders your claims baseless), and even more again compared to our technological advancements since Day 1.

Why do you keep misinterpreting me? I use simple language most of the time, and generally define the non-simple terms.

I never said survival was the reason to be. I was referring to evolution and natural selection.

Arkolon wrote:

Nihilism does not totally disregard the social aspects of life. You don't understand nihilism at all.

I went down that road when I was thirteen, actually. Didn't take a long time for me to give up.

That doesn't mean the fault was with nihilism.

Arkolon wrote:

Again with the lies. I've made no such distinction.

So we'll have to attribute that to poor wording, then?

That implies that the problem wasn't poor interpretation.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:So you are playing devil's advocate?

No, I'm simply explaining more than one mind-body perspective in relation to ownership.

But you can only personally advocate one perspective - the one that's yours. So either you've been lying about being a physicalist, or you've been a devil's advocate for dualism.

Arkolon wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Law is socially defined. Society is the term used to refer to human superorganisms.
I have already explained this to you.

When?

A society is a large group of individuals. Law can be defined between two people. Law can be defined by three people. Law can be defined by whoever >50%+1 of people want to define the law. Law is, after all, decided by the state, ultraminimal states, or polycentric legal institutions. It is defined by legal institutions, which "society" isn't.

A heap of sand is a sorites.

What?

I thought I made it clear to you that I wasn't being vague at all.

Conscentia wrote:

Arkolon wrote:Survival isn't the ultimate raison d'être for the human race. There is no raison d'être. What you can deduce from society, however, is that humans are social creatures, and ethics have to do with how humans do live with each other, and how they should live as well (as a continuation of how they live). You can empirically back this up, what with Universally Preferable Behaviour (although objective universalism does, again, seem to freak you out), but also rationally: from which axioms, factual assumptions, can we arrive at this Universally Preferable Behaviour? Humans are more social creatures, especially as to how we have evolved in this day and age. Survival makes but a small percentage of our achievements on this Earth, even more so when compared to our social and cultural achievements (the fact that these things even exist renders your claims baseless), and even more again compared to our technological advancements since Day 1.

Why do you keep misinterpreting me? I use simple language most of the time, and generally define the non-simple terms.

I never said survival was the reason to be. I was referring to evolution and natural selection.

Conscentia wrote:the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it [ethical nihilism and ethical descriptivism] makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.

The human conscience serves to benefit our social extroversion, and ethics are ultimately based on how to live within societies and with other people, not our survival. A man can have all the food and drink they need to live adequately, but that means nothing without social interaction. Social interaction is facilitated by, and actually justified by, a principle of nonviolence-- a harm principle. Ethical bases are foundations for human social interaction, and how people should act towards one another is a legitimate viewpoint depending on the axioms we start with. You're making the wild assumption that all prescriptivist ethics (one ought not rape, murder, pillage, etc) rely on "baseless" assumptions, but that is just incorrect. One ought not rape because that is not how social interaction functions. One ought not rape, not only for that, but also because the axioms upon which the ethical bases are founded upon make rape a direct contravention of exactly that.

Arkolon wrote:I went down that road when I was thirteen, actually. Didn't take a long time for me to give up.

That doesn't mean the fault was with nihilism.

I read Nietzsche, was all into this God is dead thing, had my first existential crisis, but then, later, when I properly got into philosophy and I learnt that Nietzsche was criticising the nihilists (his books are almost one big eloquent insult of anomie), I became disillusioned with what it was I saw in nihilism. It took three, maybe four actually, university conferences for the speaker to explain that Nietzsche's Superman (Surhomme) was the man that overcame nihilism, that realised the futility of focusing on the nothing, and he who finds meaning for themselves and not nowhere at all. Nietzsche was not a nihilist. In any case, it is severely contended whether or not he was a nihilist. Nietzsche was a huge critic of nihilism, and advocating nihilism in the twenty-first century, especially so because one has read Nietzsche, is nothing but a portrayal of a total misunderstanding of philosophy and of the texts you have supposedly read.

And to think I once thought of painting his portrait on my wall as a tribute to nihilism-- pah! I pity the nihilists that have not yet understood just how deep Thus Spake Zarathusra really is.