Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

Yes, of course, but what is a constituent corporation? How small a size can we go?

Again, autonomy, not size. One man alone on a planet could make laws for that entire planet. The New Sutherland Glee club can only make rules that do not conflict with the laws of New Sutherland.

So one man alone inside his own body can make the laws only for his body?

So what are you trying to hold against me?

[Twilight Imperium]

Again, autonomy, not size. One man alone on a planet could make laws for that entire planet. The New Sutherland Glee club can only make rules that do not conflict with the laws of New Sutherland.

So one man alone inside his own body can make the laws only for his body?

So what are you trying to hold against me?

There's no "inside" a body. In these terms, a person and a body are the same.

EDIT: Also, any laws that a person makes for themselves could still conflict with those of society. Just because you say you can pee anywhere you want doesn't mean you can't get in trouble for it.

[Arkolon]

God owns my soul. The government owns my body.

Who are "you", then? And to whom do your products belong to?

[Arkolon]

So one man alone inside his own body can make the laws only for his body?

So what are you trying to hold against me?

There's no "inside" a body. In these terms, a person and a body are the same.

Semantics. It doesn't help anyone.

So one man alone can make laws only for one man?

[Twilight Imperium]

There's no "inside" a body. In these terms, a person and a body are the same.

Semantics. It doesn't help anyone.

So one man alone can make laws only for one man?

In the absence of any other men (or women), yes.

[Salandriagado]

There's no "inside" a body. In these terms, a person and a body are the same.

Semantics. It doesn't help anyone.

So one man alone can make laws only for one man?

Sure. Providing they don't conflict with other laws.

[Arkolon]

Semantics. It doesn't help anyone.

So one man alone can make laws only for one man?

In the absence of any other men (or women), yes.

If one man is self-governing when alone, why does the fact that a second, equally self-governing man coming into play mean that both men are now no longer self-governing?

[Arkolon]

Semantics. It doesn't help anyone.

So one man alone can make laws only for one man?

Sure. Providing they don't conflict with other laws.

So, they are self-governing?

Why are they self-governing?

[Twilight Imperium]

In the absence of any other men (or women), yes.

If one man is self-governing when alone, why does the fact that a second, equally self-governing man coming into play mean that both men are now no longer self-governing?

Because a single man is a society unto himself. The addition of a second expands that to two.

If they agree on laws, then they both follow them. If they disagree, they can argue and come to consensus, or one can kill and /or exile the other and return to a society of one where their law is absolute.

[Salandriagado]

Sure. Providing they don't conflict with other laws.

So, they are self-governing?

Yes. Mostly.

Why are they self-governing?

Because you physically have control over your own actions (except when you don't, because brains are weird).

[Conscentia]

Seriously?
It's in the first line that I wrote of that post.

In the fragment of the post that I quoted-- which was nearer the bottom of the post, so if your word was in your first line and only in your first line then my point is proven.

That is false:

Er, "it" was referring to the existence of the human conscience, not ethical nihilism and descriptive ethics.

No. That doesn't follow at all. Generally one takes things that one does not possess, precisely because you do not already possess it and want to control the use/value of it. The only reason for not taking something that isn't mine is to avoid revenge, or out of compassion.

Why would someone take revenge on you for taking something? If you took, say, their arm, or their leg, from them, why would they take revenge? It's not as if, gasp, their arm or leg is theirs, is it?But doesn't that mean...? And doesn't that mean...? Yes, yes it does.

That's just their body, though. What about things that aren't their body? Say, their property; their book. If I appropriate this book, why would they take revenge? It's theirs, then (which means that they own themselves, too, then), but what does ownership actually mean? Ownership is a right to certain property, and rights to property are an extension of the self (all rights are extensions of the self, which is necessary for self-ownership), so, really, the book (the ownership of the book) "is" (as in, is an extension of) themselves.

They'd take revenge because they feel that they've been wronged by my taking of something they value.

In the absence of law, that book is not theirs. They may physically possess it. They may be using it. They may value it for whatever reason. Doesn't mean it's inherently theirs. I could take it. Of-coarse, if they want it, they can retaliate to maintain access to it.

That is not at all true. In-fact, I would argue that to not be a nihilist is to have one's vision clouded by artificial construct that obscure the reality of the world around oneself.

Exactly. It avoids all that which it calls "artificial", which is all that is socially constructed and not scientifically or mathematically provable. It is on par with solipsism for uselessness to philosophical progression as a society. Social constructs are real, whether you like it or not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you sound like someone who's still in school or in university and relies on whatever their teacher says for the manual to life, but a step outside reveals just this much. You cannot avoid social constructs. You cannot dismiss social constructs. Social constructs are the world around you. Nihilism is purposely blinding oneself to society and its products.

I know, we all go through nihilist phases, which is usually more or less at the same time as that part in life where we hate our parents who are SO mean to us, but seriously, you're wasting your time, and you're going to be hugely disappointed if you ever apply for philosophy in whichever facility you currently frequent.

On the contrary, by recognising what is artificial, I can judge their utility more objectively. That is very useful.
Nihilism is not about pretending that social constructs do not exist - it's about recognising that they are not inherent.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me.

[Conscentia]

Again with the circular reasoning.
The own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves...

They are legal institutions because they are self-governing because they own themselves because they own themselves because they are alive. Not circular.

Biology is not law. Your ability to externalise entropy does not entitle you property at all. It is completely irrelevant.

You cannot use propertarian ownership as justification for the law because propertarian ownership is part of the law and thus cannot precede it.

We went over this, though.

Yes, and you conceded that ownership was part of law and went onto this discussion questioning law itself.

[Conscentia]

In a direct democracy, society is the legal institution.

No, because kids can't vote, animals can't vote, the non-citizens can't vote, the incapable can't vote, and in the direct democracies of the past women, brown people, and slaves could not vote either. A legal institution is found within the pictural representation of a society. The type of government that is used determines the size of the diagram.

Children are irrelevant - they lack the ability to legally consent. Animals aren't part of human society. Non-citizens aren't part of the specific society in question. Incapable?
Those "direct democracies" of the past were not as democratic as modern people like to think they were - so what? I'm taking about a hypothetical actual direct democracies, not the feasibility of creating such a thing in practice.

Otherwise, a constituent corporation of a society is responsible for the law making.

Yes, of course, but what is a constituent corporation? How small a size can we go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate ... (sociology)

[Sociobiology]

to you, its not as if ethical systems are based on logic to begin with.

Good ones are, and mine, thankfully, is.

really? you have a purely logical reason a living human is objectively better than a dead one? one that does not start with the assumption that human life is valuable, which would make it circular.

so it true because your argument doesn't work otherwise.

What?

why?

not quite, if it existed then someone considered it legitimate or ethical.

Then, on what grounds? All ethical systems can be challenged,

exactly, because they are all subjective.

no it doesn't, and that you think it does is part of your problem.

What?

who?
where?
when?

never claimed it did, justification is itself subjective

Justification measured by logical consistency.

well there is a gaping hole in your logic so it fails by that measure as well.

and here would be the leap, 7 does not necessitate 8.



this does not follow from the previous, there is no reason for reliance to create ownership. You are assuming it, not demonstrating it.

I don't know how else to put this. I have put this forward to so many people, some of them teachers, students of the subject, and others, and not one person has seen this as a problem.

it not my fault you never told it to anyone who paid attention.
nice argumentum ad populum by the way, if that is acceptable than slavery was indeed legitimate because people believed it to be so. Kinda hamstringing your own argument there.

The point transition from 7 to 8 are consistent, and is definitely a logical progression. Either you're purposely missing the point, either I'm going to have to spell it out, again, to you.

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. M is only M if O.
3. If there is no O, then there can be no M.
4. The existence of M is dependent on the existence of O.
5. M owns O.

there is no reason dependendence necessitates ownership. my existence is dependent on dozens of physical constants, that does not mean I own them. A computer depends on the silicon in its chips no one claims that means they own it, Society depends on having humans that does not mean society owns you. dependence =/= ownership. I have said this multiple time, and each time you simply ignore it, please stop wasting my time, either describe why dependence necessitates ownership or admit you have a huge hole in your logic.

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. O is only O if it belongs to M.
3. If there is no M, there can be no O.
4. The existence of O is dependent on it belonging to M.
5. O cannot own M because O is already owned by M.

this 5 also makes no sense, beside the string being circular, 2<->4, nothing in that string necessitates ownership being exclusive, so the leap to 5 has no foundation.

[Sociobiology]

Why would someone take revenge on you for taking something? If you took, say, their arm, or their leg, from them, why would they take revenge? It's not as if, gasp, their arm or leg is theirs, is it?But doesn't that mean...? And doesn't that mean...? Yes, yes it does.

by that logic I own my friends and relatives.

[Lydenburg]

Nonsense. Mere mortals such as myself don't own ourselves. Our souls have already been auctioned to the highest bidder at the Hague.

[Arkolon]

If one man is self-governing when alone, why does the fact that a second, equally self-governing man coming into play mean that both men are now no longer self-governing?

Because a single man is a society unto himself. The addition of a second expands that to two.

If they agree on laws, then they both follow them. If they disagree, they can argue and come to consensus, or one can kill and /or exile the other and return to a society of one where their law is absolute.

That still makes them legal institutions: if they openly accept the law they write up with the second legal institution (the second person), then they abide by that law but that doesn't strip them of their self-government. Two governments can sign a free trade agreement, and both governments are still governments. No super-authority has been created.

[Arkolon]

So, they are self-governing?

Yes. Mostly.

Why are they self-governing?

Because you physically have control over your own actions (except when you don't, because brains are weird).

So why do you pretend that you don't own yourself? If you can govern yourself, you own yourself.

[Arkolon]

In the fragment of the post that I quoted-- which was nearer the bottom of the post, so if your word was in your first line and only in your first line then my point is proven.

So:

the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it [the existence of the human conscience] makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.

We are good for our survival, therefore our being makes complete sense. [sic]

You're going to have to rewrite this, then, because you make no sense in it.

They'd take revenge because they feel that they've been wronged by my taking of something they value.

I value my friend's bike, but if it got stolen I wouldn't beat you up for stealing it. It's not mine. The bike is my friend's. It belongs to them. By stealing it you are doing wrong by taking what is not yours. It's as simple as that.

In the absence of law, that book is not theirs. They may physically possess it. They may be using it. They may value it for whatever reason. Doesn't mean it's inherently theirs. I could take it. Of-coarse, if they want it, they can retaliate to maintain access to it.

There is no such thing as the absence of law. There is the absence of a state, which you would call a "formal" legal institution, but there is never the absence of legal hierarchies and codes of conduct in any society.

If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.

On the contrary, by recognising what is artificial, I can judge their utility more objectively. That is very useful.
Nihilism is not about pretending that social constructs do not exist - it's about recognising that they are not inherent.

No, everyone recognises what is artificial and what is not. Social constructs don't exist in a vacuum. Social constructs exist in social environments. Conveniently, so do you. Nihilism is very much a rejection of social institutions in favour of apathy and egoism. He who can overcome their nihilist phase very much is the Surhomme. All ex-nihilists integrate what they saw into what they now see: artificiality, social constructs, objectivity vs. subjectivity, moral relativism, but have built on that to form an ethical base bigger than that. Nihilism is, figuratively, the foundations of a house.And you have to build over the foundations in order to live in the house.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me.

I take it I'm not far off, in any case.

[Arkolon]

They are legal institutions because they are self-governing because they own themselves because they own themselves because they are alive. Not circular.

Biology is not law. Your ability to externalise entropy does not entitle you property at all. It is completely irrelevant.

Your consciousness does.

We went over this, though.

Yes, and you conceded that ownership was part of law and went onto this discussion questioning law itself.

Where?

[Arkolon]

No, because kids can't vote, animals can't vote, the non-citizens can't vote, the incapable can't vote, and in the direct democracies of the past women, brown people, and slaves could not vote either. A legal institution is found within the pictural representation of a society. The type of government that is used determines the size of the diagram.

Children are irrelevant - they lack the ability to legally consent.

Says who? The age of legal consent can be 25, 18, 15, 12, anything in between or even for all humans. This is subjective. It's also a sorites: at which point does a child growing up become able to legally consent? What is the real difference between someone who is 18 tomorrow and someone who turned 18 yesterday? One can legally consent, and other other can't, but why?

Animals aren't part of human society.

Here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing IQ points at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. This is another sorites.

Non-citizens aren't part of the specific society in question.

I live in Luxembourg, which has the strange phenomenon where over (or just around) 50% of residents are non-citizens. Only about 30% of residents do vote. That means that, in a room of ten people, three have to vote between themselves how to govern all ten of them. Are you telling me that a) this is fair, but more importantly that b) we, the fifty percent, aren't part of the society? Am I not allowed to, or do I not at all according to you, socially interact with people who are citizens?

Incapable?

Someone who can't vote because of disabilities, or doesn't want to vote for ethical reasons.

Yes, of course, but what is a constituent corporation? How small a size can we go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate ... (sociology)

This outlines the individualism vs. corporatism argument, and doesn't give me anything useful. It gives me a subjective opinion.

[Arkolon]

Good ones are, and mine, thankfully, is.

really? you have a purely logical reason a living human is objectively better than a dead one? one that does not start with the assumption that human life is valuable, which would make it circular.

This was never asked or put into question. Stay on topic, if you can.

Then, on what grounds? All ethical systems can be challenged,

exactly, because they are all subjective.

You cut out the rest of my post, there.

Justification measured by logical consistency.

well there is a gaping hole in your logic so it fails by that measure as well.

No, there really isn't.

I don't know how else to put this. I have put this forward to so many people, some of them teachers, students of the subject, and others, and not one person has seen this as a problem.

it not my fault you never told it to anyone who paid attention.
nice argumentum ad populum by the way, if that is acceptable than slavery was indeed legitimate because people believed it to be so. Kinda hamstringing your own argument there.

I'm just saying. The purpose of this wasn't to throw you onto the bandwagon that way. I wanted to tell you that this isn't something I just thought of once and kept to myself, sheltering it from criticism and comment. It has been criticised, here and in the real world, and has been altered and corrected accordingly. But not one proofreader has deemed the 7 to 8 logical progression questionable.

The point transition from 7 to 8 are consistent, and is definitely a logical progression. Either you're purposely missing the point, either I'm going to have to spell it out, again, to you.

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. M is only M if O.
3. If there is no O, then there can be no M.
4. The existence of M is dependent on the existence of O.
5. M owns O.

there is no reason dependendence necessitates ownership. my existence is dependent on dozens of physical constants, that does not mean I own them.

The existence of that which allows you to own (your consciousness) is dependent on the existence of cells, electrical connections, nuclei, data, fluids, gases, subatomic particles, and everything in between. The blood that flows through your veins is yours. If you donate it to someone else, you can do so because that blood is yours. You cannot donate someone else's blood without their permission because their blood is not yours. Why do you own your blood? And if you own your blood, you own everything else that makes you, too.

A computer depends on the silicon in its chips no one claims that means they own it,

A computer is not a Master, and therefore cannot own. Whoever owns the computer owns the silicon in its chips, too.

Society depends on having humans that does not mean society owns you. dependence =/= ownership.

Society is not a Master, and therefore cannot own, either.

I have said this multiple time, and each time you simply ignore it, please stop wasting my time, either describe why dependence necessitates ownership or admit you have a huge hole in your logic.

I brought the topic up, writing an OP and contributing what I count to be the most in this thread in the effort to defend my position, you writing here that you're wasting your time is not my fault. You're the only one wasting your time.

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. O is only O if it belongs to M.
3. If there is no M, there can be no O.
4. The existence of O is dependent on it belonging to M.
5. O cannot own M because O is already owned by M.

this 5 also makes no sense, beside the string being circular, 2<->4, nothing in that string necessitates ownership being exclusive, so the leap to 5 has no foundation.

It's a two-part proof.

[Arkolon]

Why would someone take revenge on you for taking something? If you took, say, their arm, or their leg, from them, why would they take revenge? It's not as if, gasp, their arm or leg is theirs, is it?But doesn't that mean...? And doesn't that mean...? Yes, yes it does.

by that logic I own my friends and relatives.

No, you don't, because they are, I should think/hope, alive, and therefore they are conscious, which means that they cannot be owned.

[Sociobiology]

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.

Ok, being good for a species means nothing, that is not how evolution works, conscience is good for your genes, it is built in mechanism that makes you behave in a way to cause less social disagreement, it is not static but varies based on situation and whether you consider the other "players" part of your tribe.
many social animals have morals based on their evolved social structure. If you really want to learn something about the subject I recommend the science of good and evil by Micheal Shermer. I do NOT recommend anything by Marc Hauser, he has been shown to falsify data.

[Zottistan]

Exactly. It avoids all that which it calls "artificial", which is all that is socially constructed and not scientifically or mathematically provable. It is on par with solipsism for uselessness to philosophical progression as a society. Social constructs are real, whether you like it or not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you sound like someone who's still in school or in university and relies on whatever their teacher says for the manual to life, but a step outside reveals just this much. You cannot avoid social constructs. You cannot dismiss social constructs. Social constructs are the world around you. Nihilism is purposely blinding oneself to society and its products.

I know, we all go through nihilist phases, which is usually more or less at the same time as that part in life where we hate our parents who are SO mean to us, but seriously, you're wasting your time, and you're going to be hugely disappointed if you ever apply for philosophy in whichever facility you currently frequent.

It's worth mentioning that nihilists generally don't care about philosophical progress as a society so much as individuals. It's a philosophy that starts with the individual and works outward, or starts with the fundamental concepts of physical and mathematical science and works upward. It doesn't dismiss social constructs, it just denies them as a valid basis for objective ethics.

If you want insight into applied nihilism, the likes of Nietzsche and Stirner are interesting reads. Nihilism is only life-negating when you deny the fact that you desire.