Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

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.

I'm a biological naturalist, but again, if you've been following what I've been writing to Sociobiology, Y' = Y, so it hardly makes a difference at all, except on perception, and on explanation.

[Arkolon]

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.

Law is defined by a legal institution, which a society isn't. A legal institution can "represent" a society, or about half of them at least, but that doesn't make society any more of a law-crafting superorganism.

[Twilight Imperium]

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

I think that if you have to actually type this sentence, then you're not being as clear as you think you are.

[Conscentia]

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.

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.

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

You are also mistaken about my assumptions. I assume nothing. Prescriptive ethics is based on the idea that there is such a thing as moral truth. I reject that baseless assertion.

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.

I don't care about Nietzsche. My nihilism has nothing at all to do with that guy.
And btw, I already knew the Nietzsche was a critic of nihilism.

[Shilya]

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.

I highly doubt that you'd define ownership in a means that doesn't permit you to change ownership. I'm pretty sure one of the essentials of ownership is the ability to change or revoke it.

There are things that are unowned, for example photons usually have no owner. I know that's a fairly vague thing to pull as example, it just serves to show that something can exist without having an owner.

A human is unowned because we as society agreed to this concept, for now. We declared ownership of people as invalid and continued up to the point where you can't even own yourself (as opposed to earlier societies, where you could sell yourself, or communist dictatorial socialist societies, where you were essentially state property, the person being a means of production in a way). That was a measure to prevent forcing the usage of the property rights on your own body.

We did, nevertheless, keep the exclusive usage rights. You can have those without having ownership, as shown by someone else, and you can also hold them on unowned things (photons, to stick with that example, being used exclusively by you, and used up in the process, and no one can take the photons from you anymore). Those usage rights can be used in someone elses favour, but never fully given away, because you'd need ownership to do that.

[Conscentia]

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

Law is defined by a legal institution, which a society isn't. A legal institution can "represent" a society, or about half of them at least, but that doesn't make society any more of a law-crafting superorganism.

I'll concede this point.

[Conscentia]

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.

I'm a biological naturalist, but again, if you've been following what I've been writing to Sociobiology, Y' = Y, so it hardly makes a difference at all, except on perception, and on explanation.

It makes a difference when we are debating your position specifically.

[Salandriagado]

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"?

No. Not even remotely. How the fuck did you get that from my post? I didn't reference self-ownership at all.

[Arkolon]

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

No. Not even remotely. How the fuck did you get that from my post? I didn't reference self-ownership at all.

There is an exclusive right of use, which is a direct reference to self-ownership where those words first appeared, and you say that transferring rights to exclusive use don't necessarily transfer ownership-- which effectively concludes that there is, and will be, an ownership that is, in our example, not transferred.

Either that or you tried answering a question about self-ownership with an answer that hasn't got anything to do with self-ownership.

[Sociobiology]

no we are are not, that is a circular argument.

it is ,X is true therefore X.


it is extremely unfounded, you have done nothing to demonstrate it is objectively true.

Are you, or are you not?

did you have a stroke?

[Sociobiology]

so it is entirely a social construct and not in any way objective.

Objective within social environments. In any given society, ever, there has been a concept of ownership.

yes, and they differ in what can and can't be owned, what can do the owning, and often even with mutually exclusive propositions.

which makes it NOT objective.

Each and every (atheist) concept of property can be used to defend that one owns themselves.

except for the ones that enable slavery, treat women as property, treat children as property...

you can't prove Y+X because it is not an argument. it has to be equal to something.

I wrote "is equal to an objectively true conclusion" in the same independent clause of the sentence, separated by the dependent clause below.

and I can write bananas taste like chicken that does not make it true.
you can't swap out arguments in a logical string and without changing soundness unless you are swapping an unfounded argument equally unfounded argument, in which case nothing changes just because both are unsound.

which in this case is what?

An analogy, maybe?

so not an objectively true fact.

is equal to an objectively true conclusion.

what conclusion, that argument has no conclusion.

In our case, self-ownership. Analogously, an objectively true conclusion.

no you can't say it is true that is you again taking your conclusion (the thing being argued) as an assumption. because the only way you can demonstrate Y is if X and the conclusion are both known, which is not the case.
you just described begging the question.

X and the conclusion are known.

self ownership is not know it is being debated, it is an unknown.
X is known, sorry reversed x and Y there. Y is the other unknown.

Y = relationship between body and mind (either we are our body (monistically) or our mind is reliant on the existence of the body (dualistically), which in both cases yields exclusive rights to ourselves as a result (which is ownership))

no it doesn't, one does not logically lead to the other.
your insistent claim this is true without ever attempting to demonstrate it is part of the problem.

The conclusion = self-ownership.

say X + Y = Z if X and Z are both in question you can't use one to support the other.

example
All dogs are red + Lassie was a dog = Lassie was red
is not a sound argument because both the first assumption and your conclusion are both in question (aka not treated as true), neither can be used to support the other.

For Y, you're either using a monist argument or a dualist argument.

except neither one actually makes the string true, you claim it does, but have not demonstrated it.
your argument is 1or2+3=7
it doesnt matter which one you use, they do not lead to the conclusion.

There are no other alternatives.

thats a pretty bold claim.
it is also an argument form ignorance.

For X, you're either alive, or you are not.

which is not a binary condition but not really relevant to the argument.

Each of these is true. There are no assumptions, only a total sum of two possibilities twice (and four total outcomes) Here, I'm going to draw a little picture for you in pixlr (mind the horrible lines...)

(Image)

which again is just claiming it is true without demonstrating it.
it is Ignoratio elenchi

your two propositions do not lead to your conclusion.
example
bananas are yellow, chili peppers contain capsaicin, therefore aliens built the pyramids.

Y = Monism, but Y' = Dualism, which is what I talked about in our analogy just earlier.

except neither one makes the statement true. whether or not they are true the stil don't lead to your conclusion.

[Salandriagado]

No. Not even remotely. How the fuck did you get that from my post? I didn't reference self-ownership at all.

There is an exclusive right of use, which is a direct reference to self-ownership where those words first appeared, and you say that transferring rights to exclusive use don't necessarily transfer ownership-- which effectively concludes that there is, and will be, an ownership that is, in our example, not transferred.

Either that or you tried answering a question about self-ownership with an answer that hasn't got anything to do with self-ownership.

No, you claimed that exclusive right of use = ownership. I provided an example of a situation in which ownership (of objects, not yourself, because you don't own yourself, as I've explained several times now) can be transferred without transferring ownership, thus showing that these are different things.

[Liberaxia]

Space belongs to everyone, as stated by current international law.

A legit question: How does international law have jurisdiction over space?

Like most, if not all, law it has it by established convention. Space is the "out there" and is not exclusive to any single entity, so it only makes sense that the highest level of law has jurisdiction over it.

[Arkolon]

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.

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

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

The human conscience serves to benefit our survival, so the human conscience makes complete sense [sic]?

You are also mistaken about my assumptions. I assume nothing. Prescriptive ethics is based on the idea that there is such a thing as moral truth. I reject that baseless assertion.

There is such a thing as a truth. In fact, there are many truths. From these truths, you base your ethics. That is the point of living in a community, and with other people. It is the point in having an ethical basis.

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.

I don't care about Nietzsche. My nihilism has nothing at all to do with that guy.
And btw, I already knew the Nietzsche was a critic of nihilism.

So who was it?

[Arkolon]

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

I highly doubt that you'd define ownership in a means that doesn't permit you to change ownership. I'm pretty sure one of the essentials of ownership is the ability to change or revoke it.

Perhaps I was a bit over-enthusiastic on that one, yes. I'll take it back.

There are things that are unowned, for example photons usually have no owner. I know that's a fairly vague thing to pull as example, it just serves to show that something can exist without having an owner.

Photons belong to whatever it is that is emitting it, and if what it is that is emitting it does not have a conscious, then whatever owns the whatever that is emitting the photon (and if that has no conscious. . .) owns the photon just as much. This is my gun, but these are stolen bullets (assume that they are not anyone's in any way). If I pull the trigger and a bullet hits you, who shot you? Me, or "no one" (that is, who apparently owns the bullet).

A human is unowned because we as society agreed to this concept, for now.

I'm not sure jumping on the bandwagon is a good idea, especially in this environment and in this context.

We declared ownership of people as invalid and continued up to the point where you can't even own yourself (as opposed to earlier societies, where you could sell yourself, or communist dictatorial socialist societies, where you were essentially state property, the person being a means of production in a way).

We went over this before, but you weren't there so it's alright: owning yourself does not mean that you can self yourself. You own yourself by virtue of simply being, so the only way you could stop owning yourself is if you stopped being. Slavery would be the theft of labour and resources from another person, even if it was voluntary.

That was a measure to prevent forcing the usage of the property rights on your own body.

Question mark.

We did, nevertheless, keep the exclusive usage rights. You can have those without having ownership, as shown by someone else,

Qui ça? I don't recall that.

and you can also hold them on unowned things (photons, to stick with that example, being used exclusively by you, and used up in the process, and no one can take the photons from you anymore)

You would own whatever it is that emits the photons, so the photons would belong to you in that case, too. Find me one thing that isn't, and can't be, property. Space is (common) property. The oceans are (common) property. The air is property. Everything is property-- everything is an extension of someone else.

Those usage rights can be used in someone elses favour, but never fully given away, because you'd need ownership to do that.

A usage right is arguably synonymous with ownership. How do you define ownership, yourself?

[Arkolon]

Law is defined by a legal institution, which a society isn't. A legal institution can "represent" a society, or about half of them at least, but that doesn't make society any more of a law-crafting superorganism.

I'll concede this point.

So now we will have to go through the trouble of defining what is a legal institution, and what does being a legal institution entail. A legal institution is not a state. It is, put vaguely, an institution capable of defining or exercising law and justice, but that doesn't really help us. What does it take for someone, or something, to be a legal institution? If we are to include Weberian statelessness, ie the state of nature (which we ought to), then it would make absolutely no sense for only states to be considered legal institutions (because, eg polycentric law). A state enforces legal practices or legal institutions. I mean, from what I can conclude here, every single individual capable of signing a contract (either verbally or textually) is a legal institution, because they can set the legal parameters between parties in a contract, and the enforcement of these contracts are, in a state of nature, wholly up to them.

Thus, we can define a legal institution as any single individual, which makes ownership, property, and their enforcements and definitions thereof, up to them.

[Arkolon]

I'm a biological naturalist, but again, if you've been following what I've been writing to Sociobiology, Y' = Y, so it hardly makes a difference at all, except on perception, and on explanation.

It makes a difference when we are debating your position specifically.

My position is that you own yourself, whether or not you're a dualist or a monist.

[Arkolon]

Are you, or are you not?

did you have a stroke?

Err, no?

[Arkolon]

Objective within social environments. In any given society, ever, there has been a concept of ownership.

yes, and they differ in what can and can't be owned, what can do the owning, and often even with mutually exclusive propositions.

which makes it NOT objective.

I'd like to debate your concept of ownership versus mine, then, so we can at least get somewhere.

Each and every (atheist) concept of property can be used to defend that one owns themselves.

except for the ones that enable slavery, treat women as property, treat children as property...

Those would be logically inconsistent, depending upon which axioms their concepts of ownership and property are based. Not to mention that I doubt the women, children, or slaves would see this as a fair system, and would thus be an illegitimate one at that.

I wrote "is equal to an objectively true conclusion" in the same independent clause of the sentence, separated by the dependent clause below.

and I can write bananas taste like chicken that does not make it true.
you can't swap out arguments in a logical string and without changing soundness unless you are swapping an unfounded argument equally unfounded argument, in which case nothing changes just because both are unsound.

There are only two ways to approach the mind-body problem: monism (M), or dualism (D), and there is only a mind-body problem in that which exists (X; being alive). D + X = a conclusion, which in our case is self-ownership. Dualism, as we both know, is incorrect since the technological advancement in neurology. However, it is very possible, and this thread is dedicated to, replacing D with M, so that M + X = the very same conclusion. Monism, as we both agree, is not incorrect, or at least far less so than dualism. Both yield the same conclusion, which, functionally, makes D = M-- which should remind you of Y' = Y.

X and the conclusion are known.

self ownership is not know it is being debated, it is an unknown.
X is known, sorry reversed x and Y there. Y is the other unknown.

Self-ownership is the conclusion. Figuratively speaking, the "=" in Y + X = self-ownership is what is at debate.

Y is either dualism or monism, which are (functionally) interchangeable for our purposes.

Y = relationship between body and mind (either we are our body (monistically) or our mind is reliant on the existence of the body (dualistically), which in both cases yields exclusive rights to ourselves as a result (which is ownership))

no it doesn't, one does not logically lead to the other.
your insistent claim this is true without ever attempting to demonstrate it is part of the problem.

I left out the whole working out part (the axiomatic lists...) in favour of a more brief post, but I have given my working out many times before.

The conclusion = self-ownership.

For Y, you're either using a monist argument or a dualist argument.

except neither one actually makes the string true, you claim it does, but have not demonstrated it.
your argument is 1or2+3=7
it doesnt matter which one you use, they do not lead to the conclusion.

Y' or Y + 1 = Y + 1, where Y' = Y. It really isn't that complicated. The purpose of Y is to show that there is more than just mind-body dualism.

There are no other alternatives.

thats a pretty bold claim.
it is also an argument form ignorance.

Objectivity freaking you out again.

For X, you're either alive, or you are not.

which is not a binary condition but not really relevant to the argument.

"Functionally", yes, it is. You're either conscious or you're not.

Each of these is true. There are no assumptions, only a total sum of two possibilities twice (and four total outcomes) Here, I'm going to draw a little picture for you in pixlr (mind the horrible lines...)

(Image)

which again is just claiming it is true without demonstrating it.
it is Ignoratio elenchi

your two propositions do not lead to your conclusion.
example
bananas are yellow, chili peppers contain capsaicin, therefore aliens built the pyramids.

So, I'm guessing, you weren't paying attention to every other post I make in this thread and what you do follow you don't actually understand?

Y = Monism, but Y' = Dualism, which is what I talked about in our analogy just earlier.

except neither one makes the statement true. whether or not they are true the stil don't lead to your conclusion.

Yes, they do. I have shown this many times.

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

NP. I don't generally use hylomorphism in a debate though, but it's practically Aristotlean defense of nature rights. I don't generally believe it can stand alone, which is why I go into utilitarianism a bit when defending non-aggression. But initially it's based on that concept, yeah.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'll concede this point.

So now we will have to go through the trouble of defining what is a legal institution, and what does being a legal institution entail. A legal institution is not a state. It is, put vaguely, an institution capable of defining or exercising law and justice, but that doesn't really help us. What does it take for someone, or something, to be a legal institution? If we are to include Weberian statelessness, ie the state of nature (which we ought to), then it would make absolutely no sense for only states to be considered legal institutions (because, eg polycentric law). A state enforces legal practices or legal institutions. I mean, from what I can conclude here, every single individual capable of signing a contract (either verbally or textually) is a legal institution, because they can set the legal parameters between parties in a contract, and the enforcement of these contracts are, in a state of nature, wholly up to them.

Thus, we can define a legal institution as any single individual, which makes ownership, property, and their enforcements and definitions thereof, up to them.

A legal institution is an institution that can make you follow its laws. One person could declare bananas illegal, and no one would care. If the United States declares bananas illegal within its borders, then anyone caught with bananas would be shot on sight. (or fined, whatever). If the United States declares bananas illegal anywhere, but the UK declares "bullshit, we love bananas", they'll fight a war and whoever wins gets to make laws for the other guys.

It's simplified, but that's generally how it works.

[Sociobiology]

did you have a stroke?

Err, no?

Sorry I know a couple of people who have and that seemed totally non sequitur.

[Sociobiology]

which makes it NOT objective.

I'd like to debate your concept of ownership versus mine, then, so we can at least get somewhere.

I recognize mine as a cultural phenomenon and thus not objective.

Those would be logically inconsistent,

so? Cultural phenomenon tend to be.

depending upon which axioms their concepts of ownership and property are based. Not to mention that I doubt the women, children, or slaves would see this as a fair system,

which has no bearing on whether it existed.

and would thus be an illegitimate one at that.

based on your moral system, based on theirs it was completely legitimate.

There are only two ways to approach the mind-body problem: monism (M), or dualism (D),

well there are more, but go on.

and there is only a mind-body problem in that which exists (X; being alive). D + X = a conclusion, which in our case is self-ownership. Dualism, as we both know, is incorrect since the technological advancement in neurology. However, it is very possible, and this thread is dedicated to, replacing D with M, so that M + X = the very same conclusion. Monism, as we both agree, is not incorrect, or at least far less so than dualism. Both yield the same conclusion, which, functionally, makes D = M-- which should remind you of Y' = Y.

except you haven't show they reach the same conclusion, merely stated it.

Self-ownership is the conclusion. Figuratively speaking, the "=" in Y + X = self-ownership is what is at debate.

Y is either dualism or monism, which are (functionally) interchangeable for our purposes.

both unknowns, Ah I see the problem, by unknown I mean we do not know if the value we are using for the variable is correct, we have no truth value for either of them. Sorry switched to math language.

I left out the whole working out part (the axiomatic lists...) in favour of a more brief post, but I have given my working out many times before.

yes and your workings can be summed up as A is true, B is true, then a miracle happens, conclusion self ownership.
there is a huge baseless logical leap right in the middle of it. I even pointed it out in those posts.

except neither one actually makes the string true, you claim it does, but have not demonstrated it.
your argument is 1or2+3=7
it doesnt matter which one you use, they do not lead to the conclusion.

Y' or Y + 1 = Y + 1, where Y' = Y. It really isn't that complicated. The purpose of Y is to show that there is more than just mind-body dualism.

so you missed the point of my statement entirely, no matter which Y you use it does not lead to self ownership.

thats a pretty bold claim.
it is also an argument form ignorance.

Objectivity freaking you out again.

You have yet to use objectivity, once you do I might be impressed, the problem above is a well known logical fallacy, not my fault if you don't recognize them before you use them.

which is not a binary condition but not really relevant to the argument.

"Functionally", yes, it is. You're either conscious or you're not.

No, it is a continuum, but this is a tangent for a different thread.

which again is just claiming it is true without demonstrating it.
it is Ignoratio elenchi

your two propositions do not lead to your conclusion.
example
bananas are yellow, chili peppers contain capsaicin, therefore aliens built the pyramids.

So, I'm guessing, you weren't paying attention to every other post I make in this thread and what you do follow you don't actually understand?

I understand it, but I don't think you do, to you it is a natural conclusion but not to anyone else, you either don't know why you make the logical leap and are being purposely evasive, or or don't realize you are making the leap, excuse me for giving the the benefit of the doubt.

except neither one makes the statement true. whether or not they are true the stil don't lead to your conclusion.

Yes, they do. I have shown this many times.

repeating a logical leap is not explaining it.

[Conscentia]

I'll concede this point.

So now we will have to go through the trouble of defining what is a legal institution, and what does being a legal institution entail. A legal institution is not a state. It is, put vaguely, an institution capable of defining or exercising law and justice, but that doesn't really help us. What does it take for someone, or something, to be a legal institution? If we are to include Weberian statelessness, ie the state of nature (which we ought to), then it would make absolutely no sense for only states to be considered legal institutions (because, eg polycentric law). A state enforces legal practices or legal institutions. I mean, from what I can conclude here, every single individual capable of signing a contract (either verbally or textually) is a legal institution, because they can set the legal parameters between parties in a contract, and the enforcement of these contracts are, in a state of nature, wholly up to them.

Thus, we can define a legal institution as any single individual, which makes ownership, property, and their enforcements and definitions thereof, up to them.

No, law is socially defined. Just because you can sign a contract doesn't mean you are a legal institution. It takes at least another person to to create the contract.
Additionally, your post implies that all contracts are legal. They aren't.

[Conscentia]

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

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

The human conscience serves to benefit our survival, so the human conscience makes complete sense [sic]?

I said "the existence of the human conscience". You never heard of natural selection?

You are also mistaken about my assumptions. I assume nothing. Prescriptive ethics is based on the idea that there is such a thing as moral truth. I reject that baseless assertion.

There is such a thing as a truth. In fact, there are many truths. From these truths, you base your ethics. That is the point of living in a community, and with other people. It is the point in having an ethical basis.

What truth? There is no objective standard to which human action/character should conform.

I don't care about Nietzsche. My nihilism has nothing at all to do with that guy.
And btw, I already knew the Nietzsche was a critic of nihilism.

So who was it?

Who was what?