Something I've been questioning recently, inspired by a number of the recent debates and blog posts. Perhaps others may like to join the musings...
Can "rights" exist in a stateless society? If not ultimately by coercion supported by consensus, how can any rights be enforced?
Ownership is where property is accepted by the community as belonging to somebody, for their control. But without a means to identify this (looking through the block-chain to individuals) and to enforce this (ultimately via co-ordinated threats of some nature), does ownership really exist, or just the ability to control, for as long as that ability is maintained? For example, sometimes we use the language that block-chains enforce property rights. But is this the most accurate language? Block-chains seem only to enforce control of property, to whoever holds the keys. Should the keys be lost or stolen, there is no way to enforce the attribution of the property back to the individual.
In a future state-less world, should a location-based community be attacked by drones for its geographic resources, what international law would prevail to uphold any rights of the "owners"? Are they left to coordinate and mount their own defence?Does everything come down to control, and the ability to attack and defend that control? Wouldn't this naturally lead to centralised and decentralised communities forming co-ordinated defensive mechanisms?
If by "rights" you mean moral rights, then enforcement is irrelevant to their existence, because they only describe that which it is morally justifiable to enforce.
If by "rights" you mean whatever status is enforced, then I don't see how it matters whether that status includes the presence or the absence of a state.
Or is the question whether morality exists in any real sense, or if it's just an artificial projection of the desires of the strongest or most violent group?
Something I've been questioning recently, inspired by a number of the recent debates and blog posts. Perhaps others may like to join the musings...
Can "rights" exist in a stateless society? If not ultimately by coercion supported by consensus, how can any rights be enforced?
Ownership is where property is accepted by the community as belonging to somebody, for their control. But without a means to identify this (looking through the block-chain to individuals) and to enforce this (ultimately via co-ordinated threats of some nature), does ownership really exist, or just the ability to control, for as long as that ability is maintained? For example, sometimes we use the language that block-chains enforce property rights. But is this the most accurate language? Block-chains seem only to enforce control of property, to whoever holds the keys. Should the keys be lost or stolen, there is no way to enforce the attribution of the property back to the individual.
In a future state-less world, should a location-based community be attacked by drones for its geographic resources, what international law would prevail to uphold any rights of the "owners"? Are they left to coordinate and mount their own defence?Does everything come down to control, and the ability to attack and defend that control? Wouldn't this naturally lead to centralised and decentralised communities forming co-ordinated defensive mechanisms?
Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.
Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.
If so, there are no property rights, because ownership of property, even purchased property, can always be philosophically challenged. Nature does not grant any person any right to any mineral, goods, quality of health, basic income, or even life itself. These human conceptualisations can only be granted by a consensus willing to enforce it, whether that apparatus is called state or not.
It's a subtle point. I'm saying block-chains do not enforce anything except the ability to control. Ownership rights exist separately if they are enforced.
OK, let's suppose moral property rights exist, and that there is some way the consensus can agree on this, thousands of years of human conflict notwithstanding. How do we solve the practical issue of how it can be assured that private keys are always in the hands of their rightful owners, or of how those property rights can be enforced in the absence of consensus-based threat (i.e. a state, or some other consensus-based apparatus of coercion)? This is why I am questioning whether block-chains actually assert property or ownership rights, as opposed to just property control. I'm suggesting we need to change the language we use, for a start, and think about how society can (and is likely to) respond to the latter problems in the absence of state.
Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.
If so, there are no property rights, because ownership of property, even purchased property, can always be philosophically challenged. Nature does not grant any person any right to any mineral, goods, quality of health, basic income, or even life itself. These human conceptualisations can only be granted by a consensus willing to enforce it, whether that apparatus is called state or not.
It's a subtle point. I'm saying block-chains do not enforce anything except the ability to control. Ownership rights exist separately if they are enforced.
We're getting mixed up on moral rights versus legal rights again.
The fact that moral property rights can be challenged and questioned philosophically doesn't prove that they don't exist. Claiming that a human's right to life does not exist without a consensus is true of the legal right to life, but I reject the idea that the moral right to life is nonexistent without consensus. I assert that objective value exists, because there is literally no value in supposing that it does not.
Define "rights". Regardless of your definition of rights someone else may have another definition that conflicts with yours. Perhaps your definition of rights gives you moral authority (authority that is only recognized by yourself and other people who share your philosophy of course) to disregard other's definitions. The statement that "rights" are "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator" seems to suggest that you believe in rights (and furthermore morality) as objective things, meaning things that exist in the physical (or metaphysical?) universe outside of any conscious entity's mind, rather than as abstract constructs in the minds of human beings. I think of morality as purely a subjective thing.
OK, let's suppose moral property rights exist, and that there is some way the consensus can agree on this, thousands of years of human conflict notwithstanding. How do we solve the practical issue of how it can be assured that private keys are always in the hands of their rightful owners, or of how those property rights can be enforced in the absence of consensus-based threat (i.e. a state, or some other consensus-based apparatus of coercion)? This is why I am questioning whether block-chains actually assert property or ownership rights, as opposed to just property control. I'm suggesting we need to change the language we use, for a start, and think about how society can (and is likely to) respond to the latter problems in the absence of state.
Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.
If so, there are no property rights, because ownership of property, even purchased property, can always be philosophically challenged. Nature does not grant any person any right to any mineral, goods, quality of health, basic income, or even life itself. These human conceptualisations can only be granted by a consensus willing to enforce it, whether that apparatus is called state or not.
It's a subtle point. I'm saying block-chains do not enforce anything except the ability to control. Ownership rights exist separately if they are enforced.
We're getting mixed up on moral rights versus legal rights again.
The fact that moral property rights can be challenged and questioned philosophically doesn't prove that they don't exist. Claiming that a human's right to life does not exist without a consensus is true of the legal right to life, but I reject the idea that the moral right to life is nonexistent without consensus. I assert that objective value exists, because there is literally no value in supposing that it does not.
(Rats, I hit modify instead of quote and screwed up this post.)Define "rights". Regardless of your definition of rights someone else may have another definition that conflicts with yours. Perhaps your definition of rights gives you moral authority (authority that is only recognized by yourself and other people who share your philosophy of course) to disregard other's definitions. The statement that "rights" are "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator" seems to suggest that you believe in rights (and furthermore morality) as objective things, meaning things that exist in the physical (or metaphysical?) universe outside of any conscious entity's mind, rather than as abstract constructs in the minds of human beings. I think of morality as purely a subjective thing.
Morality is only subjective if there is no rather opinionated Creator who says otherwise. :)
- Do you believe that objective morality exists?
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then who/what determines these objective morals and how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity?
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then do you believe that "respecting property rights" and "not harming others" belong in the aforementioned set of objective morals?
- How do you define property and property rights? What is and is not considered property? What rights do they give to the owners? How are the owners even determined? What does it mean to not harm others? Is this physical harm, emotional harm, or both? Who even gets to determine whether harm occurred or whether it was "sufficient" harm? (I realize these are actually way more than one question)
- If the answer to the first question is yes, then are your answers to the previous question, which describe what "property rights" and "harm" should be, also defined objectively along with the set of objective morals? If not, through which mechanisms do you believe human societies should come to a consensus on the answers to those questions?
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.
You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.
I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible. :)
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.
You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.
I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible. :)
The scientists who claimed to have observed a strange quark do not merely state their claim. They also provide a procedure that anyone with sufficient resources could recreate in the present to repeat the observation for themselves. Their claims are falsifiable. This means that they are putting their reputation on the line if the make false claims. Other scientists are waiting to repeat their observations to check their work. The more the original set of scientists' claim is accepted by society, the more significant it would be for the second set of scientists to disprove the claim. Checking each other's claims is possible and the incentives for checking the claims are in place. The rest of us can rely on this mechanism to trust falsifiable claims that have been verified by many independent groups and have not yet been disproven even though we won't be making the observations and calculations ourselves. It would take a very elaborate and difficult to maintain conspiracy for a large set of scientists to intentionally propagate the belief in false scientific claims (assuming they would even have any personal motivation to do so in the first place).
Let's compare the above to alleged eye-witness claims of divine teachings and phenomena. We are forced to base the belief off books which are translations of other books written many years ago of stories that were passed down verbally which originated 1000s of years ago allegedly from eye-witness evidence. There are many places along this process where the information could be corrupted (think of the game of telephone). The most significant of which is the original observation of the "evidence" by potentially flawed observers as well as the original reporting of the observation to other people. And we have no way of proving whether these observations were accurate or not because we cannot go back in time to observe it (and even if we somehow could we would need a sufficiently decentralized and unlikely to collude group of individuals to all go back and observe it so that they could corroborate on their story).
Furthermore, there can be many reasons why the reporters of this evidence would have incentive to lie about their claims. They may wish to obtain fame and power (claiming you are special enough to be a prophet that God decided to directly present and speak to could be a good way of achieving that, although it can also backfire and provide notoriety instead and result in one's death for blasphemy and heresy). They may wish to control populations through religion (claiming certain rules you want populations to follow have authority not because you say they do but because a higher power than you does gives it more credibility to significant portions of the population). Also, keep in mind that the eye-witness observers may also not be intentially lying but rather subconciously exaggerating their claims and seeing what they want to see (we know the human mind tends to do that). Since a belief in supernatural phenemona has been deeply buried in the human subconcious for a long time (our pattern seeking brains tend to observe natural phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically through all kinds of imaginative stories), it is not odd to think that the observers of "novel" divine "evidence", which was in reality nothing special or significant, saw something there that confirmed their expectations of what they hoped to see (think Virgin Mary on a piece of toast).
Given the above realities of the human condition, we should be skeptical of these claims. We should be skeptical of radical scientific claims as well, of course. But the scientific claims are falsifiable. Furthermore, people don't really take new theories very seriously if they are not going beyond the currently accepted theory in some way. If the new theory explains all evidence that is already explained by the current dominant theory, and nothing more, then it is not interesting. If there is evidence that seems to contradict the current theory but a new theory explains it as well as all the other evidence explained by the current theory, then it is interesting enough to scrutinize. If the novel predictions the new theory makes are then later confirmed, it then stands a very good chance of replacing the current theory. You can see many examples of this in science but just to give one example, look at Einstein's general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. While the process is not perfect and wonderfully rational always, it at least continually improves upon itself based on evidence observed in the physical universe and through the scientific method.
I think the same processes should be applied to divine claims. There is no reason to consider a new theory of how the universe operates unless there is evidence that doesn't fit the current theory and the new theory explains it (or explains it much better). But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim of divine powers existing in the universe that had never been observed is an extraordinary claim. It is not sufficient in my opinion to consider the testimony of a single person (or even a small group of people) who claimed to have had a first-hand experience of the phenomena as "extraordinary evidence" (especially for all the reasons I stated two paragraphs above). It is certain that our current theory of the universe is incorrect (even if only slightly) and it may even be possible that the correct theory includes a subset of divine phenomena as reported in religious scripture, but it makes no sense to jump to that theory based on the faulty evidence we have supporting this new theory as of today. If extraordinary evidence did present itself in the future, and we were to skeptically and scientifically study this evidence using critical reasoning, then the theory should (and very likely would) change. So far, it has not.
But I want to go a bit further. Even if we found the evidence of divine phenomena reported in religious scripture to be compelling (of course we have to ask which of the many conflicting religious scripture we are talking about in this case), I would argue that it is not sufficient evidence of an afterlife, dualism, or objective morality. A being with abilities that were, up to the point of us observing them, considered supernatural (if we reach a consensus that they actually exist in the natural physical world, it is no longer accurate to call it "supernatural"), is not necessarily also a being that is omnipotent and is the creator of the entire universe. Humans with our current technology would look like magical wizards compared to humans a few thousand years back in the past. It could be plausible that extraterrestrial beings with their advanced technology (potentially exploiting laws of physics we were unaware of) could exhibit actions that most of us humans would be unable to interpret as any other way than "divine". And just because such an advanced being might claim they are the omnipotent creator of the universe, that there exists a human soul that will after biological death either experience eternal paradise or eternal torture based on the judgement of the omnipotent being, and also here are the list of criteria by which the being will be judging humanity, doesn't necessarily make any of it true. It could just be a prank or a means of claiming higher superiority than they already have to further quell any resistance to their claims of control and power.
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.
You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.
I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible. :)
The scientists who claimed to have observed a strange quark do not merely state their claim. They also provide a procedure that anyone with sufficient resources could recreate in the present to repeat the observation for themselves. Their claims are falsifiable. This means that they are putting their reputation on the line if the make false claims. Other scientists are waiting to repeat their observations to check their work. The more the original set of scientists' claim is accepted by society, the more significant it would be for the second set of scientists to disprove the claim. Checking each other's claims is possible and the incentives for checking the claims are in place. The rest of us can rely on this mechanism to trust falsifiable claims that have been verified by many independent groups and have not yet been disproven even though we won't be making the observations and calculations ourselves. It would take a very elaborate and difficult to maintain conspiracy for a large set of scientists to intentionally propagate the belief in false scientific claims (assuming they would even have any personal motivation to do so in the first place).
Let's compare the above to alleged eye-witness claims of divine teachings and phenomena. We are forced to base the belief off books which are translations of other books written many years ago of stories that were passed down verbally which originated 1000s of years ago allegedly from eye-witness evidence. There are many places along this process where the information could be corrupted (think of the game of telephone). The most significant of which is the original observation of the "evidence" by potentially flawed observers as well as the original reporting of the observation to other people. And we have no way of proving whether these observations were accurate or not because we cannot go back in time to observe it (and even if we somehow could we would need a sufficiently decentralized and unlikely to collude group of individuals to all go back and observe it so that they could corroborate on their story).
Furthermore, there can be many reasons why the reporters of this evidence would have incentive to lie about their claims. They may wish to obtain fame and power (claiming you are special enough to be a prophet that God decided to directly present and speak to could be a good way of achieving that, although it can also backfire and provide notoriety instead and result in one's death for blasphemy and heresy). They may wish to control populations through religion (claiming certain rules you want populations to follow have authority not because you say they do but because a higher power than you does gives it more credibility to significant portions of the population). Also, keep in mind that the eye-witness observers may also not be intentially lying but rather subconciously exaggerating their claims and seeing what they want to see (we know the human mind tends to do that). Since a belief in supernatural phenemona has been deeply buried in the human subconcious for a long time (our pattern seeking brains tend to observe natural phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically through all kinds of imaginative stories), it is not odd to think that the observers of "novel" divine "evidence", which was in reality nothing special or significant, saw something there that confirmed their expectations of what they hoped to see (think Virgin Mary on a piece of toast).
Given the above realities of the human condition, we should be skeptical of these claims. We should be skeptical of radical scientific claims as well, of course. But the scientific claims are falsifiable. Furthermore, people don't really take new theories very seriously if they are not going beyond the currently accepted theory in some way. If the new theory explains all evidence that is already explained by the current dominant theory, and nothing more, then it is not interesting. If there is evidence that seems to contradict the current theory but a new theory explains it as well as all the other evidence explained by the current theory, then it is interesting enough to scrutinize. If the novel predictions the new theory makes are then later confirmed, it then stands a very good chance of replacing the current theory. You can see many examples of this in science but just to give one example, look at Einstein's general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. While the process is not perfect and wonderfully rational always, it at least continually improves upon itself based on evidence observed in the physical universe and through the scientific method.
I think the same processes should be applied to divine claims. There is no reason to consider a new theory of how the universe operates unless there is evidence that doesn't fit the current theory and the new theory explains it (or explains it much better). But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim of divine powers existing in the universe that had never been observed is an extraordinary claim. It is not sufficient in my opinion to consider the testimony of a single person (or even a small group of people) who claimed to have had a first-hand experience of the phenomena as "extraordinary evidence" (especially for all the reasons I stated two paragraphs above). It is certain that our current theory of the universe is incorrect (even if only slightly) and it may even be possible that the correct theory includes a subset of divine phenomena as reported in religious scripture, but it makes no sense to jump to that theory based on the faulty evidence we have supporting this new theory as of today. If extraordinary evidence did present itself in the future, and we were to skeptically and scientifically study this evidence using critical reasoning, then the theory should (and very likely would) change. So far, it has not.
But I want to go a bit further. Even if we found the evidence of divine phenomena reported in religious scripture to be compelling (of course we have to ask which of the many conflicting religious scripture we are talking about in this case), I would argue that it is not sufficient evidence of an afterlife, dualism, or objective morality. A being with abilities that were, up to the point of us observing them, considered supernatural (if we reach a consensus that they actually exist in the natural physical world, it is no longer accurate to call it "supernatural"), is not necessarily also a being that is omnipotent and is the creator of the entire universe. Humans with our current technology would look like magical wizards compared to humans a few thousand years back in the past. It could be plausible that extraterrestrial beings with their advanced technology (potentially exploiting laws of physics we were unaware of) could exhibit actions that most of us humans would be unable to interpret as any other way than "divine". And just because such an advanced being might claim they are the omnipotent creator of the universe, that there exists a human soul that will after biological death either experience eternal paradise or eternal torture based on the judgement of the omnipotent being, and also here are the list of criteria by which the being will be judging humanity, doesn't necessarily make any of it true. It could just be a prank or a means of claiming higher superiority than they already have to further quell any resistance to their claims of control and power.
Yep, you should consider all of those things when determining whether any unfalsifiable teaching is credible.
But the burden of proof that there are no bears in the woods lies with the person who wants to go there unarmed.
:)
Thanks Pascal. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Clearly both laws and blockchains are impotent for enforcing anything, because they're just communication. If anything is to be enforced, either with a state or without it, it will be enforced by people who are willing to use force against others who don't comply.
The greatest challenge of philosophy is the definition of a universal, objective and absolute morality that does not rely on God or the state.
Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.
“Universally preferable behaviour” must be a valid concept, for five main reasons.
The first is logical: if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is such a thing as universally preferable behaviour. However, if one “should” do something, then one has just created universally preferable behaviour. Thus universally preferable behaviour – or moral rules – must be valid.
But I would love to see a high-quality, thoughtful sequel to The Matrix where all of the arguments made above are carried on by characters in white lab coats observing a computer generated universe from the inside and pontificating about how they are able to know everything there is to know by applying the Scientific Method.
Nice contribution Myshadow. Here's my take on it...[your first post above]Thanks :) I'm glad you found it as interesting as I did. I don't think it is, the fact that it is required that people are required to eat to survive is not negated by the fact that some people choose not to eat or survive.
Any scientific theory can be falsified by a single piece of contradictory evidence. Surely the fact that different people make moral choices that are different in the same given situations is enough evidence to prove that there is not a complete set of universal preferences of behaviour?
Is there even a single subset of behaviour that absolutely everyone can agree on as always holding? I guess this is what the author is trying to show via examples.No i don't think there is. I still don't think this negates the validity of universally preferable behaviour because of the reason above.
The excerpt discusses the preference for truth over falsity. But the scientific sample is only those who participate in the debate, arguing all such participants are clearly espousing truth over falsity. But this ignores the full sample of humanity, including those choosing to not have a view or to be silent from the debate. Nothing can be deduced of their preferences. Even if they all preferred some view of truth over falsity, this says nothing about their moral preferences (rules of interacting with others to elucidate or confer truth).I don't think that interactions can be put in a different class to other behaviours like drinking or eating. I think they should be subject to the same method of analysis to evaluate whether or not they are universally preferable as eating or drinking are. The examples given aren't relevant to morals, but they are proof of universally preferable behaviours.
The excerpt also discusses the biological preference to breathe, eat and drink. But these are not forms of human interaction that say anything about moral preferences. The piece is trying to identify a base of universally preferred behaviours, when it should be focused on universally preferred modes of interaction, or morals. Universally preferred behaviours that have no moral implication are irrelevant.
The problem with this type of argument overall, is that there is not an irrefutable logic around these concepts that everybody will agree with. So though the author believes his case is strong enough to personally believe in objective morality, the subjectivity of the logic used means the case is left open for others. ie. It is only subjectively objective (or subjectively subjective).I would say that he has irrefutably proved that eating and drinking are UPB if the objective is survival. Could the same framework be applied to morally relevant behaviours with the same certainty of results? If it can, then any behaviour can then be evaluated using UPB framework to determine its validity in assuring an agreed upon outcome.
But I would love to see a high-quality, thoughtful sequel to The Matrix where all of the arguments made above are carried on by characters in white lab coats observing a computer generated universe from the inside and pontificating about how they are able to know everything there is to know by applying the Scientific Method.
Characterising reality in this way leads to an endless causal chain. The reality within can only be completely described from the more encompassing reality, where there will be yet more beings in their version of lab coats speculating on their own reality. And by the same logic, that reality can only be described by an even larger reality. And so forth. And then likewise that infinite hierarchy of realities can only be described by a meta-reality. And that meta-reality by an even larger meta-reality, and so forth. Sounds like a long (yet interesting) film....
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Thanks Pascal. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Never underestimate the tremendous cost of denying yourself the ability to live life according to your own principles, values and beliefs, driven by fear that you will disappoint any of an unlimited range of beings that humans could conceive of, any of which could make our lives heaven or hell on the back of a prescribed code of behaviour.
You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.
I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible. :)
I doubt anyone has actually made it to the end of my ramblings, but if you have, wow, you probably think I'm nuts. Or maybe not. :)
Although, I think we may disagree on our definition of the word "morality" (or maybe we are just overloading the word with multiple definitions which can lead to confusion). Also, how do you define "collective benefit".
...
I doubt anyone has actually made it to the end of my ramblings, but if you have, wow, you probably think I'm nuts. Or maybe not. :)
I have to admit that I haven't actually read Pinker, I have only read some reviews about his positions.
I believe in the general idea that we can empirically determine some moral guildlines, applicable to a society of humans. For example, I think we can empirically demonstrate that Slavery is evil.
But I definitely wouldnt say this is an easy problem, its clearly very hard.
I Agree, I'd go further and say that we can empirically demonstrate that the Initiation of Force is Evil.The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.
If we can empirically demonstrate that, then we already have the objectively validated framework that we need to build society on, its hard to get your head around, but incredibly simple at the same time.
The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.
The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.
Are the requirements for Economics that much different? Would we be Austrians if the fall of the Roman empire could be clearly demonstrated to be linked to a lack of debasement of their currency?
Of course not! Both internal consistency of principle as well as supporting evidence are required for any given hypothesis to be accepted as accurate by rational individuals. This is why an internally consistent principle is required to validate actions as moral or immoral as well as the evidence supporting it.
I empathise with the view that evidence gives one greater confidence in one's deductions. However Von Mises says (p69, Human Action) that "it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena". If it were possible to isolate all other variables as one might in a scientific experiment, then empiricism stands a shot. But it is impossible to do this with historic statistics on complex dynamic systems. [Edit: There is also no ability to repeat and verify]. Thus Mises' emphasis on deductive reasoning, despite its openness to challenge and review. Of course he could be wrong like anybody else, and maybe your resolve might lead to a better approach.
Something I've been questioning recently, inspired by a number of the recent debates and blog posts. Perhaps others may like to join the musings...
Can "rights" exist in a stateless society? If not ultimately by coercion supported by consensus, how can any rights be enforced?
Ownership is where property is accepted by the community as belonging to somebody, for their control. But without a means to identify this (looking through the block-chain to individuals) and to enforce this (ultimately via co-ordinated threats of some nature), does ownership really exist, or just the ability to control, for as long as that ability is maintained? For example, sometimes we use the language that block-chains enforce property rights. But is this the most accurate language? Block-chains seem only to enforce control of property, to whoever holds the keys. Should the keys be lost or stolen, there is no way to enforce the attribution of the property back to the individual.
In a future state-less world, should a location-based community be attacked by drones for its geographic resources, what international law would prevail to uphold any rights of the "owners"? Are they left to coordinate and mount their own defence?Does everything come down to control, and the ability to attack and defend that control? Wouldn't this naturally lead to centralised and decentralised communities forming co-ordinated defensive mechanisms?
Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, block chains are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the owners, That whenever any form of block chain becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Owners to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new block chains, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Your actual mileage may vary.
Rights are granted by your ability to enforce it. Law enforcement capability alone is what determines the rights that exist. If it cannot be enforced then it's imaginary (like moral rights).
I think all rights have to be enforced whether by mathematics or physical force.
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:
1. Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2. Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3. There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4. Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5. Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:
1. Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2. Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3. There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4. Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5. Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.
Here is what I think:
#1 is a little vague because of the word "free". What does freedom mean in this case? They certainly have the capability of deciding their own code within their own minds. Whether they can enforce the real world consequences of that moral code is a different story.
#2 is not mutually exclusive with #1. The reason #2 is done is because humans depend on each other for survival. They would die if they were to try to survive on their own. Because it is difficult to work together if you act according to your ideal code that can conflict with other people's ideal codes, humans decide to compromise on their ideal code in order to reach a consensus code within a particular society/community/civilization. This allows the society to maintain order and work together in a way that is net beneficial (from each of their own perspectives) to each of the parties (despite the slight compromise to their ideal code). For individuals whose compromise moral code would deviate too far from their ideal code to be acceptable, they separate into different communities. These separate communities, each with their own compromised moral code that is very different from one another, will likely come into conflict with one another often (usually violently).
I don't believe #3 is possible purely through logic. However, I think it is important for one's moral code to be logically consistent (although even logical consistency is not absolute/objective; someone may not think it is important for their moral philosophy to be logically consistent). I think you can reduce the moral code through logic, rationality, and empiricism down to the minimal set of axioms that derives the rest of the moral philosophy. But I do not believe that set of axioms is the empty set (i.e. morality is subjective). I can define the set of all possible minimal set of moral axioms as A. I define the logically derived metric by which to judge the utility of any minimal set of axioms as M_a(b) where a, b ∈ A are particular choices of minimal set of axioms. b is the minimal set of axioms that is being judged and a is the minimal set of axioms that logically derives the metric that does the judging (notice the metric is dependent on the minimal set of axioms chosen, hence it is subjective). For the choice of a minimal set of axioms a to be logically consistent, I think the following proposition P(a) also needs to be true: ∀ b ∈ A M_a(b) ≤ M_a(a) and ∀ b ∈ {x | x ∈ A ∧ x ≠ a ∧ M_a(x) = M_a(a)} M_b(b) ≤ M_b(a). I believe the set L = {x | x ∈ A ∧ P(x)} is not only non-empty but also has more than one member. So, how should one choose one particular minimal set of axioms (which logically derives the remaining moral philosophy through conditionals derived through empiricism and the scientific method) from the set L? I think any choice is as good as any. In reality, it won't be a choice for any given human being. The choice will be made for them (based on their experience growing up as well as partly from their biology) and they will find it very difficult to change their moral philosophy to one derived from a different member in the set L.
To begin, I glazed over your mathematical expressions, sorry. But essentially I think you are saying it is important for everyone, whatever moral code they choose, for it to be self-consistent. I agree in principle, though doubt this can be done in practice. Basically I think the ambiguity of morality will just not bend itself to the precise logic of mathematical systems, and so consistency and completeness always arguable.
On Completeness - any set of axioms contains a finite amount of information. There will always arise situations where certain of the axioms are in conflict, and the rationale for the preference established at that point needs to be encoded as a new axiom.
For example, suppose you believe (i) do no harm and (ii) never steal, which I have chosen arbitrarily. Now you have a predicament arise where to not steal may harm another. At this point the preference expressed in the resolution of this conflict adds information to the schema that was not present in the axioms. The infinite variety of such moral dilemmas that are conceivable means that this information cannot be captured in a finite set of axioms. In fact it will refine itself over a person's lifetime, as I'm sure everyone experiences.
On Consistency - any two moral axioms that appear in conflict to an outsider can be rationalised as consistent by the owner. Suppose somebody believed (i) do no harm and (ii) attack is an appropriate form of self-defence. Conflict? Not necessarily - they merely rationalise that somebody initiating an attack is bringing that harm upon themselves, while the defender that has no recourse is simply a conduit of that harm.
I think what will drive people is what "they feel is right" in the circumstance, which will be a product of their experience, wisdom and past thinking on the matter, but also unfortunately the external and public pressures of the choice to be made. Rationalization is refined afterward to provide the comfort of consistency around the choice.
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:
1. Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2. Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3. There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4. Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5. Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.
Here is what I think:
#2 is not mutually exclusive with #1. The reason #2 is done is because humans depend on each other for survival. ... humans decide to compromise on their ideal code in order to reach a consensus code within a particular society/community/civilization....
I think this (#2) nails it. The fear of many is that without a common moral code society will fall into chaos. ...
But essentially I think you are saying it is important for everyone, whatever moral code they choose, for it to be self-consistent. ...
...I think what will drive people is what "they feel is right" in the circumstance, which will be a product of their experience, wisdom and past thinking on the matter, but also unfortunately the external and public pressures of the choice to be made. Rationalization is refined afterward to provide the comfort of consistency around the choice.
...
3. Adopt a carefully reasoned logical framework - not gonna happen or we'd do #1.
...
Those are your choices. Which do you (realistically) hope your neighbors will pick?
4. Adopt a religiously-derived set of teachings distilled over the ages by people desiring to please a generally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being. - Regardless of whether you personally believe they had divine origins, people worked hard on those codes and documented them for you pretty thoroughly. They can't all be right, though, because they disagree diametrically. But one of them might be. Choose carefully.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-- John Adams, second U.S. President
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- American Declaration of Independence
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative.
If it appeals to most people, it is of little use. A moral code is an ideal to be strived for, and few are interested in setting the bar very high. :)Quote"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-- John Adams, second U.S. President
I believe the same might be said for a stateless society. The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative. I believe that the way forward is to provide better alternatives to government, things that make government irrelevant, things that restrict its abuses, but not the elimination of all that is barely keeping a finger in the dike of untamed human nature.QuotePrudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- American Declaration of Independence
I simultaneously hold the (apparently) conflicting views that men ought to be free and that a situation where everyone does what is right in his own eyes is a recipe for disaster. I am not concerned about contradicting myself, because such conflicts present an opportunity to learn a Greater Truth that resolves them. Light is both a wave and a particle... hmmm... and opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding!Quote“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Let the great be great, that we may learn from them. But encouraging moral relativism as a great cancer that ought to be resisted. I hereby resist it.
There is an absolute standard of right and wrong burned into our firmware along with an implaccible determination to ignore it. It has taken all of recorded history for great men to decode and document that firmware. We ought to teach our children that wisdom of the ages and deviate only where it is obvious that that wisdom has failed. Refinement and distillation obviously continues, but If everybody is encouraged to start over, most will have no idea where to start and the few who are able to think it through will only repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. We are fools if we do not stand on the shoulders of those giants.
You will say, "How can we decide what should be taught? Whose Shoulders should we use?"
I believe that those who are interested in finding that answer will find it. Those who are not, will not.