Is morality axiomatic? Question I received today arguing with someone while supporting Ron

[plandr]

Today I was in a debate with someone arguing the pros of a Ron Paul candidacy/libertarian-ism and he asked me "Do you think morality is axiomatic?" He claimed that libertarian beliefs that morality is axiomatic is the big flaw in our thinking and the reason he can never support Ron Paul.

I was stumped. Help for next time?

 

[Inkblots]

Of course morality is axiomatic. A complete moral system can be derived from a few simple axioms.

For example, I think the complete libertarian approach to moral government can be derived from no more than 3 axioms:
1.) Rights are inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence
2.) These rights consist in the right to life, property, and the nonviolent use thereof
3.) Force shall never be initiated, but initiation of force may be resisted with force

I fail to see why a system of morality that logically proceeds from a few clearly defined principles would be considered a BAD thing.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Of course morality is axiomatic. A complete moral system can be derived from a few simple axioms.

For example, I think the complete libertarian approach to moral government can be derived from no more than 3 axioms:
1.) Rights are inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence
2.) These rights consist in the right to life, property, and the nonviolent use thereof
3.) Force shall never be initiated, but initiation of force may be resisted with force

I fail to see why a system of morality that logically proceeds from a few clearly defined principles would be considered a BAD thing.

Legit morality with the spice of anarchism. Been there and liked that.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

To me it sounds like this person is mixing up being a libiterian with atheism in some way. I'm not sure what their point is. What does mortality have to do with my right to do what I want with my life, without harm to others of course, sans government intervention?

That person needs to drop the word of the day calendar off in file 13 and ask better questions in my opinion.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

To me it sounds like this person is mixing up being a libiterian with atheism in some way. I'm not sure what their point is. What does mortality have to do with my right to do what I want with my life, without harm to others of course, sans government intervention?

More than u can imagine. Anyways, ure last pt is mush.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

God, I need my eyes checked. Morality...not mortality. Ha. I think the golden rule is self evident. Even atheists believe in it. So my answer is yes.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

More than u can imagine. Anyways, ure last pt is mush.

What I said isn't even applicable to the question. I read mortality, when of course the question regards morality. My eyes doth deceive me.

 

[DinahWest]

So, is this a round about way of said person trying to justify the legislation of morality?

If this is about religion per say, I think too many in the realm of "religion" want a cop out(speaking from the vantage point of being Christian) on their duties of appealing to the hearts and minds of people as individuals and simply using legislation as a collective to coerce and act as if they've actually changed a heart or mind because they are able or trying to dictate via the law.

Just my .02

 

[plandr]

He says: "Either you have a right to X or I have a right to stop you from getting X. You can only choose one.

Therefore, everybody supports an equal amount of rights, they only differ on which rights we should have.

Libertarians dishonestly think they support more freedom than other people."

Many ideologies, and libertarianism is one of the worst offenders, claim that they want to maximize individual rights and freedom. The problem is, every right the government (or nature, if you want to dabble in mysticism) confers on us is balanced by a right taken away from others. My right to religious freedom infringes on your right not to be proselytized, or your right not to hear the prophet denigrated. My right not to get punched in the face no matter how much I deserve it is offset by depriving you of your right to punch me in the face. And so on. All ideologies differ only in that they value some arbitrary set of rights over another equally arbitrary set of rights.

Libertarians often try and circumvent this dilemma by claiming to only support those rights that don't involve coercion or the use of force. In this, they're sadly deluded, because theft requires neither, while the punishment of theft employs both. There's nothing coercive or violent about swiping everything that's not nailed down, while summoning the police to imprison or shoot me if I don't respect your invisible claims to property is the epitome of coercion.

 

[Sola_Fide]

He says: "Either you have a right to X or I have a right to stop you from getting X. You can only choose one.

Therefore, everybody supports an equal amount of rights, they only differ on which rights we should have.

Libertarians dishonestly think they support more freedom than other people."

Many ideologies, and libertarianism is one of the worst offenders, claim that they want to maximize individual rights and freedom. The problem is, every right the government (or nature, if you want to dabble in mysticism) confers on us is balanced by a right taken away from others. My right to religious freedom infringes on your right not to be proselytized, or your right not to hear the prophet denigrated. My right not to get punched in the face no matter how much I deserve it is offset by depriving you of your right to punch me in the face. And so on. All ideologies differ only in that they value some arbitrary set of rights over another equally arbitrary set of rights.

Libertarians often try and circumvent this dilemma by claiming to only support those rights that don't involve coercion or the use of force. In this, they're sadly deluded, because theft requires neither, while the punishment of theft employs both. There's nothing coercive or violent about swiping everything that's not nailed down, while summoning the police to imprison or shoot me if I don't respect your invisible claims to property is the epitome of coercion.

He has no idea what he's talking about. Government doesn't confer rights to people and theft is wrong even if it doesn't involve violence.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

He says: "Either you have a right to X or I have a right to stop you from getting X. You can only choose one.

Therefore, everybody supports an equal amount of rights, they only differ on which rights we should have.

Libertarians dishonestly think they support more freedom than other people."



Many ideologies, and libertarianism is one of the worst offenders, claim that they want to maximize individual rights and freedom. The problem is, every right the government (or nature, if you want to dabble in mysticism) confers on us is balanced by a right taken away from others. My right to religious freedom infringes on your right not to be proselytized, or your right not to hear the prophet denigrated. My right not to get punched in the face no matter how much I deserve it is offset by depriving you of your right to punch me in the face. And so on. All ideologies differ only in that they value some arbitrary set of rights over another equally arbitrary set of rights.

Libertarians often try and circumvent this dilemma by claiming to only support those rights that don't involve coercion or the use of force. In this, they're sadly deluded, because theft requires neither, while the punishment of theft employs both. There's nothing coercive or violent about swiping everything that's not nailed down, while summoning the police to imprison or shoot me if I don't respect your invisible claims to property is the epitome of coercion.

Theft doesn't use force, but it infringes on my right to own my property I obtained rightfully. Substitute the word force with the word harm. And you don't have the right to punch me unless I punched you first, because I inflicted harm upon you.

Let's take it from the point of the world has finite resources. Does everyone on the planet have the right to own an equal amount of things? No, they only have the right to what they rightfully obtained through intelligence and their own resourcefulness. If I'm either more intelligent or more resourceful, and I obtain my goodies without harm to you...their mine baby.

Again...force isn't the correct word. Harm, or an otherwise equal term, seems more appropriate.

Great discussion!

 

[plandr]

He has no idea what he's talking about. Government doesn't confer rights to people and theft is wrong even if it doesn't involve violence.

How do I phrase that in such a way that I convey this though? I think his position is that rights are arbitrary things that human beings come up with and that this gives government/whoever the right to do whatever they want. Its basically the idea of moral relativism as a lens to justify oppressive ideas as I understand it.

 

[plandr]

Theft doesn't use force, but it infringes on my right to own my property I obtained rightfully. Substitute the word force with the word harm. And you don't have the right to punch me unless I punched you first, because I inflicted harm upon you.

Let's take it from the point of the world has finite resources. Does everyone on the planet have the right to own an equal amount of things? No, they only have the right to what they rightfully obtained through intelligence and their own resourcefulness. If I'm either more intelligent or more resourceful, and I obtain my goodies without harm to you...their mine baby.

Again...force isn't the correct word. Harm, or an otherwise equal term, seems more appropriate.

Great discussion!

I like this. He's gone to bed so I'll let you know what he says in response tomorrow.

Thanks.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

How do I phrase that in such a way that I convey this though? I think his position is that rights are arbitrary things that human beings come up with and that this gives government/whoever the right to do whatever they want. Its basically the idea of moral relativism as a lens to justify oppressive ideas as I understand it.

The golden rule, in my opinion, is not arbitrary. Do unto others as you would want have done unto you. Think about it in terms of physics now. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You harm me, I harm you in return. The golden rule is universal. Like I said, even atheists believe in it. Anything beyond the golden rule starts to cascade into me regulating you to think like I want you to. I don't like the color green for example, and want everyone to agree with me...has no bearing on the golden rule. But I create a law anyway saying everyone should hate green like me. I've violated the golden rule by violating someone's rights to hate it. Them hating green didn't harm me in any way. Hope that makes sense...it is getting later after all! ; )

 

[eleganz]

Today I was in a debate with someone arguing the pros of a Ron Paul candidacy/libertarian-ism and he asked me "Do you think morality is axiomatic?" He claimed that libertarian beliefs that morality is axiomatic is the big flaw in our thinking and the reason he can never support Ron Paul.

I was stumped. Help for next time?

Of course it is...my morality isn't your morality and vice versa. Libertarians live by a few simple rules and as other have pointed out already, you live your life and do what you do but DON'T harm others.

These were the types of morals that America was founded on and more or less is the only way people can live happily because you cannot force your beliefs onto others.

I think your friend is an idiot that was trying to stump you on purpose with some bullshit ideology that morality is axiomatic...because it is. If your friend cannot handle that, it is his or her issue and if it means they cannot vote for the only honest man running for President, that is their (in our opinion) flawed decision.

 

[JustinL]

Does your right hand have the right to stab your left hand? Lines are arbitrary but many are well defined in social society and those are what we use. We acknowledge that if someone stabs you that is force, property rights are merely extending your artificial borders to include more things like adding on an appendix to the body whether they are directly physically connected or not. As such stealing is violence because you're physically taking control over 'me' as is defined by the inclusion of what is socially accepted as your body and all your 'possessions' which of course is also socially defined from an arbitrary state. So stealing is only non violence if you define the line(s) differently and as such people can then rightly treat you the same without offending their definition of ownership.

Most people want to own things and as such they accept the standard social line at which point if they defy it they are stealing and committing an act of violence. This is why when I was confronted with a 'thief' my eventual response was to merely treat them equally and justly not acknowledge their right to 'property' since they didn't acknowledge mine and then our relationship was on equal terms. Of course if they then cry foul they are just being devious and acknowledging that they did indeed cross a line they'd like acknowledged and committed theft upon you.

It comes down to what people can agree upon for basic lines to define the arbitrary borders such that they can agree upon a system of right and wrong. If a group of people all thought there was nothing wrong with stabbing eachother then it wouldn't be 'wrong' or an act of 'violence' in the same manner. But obviously it's pretty easy to get everyone to agree to some basic things like that they don't want to be stabbed at any random person's whim who would see nothing wrong with it.

 

[PierzStyx]

Of course morality is axiomatic. A complete moral system can be derived from a few simple axioms.

For example, I think the complete libertarian approach to moral government can be derived from no more than 3 axioms:
1.) Rights are inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence
2.) These rights consist in the right to life, property, and the nonviolent use thereof
3.) Force shall never be initiated, but initiation of force may be resisted with force


I fail to see why a system of morality that logically proceeds from a few clearly defined principles would be considered a BAD thing.

I'd suggest one caveat. The rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I think a government charged to guarantee my right to property could destroy all my liberties with just one twisted interpretation of that. Whereas pursuit of happiness would include a right to private ownership of property.

 

[TheTexan]

I believe morality is axiomatic. You either have a right to use force on me, or you don't. I obviously believe that you don't have a right to use force on me, with no grey area.

If you look back to our past, many of our liberties were taken from us for very bad reasons. Reasons long acknowledged to be bad reasons. Yet our liberties have not been restored to us.

This only serves to reinforce my belief that every liberty should be protected, not only because its the right thing to do, but because once a liberty is lost, it's very very difficult to get it back.

 

[vodalian]

If humans are inherently "immoral" as your friend seems to think, then saying we need a big group of humans to keep the rest of the humans from being immoral through force doesn't make sense, nor does it bode very well for the rest of the immoral humans...

 

[JustinL]

I wouldn't say humans are inherently immoral. I can understand why some might think that, but the opposite makes more sense in many ways. We all generally have the 'inherit' desire to live and have happiness of a sorts. It is base commonalities like these which establish the base for morals and mutual understanding that leads to agreement on basic rules and hence our ideas of 'rights' being that which 99+% of people would by default in a fair situation agree to assuming they had no knowledge of where they would start in the order of things. For example it's easily understood that if you knew you were going to be poor you might vote to tax the rich and give to the poor, but if you knew you were going to be rich you wouldn't want that. So the idea being that it could be generally agreed upon for many things that if you start from a blank slate position what is fair and just can be decided upon to not exploit any group for the benefit of others and what rules would likely be in place to create a baseline for laws and societal standards.