tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post3399090885309559033..comments2023-04-24T11:33:39.731-04:00Comments on Anarchurious: Rights of the Individual: Right ActionCüneythttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-37866900957246760212011-10-22T11:20:46.013-04:002011-10-22T11:20:46.013-04:00I don't think hypotheticals about shoulds and ...I don't think hypotheticals about <i>should</i>s and <i>ought to</i>s need to line up with descriptions of behavior as is. I can talk about it being wrong for me to kill without killing. Likewise, I can say that a world in which the strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must is good, or bad, or neither, without articulating that the world actually works that way.<br /><br />I never said that the world operated purely in a sense of mutual strife and backbiting. There is no purity in the world. What I said was that, if such a condition were true, it is philosophically consistent to accept it, if one likes.<br /><br />I was only saying that moral nihilism is one possible starting point, because it is as logically justified as any other moral stance, and more justified than quite a few. That is not to say that people are nihilistic. I will try to say it more plainly if this still sounds like babbling to you.Cüneythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-20408831451299472252011-10-21T12:35:03.897-04:002011-10-21T12:35:03.897-04:00How can you separate rules to guide conduct, or de...How can you separate rules to guide conduct, or descriptions of tolerable behavior, from the conduct itself?Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-48385580068715389862011-10-21T10:47:51.174-04:002011-10-21T10:47:51.174-04:00I'm using the phrase to discuss starting posit...I'm using the phrase to discuss starting positions in ethics, not behavior.Cüneythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-14327312894285633442011-10-21T10:46:18.968-04:002011-10-21T10:46:18.968-04:00I just don't see any, well, evidence for "...I just don't see any, well, evidence for "all against all." Not even in microcosm, Cuneyt. My sons don't war with each other. A stranger is more apt to nod his head at me, than steal my coat.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-77808457597359993452011-10-21T09:02:20.066-04:002011-10-21T09:02:20.066-04:00The free-for-all is, like most absolutes, never go...The free-for-all is, like most absolutes, never going to happen. There will always be competition and strife in humanity; there will always be cooperation and coexistence among some individs too.<br /><br />But yes, bellum omnes is a necessary starting point, morally, because if I come at this whole bundle of issues from a rights-based perspective I must say that either all is right and nothing forbidden <i>or</i> that people deserve things and should do, or should not do, certain things to others.<br /><br />I think the question of the free-for-all is a necessary starting point, because in politics one must be able to say that there is such a thing as justice or injustice. If there is or isn't, the question must be answered before progressing (if we are to be worried about right and wrong, that is; I suppose you could believe in morality and then disregard it, but that seems odd to me).Cüneythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770450628194471768.post-37134900754939037362011-10-20T11:58:32.137-04:002011-10-20T11:58:32.137-04:00Cuneyt,
Is the "war of all against all"...Cuneyt,<br /><br />Is the "war of all against all" a necessary starting point, or an arbitrary one?Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.com