A moral consequentialist property norm?

http://www.indiegogo.com/Edgar-the-exploiter

Category:

Education

Tags:

• conflict avoidance
• defective norm
• social contract

[zalida100]

Here's a possible consequence of this "valid to take property by conquest if it is to be put to a moral use"

Whoever "owns" the land is unlikely to invest much labour or capital in the land. This is because he always fears that someone can come along and steal it from him on the claim that they can use it more morally. So, why should he improve the land if it is always at risk of being stolen from him. This will ensure decivilisation - i.e. increase in social time preference etc.

[bitbutter]

@zalida100 Yes exactly.

[zalida100]

The way I understand "moral", something that is moral must be preferable universally. Surely, since conquest is itself opposed by some landowner, then it cannot be moral. i.e. not preferable to the landowner being attacked. This sounds like a "end justifies the means" rubbish.

A contract where you agree to pay to live in your house cannot be valid since a contract requires both parties to offer "valuable consideration" - The other party is offering you something that is already yours....cont'd

[bitbutter]

@zalida100 "The way I understand "moral", something that is moral must be preferable universally."

The UPB idea fails imo because it assumes that 'should' is meaningful term even when it's divorced from a specific goal (staying alive, losing weight, avoiding a hangover etc). I don't think it can be shown that this is the case. 'Should' is only comprehensible, i think, in the context of an end (you should do X if you want Y), but ends are not shared universally.

[zalida100]

@bitbutter "..The UPB idea fails.." You may be right. I still haven't made up my mind if morality is real. I guess you mean "should" is similar to David Freidman about "need" i.e. "need" requires a goal or it's meaningless - sort of.

I don't like to use the word "moral" because I still don't understand it exactly.

I think I'm leaning to the moral nihilism thing.

Thanks for the explanation. I still have a long way to go (learn), but it's great fun, and very interesting.

[bitbutter]

@zalida100 Yes, "should" and "need" get used in the same way, both are problematic when they're not qualified.

On the subject of morality: 'the myth of morality' (Joyce) and 'Ethics' (Mackie) are both really great books. I was recommended them by the user Lennybound. They persuaded me about moral nihilism and moral error theory.

[MirageScience]

"where the fruits are moral" concequentialist ethics and all moral systems are bunk

[LVanMaren]

So when the state refuses to allow us to actually own property (via using the power of taxation to keep us constantly paying tribute for using property it allows us to continue to think we own), it undermines its own power and the validity of the social contract that it expects us to adhere to, by refusing to adhere to it itself. Legalized plunder is only legal because the state so declares it to be and enforces it at the point of a gun. The social contract today is one way.

[zalida100]

@Helionaeic "..My greatest talent is challenging what I believe.." A rare talent these days I think - hehe.

..Doesn't mean I'm right, just something to ponder..." Absolutely.

Yes. I like it when I find out that I have been mistaken or i haven't thought something through properly. There's a ton of good writing out there from pretty smart guys. Refining your thinking is a continuous process. If we stick at it long enough, we'll be the smartest corpses in the graveyard. haha

[Helionaeic]

@zalida100 I'm not a nihilist, but I also intend to read those books. My greatest talent is challenging what I believe. Many, many of my beliefs have fallen over the years.

You are welcome. Doesn't mean I'm right, just something to ponder.

[zalida100]

@Helionaeic I think I more or less get it now. Obviously after I come across the idea more often, it'll become clearer in my head. Hopefully I'll start to read those books bitbutter recommended.

I must say it was very kind of you to help me out here. Much appreciated. Thanks.

[Helionaeic]

@zalida100 That is exactly what I mean by testable. You have to decide which you value more; the boat owner's right to his property, or saving someone in distress at the expense of the boat owner.

The funny thing about 'lifeboat' scenarios such as this (though this is a milder version) is they are always constructed in an anti-socially cooperative manner. In this case, you have to choose one person or the other, but not both.

[zalida100]

@zalida100 .... Am I testing my personal value or am I testing my behaviour rule, or both? If I say it is acceptable to steal a boat (in that situation) I think I have broken my behaviour rule and also my complete respect of property rights. Is that correct?

[zalida100]

@Helionaeic Aha. I'm getting it better now. I've got the difference between rules and values. - Ta.

Ok. So how would I test my value of respect of property rights? Would I say - If I saw someone drowning, I would steal a boat to go rescue them. Is that what you mean by a test? So, in that situation my statement that it is wrong to steal, has been shown to break down if I think it is ok to steal the boat in that circumstance?

[Helionaeic]

@zalida100 Your example of 'you think its peronsally wrong to steal' is a behavior rule. A subjective value is how much you value the principle of individual property rights. The rule is about the act, the value is the motivation of the act itself.

Saying "its wrong to steal" is an incomplete thought because it begs the question "To what end?". However, saying "It is wrong to to steal if you absolutely value property rights" is logically testable.

Does that make any sense?

[zalida100]

@Helionaeic I'm not certain what you mean. I think I get what you mean by personal values, and are subjective eg. (Personally I think it's always wrong to steal, but someone else says stealing is ok to feed the hungry?)

Could you give me an example of "behavioural rule?" It is a bit confusing & I'd like to understand it better.

Thanks for your help.