"True, but it doesn't make the LoI a reality of the universe. Not in quantum physics is it realized, as things change and mutate according to probabilities in time where A = A is true now, but after some time A changed into B on its own (see atomic decay, neutrino mutations). The laws of logic are analogous to classical physics, in which things flow deterministically. The universe works probabilistically in the quantum realm. So that means logic is only a framework, a way of thinking, not a real fundamental aspect of the universe. Even then, just because we would choose to believe it, it doesn't mean it is necessary to believe it for life.
1) This paragraph is completely meaningless unless I believe the Law of Identity is a universal rule. Any argument against the Law of Identity is meaningless unless your words mean what you intend them to mean and not what you do not intend them to mean.
2) Even if it were true that the universe deals in probability that is a claim of identity. The universe IS probable and not deterministic. In order for the Law of Identity to be bunk the universe would have to be both probabilistic and deterministic at the same time. That is nonsense. Quantum mechanics is either one or the other.
3) "Probability" is something people invoke for things they don't understand. What is more believable? The Law of Identity is arbitrary or our knowledge of the quantum level is incomplete? I think it is way more believable that our scientific understanding of things is incomplete than the idea that logic is a fabrication of our minds. Belief that our scientific understanding is somehow complete is ironically a very unscientific way of thinking.
4) You claim that Laws of logic are analogous to classical physical laws. How do you know that? How do you know one theory = a "law" and other theories are not "laws"? How do you know some theories are valid and some are not valid? What is your concept of proof and disproof?
In order to claim that the Laws of Logic are equally as valid as the physical laws of universe (which by the way I think is a diminishing of their validity) that is presupposing you actually have a methodology of truth in the first place. How can you have a methodology of truth without an epistemological foundation and how can you separate a valid epistemological foundation from an invalid epistemological foundation without appealing to the Rules of Logic as though they are they absolute and transcendent?
To put it simply the form of your argument contradicts the content of the argument.
“Assuming premises out of thin air in order to force a conclusion isn't logical. I addressed this earlier. Just because you are following syllogisms it doesn't mean you are justifying them to begin with.”
Oh really? You really want me to explain to you why you need logic to hunt prey? You really want me to explain to you why you need logic to grow crops or construct a shelter? Seriously man? I think you’re just trying to waste my time.
“We didn't just evolve to do some illogical things. We evolved completely without logic whatsoever. Instinct, survival, reproduction - not logic. The argument is that life doesn't need rational behavior, and that demanding rational behavior needs justification, not assumptions.”
There is no such thing as “instinct” unless the animals assumes things are what they are and not what they are not.
You do not survive without treating threats as threats and not as non-threats. You do not survive treating food as non-food.
You do not reproduce unless you believe the opposite sex really is the opposite sex and not the same sex as you.
All of those things you listed we evolved to do require logic.
Also, “I demand that you justify demanding people to be rational” is a completely insane demand. It is so obviously self-contradictory you have to be a fool to not notice it.
“That's exactly what UPB is asking you to do. It says that UPB is logical, therefore you must do UPB. Stefan was asked this recently, why should anyone behave according to UPB, and he just said "because it is correct".”
No it says that you should be logical. There is no iron law of the universe that forces you to be logical. You can choose to be logical or you can choose to be illogical. So saying we “must” be logical is just bad metaphysics.
“All of them. Some are necessary assumptions for objectivity - the other are assumptions that force a moral conclussion. It's like you didn't read my opening post at all. I am not against making assumptions at all, since some are necessary.”
So what do you want UPB to do? You want it to not force a conclusion at all? So you want it to be completely meaningless then?
There is no such thing as a “necessary” assumption. An assumption by definition is arbitrary.
"Loaded question. The pragmatism I referred to is the pragmatism of the assumptions taken for the sake of debate - that's pragmatic, not empirical. "
You said two things. A) Stefan has an agenda he wants UPB to fulfill and b) he selects his "assumptions" pragmatically and not logically. That is implying that Stefan and his book are manipulative and self-serving.
'Now you are the one telling me I must be logical. My argument is not against logic, it is against the use of premises of a particular action, debate, into the general life at large. "
First of all, I’m not saying you “must” be logical. I’m saying you ought to be logical.
Second, if you are arguing against the universality of the premises of UPB you are essentially arguing against the virtue of being logical in day to day life. If you want to be logical in day to day life; if you want to possess the truth in day to day life you must universally apply the premises of UPB and the conclusions of UPB in your day to day life.
“True, but morally irrelevant.”
Oh so you are admitting that one lives to the extent they are logical? Great!
“Fun and logic are different things. Fun is alogical, not antilogical. I never said you shouldn't be alogical. Your argument here is a strawman. My purpose with the example of the church and santa is to show that you already behave differently during a debate and general life, yet you want a theory that treats them both as if they were the same - like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”
Well you can call it whatever you want. I have logical reasons for not being obnoxious toward Christmas time and I have logical reasons for not violating the property rights of Christians.
A logical person values preserving rational civilization
Which means he values reproducing rational civilization.
Which means he values family life.
Which means he values not being obnoxious.
So therefore I do have a logical reason to not refute Santa Clause in front of children at too young an age.
A logical person values preserving rational civilization.
Which means he believes in the virtue of having universal codes of ethics
Which means he believes in the virtue of respecting private property rights.
So therefore a logical person does not interrupt a church gathering.
“No, he just used an irrational method to select his initial assumptions in order to force a conclusion that he liked. I think that's a rational mistake. Like assuming the rules of tennis, and continue assuming the rules after the game is over. Does he sleep with a tennis racket, too?”
The difference is you can live without treating life as a game a tennis awhile you cannot live awhile disregarding logic and the tools (rules of debate) necessary for the pursuit of truth. The quickest way to pain is to not care about the truth.
“You're conflating the idea that the premises lead to a conclusion with the action of forcing the premises to lead to a desired conclusion in the first place. Very dishonest to do. When I say UPB forces a conclusion I use force to mean "unjustified assumptions" - where the assumptions are justified for a debate, but not for a not-debate.
Then just say the premises are arbitrary. Don’t say they “force a conclusion”. There is nothing wrong with forcing a conclusion. The whole point of an argument is to persuade your opponent to adopt a certain conclusion that you prefer them to adopt.
“This doesn't define what virtue is without UPB. When you say that UPB tells you what you should do, you're saying that virtue is defined by UPB. Therefore, UPB = Virtue. It's still a circle. "Use my system that defines virtue in order to be virtuous otherwise your're not virtuous" is the same as saying "Follow my religion that defines salvation in order to obtain salvation otherwise you won't be saved from hell" - you're not defining virtue/salvation without the system you are selling me. This is a trick.”
First of all, UPB did not invent the concept of virtue. The concept of virtue as what you universally and unconditionally ought to do goes back WAY before Stefan was even born. It’s not like nobody has ever attempted to do what Stefan has done. What people typically mean by virtue in the meta-ethical sense is what one ought to do regardless of opinion, time or place. It doesn’t matter whether the moralist philosopher is Mill, Kant, Spinoza, Locke, Rand, etc. All of them have the same meta-ethical concept of virtue. They just disagree on what ethical rules lead one to virtue. UPB is not synonymous with virtue. The most you can say is that using UPB is virtuous, but that’s not equivalent to saying UPB literally is virtue as a noun.
Second, UPB is meant to provide a methodology for achieving virtue. Now if you ask why we should be virtuous at all you must understand you are going outside the scope of Stefan’s book. A person who wants to commit evil intentionally is someone you are probably not going to convince to be ethical no matter what you do. Ethics isn’t about convincing evil people to be good, but to give people of good will the tools to identify evil in the world and achieve virtue.
Perhaps Stefan should write a book explaining why one should be ethical in the first place. I think there is an argument there to be made even if it might be 99% ineffectual. Even if it made a 1% difference it would be worth it because that would have a huge effect on the life of those 1%. I’ll tell you right now that I use to be a malevolent evil person myself who was trying to brainwash people into nihilism for what I thought was my self-interest. Stefan in a debate with a Max Stirner person “How Not to Fight Evil” was the final stroke that convinced me to abandon my evil ways.
“Logic isn't just following a syllogism. I said this before, and you still think that following premises is enough to be rational. Update your intellect.”
A rational person is someone who takes their duty to the truth seriously. Now if you are going to take your duty to the truth seriously then clearly you ought to apply the rules of debate to life generally speaking because the rules of debate = the rules you need to follow in order to come toward the truth.
“No, you use debate to figure out the ethics of life. Then you step out of the debate knowing that you used the platform in order to think about life. Then you step into life, charged with the clarity gained from the debate, knowing it isn't a debate.”
First of all, moral rules are not universally binding unless the rational principles used to justify them are universal to begin with.
Second, are you okay with a police department arresting you and torturing you to “confess” to your crimes on the basis that falsehood is better than truth? I doubt it. Are you okay with sitting down at a corporate board meeting on the premise that language does not have capacity for meaning? I doubt it. Are you okay playing a football game where the referee believes correction does not require universal preferences? I doubt it.
“I explained why it's a mutual assumption, not a universal reality. The rest of the universe, outside of our debate, doesn't care about corrections.”
First of all, so what if the universe doesn’t care about corrections? So what? You’re smart enough to know nobody is talking about fulfilling the wishes of the universe, but about figuring out what the truth is. Humans do not live to the extent they are irrational, but to the extent they are rational.
Second. If two people think I am correct that does not mean I am actually correct. I am only correct if I am actually adhering to reality. Truth is not intersubjective. It transcends the intersubjective.
“This assumes epistemological nihilism isn't correct. Life can function well with epistemological nihilism, so this is something we ascribe only for a debate.”
First, epistemological nihilism is self-contradictory because epistemological nihilism itself makes epistemological claims all of which are equally as unjustified (by its own logic) as the epistemological claims it wants to undermine. So it is complete nonsense from start to finish.
Second, yes primitive life forms do not need a theory of knowledge in order to live. However, if you want to get to higher levels of existence you need science and there is no such thing as the scientific method without an epistemological foundation. So I call BS on this claim of yours that we do not need epistemological in day to day life. We wouldn’t even be have computers without an epistemological foundation.
“It's not moral nor is it a rule - they are assumptions and premises.”
LOLOLOL. Completely meaningless statement. Is that supposed to be a truth claim or something? Am I supposed to respect what you say and change my behavior because what you say is the truth?
“Same as above. In the real world, some debates are futile. People will debate anything, even if they're wrong. Sometimes using force to stop wrong debates is better than wasting people's time. Saying that "peaceful debate" is better is only for the purposes of this particular debate, not all debates, and certainly not true for life in general.”
Not true for life in general? Oh really. You expect me to believe when you are in a dispute with someone you are more likely to use violence against them instead of debate them? I call BS on that. If that were true you would be in prison right now.
If you care about living or you care about ethics you must care about the truth. How are you supposed to arrive at the truth unless you first accept that peaceful debate is better than force? Only an insane person thinks he can arrive at the truth by forcing people to agree with him and bend to his every will.
Now there are times where you have to respond to violent disputes with violence. Yes, but why? The reason we do so is isn’t because we believe peaceful debate isn’t the best way to resolve disputes. It is precisely because we believe peaceful debate is better than force that we used force against such people. If we didn’t use force against those people we wouldn’t be able to encourage people to use debate instead of coercion in order to resolve disputes. Does that make sense?
“An unsubstantiated claim, which is falsifiable, totally not necessary for life - it is subject to its own debates just for it. To assume it for the practicality of intellectual exercise doesn't void its significance as a testable claim about people. In other words, assuming that the world is real is necessary because it can't be tested, so it can only be assumed. Assuming responsibility for individuals is not on the same level, as it is a falsifiable claim. I find this assumption to be one of the leading "forced" premises of UPB.”
How do you falsify self-ownership without both a) using self-ownership and b) applying self-ownership? You cannot assume the validity of something in order to prove it doesn’t exist.
If you are going to debate someone you have to believe 4 things.
1) You believe you are responsible for your behavior. If you didn’t think you were responsible for your behavior you would have told me already “These words are not really what I believe”.
2) You’re assuming you have a right to use your body. If you genuinely thought you had no right to use your own mouth you wouldn’t be using it.
3) You believe I am responsible for my behavior. You don’t argue with rocks falling down a hill.
4) You believe I have a right to manipulate my body. It makes no sense to try to correct people unless you believe they have a moral right to manipulate their bodies to be in accordance with your wisdom.
“The world is real” is not an assumption. It is a logically consistent claim.
I do not “assume” self-ownership. I justify self-ownership by appeal to logical consistency. Also, can you imagine a police department that doesn’t believe in self-ownership? LOL
“Arbitrary is a strawman here. I never claimed subjectivity, nor arbitrariness within the context of debate. Nor am I arguing against their use within a debate. Are you even reading what I write properly? Read my posts a few times before writing back. Take your time. I can wait.”
You do not understand. I mean arbitrary in the sense that the rules of football or chess are arbitrary. There is no moral significance to the rules of football or chess. They are arbitrary inventions.
I do not agree that the rules of debate are morally equivalent to the rules of football or chess. I believe they are essential to human life itself. That you should apply the rules of debate to life itself.
“No you don't think I am insane. An insane person can't think rationally, so you'd also be insane to argue with me. You are using an emotionally charged intimidation tactic to try to get me emotional as well and cloud my judgment. It won't work on me.”
LOLOOLOL. Okay whatever. Tell me what I actually think. If this were a private two person dialogue you would have a point, but this isn’t a two person dialogue. This is a public forum on the internet. I do not absolutely have to convince you. I can convince other people that you are wrong.
Journalists do this all the time. They engage irrational people in public often on camera. It doesn’t actually matter whether they can persuade the person they are interviewing. What matters is whether they can persuade the larger audience. Would it be better if I could persuade you? Yes, but I kinda doubt that is going to happen. I’m getting to the point where I am realize that I basically have to refute your entire philosophy on life and when I get to that point I start to get bored.
“Logic is not absolute as I argued earlier since the universe, at a fundamental level, doesn't follow the rules of logic. Also, logic is derived from the empirical examination of the world at a classical-physics level, which means that scientific/empirical truths supercede logical truths since logic is the son of science, not backwards.”
Wrong. There is no such thing as the scientific method without an epistemological foundation and you cannot separate a valid epistemological foundation from an invalid one without appealing to logic consistency as though the rules of logic are absolute and transcendent.
“You can't start with the premise that universal moral rules exist because "universal moral rules" are a conclusion, presumably, of a string of justified premises. It would be like starting a race beyond the finish line and declaring yourself the winner. "I'm going to prove universal morality exists. First, assuming universal moral rules exist..." is nonsense. For the record, I don't think the actual UPB book does this mistake, but that your interpretation of it is wrong. But if you were to show me how UPB assumes morality exists with a citation, I will accept that.”
No no no
First of all, “Universal moral rules exists” is not the final conclusion. The final conclusion is the non-aggression principle.
Second, Stefan does not “assume” universal moral rules exist. He justifies this claim by appeal to logical consistency.
Debate is how we find the truth and there is no way to argue against the existence of universal moral rules without contradicting yourself. From there he then develops his methodology. There is no point in developing a methodology of truth unless a) the truth exists and b) truth has a definite nature. Same with morality. You don’t write a treatise on morality unless universally binding rules exist. If you can’t even get THAT far why bother?
“"You can't assume your conclusions and call yourself honest afterwards.”
It is the logical implication of any universal ethical system that the government is evil. The government can only exist because of the breaking of universal ethical rules. It has to have a set of rules that applies to itself and a one that applies to everyone else. Call it forced or whatever. There is no way around this.
The premise in case is "people are responsible for their actions" - which is not a premise of equal meaning to self ownership.
Wrong. They are two ways of saying the same thing.
When, for example, someone kills another person, we can ask of this event "Was this person insane? Was this person under drugs? Was this person in a blind rage that numbed its cognitive skills so intensely that it couldn't avoid killing?"
Yet he is still punished or placed in a mental asylum as though he is responsible in some sense. Saying that different types of people and different behaviors deserve different treatment =/= a denial of self-ownership.
We don't ask "Was this person in self ownership of the hand that pulled the trigger?
What? No no no. The point of those questions is to figure out what type of punishment/rehabilitation the person deserves. There is no denial of self-ownership.
The sophist trick here is to say that because the hand was attached to the arm that was attached to the body that has a brain then obviously and axiomagically the person was responsible and morally culpable for the killing. But nobody does that. Except when autistic-type libertarians say that assuming responsibility for your words during a debate as a premise is the same as believing that everything people do is their fault, therefore objective morality, therefore the killer is culpable.
If your arm presses the trigger that kills someone you are responsible for killing them Period. Just because different criminals get qualitatively and quantitively different types of punishment or perhaps no punishment at all based on the circumstances of the scene doesn't mean there is some denial of self-ownership.
These are two completely different and separate concepts that are being conflated to justify the nonsensical phrase "you can't argue against self ownership" as a means of determining that because we agree to assume responsibility for our arguments in a debate - then during real life then everyone is always morally liable for their actions.
Nonsense. If you can't argue for a position in a debate then it must be BS in real life. Something that is true in a debate does not magically become untrue in real life.
Let's say I kill a person in self-defense. There are two layers to the discussion. 1)Did I actually kill in self-defense which is a factual question and 2)what should my punishment/rehabilitation for this behavior be which is a moral question. Even if I had a mental disorder or I was under the influence I would still be responsible for my crime if I did a crime. I just wouldn't be treated the same as a normal criminal.
Everyone is morally liable for their actions. They just don't deserve the same treatment.