Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A thought, tell me why I'm wrong . . .

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 5:07:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If it's what I think it means-people should only be rewarded by their own productive capacity- then you are perfectly right. Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:56:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rewarding "ability" or "productive capacity" is just as absurd as rewarding "need," if not more. I don't care if you're CAPABLE of giving me a computer, I care whether I ACTUALLY get a computer from you, and you get the price of a computer when I get the goddamn computer I ordered, not a picture of your computer-making certification. Reward productive ACTS.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM, Kinesis wrote:
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.

Yes but people aren't equal so why try to threat them as such? Some people are stronger, smarter, bigger, faster, better innovators, luckier, etc. Equal under the law is fine, equal in terms of economics and possessions is folly.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM, Kinesis wrote:
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.

People make choices about how they will develop their inherited traits, how they will respond to their environment.

Regardless, you're committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, evaluating whether someone "deserves" a thing when the premises you hold make "deserve" a meaningless and impossible thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 4:21:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:15:08 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM, Kinesis wrote:
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.

Yes but people aren't equal so why try to threat them as such? Some people are stronger, smarter, bigger, faster, better innovators, luckier, etc. Equal under the law is fine, equal in terms of economics and possessions is folly.

People are unequal, therefore we should treat people unequally. I'm pretty sure that's the naturalistic fallacy there.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 4:59:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:23:12 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
"Need" shouldn't be rewarded at the cost of those with "ability"

"The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits." ~ Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

Well, now that you ask...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:22:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:08:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

Well, now that you ask...

It was really the first statement - that man's productive capacities are his noblest activity.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:23:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:22:23 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:08:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

Well, now that you ask...

It was really the first statement - that man's productive capacities are his noblest activity.

Oh, yeah. I think that's dumb too.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

No. Charity is a form of altruism, which compromises individualism.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty.

Chairty is moral, but it is by no means a duty. Duty is an obligation to do something, and charity becomes immoral when someone is obligated to do it; it at that points becomes theft.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:26:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

No. Charity is a form of altruism, which compromises individualism.

And man's noblest activity is practicing his productive capabilities. Are you a randroid?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:28:03 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty.

Chairty is moral, but it is by no means a duty. Duty is an obligation to do something, and charity becomes immoral when someone is obligated to do it; it at that points becomes theft.

Why does obligation entail immorality? I think we'd both agree that we have moral duties - say, stopping the rape of a child when doing so would pose no harm to us - does that become immoral when I acknowledge that moral law binds me to intervening? Or would intervening be supererogatory?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:30:35 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:26:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:04:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

Productive capacity is man's noblest activity, with no moral duty to redistribute.

This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?

No. Charity is a form of altruism, which compromises individualism.

And man's noblest activity is practicing his productive capabilities. Are you a randroid?

Yes, I like Ayn Rand.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 5:38:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why does obligation entail immorality? I think we'd both agree that we have moral duties - say, stopping the rape of a child when doing so would pose no harm to us - does that become immoral when I acknowledge that moral law binds me to intervening? Or would intervening be supererogatory?

Moral law is subjective; some cultures would consider it immoral to stop someone from raping their son or daughter. Morality is an aspect of society that you participate in voluntarily, thus there are no true moral obligations.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 6:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 5:38:48 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Why does obligation entail immorality? I think we'd both agree that we have moral duties - say, stopping the rape of a child when doing so would pose no harm to us - does that become immoral when I acknowledge that moral law binds me to intervening? Or would intervening be supererogatory?

Moral law is subjective; some cultures would consider it immoral to stop someone from raping their son or daughter. Morality is an aspect of society that you participate in voluntarily, thus there are no true moral obligations.

Then why your moral objection to theft if there are no true moral obligations? I feel like there's a bit of a tension between your earlier statement against compulsion and this one which dismisses the concept of moral obligations entirely.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 6:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 6:10:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:38:48 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Why does obligation entail immorality? I think we'd both agree that we have moral duties - say, stopping the rape of a child when doing so would pose no harm to us - does that become immoral when I acknowledge that moral law binds me to intervening? Or would intervening be supererogatory?

Moral law is subjective; some cultures would consider it immoral to stop someone from raping their son or daughter. Morality is an aspect of society that you participate in voluntarily, thus there are no true moral obligations.

Then why your moral objection to theft if there are no true moral obligations? I feel like there's a bit of a tension between your earlier statement against compulsion and this one which dismisses the concept of moral obligations entirely.

The big thing to remember here is that morality is subjective, and changes from person to person and society to society. Moral obligations don't exist, because they are voluntary and you aren't actually obligated to abide by them. When something is set into law it becomes an obligation, and in my moral code performing charity when obligated to under the law is immoral.

My moral code says that theft is wrong, and the law says that it is wrong too; there isn't really a connection here, my moral code just lines up with what the law is in this particular case.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?
Are you high?

One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

There's no such thing as a "metaphysical claim" on a cent, only a moral claim. Individuals succeed or fail on earth, whether solitary or in contract, no vacuum needed. If they do not contract, they have an inviolable claim to the whole of their production; if they do contract, they have the claim the contract provides for.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:46:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:15:08 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM, Kinesis wrote:
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.

Yes but people aren't equal so why try to threat them as such? Some people are stronger, smarter, bigger, faster, better innovators, luckier, etc. Equal under the law is fine, equal in terms of economics and possessions is folly.

People have different needs, so they wouldn't be treated "equally" under a "needs" based system.

Of course, "wants" will often try to slip into "needs."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 6:29:12 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 7/10/2012 6:10:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/10/2012 5:38:48 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Why does obligation entail immorality? I think we'd both agree that we have moral duties - say, stopping the rape of a child when doing so would pose no harm to us - does that become immoral when I acknowledge that moral law binds me to intervening? Or would intervening be supererogatory?

Moral law is subjective; some cultures would consider it immoral to stop someone from raping their son or daughter. Morality is an aspect of society that you participate in voluntarily, thus there are no true moral obligations.

Then why your moral objection to theft if there are no true moral obligations? I feel like there's a bit of a tension between your earlier statement against compulsion and this one which dismisses the concept of moral obligations entirely.

The big thing to remember here is that morality is subjective, and changes from person to person and society to society. Moral obligations don't exist, because they are voluntary and you aren't actually obligated to abide by them. When something is set into law it becomes an obligation, and in my moral code performing charity when obligated to under the law is immoral.

My moral code says that theft is wrong, and the law says that it is wrong too; there isn't really a connection here, my moral code just lines up with what the law is in this particular case.

Descriptively subjective, yeah. The question is metaphysical subjectivity which you and I disagree on. I've said this to other moral subjectivists and I'll say it again - any denial of objective morality renders ones own moral code irrational at best and a sign of delusion at worst.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:45:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This is brutal even on your standards. Are you saying charity is not a moral duty?
Are you high?

It was actually the first sentence that perked me interest - that man's productive capacities are his noblest feats. It's pretty humorous to many non-Objectivists.

One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

One does not have an inviolable metaphysical claim on every cent they make just as individuals do not succeed or fail in a vacuum.

There's no such thing as a "metaphysical claim" on a cent, only a moral claim. Individuals succeed or fail on earth, whether solitary or in contract, no vacuum needed. If they do not contract, they have an inviolable claim to the whole of their production; if they do contract, they have the claim the contract provides for.

Ownership is metaphysical, no? We've been over this, there's not much of a point of us discussing the matter further. I understand you wanted to put in your word of disapproval to my response to LK - it's done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 3:08:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ownership is metaphysical, no?
No. The fact that you caused a thing to be what it is today is metaphysical-- that that means you "own" it, that you have a claim to it not to be violated by others, is not a metaphysical thing, but a moral thing, resulting not only from the facts of reality you are faced with but also from your goals you choose after looking at those facts. There's no magic barrier that prevents you from taking my stuff, only disincentives.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:53:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't we like to think charity is an attempt to help poor people become more productive? I mean, you rarely see people continue to slip a heroin addict 10 dollars every day from the safety of a car window if they shoot up right in front of you right after they pocket your charity...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 8:18:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:25:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:01:33 PM, Kinesis wrote:
People are not responsible for their abilities. They are born with inherited predispositions and then shaped by their environment. Therefore, they do not deserve the rewards they reap from their abilities.

People make choices about how they will develop their inherited traits, how they will respond to their environment.

Regardless, you're committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, evaluating whether someone "deserves" a thing when the premises you hold make "deserve" a meaningless and impossible thing.

The Fool: if we reward merit the whole country becomes more efficient at progressing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 10:57:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 3:08:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ownership is metaphysical, no?
No. The fact that you caused a thing to be what it is today is metaphysical-- that that means you "own" it, that you have a claim to it not to be violated by others, is not a metaphysical thing, but a moral thing, resulting not only from the facts of reality you are faced with but also from your goals you choose after looking at those facts. There's no magic barrier that prevents you from taking my stuff, only disincentives.

The entire concept of ownership is a metaphysical question especially outside of legal claims, i.e. is it constructed by us or some kind of inherent characteristic entailed by self-ownership? These are important questions to ask in discussions of ownership.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 10:57:18 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/12/2012 3:08:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ownership is metaphysical, no?
No. The fact that you caused a thing to be what it is today is metaphysical-- that that means you "own" it, that you have a claim to it not to be violated by others, is not a metaphysical thing, but a moral thing, resulting not only from the facts of reality you are faced with but also from your goals you choose after looking at those facts. There's no magic barrier that prevents you from taking my stuff, only disincentives.

The entire concept of ownership is a metaphysical question especially outside of legal claims
It's a moral question immediately prior to legal claims.

i.e. is it constructed by us or some kind of inherent characteristic entailed by self-ownership?
Ownership entailed by ownership? Well yes A is A, but that wouldn't answer a question at all. It is inherent that if each of us, severally, choose to live as rational beings, respecting ownership will be of benefit to each of us, severally. It is not inherent to anything that anyone will actually make that choice however.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 2:02:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:23:12 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
"Need" shouldn't be rewarded at the cost of those with "ability"

Actually, I want to see if you can bite this bullet. Should those without ability be left to starve and die?