Re: Property and life

Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:46:23 -0500

> samael said:
>
> Okay. Please define ethics in some sort of objective way. Show me the
> logical, non-emotional basis for ethics.

Objective ethics: a group of heuristics which have proven over time (even at evolutionary time scales) to provide the greatest benefit to the long term rational self interest of an individual or group that adheres to the heuristics. Because we live in an objective reality ruled by concrete laws of physics at the time and space scales at which we as individuals and as a group exist, which dictate the structure and behavior of the systems or methods called 'evolution', and 'society', that objective reality dictates the types of heuristics which fulfill the first premise.

>
>
> >
>
> >>and based my actions around aesthetics - ie what I liek and dislike.
> >
> >Rather short-sighted, if you ask me. There are lots of things I don't like
> >that I nevertheless realize are good for me. Flu shots, for instance.
>
> So, I like Flu shots. Becasuwe I recognise their long term value. Liking
> something is not necessarily an instaneous thing. You can like the outcome
> of something.

ok, we are getting somewhere. you understand the concept of long term rational self interest, which is distinctly different from opportunism or hedonism, which you seem to be more aligned with.

>
>
> >
> >I think prudence makes a much firmer grounding for ethical principles than
> >does mere pleasure seeking/pain avoidance.
> >
> >>And I like living. And I like having access to things.
> >
> >Why should anyone else care what you like? Why are you entitled to
> >something just because you like it?
> >
>
> i'm not _entitled_ to anything. I have no rights, except as a social
> construct agreed between two or more people. Rights are an _invention_.
> You can't point to one, or hold one up or stick a needle into it. It's a
> theoretical creation of the human minds.

On the contrary. As Aristotle and Socrates have both elucidated, that a being is endowed with something by nature gives the being a natural right to use that something. I am given the ability to speak, so I have a natural right to speak. I have reproductive organs, so I have a natural right to reproduce. I have legs, therefore I have a natural right to ambulate. I have two hands, therefore I have the ability to wield and manipulate any object I can grasp, and I have a brain that can remember, create, plan, imagine, as well as many other things. Since we were not endowed with any natural weapons to defend ourselves outside of our hands and minds, but can wield any weapon we create with our hands, we have a natural right to keep and bear arms, and use those arms in our defense. Moreover, we are endowed with life, and therefore have the right to keep that life. While this also says that animals may have the right to life as well, we were evolved as predators and scavengers (as well as agricultural gatherers), and therefore have a natural right to kill animals and eat meat.

>
>
> I keep pointing out that I don't believe these things exist and then you ask
> me where they are.
>
> I feel like I'm stuck with a bad copy of Eliza:
>
> Me: I don't believe in morals
>
> You: That's a rather immoral thing to say.
>
> Ack!
>
> Sorry, if I'm causing offence, but I'm still waiting for one example for a
> purely logical basis for morals or ethics that does not depend on what you,
> I or anyone else thinks or feels.
>

See the above.

Mike Lorrey