LiberalVichy
Member
Because some people have expressed interest, disregard or confusion with regards to my ethical philosophy, I am going to write a bit about the logical imperative of morality. In order to understand this piece one ought to read at least the following articles. They're not overly long, but reading the entire argument would probably be best due to their importance, and for that purpose a link serves just as well if not better as my summarizing.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf Argumentation Ethics
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf Estoppel in Punishment and Proportionality
After reading that, here is my fusion of them with logic:
I would attempt some answer to the is/out thing with the estoppel principle. Everyone here would probably agree that morals (at least the private-property part of them) only apply in society, since alone no conflicts could arise over property rights and it's nonsensical to imagine any need or meaning to them as long as isolation persists. Ergo, the rules of moral social conduct necessarily assume a social situation. Likewise, as with argumentation ethics in general, in order to discuss or dispute moral propositions we must be engaged in argumentation. Thus we have already commited ourselves to rational communication in a social situation. Yet once this occurs argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property. Nor do these ethical rules disappear when we don't try to debate them (IE act in an aggressive, non-argumentive manner towards others) because when we are confronted for our actions argumentation ethics and estoppel both prevent objection, ie if it is permissible for you to steal when not engaging in rational argumentation then it is permissible for me to steal right back. If you object, your very act of arguing makes appeal to right of aggression nonsensical.
Given that logic and rationality must by definition be good, since the universe is logical and no claim to purposeful behaviour can exist without it (IE, to ignore rationality is to abdicate purpose and therefor any will or claim to existence at all), it must be that within a social situation we are always bound by the laws of private-property. One can never say, "I shouldn't be good" or prove that he shouldn't be in any situation, since he immediatly by his action asserts that he ought to or denies his existence as an actor which is clearly impossible if he is attempting to make any argument.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf Argumentation Ethics
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf Estoppel in Punishment and Proportionality
After reading that, here is my fusion of them with logic:
I would attempt some answer to the is/out thing with the estoppel principle. Everyone here would probably agree that morals (at least the private-property part of them) only apply in society, since alone no conflicts could arise over property rights and it's nonsensical to imagine any need or meaning to them as long as isolation persists. Ergo, the rules of moral social conduct necessarily assume a social situation. Likewise, as with argumentation ethics in general, in order to discuss or dispute moral propositions we must be engaged in argumentation. Thus we have already commited ourselves to rational communication in a social situation. Yet once this occurs argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property. Nor do these ethical rules disappear when we don't try to debate them (IE act in an aggressive, non-argumentive manner towards others) because when we are confronted for our actions argumentation ethics and estoppel both prevent objection, ie if it is permissible for you to steal when not engaging in rational argumentation then it is permissible for me to steal right back. If you object, your very act of arguing makes appeal to right of aggression nonsensical.
Given that logic and rationality must by definition be good, since the universe is logical and no claim to purposeful behaviour can exist without it (IE, to ignore rationality is to abdicate purpose and therefor any will or claim to existence at all), it must be that within a social situation we are always bound by the laws of private-property. One can never say, "I shouldn't be good" or prove that he shouldn't be in any situation, since he immediatly by his action asserts that he ought to or denies his existence as an actor which is clearly impossible if he is attempting to make any argument.
