Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other threads on this, but I'll go further than both of you and state that cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma does require either altruism or irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's rational self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it's rational self-interest, then both players defect (in the one-shot game), because they both have a dominant strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about an iterated prisoner's dilemma...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are some other assumptions that have to be made in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (most importantly, common knowledge of rationality), but including all the assumptions leads to a unique equilibrium where players defect on all rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If both players are rational, a tit-for-tat strategy (or slightly modified), ensures cooperation on all rounds. That is the rational strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if we make the assumptions:
1) the game is finite
2) both players know that the other player is rational (CKR)
3) both players have perfect recall
4) both players are capable of calculating as many steps as the game has iterations
5) both players have perfect information, i.e., they know how many rounds the game will last, etc.

Then the unique equilibrium is the backward induction one where both players defect on all rounds. E.g., since both players will defect on the last round, they know that the other player will defect on the next to last round, so they'll defect on the next to last round, but the other player knows that ... and so on.

Now, I think this result is fairly absurd, but then one of the assumptions has to go. So which one is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think #5 is incorrect, they don't know when the game is going to end. However, even if they did, if they were both rational, then they would cooperate every round. This is especially true if they will be playing multiple games with multiple other people, all of whom know how each other have played in previous games. The best strategy is a tit-for-tat, and knowing this, it is best to cooperate. A constant defector may fair a smidgeon better than the tit-for-tat player in one game (since on the first round, the defector will gain more than the cooperator), but when playing multiple games, the defector will end up costing himself a lot -- as everyone else will soon be defecting against him, but cooperating with those that are cooperating -- thus, the cooperators will be gaining more than the defector.

Anyway, even in a single game, the defector will know that the tit-for-tat player will defect on every round after the first if the defector defects on the first round. However, if he cooperates on the first round, then he will gain more on subsequent rounds, and thus will maximize his gain over the course of the game. This is the most rational play that both can make.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think #5 is incorrect, they don't know when the game is going to end.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMHO, if we are talking about real-life situations, then all of the assumptions are strictly false, except perhaps #1. I.e., players do not behave rationally, they do not have CKR, perfect information/recall, etc. Some, like perfect recall, may be approximately true, but "approximately true" means "literally false". I think the interesting thing is trying to create a model that can predict behavior, though, and for the model, we'll have to make certain assumptions that are literally false.

[ QUOTE ]
However, even if they did, if they were both rational, then they would cooperate every round. This is especially true if they will be playing multiple games with multiple other people, all of whom know how each other have played in previous games. The best strategy is a tit-for-tat, and knowing this, it is best to cooperate. A constant defector may fair a smidgeon better than the tit-for-tat player in one game (since on the first round, the defector will gain more than the cooperator), but when playing multiple games, the defector will end up costing himself a lot -- as everyone else will soon be defecting against him, but cooperating with those that are cooperating -- thus, the cooperators will be gaining more than the defector.

Anyway, even in a single game, the defector will know that the tit-for-tat player will defect on every round after the first if the defector defects on the first round. However, if he cooperates on the first round, then he will gain more on subsequent rounds, and thus will maximize his gain over the course of the game. This is the most rational play that both can make.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our definition of rationality includes not playing dominated strategies, then this is not really correct. I suppose we could have an alternative definition of rationality that doesn't include not playing dominated strategies, but I'm not sure what that would be.

It's true that TFT is strictly dominated by always defecting (ALL D), but more importantly, it's strictly dominated by strategy TFT-1, e.g., TFT until last round, then defect. Now if all the assumptions hold, then no one will play TFT, because they'd do better to play TFT-1. Similarly, both players know that they're rational, they know that TFT won't be played. Since both players realize that TFT-1 is dominated by TFT-2, they both know that they won't play TFT-1...and so on. Hence if all the assumptions hold they'll defect on every round.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

By "rational strategy", I mean one that results in the best outcome for the person (most utility, less jail time, etc.) With your "rational strategy" of ALL-Defect, the person is almost minimizing his utility. That's not rational. Yes, it "beats" the TFT guy, but that's not the goal. The goal is to maximize your own utility/happiness, not "beat the other guy".

Your TFT-1, TFT-2, ... scenario will not be played out by the rational person. Again, the rational person knows that if he defects on the next to last round, the TFT guy will defect on the last round, thus the next-to-last-round defectgor ends up not maximizing his utility, SO he will NOT defect on the next-to-last round. They both might defect on the last round, unless there will be multiple games played with multiple people, and they know you defected on the last round -- there will be retribution to pay -- as no game is really "in a bubble", and previous games will affect subsequent games. Again, maximization strategy is to cooperate -- and use TFT to communicate your strategy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your TFT-1, TFT-2, ... scenario will not be played out by the rational person. Again, the rational person knows that if he defects on the next to last round, the TFT guy will defect on the last round, thus the next-to-last-round defectgor ends up not maximizing his utility, SO he will NOT defect on the next-to-last round.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in this case, the TFT player plays irrationally, which contradicts our assumption that both players are rational. The TFT player does not seek to maximize his utility on the last round, as he could do better by playing TFT-1. Both players are rational, so TFT will not be played. Now, by invoking CKR, we can also see that TFT-1 will not be played, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
They both might defect on the last round, unless there will be multiple games played with multiple people, and they know you defected on the last round -- there will be retribution to pay -- as no game is really "in a bubble", and previous games will affect subsequent games.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is more like a denial of perfect information. If the payoffs, strategies, length of the game, etc. are known beforehand, then both players can employ backward induction.

As long as all the assumptions hold, you won't play against a variety of players (since strategies like TFT are irrational), you'll only play against ALL D, so you can't do any better than ALL D.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, maximization strategy is to cooperate -- and use TFT to communicate your strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the Pareto-optimal strategy is to cooperate. That is, we have a paradox that is similar to the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma--both players, by acting rationally, end up in a situation that is worse for everyone.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Another way of framing this: suppose that player A cooperates in round t-1. Player B notes this. Since in the 1-round game defection strictly dominates cooperation, A can only be rational if he believes that B can be induced to cooperate in round t, which would be irrational. Since B is rational and A knows this, A cannot be rational.

Suppose A cooperates in round t-2. He can only be rational if he believes that by cooperating in round t-2 he can induce B to cooperate in either round t-1 or round t. But cooperating in round t is irrational, and cooperating in round t-1 is either irrational, or comes from the belief that cooperation can induce B to cooperate in round t, so cooperating in round t-2 is irrational, and so on.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people say things like "slavery is oppressive" without mentioning "implementing" it.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility. It is not rational to have a strategy that does not maximize utility. TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played). This has been played out in real world multi-game iterative scenarios... TFT won. I guarantee you that if we have a multi-game contest, and I play TFT, and you play All-D, then I will end up with more utility than you (as long as there is at least one other TFT (or non All-D) player. Which, there should be, because if they also play TFT, we will both maximize utility. The only way I don't win, is if everyone else is irrational.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility. It is not rational to have a strategy that does not maximize utility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but our goal is to maximize utility given certain constraints. It can be rational not to play Pareto-optimal strategies, as it is in the one-shot game.
[ QUOTE ]
TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played).

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with this, then surely you can see that if both players know this, they will also defect in the next to last round? If both players are rational (and know the other is rational), they will both defect in the last round, because they do strictly better. This is true regardless of what happens in the next to last round. Thus the outcome of the next to last round doesn't matter in terms of the last round, because both players will defect at that point. So the players would do strictly better to defect in the next to last round.
[ QUOTE ]
This has been played out in real world multi-game iterative scenarios... TFT won.I guarantee you that if we have a multi-game contest, and I play TFT, and you play All-D, then I will end up with more utility than you (as long as there is at least one other TFT (or non All-D) player. Which, there should be, because if they also play TFT, we will both maximize utility. The only way I don't win, is if everyone else is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]It's true that TFT won Axelrod's tournaments (I think 7/8), but that doesn't prove that it's rational. First of all, Axelrod's tournament didn't have a definite number of rounds known in advance, so assumption #5 was not applicable. More importantly, consider the one-shot game. If we run tournaments, two players who always cooperate will do strictly better than two players who always defect. But if we agree that defecting is the rational strategy, then the players who cooperate cannot be rational, despite the fact that they beat the other two players. Or, consider this (analagous to Newcomb's problem): a player plays completely at random. His opponent cooperates if and only if an accurate predictor of his actions would have predicted that he would cooperate on that round. Cooperating thus does strictly better than defecting, but do we want to say that random play is rational?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original post said that utilitarianism was oppressive; it said nothing about implementing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people say things like "slavery is oppressive" without mentioning "implementing" it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was clearly talking about utilitarianism as a moral theory, and your response did nothing to indicate that you were changing that context to emphasize how the theory is put into practice socially, legally, or otherwise. When people talk about disagreeing with slavery, the discussion is understood to be about the practice of slavery, not some abstract philosophical theory.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the goal is not to dominate, it's to maximize utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's where the problem lies. Even though your goal may not be to dominate, once you start trying to maximize *everyone's* utility, you *have* to dominate to achieve your goal. Unless, of course, everyone agrees and voluntarily does what you think is best, in which case the utilitarian calculation was unnecessary in the first place. It's only needed when people have different ideas of what constitutes satisfaction, and in that case, there must be some centralized decision maker that decides what utility is, how to maximize it, and what actions to impose in order to achieve it. If someone can explain how to do that without oppression, I'm ready to hear it.

So in a strict sence, the statement "utilitarianism is oppressive" may be untrue, in that if you use utilitarianism as a personal policy and don't use it to make decision that are imposed on others, it isn't oppressive. Of course, in that case, you're really practicing anarcho-capitalism - each actor seeks to maximize his own satisfaction, but can't aggressively impose on others.

Utilitarianism isn't really utilitarianism if only applied to the self.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TFT maximizes utility. If it's one round, then Defecting is the best strategy (well, it's the paradoxical best). Also, the last round of a single game, defecting is best (unless multiple games are going to be played).

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with this, then surely you can see that if both players know this, they will also defect in the next to last round?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if 1) they don't know how many rounds are in the game (which is why I disagreed with your #5 assumption earlier), or 2) they will be playing multiple games (thus, making it as if there was no known ending to the game).

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I disagree with your criteria for determining property rights. Are you going to force your belief on me? That's oppression.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights, mathematics, or gravity. Enjoy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Okay, this is a possible way of solving the paradox. After all, we can reject any of the assumptions, and it seems like in real-life situations information is definitely partial. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd argue that there are certain situations where assumption #5 applies that you're still going to want to maintain that it's rational for people to cooperate, so one of the other assumptions must go as well. Consider this quasi-centipede game: on each round, we play a simultaneous-move prisoner's dilemma. Defecting when the other player cooperates pays (5,0), both defecting pays (1,1), and both cooperating adds 3 to each player's payoffs and keeps the game going another round. The game lasts for a finite number of rounds t (say t=3000). Now, if both players cooperate every round, their payoffs are (3004,3004), but in spite of this, there is a unique equilibrium where both players defect on the first round and get (1,1). I suppose that we could maintain that defecting on the first round is the rational play, but that seems pretty counterintuitive.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to force you to believe anything. However, if you try to aggress against me, I'll respond with force. As long as you stay off my property and don't interfere in anything I'm doing, I don't really care if you don't believe in property rights

[/ QUOTE ]

You ARE using force to make me believe (or behave as if I believed) in your idea/theory of property rights. I think you have my property. What gives you the right to forcefully keep what is rightfully mine?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not using force to make you believe anything. I'm using force to repel your initiation of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to get what is rightfully mine... You are the aggressor and thief.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide any justification for your "decree" theory of property rights? I'm eager to hear your logic. Maybe you're right, you really are the legitimate owner of the entire earth. I'm open to being convinced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have to convince you -- you are the one with the faulty belief. But, if you must know, God gave my ancestors the earth and everything in it, and it has been passed down through generations. I am the rightful heir to it now.

So, back to the question... how are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it sounds like we have a perfectly equal model for property rights. You claim that someone else owned the property and transferred it to you. I'm happy to honor such voluntary agreements between parties. In that case, show me the documentation, the contract between your predecessor and God. That should clear this matter up pretty quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contracts are for capitalists -- God gave me a birthmark indicating I'm the righful heir to the earth. You didn't answer my question. How are we supposed to make laws when you have a faulty understanding of property rights? What right do you have to claim that you own part of the earth?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

Your contract seems to be missing God's signature. Bummer for you.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

Wow, two can play the "mindlessly repeat something over and over while ignoring the other guy" game. OK, now that I've convinced myself that it's possible, I'll let you continue on your own. Enjoy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet mother of Jesus. You finally said it. Agreement. That's what hmkpoker said earlier... and that's what I think too. This has been very enjoyable. I hope you enjoyed it too.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet mother of Jesus. You finally said it. Agreement. That's what hmkpoker said earlier... and that's what I think too. This has been very enjoyable. I hope you enjoyed it too.

[/ QUOTE ]a

Huh? Have I missed something? I don't see anywhere in this thread where you've mentioned contracts or voluntary cooperation other than to say "contracts are for capitalists." Likewise, I haven't seen anywhere where I've said anything incompatible with the concept of voluntary cooperation.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

pvn -

I kinda mixed 3 different conversations/threads into one -- but they were related (at least in my mind). I followed up here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=3&vc=1

You probably didn't mean it as such -- but I took what you said to mean that we get our (property) rights by voluntarily cooperating or "agreement". That's where all rights and subsequently all laws get their legitimacy. Well, either that or force -- but "force" wouldn't be legitimate according to the voluntary cooperation perspective.

So, we all agreed to have certain laws to protect the rights that we have agreed on. If you don't like the laws, then you have to get us to change our agreements, or break the agreement and reap the consequences, or get a new group of people to make agreements with.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Voluntary cooperation is how transactions should be conducted. That's not how laws get their legitimacy. Certianly, things go smoother when everyone agrees. But that's not to say that anybody that objects to property rights automatically invalidates their legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the majority objects, then it does. At least in a democracy. That's why eminent domain laws are legitimate. But, you probably don't think they are. If not, you disagree with the majority...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

we do not allow siblings to marry because of the risk of birth defects.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Human rights follow logically from property rights, which follow logically from self-ownership, which is self-evident.

If you don't own yourself, how can you engage in debate? How can you do research, examine evidence, formulate opinions, and present them? How can the one you are debating listen to your arguments, consider them freely, and accept or reject your arguments if he doesn't have self-ownership?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the majority thinks that the earth is flat, is the earth flat?

[/ QUOTE ]Are you saying that human rights are scientifically determinable? This I'd like to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Human rights follow logically from property rights, which follow logically from self-ownership, which is self-evident.

If you don't own yourself, how can you engage in debate? How can you do research, examine evidence, formulate opinions, and present them? How can the one you are debating listen to your arguments, consider them freely, and accept or reject your arguments if he doesn't have self-ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science & Philosophy are not the same thing. You are a bit confused. Do you see how the earth being flat is something that can be disproven using science, but that "self-evident property rights" can't?

I sure hope so.

Anyway, it's funny that you think your philosophy is fact, and not up for debate, therefore you get to dictate what laws are oppressive and which aren't. Do you see why this is absurd? Probably not.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
Science & Philosophy are not the same thing. You are a bit confused. Do you see how the earth being flat is something that can be disproven using science, but that "self-evident property rights" can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, like all natural entities, has a set of properties - a "nature". One can determine the nature of, oxygen, or fungus, or an oak tree, through scientific principles. Man is no different.

The nature of man is to make decisions and then act. This process includes observation of his environment, goal setting, and advancement/betterment. It is important to note that man can only act as an individual. Interference with man's thinking and acting, therefore, is "antihuman".

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it's funny that you think your philosophy is fact, and not up for debate, therefore you get to dictate what laws are oppressive and which aren't. Do you see why this is absurd? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get to dictate anything, any more than I get to dictate the shape of the earth.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
we do not allow siblings to marry because of the risk of birth defects.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a couple that can't conceive would be allowed to marry?

luckyme

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

this is an interesting exchange that doesnt seem to really solve anything. and utilitarianism indeed sucks. pvwhatever is right

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm and hyperbole are not arguments, Kip. Address pvn's point.

Is psychology science? If not, why not? What about sociology or economics? Is it not possible to study human biology and behavior in order to determine why humans act the way they do?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know anarcho-capitalism was a religion. Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm and hyperbole are not arguments, Kip. Address pvn's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, but it feels like I'm talking to NotReady. And philosophy is not science. Psychology can be, depends on what is studied and how. Anyway, we digress. The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement. "The earth is round" is a scientific one. Anyway, I'm bored with this conversation. I would really like to know how an anarcho-capitalist thinks that property rights are somehow undisiputable, but other laws in a democracy are not.

I did mention eminenent domain laws... but never got a response on that. Are they oppressive, immoral or against nature or something?

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's a scientific fact. If you don't understand why, you should rethink your definition of science.

Re: Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "nature of man is to make decisions and act" is a philosophical statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's a scientific fact. If you don't understand why, you should rethink your definition of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reread what he wrote. It's ambiguous how he's using the term "nature". It sounded philosophical, but I can see how he may just be describing an observation of humans -- that we "make decisions" and then act. Although the "making decisisons" part could be a philosophical conversation -- we've already had that, though.

In either case, using that to somehow claim certain property rights are "natural" -- is a philosophical jump. And one that he think is undisputable, apparantly. Much like a religious zealot would.