Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[tylerdurden]

Contracts are for individuals that are voluntarily cooperating.

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

[tylerdurden]

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.

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

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.

[tylerdurden]

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. 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...

[tylerdurden]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

[hashi92]

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