Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[jthegreat]

[ 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?

[ 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?

[jthegreat]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems so because he's not explaining every step in-between. That's a valid point. But saying that human nature can't be studied scientifically is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[atrifix]

I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you weren't bored with our conversation.

My opinion is that you get the most interesting results by assuming that most, but not all, people are rational and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all bored... I realized we had different assumptions -- even though you spelled them out, and I disagreed. I was comparing the real world with a game, so a lot of the "game" assumptions wouldn't apply. And, therefore, the analogy isn't perfect. So, our conversation was useful. This one, though... not so useful. I'm sure I'm partly to blame, since I know very little about anarcho-capitalism, we must be speaking different languages almost. I get the same Rand-type feeling, that some devout anarcho-capitalists are very religious about their beliefs. But, that's just a first impression. I'll research some more. So, maybe this conversation has been useful after all -- to show me that I need to research to try to understand his point of view.

By the way, can you expound a bit on the "and therefore rejecting common knowledge of rationality" part of your statement?