The upcoming documentary, Copyright Criminals, shows how copyright has outrageously criminalized the use of sampling, which has been disproportionately popular in hip hop music. In this, it calls to mind the racially disproportionate impact of drug laws on minorities…
Copyright Criminals – Trailer from IndiePix on Vimeo.
{ 71 comments }
← Previous Comments
And Magnus,
“Besides, Mr. Tibuk, you never really addressed my point about the Crusoe hypothetical — do you honestly believe that Crusoe would have the right to paddle himself over to the second island, which is inhabited by people he never met, who learned all of their farming and fishing methods from Friday, and who copied the calendar that Friday made for them, all of which Friday learned how to do by seeing Crusoe do it first, and use whatever force is necessary to get them to STOP COPYING HIS IDEAS, even though Friday had since left?”
I will give you another example and ask a question. please tell me the difference between two examples regarding property rights.
Crusoe produced a lot of food stuff. More than he can consume. And if can’t consume most of the food stuff will go bad and rot.
Friday comes and takes the extra food stuff that would go bad. And when Friday takes the food Crusoe doesn’t really lose anything since he wasn’t literally able to consume the food or use it in any way.
Friday carries the food to another island where people are starving and gives them the food. If they don’t eat the food they will starve to death.
Do you honestly believe that Crusoe would have the right to go to that island take the food back, by the use of force if necessary, let the people there starve to death and take the food back to his island to rot, even though Friday has been long gone?
PS. One thing that worries me when debating IP socialist, is the fear that I will turn them into full blown socialists. Since debate usually helps sides to get rid of inner contradictions it is kind of possible for a person who thinks he has a right to some one else’s intellectual production to decide he also has a right to some else’s production in everything.
Dixie
“Andras, if there was a uniform morality, what point would there be in anarchy?
That sounds like an argument for one world government to me.
Anti IP does have a different morality than pro IP. Pro IP folks call Anti IP folks thieves, but anti IP folks do not want to use violence against anyone or prevent anyone from using his mind or property freely, so who really is the criminal?”
Not all rules are the same. Somethings maybe immoral but not a crime.
You don’t need uniform morality in a society but you need a uniform set of laws based on a uniform understanding of ethics. Or you can not have society which means individuals engaged in division of labor and exchange. You would only have individuals in mass numbers.
As for your question, the one that is aggression against property by way of unauthorized copying is the criminal. The property owner, if he is using force is doing so in self defense. Explicit violence is not the only requirement of aggression or there wouldn’t be a crime called fraud.
If you asked for permission the owner wouldn’t let you copy his property other than his terms. Only way for you to copy the IP with him knowing the situation is for you to use violence or threat of violence. Thus evading his consent you are in effect using aggression against him.
Kerem Tibuk,
You define a human being as an organism that conforms to the action axiom.
You just demonstrated my point.
In order for a human to form the concept of self-ownership, he must first exist. And his existence necessarily means he is bound by the action axiom.
Furthermore, the action axiom applies whether property exists or not. The contention that you need ownership in order for human action to be possible is simply false.
I really wanted to avoid repeating an old point but I really have to say it again:
You do not understand what the word “ownership” means.
You cannot “own” something if no other person exists. You can possess something, but you cannot own it. “Ownership” makes no sense in the absence of other human beings.
“Property” emerges quite nicely out of the action axiom when the right conditions are present:
- Human A meets human B.
- Each needs to consume scarce resources to survive.
- Now there are four possibilities:
1. If A and B need to compete for resources to survive, there will be violence. “Property” will not emerge.
2. If A and B do not see a gain in satisfaction from cooperation, and sharing resources is a less desirable outcome than physical violence, there will be violence. “Property” will not emerge.
3. If A and B do not see a gain in satisfaction from cooperation, but physical violence is less desirable than sharing resources, they will cooperate and “property” will emerge.
4. If A and B do see a gain in satisfaction from cooperation, they will cooperate and “property” will emerge.
This idea that humans, by their very existence, “own” themselves is complete nonsense.
Humans, by their very existence, “possess” themselves. “Ownership” only enters the equation when there is someone else who can “possess” you.
Jay
“You define a human being as an organism that conforms to the action axiom”
Yes but I also said, before action is possible a being has to be self sovereign over its actions as opposed to being a puppet or an irrational being that moves only instinctively.
“In order for a human to form the concept of self-ownership, he must first exist. And his existence necessarily means he is bound by the action axiom.”
Self ownership is not a concept that is formed in ones head. It is a fact. You are not the owner of you body and mind because you formed the concept in your head. On the contrary you can form concepts because you are self soveirng being.
And no outside factor can change that. No matter what your choices are whether they are limited by nature other than humans or another human you are the ultimate decision maker. Even a slave is a self owner, because he gets to choose to obey his master or rebel against him.
“Furthermore, the action axiom applies whether property exists or not. The contention that you need ownership in order for human action to be possible is simply false.”
You still can not comprehend the fact that external property arises from the self ownership. Property is not a detached invention, it is an extension of a fact that is self ownership. When you say property you understand a tangible good, like an apple. But you don’t bother to think how that apple became your property. If you did, your intellectual journey would necessarily take you to self ownership. If it doesnt you have no justification for property other than whim.
“”Property” emerges quite nicely out of the action axiom when the right conditions are present:”
Let’s see them.
“- Human A meets human B.
- Each needs to consume scarce resources to survive.”
Are you serious? Do you think homesteading happens this way. Two people all of a sudden happens to come across a scarce resource at the same exact time and since they both want it, they sit down and make an arrangement?
That maybe your fantasy but that is not what happens. In fact, that never is the case.
The case is, one individual comes across a nature given good and homesteads it. After that fact another human may come and face a decision. Either he will respect the first comers property right, or he doesn’t. Conflicts arise if he doesn’t. We also call this aggression. No definition of aggression is possible without property.
“This idea that humans, by their very existence, “own” themselves is complete nonsense.
Humans, by their very existence, “possess” themselves. “Ownership” only enters the equation when there is someone else who can “possess” you.”
The reason you are making a distinction between possession and property is because you think rights are based on social convention. For you the collective comes first, individual second. That is why you are a socialist. Not only you want to socialize privately produced property but you also think society is the source of rights.
Kerem Tibuk,
Rights sanction man’s freedom of action in a social context. That is what rights are.
The concepts of “ownership”, “property” and “rights” are dependent on a social context. Absent the social context, these concepts do not exist.
By the very definition of these terms, you are wrong.
Let’s say a single man exists. A characteristic of his very existence is that he is bound by the action axiom. To service his life he must act. He must transform the tangible entities around him.
He is what he is – a rational animal acting to maximise his satisfaction.
There is no “ownership”, no “rights”, no “property”, these concepts make no sense to him. There is only the man and the tangible materials that form his environment.
He doesn’t “own” his spear. There is nobody else in existence that can take it away from him.
He doesn’t need to question whether he has the “right” to kill a deer. He can do whatever he pleases. The only limits on him are the laws that govern the universe.
He doesn’t consider the cave to be his “property”. Who else’s property could it be?
He doesn’t consider himself to have “self-ownership”, it’s a nonsensical notion. There is nobody except himself.
Kerem, your position has been demonstrated false over and over again by myself and others on this site, yet you don’t budge.
How can I demonstrate to you that your position is fallacious?
Is there some line of reasoning or some empirical test that can be performed that would force you to reconsider your position?
You tell me.
What angle should I attack?
If your position can be falsified, how would I go about doing it?
@Kerem the confusionist Tibuk:
>> “Property rights are established to resolve conflict
>> regarding scarce resources”.
> Somebody please prove this assertion. Repeating it
> endlessly is no use to anyone.
Yes Kerem, you are correct, this is an axiom. However, the reason why I accept it is not that I arrived at it inductively. Rather, I arrived at it by eliminating other axioms that are either useless or self-contradictory.
@Kerem:
> And when Friday takes the food Crusoe doesn’t
> really lose anything since he wasn’t literally able to
> consume the food or use it in any way.
Again, you are confusing. You allege that IP opponents assert that it is the presence or absence of use that determines rivalry. Which is not the case. Non-rivalry means that consumption does not decrease the supply. It does not mean any of the following:
- resources being utilised below 100% of capacity
- the value of the resource is unaffected by its usage
- your market share is unaffected by usage
Jay,
“You tell me.
What angle should I attack?
If your position can be falsified, how would I go about doing it?”
My position can be falsified if the following were true, and of course you need to defend and prove those.
If there wasn’t a objective reality, independent of human conceptions, and every part of that existence didn’t have a unique nature, a certain property that separates it from other things.
If there was no law a causality.
If humans didn’t have free will. In other words if you believe determinism is to be the case.
If humans didn’t have a rational capacity meaning, they couldn’t foresee the future observing causal relations that repeat all the time helping them identify natural laws thus choosing an end and means to attain that end. In other words if humans were like bacteria or a gazelle.
If humans weren’t individuals but only exist as a part of bigger thing, a society so that they couldn’t exist as individual humans apart from society. Like ants for example.
Also you need to find contradictions in my position instead of claiming the validity of some axioms. For example your position doesn’t conform to homesteading in real life. In no way property becomes property as you described above.
Coming back to Crusoe, let me ask you a question.
When Crusoe homesteads something, lets not say owns but possesses something, he establishes a relation with that thing.
What changes when Friday comes to island in respect to the relation of Crusoe and the thing he homesteaded before Fridays arrival?
Peter,
“Again, you are confusing. You allege that IP opponents assert that it is the presence or absence of use that determines rivalry. Which is not the case. Non-rivalry means that consumption does not decrease the supply. It does not mean any of the following:
- resources being utilised below 100% of capacity
- the value of the resource is unaffected by its usage
- your market share is unaffected by usage”
I am not confusing anything. You are just applying your principles as you see them fit, to reach a conclusion you already accepted before hand.
Scarcity and non scarcity are not only properties of intangible things. Tangible things also can be scarce an non scarce. “Scarcity” is a concept of economics regarding the condition of “supply” which is another concept of economics.
And the axiom doesn’t say “Property right are established amongst tangible things”, but it says “scarce things”.
Do you know why?
Because the inventor of this axiom, before pulling it out of his ass, had a goal of “conflict resolution” because he is a positivist. The tangible/intangible doesn’t reflect potential conflict but scarcity does. Why? Because scarcity with demand, implies value and people act to gain value.
But the inventor didn’t actually think things through. If he did he would find out that tangible things can also be non scarce and when they do /when they are produced so abundantly), according to this gem of an axiom, they should lose their special relations ship with an individual called “ownership”.
@Kerem Tibuk:
> You are just applying your principles as you see
> them fit, to reach a conclusion you already accepted
> before hand.
You are incorrect. I am aware that my conclusions are dependant on my axioms. I am also aware that other axioms lead to other conclusions. However, in this case, you are misrepresenting my axioms.
> Because the inventor of this axiom, before pulling it
> out of his ass, had a goal of “conflict resolution”
> because he is a positivist.
Well, I don’t know what the inventor of this axiom had in mind and neither do you. I arrived at it independently by the process of elimination and application of the principle of falsifiability. This is why inductive reasoning, as you are showing, is dangerous. It is especially prone to “pulling axioms out of one’s ass” and creating constructs that have very little to do with reality.
In addition to that, I described two alternative theories that have the same practical effect as the aforementioned one. One is that non-rival goods can be owned, but the ownership is non-exclusive. The other is that non-rival goods can be owned, and the ownership is exclusive, but the non-rival goods are always unique.
So, for at my theory to be valid, I only need to make one assumption (axiom). Whereas, you need to make at least four:
- you can own non-rival goods
- exclusivity is an inherent component of property
- immaterial goods have objective boundaries
- property can also exist if there is only one person in the whole world
So, for the accusation that I pulled an axiom out of my ass, you pulled four.
Peter,
Those four points are not the starting axioms but they are derived from more basic axioms as I have been trying to cummunicate. Like “objective reality”, “law of causality”, “self ownership”, “human action”, etc.
On the other hand, you admittedly, do not use deduction starting from undeniable axioms but claim to arrive at a conclusion by eliminating other conclusions.
This method of yours is more open to mistakes than deduction because it contains the possibility of you not really understanding the alternatives before dismissing them.
Also in theory, dismissing alternative conclusions is very hard because you need to apply them to every conceivable situation. I think that is the reason you insist of the possibility of perfect enforcement in .every conceivable situation regarding IP. Or with the issue of scarcity, where you miss the fact of non scarcity of tangible goods.
@Kerem:
> Those four points are not the starting axioms but they
> are derived from more basic axioms as I have been
> trying to cummunicate.
You failed to show how they are derived.
> Like “objective reality”
Which immaterial goods aren’t.
> “law of causality”
Which leads to subjective and absurd conclusions.
> “self ownership”
This should be redundant.
> “human action”
This should also be redundant.
> This method of yours is more open to mistakes than
> deduction because it contains the possibility of you
> not really understanding the alternatives before
> dismissing them.
There is no need to understand every possible effect of a theory in order to reject it. One occurrence that contradicts the theory is sufficient.
> Also in theory, dismissing alternative conclusions is
> very hard because you need to apply them to every
> conceivable situation.
It is exactly the opposite. This is what inductive approach requires. Falsification only requires to find one example that does not match.
> I think that is the reason you insist of the possibility of
> perfect enforcement in .every conceivable situation
> regarding IP.
I most definitely don’t. It is you who is stuck on the enforcement level. I on the other hand point the problem in your induction, in that the premises do not have unambiguous conclusions.
Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“If humans didn’t have free will. In other words if you believe determinism is to be the case.”
Well, I can do that at least. Free will is an illusion. It might sound strange to some people, but I’m a libertarian determinist.
Here’s my line of logic:
1. There must exist a law which governs the universe.
2. Everything in the Universe must play out exactly as this law stipulates.
3. Human beings are part of the Universe and are therefore governed by that law.
4. Therefore all human action must be pre-determined.
At their core, every human being is a determinist, it’s just that most of them haven’t figured it out yet.
Every human being makes decisions based on their understanding of cause and effect. Every human knows that if you step off a cliff you will fall. Every human knows that if you stab yourself through the heart, you will die. Entrepreneurs are humans that are generally better at predicting future events than other humans. They have a better grasp of causality than others. They are better at predicting the inevitable.
Every choice you have ever made was always going to happen. Every choice you make in the future is already preordained to happen. Choice is an illusion. You cannot change what will inevitably happen. This conversation was always going to happen. If you choose to reply to this post, all that means is that the laws of the Universe have it pre-written that you will reply. If you choose not to reply, it means the laws of the Universe have it pre-written that you will not reply.
The very fact that you try to predict future events implicitly demonstrates that you believe future events can be predicted. The belief in cause and effect automatically implies that all future events are inevitable.
I’m curious, but how does this in any way effect your view as to the nature of property?
“I’m curious, but how does this in any way effect your view as to the nature of property?”
Well Jay, if you are determinist and think that humans have nor free will or choice, then Ethics becomes irrelevant. What this means is that there can not be a concept called “rights”. So there can not be any property rights, tangible or intangible.
Libertarian means a person who follows a type of Ethics. Usually natural law ethics.
Thus “libertarian determinist” is an oxymoron. It is like “square circle”.
A crude version of this determinism, and nihilism (nihilism is also a close fit to determinism) is the concept of “might makes right”. Whatever happens happens and no one can complain about it or work to change it. Because there is no free will thus nothing to complain about.
Someone may murder you, but murder is already predetermined so the murderer would have no responsibility. Of course someone else may punish the murderer but this doesn’t happen because it “ought to” happen, but because it was also predetermined.
I myself believe that determinism is always irrelevant regardless of its trueness. Just like the Kantian concept of knowledge a person can not know. If you can not know, it is irrelevant. Just like a phenomenon that doesn’t interact with the chain of causality. Even if there is a spirit that can in no way cause an effect that is relevant to us, why would its existence be relevant?
Peter,
“> Those four points are not the starting axioms but they
> are derived from more basic axioms as I have been
> trying to cummunicate.
You failed to show how they are derived.”
Maybe I have but you couldn’t comprehend it.
“> Like “objective reality”
Which immaterial goods aren’t.”
That is the funny thing about objective reality. Even the subjective is a part of objective reality. For example “every human being values different goods subjectively” is an objective fact and a part of objective reality.
“> “law of causality”
Which leads to subjective and absurd conclusions.”
I think you misunderstand “the law of causality”. Law of causality is the law of cause and effect that says every effect necessarily has a cause. It is the most fundamental law of this universe, only challenged by quantum mechanics (which also challenges objective reality) and is confined within this universe. Beyond this universe is another matter.
I think you were thinking causation as a justification of property. That is just a sub principle derived from the general law of causality.
“> “self ownership”
This should be redundant.”
No it is not redundant at all. It is a very basis axiom that comes after objective reality but before, human action and any other axiom regarding property.
“> “human action”
This should also be redundant.”
No it is not redundant and it follows self ownership, and comes before homesteading of external property.
“> Also in theory, dismissing alternative conclusions is
> very hard because you need to apply them to every
> conceivable situation.
It is exactly the opposite. This is what inductive approach requires. Falsification only requires to find one example that does not match.”
Ethics depends on human decisions. Human beings are unique. It is not a science about inanimate and lifeless being. That is why social sciences require a different method then the scientific method you are talking about.
And more importantly Ethics is more fundamental than any other science because every other science also depends on Ethics.
“> I think that is the reason you insist of the possibility of
> perfect enforcement in .every conceivable situation
> regarding IP.
I most definitely don’t. It is you who is stuck on the enforcement level. I on the other hand point the problem in your induction, in that the premises do not have unambiguous conclusions.”
You are but you are not aware.
Kerem wrote:
“Well Jay, if you are determinist and think that humans have nor free will or choice, then Ethics becomes irrelevant. What this means is that there can not be a concept called “rights”. So there can not be any property rights, tangible or intangible.”
What are you talking about? “Rights” still exist. Rights are an emergent phenomenon. They exist in the minds of humans trying to cooperate with other humans.
This discussion tells me a lot about your mindset. You treat rights as though they are some fundamental characteristic of the Universe. It’s no wonder I’m having trouble convincing you that they simply reflect how multiple human beings interact with regards to the allocation of scarce resources.
“Libertarian means a person who follows a type of Ethics. Usually natural law ethics.
Thus “libertarian determinist” is an oxymoron. It is like “square circle”.”
I am a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. Why? Because I am a utilitarian. Not the “bad” sort of utilitarian mind you. A true utilitarian would not make the sort of terrible arguments that have unfortunately been labelled “utilitarian”.
“A crude version of this determinism, and nihilism (nihilism is also a close fit to determinism) is the concept of “might makes right”. Whatever happens happens and no one can complain about it or work to change it. Because there is no free will thus nothing to complain about.”
You misunderstand my position. I do not believe anything is “right”. I simply apply the laws of nature (as I know them) to situations in order to determine the outcome. In terms of economics, I apply the action axiom to determine what the possible outcomes of an encounter are. “Might makes right”, as you call it, is the logical outcome when human beings believe they gain no value from cooperation.
“Someone may murder you, but murder is already predetermined so the murderer would have no responsibility. Of course someone else may punish the murderer but this doesn’t happen because it “ought to” happen, but because it was also predetermined.”
What’s your point? Yes, I do not believe in “oughts”. “Ought” it a subjective concept in the mind of humans. It’s true that I apply the “ought” mindset in the service of my life because I see value in it. However, I understand the objective reality that there are no true “oughts”.
“I myself believe that determinism is always irrelevant regardless of its trueness. Just like the Kantian concept of knowledge a person can not know. If you can not know, it is irrelevant. Just like a phenomenon that doesn’t interact with the chain of causality. Even if there is a spirit that can in no way cause an effect that is relevant to us, why would its existence be relevant?”
In order to maximise human efficiency, productivity and satisfaction, we need to base our system of morals on objective reality. To do otherwise is to fight against nature, a fight we must lose. Determinism is an aspect of objective reality and to disregard it will result in contradictory thinking.
This could very well be the exact point where your concept of self-ownership falls down. I, knowing the deterministic nature of the Universe, do not set self-ownership as an axiom. I set the charcteristic nature of man (the action axiom) as my axiom and use logical reasoning to derive the concept of self-ownership.
You, not believing the Universe to have a deterministic nature, believe that free will automatically implies self-ownership to be a starting point.
I believe your viewpoint falls down because the belief in cause-and-effect logically must lead to a belief in determinism.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that humans have self-ownership without also believing that other animals have self-ownership. A human is simply a more intellectually advanced form of animal. Yet, I suspect that you believe that a cat or a dog can be “owned”. It could be further argued that plants and trees have self-ownership as well. I do not believe humans to be anything special, yet your position requires that humans have some special property about them which gives them “self-ownership”.
Jay you are contradicting yourself. I suggest you read what you have written about determinism again and think about it a little.
All I can do at this point is to repeat that,
“Well Jay, if you are determinist and think that humans have nor free will or choice, then Ethics becomes irrelevant. What this means is that there can not be a concept called “rights”. So there can not be any property rights, tangible or intangible.”
You either are a determinist that rejects free will thus Ethics all together, or you are not. You can not be both things at the same time.
Dear Kerem,
> Maybe I have but you couldn’t comprehend it.
Maybe you thought to have, but were making unproven assumptions.
> That is the funny thing about objective reality. Even
> the subjective is a part of objective reality.
The funny thing is that the subjective is different for separate persons, whereas the objective isn’t.
> Law of causality is the law of cause and effect that
> says every effect necessarily has a cause.
I agree with you on this (for the purposes of our debate).
> I think you were thinking causation as a justification
> of property.
Yes.
> That is just a sub principle derived from the general
> law of causality.
You failed to show how it is derived, and failed to address the absurd conclusions that follow, either by denying their absurdity and accepting them as correct, or by determining a threshold past which causality ceases to be sufficient for ownership.
> It is a very basis axiom that comes after objective
> reality but before, human action and any other axiom
> regarding property.
In order to show that whos property something is, you need to show that it can be a property at all. If one can show that it cannot be a property, or it does not have the necessary features, it is pointless to try to determine who the owner is.
> No it is not redundant and it follows self ownership,
> and comes before homesteading of external
> property.
You first need to prove that it can be property, or have all the features of property. Only then the question arises who the owner should be. Rather than doing that, you inductively show that it has some features of property, and then assume that it also has the others.
> That is why social sciences require a different
> method then the scientific method you are talking
> about.
This is why inductive reasoning is dangerous.
> Ethics is more fundamental than any other science
> because every other science also depends on
> Ethics.
I can only repeat myself: logic trumps ethics.
(regarding enforceability)
> You are but you are not aware.
I am merely using it as a counterargument to claims that there is no difference between enforcing IP with or without state. There evidently is. I do not claim that this has merit with regards to the validity of the theory, only on the practicality. My validity claim is different, in that the absence of objective rules invalidates the theory.
Peter,
“I can only repeat myself: logic trumps ethics.”
“This is why inductive reasoning is dangerous.”
I think you do not know what logic is. Logic is the formal study of reasoning. The essential thing here is reason.
Also I am doing a deductive reasoning starting from undeniable axioms and you are the one doing the inductive reasoning.
“The funny thing is that the subjective is different for separate persons, whereas the objective isn’t.”
And that is an objective statement. Do you see where I am going with this?
I have showed many times how I derive my conclusion from some undeniable premises.
For example when I say humans have self ownership, an absolute control over their own body and minds only way to prove me wrong since you are human is to show that either you are puppet not in control over your own actions or you need to show you can not choose ends and means but move instinctively like animals.
Dear Kerem,
> I think you do not know what logic is.
I think you are not aware of the whole breadth of field that logic is.
> Logic is the formal study of reasoning. The essential
> thing here is reason.
Yes, that is correct.
> Also I am doing a deductive reasoning starting from
> undeniable axioms and you are the one doing the
> inductive reasoning.
I deny some of your axioms, and consider some positivistic and utilitarian. Please either demonstrate where to limit similarity and causality, or agree with all the conclusions that follow.
> And that is an objective statement. Do you see
> where I am going with this?
There is no such thing as “objective statement”. Statements express some idea or opinion. They can be either true, false, unknown or lack this feature altogether.
> I have showed many times how I derive my
> conclusion from some undeniable premises.
No, you haven’t. Rather, everytime I point out to a difficult issue, you pull out another axiom out of nowhere. However, in order for my theory to be correct, I merely need one axiom. Not only that, I also showed that three different axioms lead to exact the same results.
> … when I say humans have self ownership …
I did not say you are wrong in this regard, I merely said that it shouldn’t be necessary to accept this axiom in order to determine the characteristics of property in general.
Kerem Tibuk,
You make no effort whatsoever to understand the other person’s viewpoint. If you did, you would realise that I have not contradicted myself at all. Please get your head out of the clouds and try to follow my reasoning.
“You either are a determinist that rejects free will thus Ethics all together, or you are not. You can not be both things at the same time.”
I tried to explain to you that ethics are an emergent phenomenon in human society. I am a determinist and hence I believe there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. However, in order for peaceful cooperation to be sustainable, a set of rules must be established between the individuals that comprise a society. This set of rules are ethics.
Your refusal to consider my position rationally is simply intellectually dishonest. Either that or you truly do not understand what I’m trying to say, in which case you should stop arguing and think more deeply about my position. If there are logical contradictions to what I have been saying then I would love to here them.
I would certainly love to hear a refutation of:
If the Universe obeys cause and effect, then the Universe must be deterministic.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.