# Morality and moral axioms (what are ethical foundations based on?)



## Rassah (Mar 17, 2014)

There is a large swath of the population that bases their moral beliefs on religious texts or proclamations from authority (priest, government, hall monitor). This is not about that. 

I am wondering how possible is it to build a strong moral foundation using only logic and basic agreed-upon axioms. The way I start is with the axiom

_I own my own body._

I'm not sure how to argue against that one, but if you can, I'd love to hear it. From this I can continue and claim that, if there is some resource that is unclaimed, or is freely given to me, if I use my own body to change that resource in any way, then I own whatever it is that I made out of it. So, the second step becomes

_I own the products of my body and mind._

Again, feel free to pipe in if you believe there is a problem with any of this. Mind you, I'm not talking about society at this point, just the very very basics. Now, the next step is that, if I own my own body and the things that I make, someone else trying to take posession of or cause damage to my body and my stuff is not very good for me (stealing, stabbing, breaking, etc). Naturally, I would protest to that being done. So, if these actions are being done in spite of my protest, I could call that aggression against me. Thus, the next step, or axiom, could be

_No one has the right to aggress against me._

Here, "aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property. This isn't a legal right, but simply a claim I can make about my own existence. If I own myself and my stuff, then it goes that no one else should have the right to screw with it. I suspect this axiom is something everyone else would agree to as well, and in fact is often called "The Golden Rule," otherwise worded as "Do unto others as you would unto yourself." However, I have heard some people claim that this one has issues, and that some people do have the right to initiate aggression. Again, let me know if there are problems in these steps. So, now that I and all the rest of my little community agree that we shouldn't screw with each other and each other's stuff, what happens when someone actually does? I think it would be fair to defend yourself and your stuff against an aggressor, and others in our tiny community would agree as well. And thus

_...but if someone does initiate aggression, I have the right to defend myself._

And thus we have what is called the NAP, or the Non-Aggression Principle, where the axiomatic claim is that no one should have the right to initiate force, and those who do are allowed to be defended against. Before we expand this to other, more complex systems, does anyone have any issue with the claims so far, believes they shouldn't apply (and why), or have some other axiom or basis to start an ethical system on top of?


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 17, 2014)

Oh, I thought this was a nature vs. nurture debate on human ethics. Seems pretty much a justificationist thread so far to me. I'll be on my way.


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 17, 2014)

I'd like to start with a disclaimer: I almost certainly have no idea what I'm talking about.

Now that I've got that out the way, I'd say the base of what you're saying seems sound, but there are a few little things that don't seem completely correct. 
"_I own the products of my body and mind_" Mind? I couldn't say what you specifically mean by this, but non-physical things created by your mind aren't really 'ownable' like physical things. 
"So, if these actions are being done in spite of my protest, I could call that aggression against me." I wouldn't say stealing something is aggression. Oftentimes the stealing is completely unrelated to the person who owns it; sure, it's not a neutral action towards you, but it's not aggressive. 

I should probably read into things like this more in some way to properly understand it, but hey.


----------



## Benji (Mar 17, 2014)

Rassah said:


> There is a large swath of the population that bases their moral beliefs on religious texts or proclamations from authority (priest, government, hall monitor). This is not about that.
> 
> I am wondering how possible is it to build a strong moral foundation using only logic and basic agreed-upon axioms. The way I start is with the axiom
> 
> ...



I believe that it is possible to build a workable moral foundation through logic.  It actually makes a lot of sense to do this, rather than making choices based on arbitrary sets of rules.

Your first two axioms are pretty solid in my opinion.  When it comes to aggression I think things might get fuzzier for me.  I view mental or verbal aggression as nearly equivalent to physical aggression, and I can see that responding to mindfucking with physical aggression might be acceptable in some situations.  The same in reverse.  

That said, I avoid any kind of aggression.  So I think those axioms can work in theory.

I'll add a couple axioms I use which are probably further from others' beliefs...



_Every person has inherent worth._
_Love first, and hate only as a response to hate._
And a bonus one that is more for survival..._When in Rome, do as the Romans do._


----------



## Weiss (Mar 17, 2014)

Machiavellian?


----------



## Benji (Mar 17, 2014)

Lucius Savage said:


> Machiavellian?



Kinda.  Since I'm fucked up and needy in my own way, I often rely on others' approval as a moral compass.  I know.  It's a little messed up.

And I'm referring more to times like going to church with my parents, or speaking with conservative friends.  They take me much more seriously when they don't think I'm a complete heathen.

Doing as the Romans do is more a method of selective communication than a total lifestyle.

So it isn't exactly an axiom, I suppose...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 18, 2014)

Using logic or dialectic to develop axioms of morality only works on an individual, subjective basis, unless you default to moral relativism as the only axiom of morality... Which defeats the purpose of objective axioms in the first place.

The only moral tenant that I can suggest is authenticity, wherein morality is defined by an individual developing an identity and an understanding of personal will, and judges their own actions and the actions of others on how closely an individual is able to apply themselves to act in line with their authentic will. 

But that don't work with 90's kids, who seem to have issues with identity and a sense of self or purpose, so I guess a form of the Ten Commandments needs to be written for future generations, before the majority of the population demands direction from power-hungry sources, and our bill of rights concerning thought and spirit is replaced with a soviet style bill of rights that concerns itself with a right to access things like healthcare or vacation days over personal liberty.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 18, 2014)

(oh boy, here we go again)

Obviously these axioms are just natural means of self-preservation. Even so you should include amoral reasons as well, in which something usually immoral is done for a greater cause i.e. matters of life or death. Again that brings us back to our instinctive sense of preservation.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 18, 2014)

Where does Socrates come in to the case of morality based on self-preservation?


----------



## Rassah (Mar 18, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> "_I own the products of my body and mind_" Mind? I couldn't say what you specifically mean by this, but non-physical things created by your mind aren't really 'ownable' like physical things.



Digging a hole is a product of your body. Knowing how to build structural supports to keep it from collapsing is the product of your mind. Basically things that require thought and inventiveness, as opposed to just physical skill and brute force (practically all of the digital realm is a product of someone's mind).



RedDagger said:


> I wouldn't say stealing something is aggression. Oftentimes the stealing is completely unrelated to the person who owns it



What do you mean? Examples?



JesusFish said:


> Using logic or dialectic to develop axioms of morality only works on an individual, subjective basis, unless you default to moral relativism as the only axiom of morality... Which defeats the purpose of objective axioms in the first place.



Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying these four points are subjective? I don't understand how moral relativism comes into it either. The intention was to start with a base that applies to everyone equally.




Mr. Sparta said:


> Even so you should include amoral reasons as well, in which something usually immoral is done for a greater cause i.e. matters of life or death.



Do you mean like the Trolley Problem? Or something else? I don't believe the example of "killing someone to prevent them from pressing The Red Button" violates this, as the intention of launching nukes is itself the initiation of aggression.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 18, 2014)

So if two people have the same (or arguably similar) idea without really knowing the other is doing it, yet spread it out locally and then eventually large enough to be global (or enough to know about one another), who owns it? The person who made it first, the person who made it the biggest first...do they both own it, since it was individually a part of their respective minds, or how does this work?  Would there no longer be competition for items, because creating something similar might be infringing on the owner of the existent product?


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 18, 2014)

general guidelines for being a decent human being:
*Don't go around murdering people.
*Don't be dicks to one another, seriously.
*Communication and Critical Thought.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 18, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So if two people have the same (or arguably similar) idea without really knowing the other is doing it, yet spread it out locally and then eventually large enough to be global (or enough to know about one another), who owns it? The person who made it first, the person who made it the biggest first...do they both own it, since it was individually a part of their respective minds, or how does this work?  Would there no longer be competition for items, because creating something similar might be infringing on the owner of the existent product?



I think these questions point out that the concept of owning an idea is unworkable (and possibly ridiculous) to begin with. The history of idea ownership started when a long time ago fancy clothing manufacturers were coming out with patterns for royals and wealthy, the poors thought the patters were pretty and emulated them in their cheaper home-made stuff, big business complained, and the king made it a crime punishabl by death to infringe of the clothing manufacturer's patterns. We didn't have a concept of idea ownership before then.

P.S. if you work really hard to come up with an idea, you can still get compensated for it by being the first and the best at implementing it, since it was yours. Or by keeping it a secret (like Coke's ingredients)

Regarding how to apply it to the four points above, you can't prevent someone from getting an indea into their head if you tell them about that idea. So once it's in their head, using it to do things because the "product" of that new person's "body and mind." I.e. I guess it means he starts to own the idea to. So, in the end, everyone who has heard of the idea owns it.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 18, 2014)

"Don't be a dick"

Simplicity at its finest. :V


----------



## Hooky (Mar 18, 2014)

How about the idea that whatever moral code we resign to will be imperfect and inadequate for constructing universal paradigms. Seeing as they're mostly based on opinion and perception, which is as reliable as a Trabant in Loch Ness for being truly virtuous.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 18, 2014)

Hooky said:


> ... whatever moral code I resign to will be utterly imperfect and inadequate for constructing universal paradigms. They're all based on opinion and perception...



Do you believe the one I listed in OP is still based on opinon and perception? If yet, can you elaborate? And if not, then why not adopt those


----------



## Hooky (Mar 18, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Do you believe the one I listed in OP is still based on opinon and perception? If yet, can you elaborate? And if not, then why not adopt those


Fair point. I'll try think of something...
How does one own one's body? Take into account that possessing is a human concept and that I couldn't, for example, buy Proxima Centauri off of a black market and truly possess it. Then we consider that we are constituated of fragments of energy forged in the heart of an un-ownable mass. Through paper, we would own these energy fragments yet in practise, we cannot control how they all interact.
Also, if you are a serious aggressor, doesn't necessity of any logic dictate your removal, thus induce a right upon you to be aggressed and removed? Won't defending yourself bring more damage to all parties concerned?
I have to say, however, that I do agree with these axioms. For the most part.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 18, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Do you mean like the Trolley Problem? Or something else? I don't believe the example of "killing someone to prevent them from pressing The Red Button" violates this, as the intention of launching nukes is itself the initiation of aggression.



Not necessarily what I'm talking about. I'm referring to situations in which an inferior law or ethic must be broken for a superior purpose, like stealing a car to drive an dying person to the hospital in an act to save his life.

Of course you can incorporate the trolley problem into my observation, since the point is on weighing moral decisions and which are required to be broken for a greater good. However it is less obvious for the trolley problem, since both options result in death.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 18, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I think these questions point out that the concept of owning an idea is unworkable (and possibly ridiculous) to begin with.
> 
> So, in the end, everyone who has heard of the idea owns it.



So you may personally feel as if you own the products of your mind, but to the rest of humanity, that is meaningless at best, or stolen at worst (though nobody will care if it is, except maybe you). 

Wunderbar .


----------



## Weiss (Mar 21, 2014)

Natural Selection!


----------



## Gnarl (Mar 21, 2014)

Even Socrates will always point out the one great flaw in all the logic of man... MAN! We would call ourselves logical and reasoning creatures, yet our own nature, the very emotion that gives us life, (Love) is the most disruptive force known to reason. Even the most educated logical and reasoning of men would kill an attacker if he caught him raping his wife! Even the most stoic of men would come unglued at the site of his child being harmed. we are not capable of the logic that would be required to actually live an ethical life based on reason. Thus the great wise men of the ages have created certain universal laws in an attempt to set forth a path of law for humans to abide. These include the Christian ten commandments, the laws of Karma, heck even Murphy's laws! 
Yet so many still transgress. Logic and reason are not the answer until man can evolve beyond the animal he currently is!


----------



## Eggdodger (Mar 21, 2014)

Hooky said:


> Also, if you are a serious aggressor, doesn't necessity of any logic dictate your removal, thus induce a right upon you to be aggressed and removed? Won't defending yourself bring more damage to all parties concerned?



You're right; it's pretty obvious that if you're attacking someone, you should _expect_ them to fight back. However, Rassah's point was to establish simple baselines for moral axioms before we expand upon them.

As for the defensive standpoint, that's a short-term way of thinking about it. Suppose the conflicts continued due to your inaction. Say, someone wants you to pay protection money under threat of force for no other reason than because you haven't said no or tried to defend yourself. Assume this person will not retaliate further once you've stood your ground; they are thoroughly intimidated and will back down, finding an easier target. In this circumstance, it's better for both parties involved. The extortioner will eventually find someone to leech money from if he is not apprehended or killed, and the defender may run his business in relative peace.


----------



## Weiss (Mar 22, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> Even Socrates will always point out the one great flaw in all the logic of man... MAN! We would call ourselves logical and reasoning creatures, yet our own nature, the very emotion that gives us life, (Love) is the most disruptive force known to reason. Even the most educated logical and reasoning of men would kill an attacker if he caught him raping his wife! Even the most stoic of men would come unglued at the site of his child being harmed. we are not capable of the logic that would be required to actually live an ethical life based on reason. Thus the great wise men of the ages have created certain universal laws in an attempt to set forth a path of law for humans to abide. These include the Christian ten commandments, the laws of Karma, heck even Murphy's laws!
> Yet so many still transgress. Logic and reason are not the answer until man can evolve beyond the animal he currently is!



You. Are. A genius. My every attempt at evolving rotates on what you said. Naturally to evolve in the way you mentioned we would have to remove our emotions, and be very distant from worldly things and of course people. An "incomplete" human to others, but a genuine "evolved" human with no worldly attachments to weaken him or her. Without emotions like the animals we deem unevolved we get rid of the pesky mental pains. We cannot hurt mentally, only physically, and as a logical being you would avoid danger and the likelyhood of that in my case is  20% everyday. Little known fact is that this "therapy" help doesn't really work out in the end. Like tape it is a temporary fix and you will have another problem later. But without emotions as stated before you will not need that nor have those problems.
Thank you for this post as I support it with every fiber of my being.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 22, 2014)

Ethical foundations were founded on the preservation of groups. This goes in contrast with purely individual preservation, which is seen in some animals. Other animals do have this group-oriented preservation; these animals are gregarious. Laws and such have been developed for the safety of the group, and in turn the individual, ground rules if you will. We aren't playing Calvin Ball; since this isn't a comic strip, a lack of ground rules would end up with people eating each other. Of course, people or groups will still violate these ground rules, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated completely. This is where punishment comes in. A deterrent. 

We can (and probably should) extend this concept to our entire species. Problems arise when one group attacks another based on different morals, or lack thereof. What should happen is morals that preserve our species and ensure a good quality of life for it's members. We shouldn't go the California route and pull morals out of our asses, same goes with Utah. But neither should we chalk them up as "relative" and say "meh, don't need them, you can't tell me what to do." It is possibly when there is too much a sense of individuality that the group is damaged. When self-preservation goes against group preservation, bad things happen. It's greed, pride, wrath, all those seven deadly sins. Taking more than you would ever need in a lifetime, enough that others don't get enough. Being overly violent. Or even seeing yourself as "superior" to those who make less than you. They're animalistic tendencies, we need to get rid of them. Of course, extreme conformity is bad too, it harms the individual to the extent that he or she can't be as creative, and the whole group suffers as a result. Balance is needed.

Silly "morals" like "eat this way" or "wear this frilly garment" are silly, and have no basis in natural selection and preservation, outside of "if you don't, you will be ostracized for some reason."

Spock summarizes it perfectly: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Of course, if the many are a bunch of lazy slob slackers and you are some creative genius inventor who needs support for his invention that would solve world hunger in poorer countries, then your needs ARE the needs of the many, and the needs of the slackers are the few.

Hmm, hearing discussions on "rights". Rights don't exist as solid concepts. They are emergent from group preservation, which in turn comes from individual preservation.
You do not own all the products of your body and mind if some of them are copies of those of other people.

Chalking up all morals to black and white axioms sounds like something a preacher would do in Sunday school. It's far too silly. There isn't a logical structure to this stuff beyond Brownian motion, predator-prey, and biology. There is also a neglect of the understanding of groups, which are huuuge in humans, seeing as our species, and our ancestral species, were gregarious. If one individual is doing things that are a detriment to others in the group, even indirectly, the group would react. That's empirical, you see this in biology all the time. Sure, no one has the right to murder or steal from you, but if you are being a slacker, the group can exclude you from activities or see you as lower, hurting your quality of life in the group. Retaliation for this ostracism would not be justified.

If one lives in a group, the individual must at times make contributions for the group's operation. Some people call this taxes. If one member says "screw you guys, that's MINE", then the group has the right to punish the individual. These taxes are not aggression, the individual agreed to them by using products created by the group without paying for them. The taxes are a form of payment. Other taxes go toward group projects, which (should) improve the standard of living of the entire group. If the individual doesn't like it, they can leave the group and live in the wilderness. Of course, if the individual believes the group is encroaching on them for some reason, they again do not have the right to retaliate unless they are in actual harm, rather than "I feel I have been ostracized for being an antisocial prick, so I must retaliate." If individuals harm the environment where the group lives (say pollute it, tarnish it, or change the climate to be less suitable for habitation), then the group has the right to punish the individual. Perhaps this could be done against die Koch Br*Ã¼*der?

No mystical human super-individualism here. The group is inseparable from our species, since it has been with us since the very beginning. It is how we ensure our own preservation. If you want to go all the way back to individual preservation without groups, go to rodents or reptiles. But these creatures have no concept of axioms, logic, or hell, I don't think they have "concepts" at all.


----------



## Gnarl (Mar 22, 2014)

You may have some valid points but I must point out that the individual must maintain a self identity. If that is lost then you do not have a society but a mob! 
In a society the individuals follow the laws but in a mob no one takes any responsibility for their actions. The mob becomes immoral and easily destroyed by truth! This is getting too abstract, I am done. Have fun with it !


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2014)

I think stipulating moral axioms is a little misguided. Sometimes those axioms are deceptive; they seem reasonable, but create paradoxes and problems in complicated situations. 

Rather than being axioms, they are emergent phenomena. 

I recognise some libertarian terminology in the OP, or at least terms they employ routinely. That group in particular is guilty of claiming 'natural moral laws' and then running away with them to arrive at whatever conclusion they fancy. :\ 

Moral 'strategies' are actually dependent on the strategies people around you follow, a bit like competing computer programs. You can even see moral strategies get stuck in glitches and loops like a program would- for example a family feud being a loop in the 'tit for tat' strategy. [coincidentally this is a situation in which the OP's strategy is not useful].


----------



## Rassah (Mar 27, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Not necessarily what I'm talking about. I'm referring to situations in which an inferior law or ethic must be broken for a superior purpose, like stealing a car to drive an dying person to the hospital in an act to save his life.



In that case, the theft of the car will be the initiation of aggression upon another's property, and the owner would be justified to ask for compensation, and retaliate if they don't get it. Though since we live in a society, their retaliation would have to be "fair" in the eyes of those around them (if it seems unfair, others may not want to deal with or do business with them). So, asking for the car and the used gas back = fair, going after the thief and shooting them, no questions asked = unfair. That does add an element of subjectivity to the mix though. In some societies, taking other's stuff, no matter what the reason, may be ok to kill for, though I hope that a just and even compensation would be best.




Lastdirewolf said:


> So you may personally feel as if you own the products of your mind, but to the rest of humanity, that is meaningless at best, or stolen at worst (though nobody will care if it is, except maybe you).



Not sure how a piece of your music, performed by someone else, would be theft of your work. Or someone making a tool you created from scratch for their own purposes. If they have the idea in their head now, and are able to execute the idea using their own skills, how is that idea in their head theft?



Gnarl said:


> Thus the great wise men of the ages have created certain universal laws in an attempt to set forth a path of law for humans to abide. These include the Christian ten commandments, the laws of Karma, heck even Murphy's laws!
> Yet so many still transgress. Logic and reason are not the answer until man can evolve beyond the animal he currently is!



I think the point here is to discuss exactly such laws (I did not come up with them), to see if we can have something like the Ten Commandmants, but based on actual ethical axioms, instead of divine intervention. Yes, people will transgress, but the idea is to figure out which transgressions are actually unethical (raped your wife) and which are not (looked at porn), and possibly see if the laws created by men actually match up with what would be considered ethical (there are places in US where you are not allowed to buy alcohol on Sunday)


----------



## Inignem (Mar 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> There is a large swath of the population that bases their moral beliefs on religious texts or proclamations from authority (priest, government, hall monitor). This is not about that.
> 
> I am wondering how possible is it to build a strong moral foundation using only logic and basic agreed-upon axioms. The way I start is with the axiom
> 
> ...



Morality and axiom together are an oxymoron.

Morality depends of the existence of human beings justifying their actions on convenient prejudices. An axiom is a logical universal proposition that can be accepted without a demonstration. But one can not demonstrate that a human being will always attempt to justify his actions in the already depicted manner.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 27, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Morality and axiom together are an oxymoron.
> Morality depends of the existence of human beings justifying their actions on convenient prejudices. An axiom is a logical universal proposition that can be accepted without a demonstration. But one can not demonstrate that a human being will always attempt to justify his actions in the already depicted manner.






Calemeyr said:


> You do not own all the products of your body and mind if some of them are copies of those of other people.
> Chalking up all morals to black and white axioms sounds like something a preacher would do in Sunday school. It's far too silly. There isn't a logical structure to this stuff beyond Brownian motion, predator-prey, and biology. There is also a neglect of the understanding of groups, which are huuuge in humans, seeing as our species, and our ancestral species, were gregarious. If one individual is doing things that are a detriment to others in the group, even indirectly, the group would react. That's empirical, you see this in biology all the time. Sure, no one has the right to murder or steal from you, but if you are being a slacker, the group can exclude you from activities or see you as lower, hurting your quality of life in the group. Retaliation for this ostracism would not be justified.



Ok, so if you reject these axioms as "axioms," how would you counter them? Do you believe that your body (or you yourself) can be owned by another person? Do you believe the physical things you create can be taken by someone else for no reason other than that they want them? Do you believe others should have special privilidges to initiate aggression against you, without you having the right to retaliate?
If these ideas are just convenient prejudices or silly, or neglect things, or can be rejected with a counter demonstration, can you come up with a counterpoint showing how the opposite of the four I mentioned would be justified, either for individuals, or for society?




Calemeyr said:


> If one lives in a group, the individual must at times make contributions for the group's operation. Some people call this taxes. If one member says "screw you guys, that's MINE", then the group has the right to punish the individual. These taxes are not aggression, the individual agreed to them by using products created by the group without paying for them.



If someone agreed to use products created by the group, that's not taxation, that's them using the products, and then paying for them. Taxes if when you are made to pay for everything, wiether you use it or not, without you having a say in the matter. So, what is the difference between you paying a mafia to provide protection, with the threat that if you don't they'll break your shop and your kneecaps, and you paying taxes for government to privide you protection, with the threat that if you don't they'll take your shop and stick you in prison? How is one more ethical than the other?
As for making contributions to the group's operation, I don't think the four axioms go contrary to that in any way. If you take someone's property, such as the things the group creates and provides, you should have to pay for it, since the group is the owner of that property (owner of the products of their yada yada). So you either have a contract with them, where you are using their stuff with the understanding that you will pay for it after, or you are agressing against their property without asking, with the understanding that you will compensate them for it later (which, if you don't, they have the right to retaliate, and prevent you from using their stuff in the future). Taxes don't give you that option. I can't not use schools or roads, and still refuse to pay for them.



Fallowfox said:


> I think stipulating moral axioms is a little misguided. Sometimes those axioms are deceptive; they seem reasonable, but create paradoxes and problems in complicated situations.



That's why I brought up the discussion. I want to know if an ethical foundation can be built on top of basic moral axioms, such as the ones I listed. If there are paradoxes or problems in complicated situations, I want to discuss them and figure out what they are, and if they can still work within these foundations.



Fallowfox said:


> Moral 'strategies' are actually dependent on the strategies people around you follow, a bit like competing computer programs.



Yep. And I hope that we (humanity, not FAF) can figure out a superior program. Currently the world is dominated by Christianity Version WeLostTrack, Islam 2.0, and Constitutional Democracy with a "Puritanical Beliefs" plugin.


----------



## Inignem (Mar 27, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Ok, so if you reject these axioms as "axioms," how would you counter them? Do you believe that your body (or you yourself) can be owned by another person? Do you believe the physical things you create can be taken by someone else for no reason other than that they want them? Do you believe others should have special privilidges to initiate aggression against you, without you having the right to retaliate?
> If these ideas are just convenient prejudices or silly, or neglect things, or can be rejected with a counter demonstration, can you come up with a counterpoint showing how the opposite of the four I mentioned would be justified, either for individuals, or for society?
> 
> 
> ...



Ethical foundation is another oxymoron. You can not have an objective, logical foundation to something that, in itself, is absolutely subjective.

You talk as if people required an hypothetical legitimate right to perform their acts, yet you seem to not understand that what drives the human actions are the same needs of virtually every animal (we need energy to stay alive, such is the chemistry of life). Saying that one act is wrong or good is adding an innecessary adjective.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 28, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Ethical foundation is another oxymoron. You can not have an objective, logical foundation to something that, in itself, is absolutely subjective.
> 
> You talk as if people required an hypothetical legitimate right to perform their acts, yet you seem to not understand that what drives the human actions are the same needs of virtually every animal (we need energy to stay alive, such is the chemistry of life). Saying that one act is wrong or good is adding an innecessary adjective.



I didn't bring wrong or good into it yet. But sure, let's take it one step back: Having something or someone interfere with the things my body does, or the things I make or collect, is a detriment to my survival as a member of the human species. Can we start from that, or is that still a subjective "good v.s. bad?"


----------

