Where did the Private Internal Moral Laws Arise from?

[promethean75]

"To illustrate what is wrong with hypotheticals, if you knew a young man in your neighborhood was preparing to be a murderer, would you be obliged to interfere? What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing? And what do you think those who are recruiting them are doing?"

These questions please Stirner and the colonel makes a decent point, as Max will confirm.

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime."

I would object only to that last bit... the notion that military recruiters are like slavers or traffickers. We ordinarily understand being recruited is something young men and women do willingly, excluding the special exception of a draft, obviously. And people who are trafficked usually have not given their consent, or have, but under greate duress. So the colonel has made an indecent analogy here, and I would like to enter it into the record.

[henry quirk]

RC,

if someone has no objection to being a slave

There is no such person: never has been, never will be.

if you knew a young man in your neighborhood was preparing to be a murderer, would you be obliged to interfere?

That depends. The boy who, off-hand, sez sumthin' about killin' someone is not the same as the one marchin', weapon in hand, down the street with murder in his eye.

What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing?

Each is preppin' to be an agent of The State. Not everyone is lookin' to kill.

And what do you think those who are recruiting them are doing?

Furtherin' The State.

What's the difference between military service and slavery?

When conscription is involved: there is none.

unless I can do something I'm certain will mitigate or prevent the harm without causing more harm, I will do nothing

Life isn't guaranteed: again, I don't believe you would turn blind eye to an act of violence happenin' in front of you.

I have no idea what that means.

Havin' truck is to associate. In context, all I can do when it comes to a slaver nation is not associate with them (don't buy their native products/imports). A meaningless gesture: mebbe so.

[RCSaunders]

"To illustrate what is wrong with hypotheticals, if you knew a young man in your neighborhood was preparing to be a murderer, would you be obliged to interfere? What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing? And what do you think those who are recruiting them are doing?"

These questions please Stirner and the colonel makes a decent point, as Max will confirm.

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime."

I would object only to that last bit... the notion that military recruiters are like slavers or traffickers. We ordinarily understand being recruited is something young men and women do willingly, excluding the special exception of a draft, obviously. And people who are trafficked usually have not given their consent, or have, but under greate duress. So the colonel has made an indecent analogy here, and I would like to enter it into the record.

Think of recruiting this way. Traffickers usually entice their victims by a process called, "grooming," making promises of all the advantages they will have, just like a military recruiter promises potential recruits with travel, glory, and free education, etc. Once they have them committed, they do whatever they like with them, just like traffickers.

[Immanuel Can]

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves?

Well, that's about the goofiest question I've heard.

Are you a murderer? Well, then, murder has no direct relationship to you. Are you a pedophile? Well, then, how dare you discuss the evils of predation on children...

Well I don't discuss murder or predation as some kind of issues that pertain to me, because neither does in any way.

'
Who cares? If you wanted to, you could...and it's legit for you to discuss any ethical issues you find interesting here.

I am not in this world to judge others or to make others behave as I might think they should, am I?

Are you saying, "Judging is wrong?" That's awfully judgy of you.

Why should anyone ever care if there are any moral principles or not.

Well, that depends on whether you believe that there's any difference between "good" and "bad" morals.

In any case, non-participation is a BETTER not worse reason to take somebody's opinion seriously, if the deed in question is evil. Would you think a person who is a drug addict is more reliable than somebody who's not, in their opinion on the advisability of taking drugs? Who would you expect to have moral clarity on wife abuse: somebody who's never abused a woman, or somebody who routinely slugs them around?

I don't make judgements about any propositions based on who said them.

Apparently, you do: for you think that only if a person is involved with an action can they have any right to have a moral opinion about it...

Again, very judgy for a guy who claims he never judges.

[RCSaunders]

RC,

if someone has no objection to being a slave

There is no such person: never has been, never will be.

if you knew a young man in your neighborhood was preparing to be a murderer, would you be obliged to interfere?

That depends. The boy who, off-hand, sez sumthin' about killin' someone is not the same as the one marchin', weapon in hand, down the street with murder in his eye.

What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing?

Each is preppin' to be an agent of The State. Not everyone is lookin' to kill.

And what do you think those who are recruiting them are doing?

Furtherin' The State.

What's the difference between military service and slavery?

When conscription is involved: there is none.

unless I can do something I'm certain will mitigate or prevent the harm without causing more harm, I will do nothing

Life isn't guaranteed: again, I don't believe you would turn blind eye to an act of violence happenin' in front of you.

I have no idea what that means.

Havin' truck is to associate. In context, all I can do when it comes to a slaver nation is not associate with them (don't buy their native products/imports). A meaningless gesture: mebbe so.

Well, you can use your own language and decide anyone who chooses to surrender themselves to the dictates and orders of another is not a slave, but I do not think that is what the usual definition of a slave is, and it's certainly not what I'm talking about. The first three dictionary definitions are:

1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.
2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another: his boss's slave.
3. One who is subject to or controlled by a specified influence: a slave to alcohol; a slave to an irrational fear.

In the Christian Bible one can choose to be a life-time slave and property of their master in exchange for a promise of being taken care of. "But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever." Exodus 21:5&6 So those who believe the Bible certainly believe one can choose to be a slave. In fact, I think you are probably the only person I know who does not think one can choose to be a slave, so we are not really talking about the same thing.

So, from my perspective (not yours) all military are slaves and the only difference between a draftee and voluntary recruit is the latter chose to be a slave, and the recruiter groomed him and talked him into it with promises of benefits and glory just as a trafficker grooms a potential sex slave.

My real point is, since you seem to think you ought to take action against those you regard as enslaving others, when was the last time you attempted to save some gullible young person from being tricked into slavery by a military recruiter?

As for:

What do you think every young man who joins the military is doing?

Each is preppin' to be an agent of The State. Not everyone is lookin' to kill.

Perhaps some very few are naive enough to not consider what they are doing, but basic training will shortly disabuse them of that mistake, and most know what they are joining and relish the opportunity to kill the enemy and destory their property.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My thesis is...

It's not a "thesis," but a mere wish.

A "thesis" has to be based on accurate premises, (and on a complete set of information, ideally) and has to be testable in some way. Your infinitely-revisable guess, which is based on untrue claims and is no more than what you would like to turn out to be true, and which you will rewrite endlessly to make seem true, is just a dream you have.

I have used the term 'thesis' in the loosest sense.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/thesis
the main idea, opinion, or theory of a person, group, piece of writing, or speech:

You have not refuted my argument and evidence at all?
In general I stated the fact that,

• 1. there are laws against slavery-in-general and especially on chattel slavery at present in ALL sovereign nations [not tribal authorities as you claim] as compared to the time since humans first enslaved other humans, say >5000 years ago, 3000, 1000, 500, 200 or even 100 years ago, is an obvious indication of moral progress in slavery.
  
  2. there loads of Governmental and NGOs involved in the abolishment of all forms of slavery at present as compared to the time since humans first enslaved another, say >5000 years ago, 3000, 1000, 500, 200 or even 100 years ago, is an obvious indication of moral progress in slavery.

With merely the above two points which can easily be justified, it is sufficient to prove my point 'thesis' or 'hypothesis' whichever term you want to use.
My other evidence will further reinforce my point.

Overall my argument based on facts is definitely more sounder than your background support which is based on blind-faith re the existence of God which is an impossibility to be real.

Your only serious argument is merely the quantum of slavery at present which relative to the 8 billion at present in not significant at all.

In 2019, approximately 40 million people, of whom 26 percent were children, were enslaved throughout the world despite its being illegal. In the modern world, more than 50 percent of enslaved people provide forced labour, usually in the factories and sweatshops of the private sector of a country's economy.[9] In industrialised countries, human trafficking is a modern variety of slavery; in non-industrialised countries, enslavement by debt bondage is a common form of enslaving a person,[8] such as captive domestic servants, forced marriage, and child soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

You are merely blabbering your point without strong argument and justifications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My thesis is...

It's not a "thesis," but a mere wish.

A "thesis" has to be based on accurate premises, (and on a complete set of information, ideally) and has to be testable in some way. Your infinitely-revisable guess, which is based on untrue claims and is no more than what you would like to turn out to be true, and which you will rewrite endlessly to make seem true, is just a dream you have.

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves? Are either of you afraid that you are likely to be enslaved or own them?

Whether you think slavery is terrible or just ducky, if it has no direct relationship to you, what are you discussing? If other's are slaves or own slaves, right or wrong, it's not really your business, is it? Suppose you think it's wrong for someone in some other country to have slaves, what do you think you should do about it?

Ditto the following;

VA, IC, are either of you slaves? Do either of you own slaves?

Well, that's about the goofiest question I've heard.

As I had been saying, your thinking is too shallow, narrow and outdated.

Unfortunately the fact with most people like you is;
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Veritas Aequitas]

RC,

if someone has no objection to being a slave

There is no such person: never has been, never will be.

ALL humans are "programmed" inherently in their DNA [i.e. Nature] with the propensity to be free.
However, evolutionary wise, this specific program to be "free" is not active in the majority at present but it is slowly unfolding toward the future.

Unfortunately in some cases during transcription of DNA codings via RNA, the program could be corrupted [by viruses, etc.], as such there do exists some people who are willing [ignorantly] to be enslaved by others. It is the same with the masochists who seek pain for pleasure, those who a highly suicidal prone and other perverts.

[Immanuel Can]

I have used the term 'thesis' in the loosest sense.

Indeed so.

[RCSaunders]

Well, that's about the goofiest question I've heard.

Are you a murderer? Well, then, murder has no direct relationship to you. Are you a pedophile? Well, then, how dare you discuss the evils of predation on children...

Well I don't discuss murder or predation as some kind of issues that pertain to me, because neither does in any way.

'
Who cares? If you wanted to, you could...and it's legit for you to discuss any ethical issues you find interesting here.

I am not in this world to judge others or to make others behave as I might think they should, am I?

Are you saying, "Judging is wrong?" That's awfully judgy of you.

Why should anyone ever care if there are any moral principles or not.

Well, that depends on whether you believe that there's any difference between "good" and "bad" morals.

In any case, non-participation is a BETTER not worse reason to take somebody's opinion seriously, if the deed in question is evil. Would you think a person who is a drug addict is more reliable than somebody who's not, in their opinion on the advisability of taking drugs? Who would you expect to have moral clarity on wife abuse: somebody who's never abused a woman, or somebody who routinely slugs them around?

I don't make judgements about any propositions based on who said them.

Apparently, you do: for you think that only if a person is involved with an action can they have any right to have a moral opinion about it...

Again, very judgy for a guy who claims he never judges.

Why do Christians claim to be interested in morality then evade every honest question about it? As you say, "we're here on a philosophy board. One area of philosophy is ethics. And in that, moral questions are open to everybody to discuss," except those who ask questions you don't like. Then they are called, "judgy." How philosophical is that?

The question I ask is never answered. What is morality for? Whatever it is, why should anyone be the least concerned with whether they are moral or immoral? What's at stake?

If morality is so important, what is it important to or for?

I'm almost certain you will evade the question, but you can disabuse me of that expectation and pleasantly surprise me.

[RCSaunders]

I am not in this world to judge others or to make others behave as I might think they should, am I?

Are you saying, "Judging is wrong?" That's awfully judgy of you.

Since when is a question pertaining only to oneself a judgment? I asserted nothing and even if you want to interpret it that way, it only pertains to me and no one else.

Only an idiot or liar could call that, "judgy." I do not think you are an idiot, but its not for me to judge.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not in this world to judge others or to make others behave as I might think they should, am I?

Are you saying, "Judging is wrong?" That's awfully judgy of you.

Since when is a question pertaining only to oneself a judgment? I asserted nothing and even if you want to interpret it that way, it only pertains to me and no one else.

Oh. So you weren't saying, or even implying, it would be wrong for anybody else to judge. What you meant was "RC doesn't want to judge." That's all?

You don't offer yourself as any example to any others, then, when you say, "I am not in this world to..." and so on?

Fair enough. But if that's all you meant, it's really trivial. You choose not to judge, but others may do so as they please, you're saying.

So now I can't see what the point of your question about "are you a slave" was. Since you weren't saying that being a slave was a prerequisite for me to have an ethical opinion, and since you don't judge, I really don't know what your point was...

The whole thing doesn't make sense...on the very terms you try to use to explain it away. Either you are judging those who make ethical claims without being involved, or you are not; but if you are not, you have nothing to say on the subject.

Which way do you want to tell the story now?

[Immanuel Can]

...those who ask questions you don't like. Then they are called, "judgy."

Quite the contrary: I think everybody should judge things. It's you who float the claim that you "only speak for yourself." I regard that as an absurd claim, given the number of times you've gotten judgy in the past, and the fact that you're doing it right now...

Unless you don't mean that calling people "judgy" is, in some universal way, "wrong": if you don't, you have no protest here. But if you do, you're making a judgment.

You see? You can't even keep your own story straight on that.

I'm almost certain you will evade the question, but you can disabuse me of that expectation and pleasantly surprise me.

I won't evade it. Bring it up again, later. But I won't let it deflect me from the main point, either. And right now, the main point is whether or not it's okay to "judge." So until that subject is exhausted, I don't wish to be deflected.

We're not serving any red herrings in this restaurant today.

[RCSaunders]

And right now, the main point is whether or not it's okay to "judge."

If two gas stations are selling gasoline at different prices, I can make a judgement about which I would prefer to buy. When I go to a restaurant I make judgements about the food offered to choose what to have for dinner. Of course I make judgements all the time. But you do that. "Is it right to make judgements?" but you don't specify what kind of judgments you are talking about.

And that is my question. How can I judge anything as good, bad, right, wrong, or OK, if I don't know on what basis rightness, wrongness, and OKness are determined. Until you can tell what morality is supposed to be, there is no way I can make any such judgments whether they are OK or not.

Since you refuse to answer my question, just as I suspected, I must conclude According to Immanuel Can morality has no meaning or purpose and there is no such thing as moral right and wrong, and you know it so keep shifting the focus to something irrelevant, like is it OK to judge. How do I know until I know what makes something OK or not OK?

"Is it OK to judge?" Once I know what you mean by, "OK," perhaps I can answer that question, but so long as what, "OK," or, "right," or, "good," mean are not explained, there is no way to answer the question. It's just more disingenuous evasion.

[RCSaunders]

... but if you are not, you have nothing to say on the subject.

You're slow, but with patience one can sometimes make you understand. So you finally get it. I was only asking a question and have nothing to say on the subject. Dawn breaks on Marblehead.

You can go on wasting your time beating the dead horse if you like of course, but if your interested in actually achieving something, explain what morality is supposed to be, as I've asked over and over.