This world is not ours

[Guest]

Wrong.

"For instance,you make a chair.The chair becomes yours because you made it. You don't have a moral right to appropriate something that was not made by you in the first place and not given to you."

By the same reason the we cant prove that the Bible or Locke was correct you cant prove that statement is correct.

In fact no one can prove anything except with in the boundries of unproven axiom.

[Guest]

As you might have guessed by now, this topic is not only about philosophy, but also about politics, and economy.
.....
I challenge you to rise to the occasion and craft a worthy reply.

I would have liked to keep the topic a philosophical topic.I don't mind mixing philosophy,politics and economy together.However,philosophy must prevail over politics and economy because philosophy seeks what is morally right and wrong,what should be and what shouldn't be,why/how it is and why it should be...philosophy deals with economy and politics.

For instance, philosophy answers a question like "should all men be born free ?"
It is a moral issue for philosophy, it is not for politics and economy.
Politics and economy are the results of Morality/amorality.If Man wants to establish slavery as an economical/political fact, he can.Philosophy can't because philosophy seeks truth and wisdom.
Does that mean that slavery should be morally right ? No.
Does that mean that philosophy should shut up because politics and economy can be against morality ? No.
That is the reason why this is a philosophical topic.

[Guest]

Wrong again.

"because philosophy seeks what is morally right and wrong,what should be and what shouldn't be,why/how it is and why it should be"

That is included in philosphy but no more so than politics, Philosphy is about seeking knowledge/understanding. Its possible to reject the notion of ethics all together and still speak on philosphy.

Perhaps you wanted to talk about ethics and morality?

[Guest]

Wrong again.

"because philosophy seeks what is morally right and wrong,what should be and what shouldn't be,why/how it is and why it should be"

That is included in philosphy but no more so than politics, Philosphy is about seeking knowledge/understanding. Its possible to reject the notion of ethics all together and still speak on philosphy.

Perhaps you wanted to talk about ethics and morality?
[right][snapback]77681[/snapback][/right]

Yes,ethics and morality.

[jahcs]

Premise 1: Man came from Nature (he is the result of evolution of life on earth)

Premise 2: You can't own what created you (regardless of whether that creation be through evolution or spontaneous creation)
For instance,you can't own your parents and you can't be owned by your parents because you are subjects and not objects.

Premise 3: An element of a whole doesn't own this whole.It belongs to it.
Man appeared among other animals through evolution of life.He is "a branch of the tree of life".Thus he is an element of a whole (which is Nature, that is animals,vegetables..)
For instance,you belong to a family.A member of a family can't own one's family.He is a part of this family.Same logic for Man.
Man comes from apes,apes come from A, A comes from B,B comes from C,etc ..
Conclusion: Man can't own Nature.
[right][snapback]77676[/snapback][/right]

Premise 1: Ok. Even in creationism man is made from the dust of the earth.

Premise 2: There are cultural and economic systems (which I don't agree with) where people are viewed as a resource or a commodity which can be owned and traded. In most respects parents "own" their children until they come of age. What about domesticated animals which are viewed as property? We may breed them but in the sense of creation we were just facilitators.

And don't forget: What you create can end up owning you :P

Premise 3: As stewards of the environment (In the bible man was given the Earth to watch over and care for and in evolutionary terms we evolved into a creature that can, and must, alter the environment around us to survive.) we establish a form of ownership over that environment. The owner of a company is a part of that company but he/she owns it. One of the owner's duties is to be the final voice in the decisions and direction of the company (in most cases).

Man does not own nature he is a part of it. Nature is not a quantifiable object that one can own. The individual parts of nature are what we buy, sell, and use.

If you make a chair and declare it yours then that is a bit short-sighted in the context of this discussion. That chair is from nature. Say the chair is made of wood. Wood comes from trees and trees are a part of nature. You as a human have the ability to take objects from nature and adapt them to new uses, in this case something to sit on.

The ownership of land... Take a plot of land, occupy it, form a shelter from materials found on it, cultivate/hunt/gather food on it, create an efficient means of travel to interact with your neighbors from it, and, in general, improve and enjoy that plot of land. The land is "yours" because you occupy it, improve it, derive satisfaction from it, maintain it, protect it, and have made it liveable through your own effort and time.

The land you occupy is yours until someone with enough power comes along and takes it from you. That power can be violent, political, or economic in nature, as examples.

[Guest]

Wrong.

"For instance,you make a chair.The chair becomes yours because you made it. You don't have a moral right to appropriate something that was not made by you in the first place and not given to you."

By the same reason the we cant prove that the Bible or Locke was correct you cant prove that statement is correct.

In fact no one can prove anything  except with in the boundries of unproven axiom.
[right][snapback]77679[/snapback][/right]

Nobody can prove anything about that premise"all men are born free" because it is not about logic,it is about ethics and morality.
My premise is "you have the moral right to only own what you create and what you were given".Thus you don't have the moral right to own what you didn't create and what you were not given.
Notice 'moral right'.
It is not about logic, it is about morality & ethics.
That 'men are born free' is not an axiom . It is a moral fact.But you can't prove it with logic because logic has nothing to do with it.
You can deny though and claim that some are born slaves and other ones are born free.You can't prove it either with logic.

[Guest]

Another problem philosophers run into is the ultimate futility of their profession.

"Pure reason inevitably reaches for what it cannot grasp." (A nice summary of some of Kant's thinking here.)
[right][snapback]76167[/snapback][/right]

Oh I get it.
Philosophy is futile and politics and economy rule over it.
Without morality and ethics (which are derived from philosophy),you wouldn't be free if you were black in the America of proslavery,you wouldn't have have the same rights as men if you were a woman before 20th century,etc..philosophy helped to improve your rights and economy+politics were influenced by it.

[jahcs]

Oh I get it.
Philosophy is futile and politics and economy rule over it.
Without morality and ethics (which are derived from philosophy),you wouldn't be free if you were black in the America of proslavery,you wouldn't have have the same rights as men if you were a woman before 20th century,etc..philosophy helped to improve your rights and economy+politics were influenced by it.
[right][snapback]77688[/snapback][/right]

Small nit: War helped improve minority and women's rights more than philosophy did. If a country needs bodies on the front lines or additional resources for the labor pool it's pretty amazing what social conventions are willing to be cast aside, even if it's temporary.
On the other side of that coin, fight an enemy visibly different from yourself or one that has distinctly different beliefs and you will see a rise in racism and the view that those people as worth less than you and your kin.

[Guest]

Ok. Even in creationism man is made from the dust of the earth.

This is also right.
Life was created from water,oxygen and dust.

Premise 2: There are cultural and economic systems (which I don't agree with) where people are viewed as a resource or a commodity which can be owned and traded. In most respects parents "own" their children until they come of age. What about domesticated animals which are viewed as property? We may breed them but in the sense of creation we were just facilitators.

Regarding morality,nobody has a right to own anybody.Humans are not objects,they are subjects.Owning someone means that you own this person as an object and thus you deny his freedom.This was the belief of proslavery America.
Concerning children you don't own them as objects.They are just 'yours' as a part of a family and nothing more.
What 'is' should not prevail over what 'should be' otherwise progress is just vain.

And don't forget: What you create can end up owning you

Like what ?
Economically and politically it could be true,but concerning Morality and Ethics,it can't be.

Premise 3: As stewards of the environment (In the bible man was given the Earth to watch over and care for and in evolutionary terms we evolved into a creature that can, and must, alter the environment around us to survive.) we establish a form of ownership over that environment. The owner of a company is a part of that company but he/she owns it. One of the owner's duties is to be the final voice in the decisions and direction of the company (in most cases).

Notice 'Bible'.
Is the Bible an argument ?

Man does not own nature he is a part of it. Nature is not a quantifiable object that one can own. The individual parts of nature are what we buy, sell, and use.

If you make a chair and declare it yours then that is a bit short-sighted in the context of this discussion. That chair is from nature. Say the chair is made of wood. Wood comes from trees and trees are a part of nature. You as a human have the ability to take objects from nature and adapt them to new uses, in this case something to sit on.

The ownership of land... Take a plot of land, occupy it, form a shelter from materials found on it, cultivate/hunt/gather food on it, create an efficient means of travel to interact with your neighbors from it, and, in general, improve and enjoy that plot of land. The land is "yours" because you occupy it, improve it, derive satisfaction from it, maintain it, protect it, and have made it liveable through your own effort and time.

The only justification I can see when Man uses natural ressources is only for basic needs:Food,shelter..humans can use these ressources as long as they don't waste,destroy/kill for fun.

[Guest]

You deserve an insult(But Im afraid of ban so Ill just show how you aare wrong - even more.).

"That 'men are born free' is not an axiom . It is a moral fact.But you can't prove it with logic because logic has nothing to do with it."

If you cant prove it with logic and you accept it as fact it is by definition - axiomatic.(well it could simply be wrong, but well ignore that case).

[Guest]

No body wants to discuss ethics - on your terms.

Disscussions are only interesting if people can at least agree on the precepts. Other wise we just sit there telling each other "no."

[Guest]

I think the post was actually just a clever redirect of a locked thread.  But if we assume it was a serious question, then the houses vs. ducks thing is probably about the best serious answer given. 

Philosophy is known to come up with ideal solutions for a non-ideal world.  For whatever reason, people don't think alike.  People don't always want to act in the best interest of the community.  Even when they do, they won't agree on what the best interest of the community is.  So Bo wants to drain the pond and build a house, and Mo wants to feed the ducks.  How is our great global natural commune supposed to resolve this?  So we have public land, where a given community agrees to reserve the land for a certain thing and the government enforces that, and we have private land, where the community essentially "agrees to disagree" and each person gets to dictate what happens in their own playbox.  I suppose that is about as detailed as one can take this without getting into economics or politics.  :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]75993[/snapback][/right]

You're just explaining what happens to land instead of what should happen.What should be matters more than what is otherwise there's no point in making progress.

[Guest]

Of course he has Ghost... As Bolty stated oh so very well, he is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. He just made the hole square.

He wants soooo badly to fit in and feel the groove.
[right][snapback]75912[/snapback][/right]

Eh,I believed that people who had suffered a lot,would become more tolerant and open minded.I am wrong again with you :(

[Count Duckula]

I love how this thread degenerated into a squabble after it ran its course.

EDIT: Tenses will be the death of me.

[Archon_Wing]

Oh I get it.
Philosophy is futile and politics and economy rule over it.
Without morality and ethics (which are derived from philosophy),you wouldn't be free if you were black in the America of proslavery,you wouldn't have have the same rights as men if you were a woman before 20th century,etc..philosophy helped to improve your rights and economy+politics were influenced by it.
[right][snapback]77688[/snapback][/right]

That's probaly one of the grossest oversimplfication of anything I've seen. :)
Politics and economics probaly had just as much, if not much more, to do with the slavery issue than morals did. The Civil War was much about State's rights and the seperation of the union, not some glorious crusade to emancipate the slaves (although that was certainly a crucial goal). How about considering that the South's economy had grown rather dependent on slavery that they really didn't want to end the system? Or the relief that poor whites in the South got knowing that they were not the lowest class of citizen? The way you limit this discussion answers none of these issues but putting them away is as effective as sweeping broken glass underneath the carpet.

I don't think people allowed for women suffrage simply just because it was the right thing to do. Think about power struggles. (Particiapating in the antislavery movement and not getting anything has its effects) Think about voting means. Think about how we define the genders and its relationship with each other.

Neglecting the social aspects of an issue is like pissing in the wind. Sure it might be relaxing for a moment, but it doesn't go far.

You can accuse humanity of being arrogant in thinking he/she can define the world in human terms. I accuse you of arrogance in thinking you can define the world beyond human terms.

[Guest]

You mean you feel this thread had substance at one point?

[jahcs]

You're just explaining what happens to land instead of what should happen.What should be  matters more than what is otherwise there's no point in making progress.
[right][snapback]77697[/snapback][/right]

What should be, in my opinion, is less important than what is. If someone does not recognize what is they will have no frame of reference to decide what should be, no data on what is preventing the achievment of the ideal, and no power to effect change on the status quo. As it was so eloquently put "It's like pissing into the wind." When should be is used as an argument, a reason, and proof for any theory it reminds me of a young child stomping their foot and saying "that's not fair!"



phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


Philosophical discussions cannot occur in a vacuum with no reference to other topics or systems. What someone feels about how the world should work is based on the individual's view of the world, thier morals, ethics, education, backround, religious beliefs, economic situation, etc. The philosopher who won't allow others to bring who they are into a discussion is not a philosopher but a know-it-all gradeschooler talking down to his toddler sibling.


Every time I click on this thread and start reading I end up sitting back in my chair taking a deep breath and repeating the same phrase "Ah, the idealism of youth." What is and what should be will never align. We may get close one day in certain areas but man is a selfish, hatefull, and destructive creature with an astounding capacity to love, learn, and survive.


You want to talk should be? Here goes:
There should be no starvation in the world.
There should be no war.
There should be no hate.
There should be no poverty.
There should be no polution.
We should take personal responsibility for our actions.
We should attempt to make the world a better place every day.
We should never stop learning.
We should become better listeners.
We should accept the differences in all people.

This stuff is easy to say but extemely hard to put into practice on a meaningful scale. What should be, what is, and how the world really works must all be used together to achieve any sort of noble goal.

[Alarick]

I realize I'm a late-comer in this discussion, but I will add a few ideas of my own. To start, I believe there's little that can truely be said about your ideas because, as others have stated, you take leaps and bounds in the logical aspects of the theory. To say something is true is one thing. To show a reason for it being true is another.

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .
This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

This concept has the same "flaws" as most similar concepts about any moral rights. It is Euthyphro's Dilemma.

"Is something moral because we say it is moral, or do we say it is moral because it is?"

You are clearing stating the second side of this argument, but the first portion does still exist. You are calling ownership of land morally wrong, yet it could easily be argued that you want it to be so because you are calling it so, rather than it being the truth of the universe.

We can even get into the argument about whether morality is known or learned. If it is learned, than how can it be true that things are natually moral? On the other hand, if it is natural, why are there so many distinctions between the moral rights and wrongs of differing ethnic groups?

Having not read much of the thread in an effort to save time, I'm not 100% sure if any of this was addressed. I will say that I find your idea hard to take as truth.

The fact that man is part of nature does not imply that taking ownership of land is morally wrong. Even if it is true that it is morally wrong, there is more to this idea than simply man being a part of nature.

As a final statement, there's a large hurdle to be passed before any ground can be made in this argument, and it's one I don't believe can be passed easily, if at all. Your argument rest on the assumption that there are universal truths in morality. This concept is one of the most fought concepts in philosophy, and as far as I've been able to tell sits almost as high as the meaning of life and free will as philosophical concepts that require answers.

Even if you were to state plainly that this is a basic assumption to your argument, you would be struggling to gain any support from those that don't believe in its truth. This, sadly, is one of the reasons that little ever gets decided 100% in philosophy.

[whyBish]

EDIT: Tenses will be the death of me.
[right][snapback]77699[/snapback][/right]

Just don't do something Greek like naming your first-born-son "Tenses" :P

[whyBish]

What should be, in my opinion, is less important than what is.

...

This stuff is easy to say but extemely hard to put into practice on a meaningful scale.  What should be, what is, and how the world really works must all be used together to achieve any sort of noble goal.
[right][snapback]77705[/snapback][/right]

I think they have a more equal importance. One is the current state, one is *a* (not *the*) goal state. For "what should be" to have a practical use there needs to be a viable transition path between "what is" and "what should be". If that path is the path of 'least effort'/'lowest energy' then "what is" and "what should be" will be the same thing, but if not, then energy(/money/effort/debate/convincing) will need to be put into the system to get there. If this cost is too great then what should be will not occur.

Personally speaking I'm more interested in the forces that have created "what is"... e.g. personal optimisation (i.e. market forces / 'invisible hand' taken to the extreme) results in environmental damage, harm of others, no investment in public goods.