05-02-2005, 08:47 AM
"Man has been created by Nature."
Man has evolved. Culture also evolves. Laws, norms, religions, television programming, corporations, advertising, products, all evolve due to competitive forces. Even science evolves in response to the observations not fitting models.
"We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals."
We have evolved a natural advantage in terms of complex reasoning, however I agree with you that this is just an advanced form of what animals have.
"We belong to a whole, this whole is Nature. We are a part of Nature, we belong to a big family, this family is life on Earth."
We experience an environment of variables and respond to those variables in a way that will increase our chances of creating offspring (as a group, not neccessarily as an individual) (immortality would also have implications here). Any group that does not respond to the environment will become extinct. Hence laws evolve to handle changes in the environment. Some laws die out and are removed, and new ones are born based on what has worked previously.
"When you build a house for yourself, you consider it to be yours because you built it, your are its owner."
Thinking of current day society this is not true. My issue is with 'build'. The builder of the house (in modern society) is not normally the owner, but an expert (or team) in the art of building houses.
If you purchase the house you consider you have particular rights to occupy the house, and to deny others the use/misuse of the house. These beliefs stem from your observations of others response to similar situations, which creates a set of norms(/laws).
"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."
Again this is a set of norms that place expectations on the two parties based on known results. (i.e. the owner expects compensation, and the tenant expects occupancy)
"This is the same logic for planet Earth."
This does not follow unless you consider the earth sentient and able to have expectations.
"Man did not create planet Earth, we are just tenants of this planet."
You are associating creation with ownership rights, which as I have shown above is not always the case. You are also associating existence with tenancy which is a set of mutual expectations, and as above cannot be true (i.e. the earth expects something in return for tenancy???).
"Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs."
Tenants can claim whatever they want, whether they get it depends on norms (or if they want to go outside those norms then whoever is 'fittest' in terms of claiming the item).
"Man cannot claim ownership of land, thus ownership of land is not morally right."
Man can claim ownership of land with other men via norms(laws) that prevail. Man does not expect the plants and animals to understand that he has ownership of the land.
Your two statements hare are not connected, and you provide no definition of which morality, or which moral system is being violated. The only thing I can see is you are trying to define building with the right to ownership as a morality sytem. But is this a moral system? Is this *the* moral system? Isn't a moral system based on the beliefs of man? Then if man believes he can own land morally, then isn't it moral?
I will define morality as utilitarianistic morality. Something is moral if it does not make other people worse off (I should probably get a tighter defenition, but I'm sure someone can Nit this point properly for me :P ). Ownership of land does not make people worse off, therefore it is morally right to own land.
"Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right )."
Well, I can agree with this conclusion since:
If ownership of land is wrong -> then existence of countries is hypocrisy
However you have not shown the former, hence can't claim the latter (yet... :P )
As an aside I *personally* think that countries are a hypocrisy, but for different reasons. However countries have evolved and exist for logical reasons (Such as co-ordination of works, economies of scale, efficiency through specialisation etc.)
"However, Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity, selfishness and vanity. Genocides were committed to conquer lands."
The first sentence is an unsupported statement. Man has created the concept of ownership of land out of the agrarian age where stability of control (ownership) is required to successfully plant, cultivate, and harvest crops neccessary for survival. Norms for land ownership provide a way of reducing (local) conflict of desired use for the land.
"Why not simply share land?"
If I grow strawberries to sell to the rich, you wont be able to use that same land to grow wheat to feed the poor. (or whatever example you need). Ownership of land reduces conflict by having an agreed norm for who controls the use of the land. Anyone that does not follow the norm will have to resort to conflict to get control of land they don't own (either verbally by changing the norms, or physically by taking ownership by force)
Ownership of land also allows for investment. See communist China/Russia for example of lack of ownership leading to lack of investment. Without ownership (i.e. with sharing) everyone will want to live in the best location, which will increase crowding (and conflict), and reduce resources. It will also mean that no-one will be willing to pay to upgrade something that everyone else gets the free benefit of. So again ownership reduces conflict.
Tying back to your last point, does the idea of reduction of conflict reconcile with "stupidity, selfishness, and vanity"?
"The right to be free and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream."
It's good to have a dream. However, see last point about ownership and investment. Is it morally right to let someone who didn't toil for the freedom/infrastructure etc. into that country? What would stop everyone from going to the 'best' country? What would keep investment in upkeep of that country happening?
"This is a philosophical topic. It is not about economics or politics. Politics and economics come from the will of humans."
As you have laid it out it is not a philosophical topic as you have:
- too many undefined terms
- too many unsupported statements
- too many incorrect steps in logic
Politics and economics *and* ownership come from the will of humans.
"I am not talking about what Man wants, I am talking about who he really is, his real place no matter what he wants."
Well, you didn't mention that until now...
Who is man??? You have not even said.
What is his 'real place'? You haven't defined what you mean by his 'real place' but give some vague assertion that ownership is 'not moral'
Are you claiming that ownership is what man wants?
"Please, no trolling, no incoherent posts, no quick trivial answers in my thread. This is a serious topic, I want you to be sincere."
I think you should find a different forum. This is the second topic that you have started that contains inflammatory, vague assertions that have yet to be supported.
I am sincere when I say I hope that it will be soon when you either learn some social skills or are banned. Coming into Boltys forum and telling him he should change it to your liking is egocentric behaviour. As do you, I would also like to have this forum changed to how I like it (i.e. have you banned), but I understand how fair the moderators are, and if I don't like it, I know I can go elsewhere. (however I am not smart enough to start my own website... and if I did it would be lonely :P )
I am looking forward to your next (and hopefully improved) topic. This one could have been interesting if it weren't for the antagonism.
Cheers,
whyBish.
P.S. sorry, I ran out of time to preview... have R.L. stuff to do...
Man has evolved. Culture also evolves. Laws, norms, religions, television programming, corporations, advertising, products, all evolve due to competitive forces. Even science evolves in response to the observations not fitting models.
"We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals."
We have evolved a natural advantage in terms of complex reasoning, however I agree with you that this is just an advanced form of what animals have.
"We belong to a whole, this whole is Nature. We are a part of Nature, we belong to a big family, this family is life on Earth."
We experience an environment of variables and respond to those variables in a way that will increase our chances of creating offspring (as a group, not neccessarily as an individual) (immortality would also have implications here). Any group that does not respond to the environment will become extinct. Hence laws evolve to handle changes in the environment. Some laws die out and are removed, and new ones are born based on what has worked previously.
"When you build a house for yourself, you consider it to be yours because you built it, your are its owner."
Thinking of current day society this is not true. My issue is with 'build'. The builder of the house (in modern society) is not normally the owner, but an expert (or team) in the art of building houses.
If you purchase the house you consider you have particular rights to occupy the house, and to deny others the use/misuse of the house. These beliefs stem from your observations of others response to similar situations, which creates a set of norms(/laws).
"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."
Again this is a set of norms that place expectations on the two parties based on known results. (i.e. the owner expects compensation, and the tenant expects occupancy)
"This is the same logic for planet Earth."
This does not follow unless you consider the earth sentient and able to have expectations.
"Man did not create planet Earth, we are just tenants of this planet."
You are associating creation with ownership rights, which as I have shown above is not always the case. You are also associating existence with tenancy which is a set of mutual expectations, and as above cannot be true (i.e. the earth expects something in return for tenancy???).
"Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs."
Tenants can claim whatever they want, whether they get it depends on norms (or if they want to go outside those norms then whoever is 'fittest' in terms of claiming the item).
"Man cannot claim ownership of land, thus ownership of land is not morally right."
Man can claim ownership of land with other men via norms(laws) that prevail. Man does not expect the plants and animals to understand that he has ownership of the land.
Your two statements hare are not connected, and you provide no definition of which morality, or which moral system is being violated. The only thing I can see is you are trying to define building with the right to ownership as a morality sytem. But is this a moral system? Is this *the* moral system? Isn't a moral system based on the beliefs of man? Then if man believes he can own land morally, then isn't it moral?
I will define morality as utilitarianistic morality. Something is moral if it does not make other people worse off (I should probably get a tighter defenition, but I'm sure someone can Nit this point properly for me :P ). Ownership of land does not make people worse off, therefore it is morally right to own land.
"Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right )."
Well, I can agree with this conclusion since:
If ownership of land is wrong -> then existence of countries is hypocrisy
However you have not shown the former, hence can't claim the latter (yet... :P )
As an aside I *personally* think that countries are a hypocrisy, but for different reasons. However countries have evolved and exist for logical reasons (Such as co-ordination of works, economies of scale, efficiency through specialisation etc.)
"However, Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity, selfishness and vanity. Genocides were committed to conquer lands."
The first sentence is an unsupported statement. Man has created the concept of ownership of land out of the agrarian age where stability of control (ownership) is required to successfully plant, cultivate, and harvest crops neccessary for survival. Norms for land ownership provide a way of reducing (local) conflict of desired use for the land.
"Why not simply share land?"
If I grow strawberries to sell to the rich, you wont be able to use that same land to grow wheat to feed the poor. (or whatever example you need). Ownership of land reduces conflict by having an agreed norm for who controls the use of the land. Anyone that does not follow the norm will have to resort to conflict to get control of land they don't own (either verbally by changing the norms, or physically by taking ownership by force)
Ownership of land also allows for investment. See communist China/Russia for example of lack of ownership leading to lack of investment. Without ownership (i.e. with sharing) everyone will want to live in the best location, which will increase crowding (and conflict), and reduce resources. It will also mean that no-one will be willing to pay to upgrade something that everyone else gets the free benefit of. So again ownership reduces conflict.
Tying back to your last point, does the idea of reduction of conflict reconcile with "stupidity, selfishness, and vanity"?
"The right to be free and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream."
It's good to have a dream. However, see last point about ownership and investment. Is it morally right to let someone who didn't toil for the freedom/infrastructure etc. into that country? What would stop everyone from going to the 'best' country? What would keep investment in upkeep of that country happening?
"This is a philosophical topic. It is not about economics or politics. Politics and economics come from the will of humans."
As you have laid it out it is not a philosophical topic as you have:
- too many undefined terms
- too many unsupported statements
- too many incorrect steps in logic
Politics and economics *and* ownership come from the will of humans.
"I am not talking about what Man wants, I am talking about who he really is, his real place no matter what he wants."
Well, you didn't mention that until now...
Who is man??? You have not even said.
What is his 'real place'? You haven't defined what you mean by his 'real place' but give some vague assertion that ownership is 'not moral'
Are you claiming that ownership is what man wants?
"Please, no trolling, no incoherent posts, no quick trivial answers in my thread. This is a serious topic, I want you to be sincere."
I think you should find a different forum. This is the second topic that you have started that contains inflammatory, vague assertions that have yet to be supported.
I am sincere when I say I hope that it will be soon when you either learn some social skills or are banned. Coming into Boltys forum and telling him he should change it to your liking is egocentric behaviour. As do you, I would also like to have this forum changed to how I like it (i.e. have you banned), but I understand how fair the moderators are, and if I don't like it, I know I can go elsewhere. (however I am not smart enough to start my own website... and if I did it would be lonely :P )
I am looking forward to your next (and hopefully improved) topic. This one could have been interesting if it weren't for the antagonism.
Cheers,
whyBish.
P.S. sorry, I ran out of time to preview... have R.L. stuff to do...