Categorical Moral Imperatives

[Vichy]

Because some people have expressed interest, antipathy or confusion with regards to my ethical philosophy, I am going to write a bit about the logical imperative of morality. In order to understand this piece one ought to read at least the following articles. They're not overly long, but reading the entire argument would probably be best due to their importance, and for that purpose a link serves just as well if not better as my summarizing.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/e ... ics-10.pdf Argumentation Ethics
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf Estoppel in Punishment and Proportionality

After reading that, here is my slight expansion of them to explain WHY they are moral.  It is, as are the previous links, an attempt to formulate a logical-realistic argument for ethical imperatives with consistent and universal applicability:

Everyone here would probably agree that morals (at least the private-property part of them) only apply in society, since alone no conflicts could arise over property rights and it's nonsensical to imagine any need or meaning to them as long as isolation persists. Ergo, the rules of moral social conduct necessarily assume a social situation. Likewise, as with argumentation ethics in general, in order to discuss or dispute moral propositions we must be engaged in argumentation. Thus we have already commited ourselves to rational communication in a social situation. Yet once this occurs argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property. Nor do these ethical rules disappear when we don't try to debate them (IE act in an aggressive, non-argumentive manner towards others) because when we are confronted for our actions argumentation ethics and estoppel both prevent objection, ie if it is permissible for you to steal when not engaging in rational argumentation then it is permissible for me to steal right back. If you object, your very act of arguing makes appeal to right of aggression nonsensical.
Given that logic and rationality must by definition be good, since the universe is logical and no claim to purposeful behaviour can exist without it (IE, to ignore rationality is to abdicate purpose and therefor any will or claim to existence at all), it must be that within a social situation we are always bound by the laws of private-property. One can never say, "I shouldn't be good" or prove that he shouldn't be in any situation, since he immediatly by his action asserts that he ought to or denies his existence as an actor which is clearly impossible if he is attempting to make any argument.

[Will]

Just fyi, the first link didn't load for me.

Axiom: When a discussion between two or more people occurs, argumentation ethics automatically presume the principle of private property.

Evidence to the contrary: Most pre-agricultural human societies utilized and utilize a communal way of life in which "property" is owned by the whole of a tribe or unit. While one could argue that property belongs to a specific tribe in a community of tribes, the ownership is collective at it's root. This is, in fact, the natural state of smaller units of humans in a situation where the pack (and thus reproduction) is more important than an individual.

This may not be evident to those who live in a large population, as societal dynamics shift considerably between hunter gatherer and a post-industrial societies.

[Vichy]

I repasted the link, it worked for me.

In regards to the cricitism:
Your argument is irrelevant to the case of argumentation ethics and ethics in general.  Ethics are a normative science (what ought you do), not a descriptive science (what actually occurs).  It is the same in this way as medicine or technology in general.  If one wishes to be good (moral) in their behaviour, one ought to conform to these principles.  Furthermore (and this is rarely the case) even if property were largely communalized in some situations, the concern of ethics as I understand it (given argumentation ethics makes private property is the only rational possible argument of justification or morality of property disputes); if that 'communalizing' occurred voluntarily it was just, if it was coerced it is unjust.  The same applies to any genetic or historical tendency, increasing survival rate for one's offspring is just if following it is non-aggressive and unjust if it is aggressive (invasive of private property); whatever tendencies genetics and living men have developed the logical nature of reality, scarcity, argumentation and justification requires that private property be adopted as the prerequisite of justice.

[Will]

You're not arguing fact, but rather opinion. I want to make sure that's clear before delving into this further. You're making it sound as if the ethical imperative for all people is geared toward themselves (private property being attached inexorably to individualism). I am the exception that disproves the rule. Private property is not an ethically based axiom I personally recognize, therefore such a belief is subjective (or an opinion). You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.

Furthermore (and this is rarely the case) even if property were largely communalized in some situations, the concern of ethics as I understand it (given argumentation ethics makes private property is the only rational possible argument of justification or morality of property disputes); if that 'communalizing' occurred voluntarily it was just, if it was coerced it is unjust.

I suppose that depends on how you would describe "voluntary". Ancient man was born into communal living, and it seems either very few questioned the situation, or some did and died because there was strength in that system at the time.

While I wouldn't call being born into something voluntary, I would call something that prevents suffering ethical.

[Vichy]

From my perspective this is an objective fact, not simply something I like.  Because of the nature of reality (rational) and the necessity of rational argumentation for social interaction, and the inescapability of private property as the basis of any argumentation, only private property can be ethical.  One cannot claim to be in the right ethically (or wrong) without assuming private property by their very action, and if they attempt to contradict it they are merely speaking self-contradictory nonsense.

[rlrose328]

OT POST COMING UP...

That sound you heard?  That was my head exploding.

END OT POST

[Will]

From my perspective this is an objective fact, not simply something I like.

That's a bit of a contradiction. It's subjectively objective? Or objectively subjective?

Because of the nature of reality (rational) and the necessity of rational argumentation for social interaction, and the inescapability of private property as the basis of any argumentation, only private property can be ethical.  One cannot claim to be in the right ethically (or wrong) without assuming private property by their very action, and if they attempt to contradict it they are merely speaking self-contradictory nonsense.

Let's say that I am a member of a tribe. We, as a tribe, have more pelts than we need. We come to another tribe who needs pelts. I give them one of mine.

Yes I know this sounds like an old Laterday Saints commercial, but unconditional sharing, or altruism, does not require the presupposition of private property. In fact, in a communal society, it's 100% ethical all the time, so long as distribution is even.

[Will]

OT POST COMING UP...

That sound you heard?  That was my head exploding.

END OT POST

You're smarter than both of us for staying out of an argumentation theory free for all.

[Vichy]

When I say 'from my perspective' I mean, 'it is my understanding that as a necessary fact of the existence of the Universe and human consciousness that any attempt at justification necessarily entails an acceptance of private property and thus no ethical argument can ever contradict this principle without becoming nonsensical.  It is not something 'subjective' in that it's truth or falsity depends on particular circumstances or perspectives, it is objective (as all true statements, at least in principle, must be; IE even statements like 'ice cream is good' is true in the sense that it is the case that I like ice cream).  This is because all of reality is and must be rational, consistent and conformed to the laws of logic (likewise, logic makes no sense without the existence of things to which it could apply).
If one is rather loose and open with one's property, it does not change the fact of who the just owner and user of that property is, IE if I kind of share it with you or let you take freely or based on noncontractual presumption of reciprocity I can do that justly precisely because it is my property and were someone to deny me the right to do that - or to refrain from doing so - they would be acting unjustly.  All non-invasive use of private property (entailed by the concept of private property) and voluntary transfer of property (compensated or uncompensated) are just actions.  All invasion and prevention or force of property transfers are unjust actions.  Again, I believe this is ultimately entailed by the logic of existence and prerequisites in communicative justification, not simply as some utilitarian outcome I prefer; the outcome is important to us as individuals but not relevant to the question of its justice insofar as private property is not violated.

[Will]

When I say 'from my perspective' I mean, 'it is my understanding that as a necessary fact of the existence of the Universe and human consciousness that any attempt at justification necessarily entails an acceptance of private property and thus no ethical argument can ever contradict this principle without becoming nonsensical.

Oh.

It is not something 'subjective' in that it's truth or falsity depends on particular circumstances or perspectives, it is objective (as all true statements, at least in principle, must be; IE even statements like 'ice cream is good' is true in the sense that it is the case that I like ice cream).  This is because all of reality is and must be rational, consistent and conformed to the laws of logic (likewise, logic makes no sense without the existence of things to which it could apply).

Philosophical logic and mathematical logic are quite different. This is the former, and as such it's also subjective. This would make your argument circular.

If one is rather loose and open with one's property, it does not change the fact of who the just owner and user of that property is, IE if I kind of share it with you or let you take freely or based on noncontractual presumption of reciprocity I can do that justly precisely because it is my property and were someone to deny me the right to do that - or to refrain from doing so - they would be acting unjustly.  All non-invasive use of private property (entailed by the concept of private property) and voluntary transfer of property (compensated or uncompensated) are just actions.  All invasion and prevention or force of property transfers are unjust actions.  Again, I believe this is ultimately entailed by the logic of existence and prerequisites in communicative justification, not simply as some utilitarian outcome I prefer; the outcome is important to us as individuals but not relevant to the question of its justice insofar as private property is not violated.

The circumstances which I repeatedly present do not feature one being "loose and open with one's property".

Maybe I should ask this: do you believe collective property has existed, and can exist?

[Vichy]

No, because only individuals can act or determine the use of something, which is true even in Stalinist Communism, it is simply the head of whatever assigned department who factually 'owns' it.  Collective property is nonsensical in fact, and any notion of 'collective' property is not collective property but rather unclear property delianation, which is an inevitable source of conflict and therefor a problem itself.
And, again, all I am concerned with is that private property is an inviolable component of any consistent (and therefor correct) morality, thus anything which conforms thusly is just and anything which violates private property is unjust absolutely irregardless of whether anyone does or does not understand or behave in this manner.  What is right is right, and, yes, objective a priori logic is absolutely necessary, the statement that deductive logic is somehow 'subjective' is rendered utterly nonsensical since it entails the proposition that all deductive (or all argumentative) statements are subjective which is in itself an axiomatic deductively true statement, contradictory to its own premise.

[Will]

No, because only individuals can act or determine the use of something, which is true even in Stalinist Communism, it is simply the head of whatever assigned department who factually 'owns' it.

Why can only an individual determine the use of something? I have yet to see evidence of this.

Collective property is nonsensical in fact, and any notion of 'collective' property is not collective property but rather unclear property delianation, which is an inevitable source of conflict and therefor a problem itself.

What do you call stocks? I call it collective ownership of a company. And that's perfectly clear.

And, again, all I am concerned with is that private property is an inviolable component of any consistent (and therefor correct) morality, thus anything which conforms thusly is just and anything which violates private property is unjust absolutely irregardless of whether anyone does or does not understand or behave in this manner.  What is right is right, and, yes, objective a priori logic is absolutely necessary, the statement that deductive logic is somehow 'subjective' is rendered utterly nonsensical since it entails the proposition that all deductive (or all argumentative) statements are subjective which is in itself an axiomatic deductively true statement, contradictory to its own premise.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying all logic is subjective. Only philosophical logic. I'm not using philosophical logic.

[Vichy]

That's nonsense.

[Will]

That's nonsense.

Conceding already? I'm still curious as to why you believe only an individual determine the use of something. Voting is a collective decision too, btw.

[pjkeeley]

I'm not saying all logic is subjective. Only philosophical logic. I'm not using philosophical logic.

By 'philosophical logic' do you mean informal logic? If so, I'm not sure that that's a good phrase to describe it, since philosophy makes use of both formal and informal logic. Philosophy doesn't always deal with the subjective, though I agree with you that in this case Vichy is trying to pass off his subjective concept of morality as objective fact, which is misleading.