Nature’s Stipulation

[malinson]

How one believes philosophically so too dose one believe politically. William Godwin for instance pioneered the idea of philosophical anarchism, bringing serious consideration to an otherwise unpopular belief.

I believe Marc Stevens to be a philosophical anarchist because much of what he says can almost literally be taken from Godwin’s work. Yet, philosophy itself a study of nature, and it’s her stipulations that I wish to address tonight.

Religion or established philosophies are really just systems of opinions. Theft for instance is considered wrong because it causes harm to another. Where dose it say in nature that theft is wrong; or bringing harm to another is wrong? Is it written in the trees somewhere?

Let’s just bring it all out and declare universally that violence is evil; that coercion is wrong; that people have a right to freedom and to be left alone. William Godwin saw humanity with eyes of distain; as a minister he expounded on the ‘evil’ inherent in man. I’m not going to refute that, but like all philosophies, be it political or not, it’s just an opinion; a belief of reality; nothing more.

what dose Mother Nature have to say on the subject? What other rights dose she afford us apart from the right of conquest? What can we gleam from her infinite moral wisdom apart from the reality that might makes right? If I was a social commentator I would probably surmise that she believes that life is strength.

Moreover, if I claim that theft is wrong even if apart from my own involvement, then that view alone exceeds the boundaries of my private sovereignty. Suddenly I’ve invented to a universal moral standard, no different than any other opinioned statute or law laid out by a majority, a government or even religion. This is the fundamental seed of all government and control and the very bane anarchism!!

Philosophical anarchism; the phrase itself is an oxymoron. Those two words couldn’t disagree with each more. Anarchism is not a people, a culture, a philosophy, or a commune of voluntary associations; nor is it an answer to a social dilemma for it couldn‘t care less about society. It’s just a person being left alone and separate from every one else’s delusion.

Yet, where in nature dose it say I have a right to any of this? Where do I get off claiming a right that nature herself doesn’t even provide?

We live in a reality of conquest rules, a place whose only stipulation is that might makes right. If you want to argue that the majority have no right to decided your fate, then your living in Neverland because that’s not what nature says. If you want to incorporate your standards of philosophical views or social interactions with the rest of us that’s fine, but you’ll never achieve it apart from nature’s own proviso - majority conquest.

You’ve just been voted out.

I thank you for your time.

-Malinson

[Nomos]

Great post. I have a difference in opinion as it relates to what "nature has to say."

I do think that nature does provide guidance. My measuring stick for whether or not nature sets the tone is cause and effect.

Gravity for instance. You don't have to believe in it for it to operate upon you. You'll figure that out as you try to walk on water or air.

The same can be said for injury, harm and loss. If you get the same general "feeling" for an act all over the world then I believe it is safe to say that nature does or does not allow it.

Battery, theft, and murder for instance. No matter where we go in the world, those acts will generate the same emotions. The degrees and reaction to those acts notwithstanding.

~Nomos

[NonEntity]

Dude. I think you've over dosed! ;D

I pretty much agree with you, I think.

As far as I am concerned, morality and rights and such stuff are a human mental construct and not inherent in nature. The concept of "natural rights" is just plain stupid. We can choose to be moral or we can choose to be rapacious animals. Either one is a choice. But if you choose to be a rapacious animal don't go expecting me to give you ANY consideration.

On the other hand, I will treat you with respect as that is the way I want to be treated. If you return the favor it is possible we can rise above the hand we've been dealt.

- NonE

[malinson]

Nomos Wrote:I do think that nature does provide guidance. My measuring stick for whether or not nature sets the tone is cause and effect....

Is harm considered evil, or is it just a fact of life? I could never reconcile a position that nature herself is morally incorrect. Nature’s stipulation is neither fair nor unfair, good or evil, just or unjust. These concepts are tools by which are used to control you.

They control you because an apparent simple observation of causality leads to the platform of a standard of justice. A personal opinion that said act is a moral wrong forms the very foundation of law and order; All tempered by the opinion that said act will bring harm unto others.

Opinions of causal circumstance are not so cut and dry, for they are driven by religion, personal philosophy and greed.

-Malinson

[NonEntity]

malinson Wrote:Opinions of causal circumstance are not so cut and dry, for they are driven by religion, personal philosophy and greed.

-Malinson

My personal conclusion on the meaning of "morality" is simple: Is it voluntary or not? (And by voluntary I mean that each party to a transaction or event is choosing freely to participate in that event.) I cannot find any other definition which does not have a conflict within it, and so, at least for now, that it the way I define the term in my mind, for my purposes.

- NonE

[Nomos]

malinson Wrote:

Nomos Wrote:I do think that nature does provide guidance. My measuring stick for whether or not nature sets the tone is cause and effect....

Is harm considered evil, or is it just a fact of life? I could never reconcile a position that nature herself is morally incorrect. Nature’s stipulation is neither fair nor unfair, good or evil, just or unjust. These concepts are tools by which are used to control you.

They control you because an apparent simple observation of causality leads to the platform of a standard of justice. A personal opinion that said act is a moral wrong forms the very foundation of law and order; All tempered by the opinion that said act will bring harm unto others.

Opinions of causal circumstance are not so cut and dry, for they are driven by religion, personal philosophy and greed.

-Malinson

I agree with you completely. With re-emphasis on my position that nature provides the measuring stick, and for it to be considered "natural" it has to be operative and have consistent effect from the same cause whether one believes it or not (again, referencing gravity, battery, theft and murder).

~Nomos

[NonEntity]

Nomos Wrote:...consistent effect from the same cause whether one believes it or not (again, referencing gravity, battery, theft and murder).

~Nomos

Regarding "theft," isn't there a difference between theft and "claiming unclaimed property" only if someone else has a certain belief? If I pick up a rock is this theft? Well, it might be considered to be so depending upon where I pick it up, and whether or not the person who believes that rock is on "his property" also believes that the rock has specific value.

And as to "murder," what is the difference between murder and dinner? (And please don't tell me it depends upon whether or not it occurs inside or outside of Johnson's BARN! :biggrinblue: )

- NonE

[Nomos]

NonEntity Wrote:Regarding "theft," isn't there a difference between theft and "claiming unclaimed property" only if someone else has a certain belief? If I pick up a rock is this theft? Well, it might be considered to be so depending upon where I pick it up, and whether or not the person who believes that rock is on "his property" also believes that the rock has specific value.

And as to "murder," what is the difference between murder and dinner? (And please don't tell me it depends upon whether or not it occurs inside or outside of Johnson's BARN! :biggrinblue: )

- NonE

Where do you come up with this?

I believe any reasonable person would agree that "theft" is the intentional taking of something without intent of return it without permission of the owner.

And I believe any reasonable person would agree that "murder" is the intentional and unprovoked taking of someones life.

Both of which would get the same emotional response anywhere on the planet.

~Nomos

[NonEntity]

Nomos Wrote:And I believe any reasonable person would agree that "murder" is the intentional and unprovoked taking of someones life.

Well, to Jeffrey Dahmer it was dinner.

Nomos Wrote:Both of which would get the same emotional response anywhere on the planet.

Except in Dahmer's world, and some others. In fact MANY others if you ask a vegan. If you ask an Israeli soldier you'll find that little Palestinian children are not people at all, they are simply targets to practice their shooting skills on. Go figure. (The same can be said for "Amerikan" soldiers as well, of course.)

Your "high horse" is getting a bit tired, dude.

- NonE

[Nomos]

NonEntity Wrote:

Nomos Wrote:And I believe any reasonable person would agree that "murder" is the intentional and unprovoked taking of someones life.

Well, to Jeffrey Dahmer it was dinner.

Nomos Wrote:Both of which would get the same emotional response anywhere on the planet.

Except in Dahmer's world, and some others. In fact MANY others if you ask a vegan. If you ask an Israeli soldier you'll find that little Palestinian children are not people at all, they are simply targets to practice their shooting skills on. Go figure. (The same can be said for "Amerikan" soldiers as well, of course.)

Your "high horse" is getting a bit tired, dude.

- NonE

"High horse?" Jealousy will get you nowhere. Your repeated off-point arguments and raising of irrelevant things have BEEN tiresome, but I haven't been rude to you (or anyone else for that matter).

You communicate from one side because apparently it is only one side you can see. The key word was "reasonable." What SANE person would agree that Dahmer's murders were "reasonable?" And if it was so acceptable then why weren't the victim's families ok with it?

The nature of my statement implies that the response to MURDER would be that of those affected by the murder. NOT the response of the murderer. So your "Dahmer" argument is not only nonsensical, but out of context (but what else is new).

If you can't handle a conversation, then don't get involved with it. It's funny how the ole "you think you know it all" argument surfaces whenever someone can't hold their own.

Tell you what NonE, I'm gonna get on down from this "high horse."

You all take care.

~Nomos out.

[malinson]

NonEntity Wrote:what is the difference between murder and dinner? (And please don't tell me it depends upon whether or not it occurs inside or outside of Johnson's BARN! :biggrinblue: )

- NonE

Property and even freedom is only obtainable through force. In other words, I have to force unto you the idea that I am free. This is what right of conquest infers; the mob rule mentality. If you believe you own something then you will have a heck of a time keeping it if everyone thinks otherwise.

Murder for instance is a word that is defined as a crime. Criminal acts are those that either violate a law or a standard of moral beliefs, both of which come from a platform of opinioned control. Remember, anarchism or voluntarism dose not support the establishment of a moral standard or judicial law because it is in contradiction to its belief of self-sovereignty; a position of no consequence in the face of the mighty.

The error lies in the idea that nature herself supports the belief that crimes truly exist. Nature is blamed for many so-called atrocities and crimes, yet who in their arrogance says that this is wrong?

When anyone talks about murder, crimes and even rights of freedom, they are in ignorance establishing opinions that transgress personal involvement. Thus, if theft is wrong, then it can only be wrong if you stole from someone or someone stole from you. You cannot argue it’s wrong apart from yourself without conceding to a standard of moral subjugation.

-Malinson

[Dionysus]

malinson:

I'm not going to deny anything you wrote. But in my opinion, it doesn't really apply to humans. Sure, humans are part of what I like to call the "earth-life system," yet we are simultaneously "outside" of it, and in many ways incompatible with it. Actually, relative to the "earth-life system," humans are "aliens"-- we don't really fit in. We are more than just animals living and dying in the "earth-life system." Hopefully you catch my drift.

[malinson]

Dionysus Wrote:in my opinion, it doesn't really apply to humans...humans are "aliens"-- we don't really fit in...

Life isn’t fair but that doesn’t apply to me because I’m human; an alien from the stars.

Arrogance means contemptuous, a feeling or showing self-importance. I am important because I am human. There is nature and then there is me, I don’t apply to nature’s stipulation. These words pretty much speak for themselves so I'll not entertain this nonsense further.


-Malinson

[huntforcare]

Because a confessional stipulation becomes the equivalent of a judicial confession, the judge must conduct a searching inquiry -- equivalent to a providence inquiry -- to insure that the accused signed the document in a knowing, voluntary and intelligent act and that he understands the stakes .

[Marc Stevens]

NonEntity Wrote:

Nomos Wrote:And I believe any reasonable person would agree that "murder" is the intentional and unprovoked taking of someones life.

Well, to Jeffrey Dahmer it was dinner.

Nomos Wrote:Both of which would get the same emotional response anywhere on the planet.

Except in Dahmer's world, and some others. In fact MANY others if you ask a vegan. If you ask an Israeli soldier you'll find that little Palestinian children are not people at all, they are simply targets to practice their shooting skills on. Go figure. (The same can be said for "Amerikan" soldiers as well, of course.)

Your "high horse" is getting a bit tired, dude.

- NonE

I think you're waaaaay off base here NonE. Dahmer was not insane and he certainly did agree what he did was murder. He knew full well what he was doing was wrong. I would even suggest all cannibals consider it wrong and the proof would be in asking them if they wanted to be dinner.