- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk'La propriété, c'est le vol !' (Translation - 'Property is theft!' ) - French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
If the following statement were true: "There is a red mustang parked in my driveway and it belongs to me". Can this statement ever be a universal truth? If so why can't I talk about it?
According to Mr Proudhon all private property is theft, so the red mustang parked in your driveway is effectively stolen and doesn't actually belong to you, negating its ownership by you as a universal truth.
And if your argument holds water, why not try it with something non-tangible? (Can you really equate the existence of a car with the existence of God?)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI am wondering why you put the name Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in association with this statement? Did Proudhon also believe that this was "his" statement ? Or does the private property of intellectual products also not exist ?
'La propriété, c'est le vol !' (Translation - 'Property is theft!' ) - French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
According to Mr Proudhon all private property is theft, so the red mustang parked in your driveway is effectively stolen and doesn't actually belong to you, negating its ownership by you as a universal truth.
And if your argument hol ...[text shortened]... omething non-tangible? (Can you really equate the existence of a car with the existence of God?)
And think of this now. If there is "theft" then there must have been "ownership" somewhere. Illegal transfer of ownership means the prperty had to have been owned.
If there was universal ownership then how could anyone perform a "theft" ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So, it was left with LJ that Evolution is more likely responsible for our morality.
Now, I think this could be a category error. We have to treat moral standards as if they belong to the category of Biology.
Justice has no chemical composition.
Courage has no flavor, taste, or weight.
Morality and Biology are in different categories. Am I right ?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipI was actually (from memory) going to attribute the quote to Karl Marx, but a quick google check attributed it to our friend Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
I am wondering why you put the name Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in association with this statement? Did Proudhon also believe that this was "his" statement ? Or does the private property of intellectual products also not exist ?
And think of this now. If there is "theft" then there must have been "ownership" somewhere. Illegal transfer of ownership means the ...[text shortened]... o have been owned.
If there was universal ownership then how could anyone perform a "theft" ?
I think your point though is a weak one. Ownership of something we say can not be equated with say ownership of a car or a piece of land. - Making a statement doesn't take anything away from others, but claiming a plot of land as your own property and putting up a fence keeping others out, could be argued (by Proudhon at least) as a form of social theft.
With universal ownership, theft occurs when an 'individual' claims exclusivity to something that should belong to everybody. - Take for example (on a smaller scale) a winning lottery ticket that belongs to a syndicate. Now, If an individual within that syndicate claimed all the winnings for himself,would that not be theft from the rest of the syndicate?)
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeUniversal ownership, whose bright idea is that? Claims of exclusivity to something that
I was actually (from memory) going to attribute the quote to Karl Marx, but a quick google check attributed it to our friend Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
I think your point though is a weak one. Ownership of something we say can not be equated with say ownership of a car or a piece of land. - Making a statement doesn't take anything away from others, b ...[text shortened]... te claimed all the winnings for himself,would that not be theft from the rest of the syndicate?)
should belong to everyone is just another claim of ownership as a single person's claim.
So who gets to say what claim is the right one the strongest, the majority? I can see why
religion is hated by those that make such claims as universal ownership, since a creator
of the universe and the laws within would void much of what they say.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think your point though is a weak one. Ownership of something we say can not be equated with say ownership of a car or a piece of land.
Okay then one own's thoughts but one does not own material property. Is that where we are according to Proudhon (or Marx) ?
By the way, I don't know a whole lot about Marx. But I do know that he said the excess profit of the employer is owned by the workers. That much I remember. Surplus profit is owned by the laborers.
- Making a statement doesn't take anything away from others, but claiming a plot of land as your own property and putting up a fence keeping others out, could be argued (by Proudhon at least) as a form of social theft.
Do you agree ?
What's your address ??
Do we need to alert the authorities of your theft of public property then ?
With universal ownership, theft occurs when an 'individual' claims exclusivity to something that should belong to everybody.
Do you agree ? Or are you just putting out an interesting piece of philosophy ?
Actually this is related to Bible. I will not quote passages but attempt to give you a general idea.
God owns the planet. The planet was put under Adam supervision with some basic instruction about what he could and could not take into himself.
He disobeyed and Adam along with that which was under his authority were stolen and illegally came under the control of God's enemy - a temporary enemy.
God latter tells a called out people that the whole earth is actually His. He will parcel it out to whom He wishes. He gives them the land of Canaan but they have to be worthy of it by keeping His moral law.
This is not meant to be an indept synopsis of the history revealed in the Bible. It is only a very brief explanation of the relationship between Moral responsibility and possession of a portion of the usurped earth away from Satan back under God's rightful control.
This reclaimed part of the planet was to be a beachhead upon which God works progressively to reclaim the entire globe from Satan and fallen man.
I think you touched on something of physical ownership and adherence to objective moral law.
God knows that withdrawal from Himself can only lead to moral decline. He tells Abraham concerning the land which He promises His descendents - another 400 years is needed. In another four hundred years of the downward moral decline of the inhabitants of Canaan they will be ripe for a total conquest to reclaim the land for a people of God.
" And He said to Abram, Know assuredly that your seed will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and they will serve theml and they will afflict them four hundred years.
But I will also judge that nation, whom they [Hebrews] will serve [Egypt] , and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
But as for you, you will go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age. And to the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Genesis 15:13-16)
He is saying the people of Canaan are not yet bad enough for God to bring in a total judgment and confiscation of the Good Land for His elect Hebrew nation.
Righteousness according to God's standard and ownership of the land were related.
If we want to be owners of the universe in the future we better be reconciled to the Righteous God and Creator of it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshiplol No, I don't agree with Marx/Proudhon. (I'm no more a socialist than I am a Christian). Step foot on my property and i'll release the hounds!!I think your point though is a weak one. Ownership of something we say can not be equated with say ownership of a car or a piece of land.
Okay then one own's thoughts but one does not own material property. Is that where we are according to Proudhon (or Marx) ?
By the way, I don't know a whole lot about Marx. But I do know that he ...[text shortened]... rs of the universe in the future we better be reconciled to the Righteous God and Creator of it.
I do see a parallel though between a perfect communist country (which so far, due to man's inherent greed, has never existed) and a 'religious utopia' where equality replaces segregation by wealth and privilege.
Don't get all mushy about Marx though. He also thought religion was the opium of the masses.
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWouldn't Mr Proudhon's statement have to be a universal truth to have any bearing in this regard?
'La propriété, c'est le vol !' (Translation - 'Property is theft!' ) - French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
According to Mr Proudhon all private property is theft, so the red mustang parked in your driveway is effectively stolen and doesn't actually belong to you, negating its ownership by you as a universal truth.
And if your argument hol ...[text shortened]... omething non-tangible? (Can you really equate the existence of a car with the existence of God?)
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeEven the Christian utopia has ownership and responsibility for mankind.
lol No, I don't agree with Marx/Proudhon. (I'm no more a socialist than I am a Christian). Step foot on my property and i'll release the hounds!!
I do see a parallel though between a perfect communist country (which so far, due to man's inherent greed, has never existed) and a 'religious utopia' where equality replaces segregation by wealth and p ...[text shortened]...
Don't get all mushy about Marx though. He also thought religion was the opium of the masses.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
3 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
lol No, I don't agree with Marx/Proudhon. (I'm no more a socialist than I am a Christian). Step foot on my property and i'll release the hounds!!
Some comrade you are !!
I do see a parallel though between a perfect communist country (which so far, due to man's inherent greed, has never existed) and a 'religious utopia' where equality replaces segregation by wealth and privilege.
World government, whatever they may be, will be shattered by the coming of Christ and His kingdom. But this is its manifestation outwardly. In this age His kingdom is His government penetrating the innermost being of a man's heart.
There are people today, in which part of their being is already in that age to come. Part of their being is under God's administration. They are walking now in the reality of the kingdom of God.
Don't get all mushy about Marx though. He also thought religion was the opium of the masses.
I have figured out what religion being the opium of the people has to do with the living Christ coming to indwell and reign in men and women.
If I want to hear railings against religion, there are plenty in the four gospels from Jesus. The main opposers to His life and ministry was the religious power structures.
Even in the Old Testament there is plenty of exposing of the hypocrisy and vanity of religion - the major and the minor prophets.
Do you think that counterfeit money proves that real money does not exist ?
Religion - the opium of the people doesn't prove Christ is not Lord.
Besides - Marx came up with a secular religion.
My father told me about how the Marxist sought to convert especially African American students in the 1940s. It was very religious. You could only question their dogma up to a certain point. At a certain point it was brute trust in, faith in, hope in Karl Marx - as religious as any other religious leader.
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipAgain, you cannot justify your belief in God's existence or necessity because you are bothered by stuff.
Vica versa. You cannot prove God does not exist because you are bothered by stuff.
[quote]
That's just not an appropriate inferential pattern. How many times does it need to pointed out here that the following type of argument has ...[text shortened]... ready answered) if you are a Physicalist or not. (Nothing in the world except material things).
I have some questions about Evolution about the source of human moral awareness. I am going to assume a Blind Watchmaker groping along definition of Evolution.
A "Blind Watchmaker groping along" definition of evolution? Sorry, I don't know what that means.
Did mind emerge from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence? If so, why should we trust in such a mind?
Are you familiar with Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism? It is probably the argument that most fully develops this concern of yours (or to where I presume this concern is leading). There are several past threads devoted to it that you can reference, in which I and others have argued at length against the soundness of Plantinga’s argument. Here are a couple:
Thread 121260
Thread 139677
At any rate, you're conflating two separate issues. You asked me before about how the human moral faculty came about. That's a question that deals with the descriptively specifiable origins of our capacity to think in moralized terms, employ moral concepts, make moral judgments, etc. On the other hand, there's a further question regarding whether or not those moral judgments and predications pick out something actual, and to what extent. These are two very different questions. The first is an exercise in biological anthropology and descriptive ethics; the second is meta-ethical. You need to get your house in order and, first of all, understand this basic distinction and then, secondly, figure out what exactly you are arguing. You may intend to argue that God is somehow necessary for explanation of the first kind (very dubious, given that contemporary evolutionary explanations are eminently plausible); or that God is somehow necessary for explanation of the second kind (again very dubious, given the problems that attend the Euthyphro dilemma).
Thinking and moral decisions involve abstract (moral propositions, laws of logic, ethical comparison, etc). Were these abstractions out there somewhere in the universe waiting for thinking minds to emerge from earthen dirt, to handle them ?
If so then it seems that some things as transcendent abstractions of a mind and moral nature already existed waiting to be manipulated by a material think lucky enough to emerge somehow into a thinking entity.
That's one take on it, but, sorry, it is not a take to which I subscribe. I am not committed to the existence of abstract objects. If you do not find such an account particularly convincing, then I suppose I can empathize with you.
you are not or you are a Physicalist ?
Yes, I would consider myself a physicalist. At least on a minimal level, I am committed to a form of supervenience physicalism. So what?
What is childish is to think Someone bigger than you and I has designed us.
Nope, you're just not getting it. If you had good epistemic reasons to think that we were designed by some higher power, then I would see nothing childish about that. Even if you had poor reasons to think this, it would not necessarily be childish. Again, the childish aspect has to do with the nature and structure of your moral deliberations. I've already explained this multiple times in this thread and the previous one.
Vica versa. You cannot prove God does not exist because you are bothered by stuff.
Agreed, appeal to consequences does not get the job done. Of course, this should go without saying, which is why it is rather sad that I have had to point it out to you multiple times now.
The first syllogistic formula you used to portray my argument was I think fair.
Great. Then let's stick to that, instead of getting sidetracked. Obviously, though, that initial formulation does not work, since Premise (1) is totally dubious if not just self-contradictory. So, I'm still waiting for your reformulation. Please provide it, and then maybe we can make some constructive progress here.