The latter point is an interesting one worth discussing. Is morality subjective or absolute?
My perspective is that it's local in time and space and (like bitcoin) it's based on broad social consensus (which is hard to change but can and did happen).
This means that it's neither individually subject nor arbitrary or random. There's a consistency to it, otherwise the whole concept would be pointless.
I'm no Theologian or Philosopher, but I'll try to contribute.
The Christian Moral Perspective is one of the few Worldviews that can justify an absolute claim on Morality, declaring what is "right" and "wrong"
Relativism or Consequentialism or Utilitarianism cannot deny the assertions of Christianity due to the internal logic of their worldviews. They cannot even admit that their own systems are "morally correct" because its all dependent on context.
This will spiral into Metaethics, which a lot of individuals dismiss as "playing with semantics". This is funny considering semantics is important to any discussion.
Bitcoin has Economic Value but is Morally neutral, just like any other tool Humans use.
That's because every other ethical framework runs into unanswered more dilemmas.
Even if you take something like the Non Agression Principle, that just shifts the semantics of what is agression, what if both parties are aggressing eachother, how can/should you punish aggressors, etc.
The NAP runs into problems by itself in a relativistic worldview, since "why" should we be non-aggressive towards others?
It is my understanding that Christian Ethics and Metaphysics as a superset of Anarcho-Capitalism gets rid of this "why" problem?
It can and usually does in a way that is rather unique, even if today there's a lot of flavors of Christianity.
Human weapons provide an asymmetric advantage towards self defense.
As long as individuals have access to it, aggression is naturally punished since every individual is capable of defending itself.
Mutually assured destruction is not a Moral argument. Its a mechanism to enforce Game Theory.
Self-Defense is saying that we want to preserve something that we find valuable. Not getting into "why" we find it valuable to protect.
Why do you think morality is about the why and not the how?
That's an interesting question. I will venture: I think the how is downstream from the why--ends (why) determine means (how). Seems Rothbard, and Aristotle before him, thought this.
I accept that logic if one accepts the axiom that there is an ulterior motive to the universe and our existence.
What you said would not be truth if we happen to live in a chaotic meaningless void.
If we lived in a chaotic meaningless void, there could be no logic and no relation between cause and effect. There is, so we don't.
I disagree. Chaos is just a macro effect. On a fundamental level, there is still order.
How, if chaos helms the universe? Order comes not from disorder. The universe is rational, rationality is the byproduct of a mind. What then are the necessary preconditions of rationality?
Chaos is just the recognition of our human failure to assimilate enough information. There is no chaos on a fundamental level otherwise there would no consistency.
Just because the fundamental laws are consistent on a physical level, does not mean the Universe has a meaning on a human level.
Where did the consistent, rational fundamental, laws come from?
From a mind, or from matter?
If a mind, what kind of mind?
If matter, how could matter have volition and "arrange" and where did it come from in the first place (since something cannot come from nothing)?
matter = quantity
mind = quality
I can create a virtual world with my own laws on a computer. It could still be meaningless.
Intelligent design does not imply a specific intent.
Even if it did, it is in no way guaranteed that such an intent would be at all related to the cocerns of humans. The same way we breed animals but don't concern ourselves with their morality.
I expect my dog not to bite people.
Do you think its just too unreasonable to think that a mind that made all this and all of us wouldn't also go to great lengths to let us know who he is and why he did it?
Idk the crowd that states "the world is meaningless and we are just specks in the universe" are denying their own logic by arguing that nothing matters.
If "nothing matters", then why voice that "nothing matters"? It DOESN'T MATTER to them.
Any retort by them should be ignored because to them, IT DOESN'T MATTER
Why not voice it? There's a sense of liberation in knowing there's no plan and that you can make your own.
its fine to have the perspective, but it means nothing to the person who is being convinced, that the person arguing for said perspective doesn't believe what they're saying themselves.
There is no room to criticize anyone because it "doesn't matter"
Ofc people that disagree on the axioms will disagree on the logical outcome.
There is plenty of room for criticism even without objective morality.
Why is there room?
Because we are social beings who often reach broad consenus about what is right and wrong even if it's not entirely objective.
It's very reasonable from our human perspective but not at all a logical guarantee.
...what, then, guarantees logic?
What must be true in order for logic to exist at all? And BTW, we are presupposing, perhaps even proving, the existence of that something by proceeding down a logical course.
The question is semantically invalid. Logic guaeantees itself since otherwise, it could not exist.
Logic is self-existant and volitional? You're nearly there: it is also personal.
"In the beginning was the [logos], and the [logos] was with God, and the [logos] was God.. .. And the [logos] became flesh, and dwelt among us..." [John 1](https://esv.org/John+1).
note1vym4r538ymndftp0px7ktggneh4xl7852y3hl2ntx45uvfj975lscg5gvx
Morality is a question of whether or not something "should" be done.
Its fine to say something is valuable and "this is how something gets done". Those are evaluations of Economic Value. Economic Value is Subjective Truth, Morality is Objective Truth. There is a difference.
NAP and any other relativistic moral perspective cannot say something "should" be the case just by itself, due to its lack of absolute Moral Truth.
I agree NAP is how Prosperity comes about due to greater production than consumption, purely from not taking other people's stuff. Being a productive person does not mean they are a Moral person.
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it. AnCap is a Legal framework that requires a Moral framework to underpin it, otherwise its merely "I prefer this rather than that"
Objectivity != Observable
Legality != Morality
You can't ensure everyone follows the same moral code without violating NAP
This is why Decentralization is a thing. Go to a jurisdiction that socially share your morals. We do this today.
I'm not hanging out near drug dens during the day. I'm not trying to find friends at the local pub, since I'm not a drinker.
If hippies want to have their socialism commune, buy some land and farm all day. I don't care. The point is that I can justify an AnCap viewpoint, secular AnCaps cannot.
That is exactly what I claimed/defended in my OP.
Its not the same, the OP is arguing that whatever is socially acceptable in an area is what "is moral"
I'm saying, if people want to live a certain way, moral or immoral, go do your own thing. I'll be a part of my community and if you want to be a part of it, develop Virtues.
My issue with it is that you can never be sure to be following the One True objective morality. So even if it exists, it hardly matters since everyone would interpret it subjectively.
Natural Law (and a Natural-Law Giver) are a sine qua non of any ethical standard, NAP included. Otherwise what, "consensus"? Even Rousseau realized that was bunk.
If you think about it, Natural Rights are simply the flip side of the coin of Natural Law, and the Natural Law is basically the 2nd table of the 10 Commandments. It has been called the codification of conscience -- the law of God written on the hearts of men.
All that to say--agree with you.
(Followed!)
Well said!
The classical argument is that if God exists, then objective moral values exist, as they arise from God. But, without God, there is no authority from which objective moral value can arise.
More modern takes might consider if thermodynamics or genetics/memetics might give rise to values that out compete others and thereby are objectively better than outcompeted values.
Even if you land with subjective values, and freedom to associate with a tribe that shares these same values, you do still have to worry about other tribes being more successful than yours, pushing your tribe and its values into irrelevance and extinction over time.
I guess I have just convinced myself that objective moral values do exist, but only as a result of "survival of the fittest"
Abstract Truths cannot be established by Scientific Facts. Moral Truths cannot be derived from observation.
Its like saying Arithmetic was invented through observing Apples and Bananas.
Well sir that's the classical argument for sure.
But I do also wonder if two tribes, each following a different moral value, were put against each other in a contest such that one tribe survives and the other does not, could it not be said (controlling for other variables) that their morals proved to be objectively better. That is objective rather than subjective, but only determinable by observation and in hindsight.
Probably out of my depth here, not my wheelhouse.
I get what you're saying. The mere fact that an evaluation is being made on which tribe was "objectively better" requires a subjective presupposition, otherwise how can it be known it is better?
What is keeping someone from declaring the dying tribe from being evaluated as the "better" one?
Well my proposition is that survival of the fittest is a way to prove objective moral value. The axiom is that the survivor is the fittest.
Having a Value Axiom proves that the conclusion is NOT an "objective moral value"
Its an evaluation based on the arbitrary axiomatic framework.
Mental frameworks always precede observables.
I don't think you can make any logical argument without an axiom. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
I'm not saying Axioms by themselves are illogical. Moral axioms cannot be derived from observables, thats all.
They're "good" or "bad" because of some arbitrary Moral claim, within a relativistic worldview.
Even if you believe in God and "objective morality" exists, it makes no sense to blindly accept the teachings of organized human religions as the undistorted pure manifestations of that objective morality.
Because no ground truth can be established, it makes more sense to live as it if it does not exist and try to establish a human-consensus sort of morality.
