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.
"Logic is Logic, man. Logic is just self evident" 😂
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.
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"
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
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
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.
Eh, not everyone is meant to be a parent. Perhaps be the cool Aunt/Uncle if being a parent isn't in the cards.
As long as I can remember, she has always used the same electric rice pot. I asked her about the rice water boiling over and she gave me a weird look, like I insulted her lol
To be clear, she was in a rural village that resided in what is now North Korea. She fled the Korean War, going south. To my best understanding, my Grandpa courted her while he was stationed there during the war.
His superior didn't like that, sent him stateside, they sent letters to each other for idk how long. Next time he went to Korea was to bring her home with him.
I know it sounds like a made up love story, but that is what she says, same with my Aunts and Uncles.
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?
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.
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.
Second this, DMs or Phone are preferable, especially for those who want to keep their anonymity.
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?
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.
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.
Homosexuality is both a mental illness and degen behavior.
If you disagree, no need to argue since morality is relative from your perspective.
SPOILER ALERT : My Korean Grandma thinks otherwise 😂