[derosa8]

^^”How does the non-evolutionary answer resolve this question?”^^

1. I apologize if I’ve been unclear, but the position I am taking does not necessarily entail a denial of evolution by any means. I was just saying the evolutionary by itself cannot give us a proper basis for right and wrong. So, I am not saying “the non-evolutionary answer resolves the question” but rather that the question is not resolvable with the evolutionary answer alone.

2. “Harming an individual or group” sounds like a good basis, but then there is the problem of the dictator who likes harming people as I posted a few times ago.

3. The example you bring up is interesting. It almost sounds like you are saying killing innocents is objectively bad and nourishing innocents is objectively good?

[derosa8]

I like the Bob Murphy presuppositional question, “What would it have to look like for you to say FDR did NOT lead us out of the depression?” Best presented alongside the awful unemployment numbers for over a decade following the stock market crash in 1929.

[derosa8]

Thanks for the clear explanation.

[derosa8]

Ok, thanks for the response!

[derosa8]

Unfortunately, that danger does not seem to be a factor in the town as it is a very safe area. The one thing that could come into play is that the cheap gas station is smaller (so you often have to wait for 1 or 2 cars) as well as on more of an obscure corner, as opposed to the bigger gas station on the main road. But I still wasn’t sure that was enough of an explanation for a 40 – 60 cent difference.

Also, is it even possible for people to arbitrage gasoline like that? I suppose speculators could, but they don’t normally go to local gas stations and just start buying up their gas, right?

[derosa8]

I’m still very impressed by your” first and a half” language skills. Here’s my response:

1. I never said “The source of my morality is my inability to believe it.” The argument I presented in my last post is for the EXISTENCE of objective morality not the SOURCE of objective morality.

2. I already know YOU would condemn the dictator. But do we really have no basis for saying to the dictator that his actions are wrong, independent of what YOU or I think?

3. There is the task of figuring out what is objectively right and wrong. Dr. J hinted at looking across cultures and societies to discover common moral beliefs as one way of judging right and wrong [no method is fool proof and exhaustive]. If you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, you would look to interpret the Holy Scriptures to determine right and wrong.

4. The difficult questions you raise at the end are problems for people who believe in subjective morality as well.

5. On an interesting side note, Sam Harris, a very popular atheist, indeed believes both in evolution and objective morality.

[derosa8]

Good stuff. And the tone is not harsh. It is very impressive that you can articulate ideas clearly in a 2nd language. That is much more than my brain can do.

If WE cannot declare anything right or wrong, then upon what basis do we promote free markets over socialism? Upon what basis do we promote the non-aggression principle.

Example: I think murder is wrong. Some dictators have thought it was right to murder in order to subdue certain parts of the population. Do WE have a basis upon which we can say my moral view is better than that of the dictators’?

My argument is basically this;
(1) Either OBJECTIVE right and wrong exist, or they do not.
(2) Suppose they do not. This leads to clear absurdity [e.g. dictator example above] and contradicts our intuition and experience of reality.
(3) Therefore, I presuppose that OBJECTIVE right and wrong do exist.

I believe OBJECTIVE right and wrong exist and do not know how to believe otherwise.

[derosa8]

Thanks all for the responses. So would yall agree with this synthesis? [I just took the material of your responses and made a short outline]

1. Price gouging is an apparent problem but not an actual problem on a free market. In theory, people may be afraid in times of crisis that prices of gasoline, batteries, and other necessities will be raised unfairly by corporations seeking to exploit consumers for profit. However, further analysis shows this view does not match the market realities.

2. (A) A sharp and sudden increase in demand calls for an increase in price so that markets can clear. If prices are not allowed to rise, then shortages will inevitably follow since there will not be enough supply to meet market demand at that price.

(B) An increase in price promotes conservation and prevents a widespread waste of resources [e.g. people only purchase the amount of gas they will use and will not stockpile as much unnecessarily]. Moreover, this helps to ensure more resources will be available for those in desperate need who don’t happen to get on line first.

3. Corporations may choose to raise prices WELL ABOVE the new market-clearing price as a result of the crisis, but then they will have excess supply. If several corporations collude to maintain a price WELL ABOVE a natural market-clearing price, then other sellers will enter the market and offer lower prices to compete and make a profit. This will allow prices to fall to the market clearing price.

4. Speculation would prevent any severe price increases in emergencies. Entrepreneurs would be prepared to shift supplies into the disaster area for profit. “Their increased supply of goods would moderate the price increases necessary to clear markets under the new conditions.”

[derosa8]

Mr. McClanahan, thanks for the reply. I think your response holds weight regarding the BUS. However, I don’t think you have dealt with part of the problem of interpreting necessary as “absolutely necessary.”

I know this might seem ridiculous, but trust me that people will come up with very meticulous and often ridiculous arguments against liberty.

For example, multiple clauses in Article I Section 8 deal with punishing various crimes. Suppose one of those crimes is committed and the Federal Government wants to punish the perpetrator.

First, they decide to throw him in jail for 5 years. Are they allowed to erect a Federal Prison in which put him and others committing this crime? Well it’s not absolutely necessary. They could pick a state or local prison in which to put him. Yet is it absolutely necessary to put him in a state or local prison? Couldn’t they just keep him in a locked room in D.C. somewhere?

I guess I’m just struggling with the objection: Nothing is TRULY ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, so if you want the Fed Govt to have any power at all, then we must allow some elasticity in how we interpret NECESSARY in the necessary and proper clause.

[derosa8]

OskarStaleberg, I definitely agree with your comments to an extent. Especially this, “It’s beneficial for the individual to get along with the group, and it’s beneficial for the group not to kill and steal from each other.”

But I think the solely evolutionary view of morality falls short because it concludes that nothing is OBJECTIVELY right or wrong. As you say, “right and wrong are only matters of perception.”

The problematic question you then have to answer is: upon what basis can we declare any action RIGHT or WRONG?

[derosa8]

“Knowledge is our most important weapon” – That deserves to be posted again

[derosa8]

Thanks Sons of Liberty! Very helpful responses

[derosa8]

Enron! I am exactly in your situation (22 yrs old, voted for Obama in 2008, and now learning liberty).

I don’t know what the future will hold, but my plan is to do the best I can to learn liberty and then try to explain it to people when appropriate situations arrive.

One thing that makes me OPTIMISTIC is that I think people have an instinctual love for liberty. I think there are many people who would love freedom and free markets but have been bullied into believing that those things are immoral. I believe when people (especially young people) are exposed to the actual justifications for liberty, they will be hooked for life.

I may be wrong but that’s just my two cents.

[derosa8]

I think this Harvard Lawyer would deny that the Union was established as a compact among the several states. I have yet to read Abel P. Upsher’s response to Joseph story, but I bet it would really help us to understand the Compact Theory of the Union as the correct one.

Mr. McClanahan links to it in one lecture: http://www.constitution.org/ups/upshur.htm

[derosa8]

“I have a friend who has a Harvard Law Degree…” – I think Dr. Woods started this website so we could answer objections that started like that! Great to see liberty in action.

Regarding Brion’s response, with (2) I would be careful because your friend will simply retort, “No they did not have a legal claim and neither did the south. Thus, such an action was an implicit declaration of war.”

Also, I don’t see how Virginia did not have a legal right to secede if they ratified the Constitution (i.e. agreed to the contract that bound the Union of states) ONLY while explicitly retaining the right to leave the Union. I don’t see how Harvard Law degrees could change any of that. Perhaps your friend is reading strict modern contract law back into the 18th and 19th centuries?

Here’s another question you could ask (in addition to Brion’s list) that might get to the root of his bias:

(3) What would the history have to look like for you to recognize that Virginia [or any other state] did indeed have a legal right to secede?

[Author]

Posts