Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

Please define "benefits".

I assume the usual dictionary definition:

"Benefit (noun):

"1a: something that produces good or helpful results or effects or that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit

You do, however, have to keep in mind that what constitutes "well-being" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. But assuming you know what a given person values, whether he has received a benefit is objective.

Less objective than you make it. If I said: "you can get out of paying taxes if you declare that you aren't receiving a "benefit", something tells me that suddenly there would be a dearth of self described benefit.

[Good_Egg]

He thinks he can determine the reality of "justice" and "wrongfully" through the superstructure of his... ...philosophy.

Isn't that what we're all doing here ? Seeking to determine the reality of right and wrong, or to put it another way of justice, through philosophy ?

And that means learning to reason well, not just spout opinion.

If every reasonable person thinks the world is round, maybe it is round.

Substitute "flat" for "round" in this statement, and the limitations of your argument become clearer. Once upon a time the majority of reasonable people did believe that the earth was flat.

Conventional wisdom is not an infallible authority (as I think you acknowledge by that word "maybe"). Society can be wrong.

And we can only know by reasoning, I.e. by philosophy. If you think GE is wrong, put forward an actual argument instead of appealing to conventional wisdom ("millions of willing taxpayers cannot be wrong"?).

[Pattern-chaser]

"The public" is not a moral agent who can be benefited or harmed; it is simply a collective term for a number of individuals...

...who can be, considered as a group, collectively harmed, I think?

No, they can't be "collectively" harmed. Any harms will affect particular individuals. It is possible, of course, that some particular harm can befall all the members of some group, but the larger the group, the less likely that becomes. In groups larger than a few hundred people any public policy will benefit some, harm others, and leave others unaffected.

Don't be silly! Being an individual, and being a member of a group, is not an either/or thing. On the contrary, we are all both, at different times, and in different circumstances. We are all members of many groups, of all shapes and sizes, and we remain individual throughout all that. 'Groupness' is not an attack on the individual or on individualism. It's just a direct expression of empirical observations. Your antipathy toward anything that dilutes your Libertarian (i.e. Individualist) beliefs is getting, er, comical...?

[GE Morton]

That's it? No answer to the question, no rebuttals to the arguments, just a lengthy ad hominem and a defense of ad populum arguments?

The only reasonable excuse for using the Latin ad hominem is to expose a fallacious argument. Since -- as you correctly point out -- I was writing a short essay instead of making an argument, the Latin is silly.

Your "short essay" was a response to an argument --- one which offered no rebuttal to that argument, but instead compared me to inmates of insane asylums. That is a classical ad hominem ("to the man").

Yes, I did defend ad populum arguments. The extent to which internet philosophers obsess about "logical fallacies" is ridiculous.

LOL. I must admit I've never before encountered anyone on a philosophy forum who didn't understand why ad populum arguments are fallacious.

It is quite true that nothing is logically proven with an ad populum argument. But that doesn't mean that public opinion should be dismissed. The insane person who thinks he is Napoleon would do well to consider the fact that nobody else agrees with him.

No, he shouldn't. He should, instead, consider the evidence for his belief. Other people's beliefs are not evidence for the veracity of his own.

When you (for example) restate silly postulates to claim that taxation is theft, your logic may be valid, but your conclusions are silly.

Ah. And just what are those postulates you dismiss as "silly"? I suspect you can't say, because you've never actually examined the argument. You disregard it because the conclusion affronts a belief to which you have an emotional attachment, comparable to a religious belief. Religious zealots don't debate heretics; they demand they be burned at the stake.

Please list the postulates you deem "silly."

[GE Morton]

No, they can't be "collectively" harmed. Any harms will affect particular individuals. It is possible, of course, that some particular harm can befall all the members of some group, but the larger the group, the less likely that becomes. In groups larger than a few hundred people any public policy will benefit some, harm others, and leave others unaffected.

Don't be silly! Being an individual, and being a member of a group, is not an either/or thing. On the contrary, we are all both, at different times, and in different circumstances. We are all members of many groups, of all shapes and sizes, and we remain individual throughout all that. 'Groupness' is not an attack on the individual or on individualism. It's just a direct expression of empirical observations. Your antipathy toward anything that dilutes your Libertarian (i.e. Individualist) beliefs is getting, er, comical...?

???

I'm mystified. I didn't deny that individuals (in social settings) are members of groups, or express any "antipathy" to groups or "groupness"(?). I just said that harms are not collective; that they apply only to individuals, whether or not they're members of groups, and that the larger the group, the less likely any particular harm will befall all of its members. Claims of "collective harms" are usually misleading, implying that all members of a group are harmed by some particular event or policy, when in fact only certain persons are harmed by it. There are no "harms to a group" that are not reducible to harms to individual members of that group.

[GE Morton]

I assume the usual dictionary definition:

"Benefit (noun):

"1a: something that produces good or helpful results or effects or that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit

You do, however, have to keep in mind that what constitutes "well-being" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. But assuming you know what a given person values, whether he has received a benefit is objective.

Less objective than you make it. If I said: "you can get out of paying taxes if you declare that you aren't receiving a "benefit", something tells me that suddenly there would be a dearth of self described benefit.

As I said, whether one receives a benefit from some tax is objective (assuming one knows what that taxpayer values). E.g., if he values his life, bodily integrity, and property, then he will benefit from a public policy and practice which reduces risks to them.

[Ecurb]

Substitute "flat" for "round" in this statement, and the limitations of your argument become clearer. Once upon a time the majority of reasonable people did believe that the earth was flat.

Conventional wisdom is not an infallible authority (as I think you acknowledge by that word "maybe"). Society can be wrong.

And we can only know by reasoning, I.e. by philosophy. If you think GE is wrong, put forward an actual argument instead of appealing to conventional wisdom ("millions of willing taxpayers cannot be wrong"?).

For some reason, the vast majority thinks the world is round, not flat. Hmmm. I wonder why?

"Reasoning", when it means no more than thinking in a logical, systematic way is of course beneficial. But we know most of what we know by either:

1) Observation (I suppose we can "reason" our way to either accepting or refusing to accept what we see with our own eyes, but most people don't bother. They just accept it.

2) Reports from sources we trust. I've never done any experiments proving the world is round. I just accept what scientists say. Same with most other stuff I iknow. I accept that Alaska is the biggest state; California is the most populous. I accept that Barry Bonds hit the most home runs in Major League History, and that Julius Caesar was assasinated in the Senate. I suppose, if I took the trouble, I could make a "reasonaed" argument as to why I accept these things, but it hardly seems worth the bother.

[Ecurb]

Your "short essay" was a response to an argument --- one which offered no rebuttal to that argument, but instead compared me to inmates of insane asylums. That is a classical ad hominem ("to the man").....

LOL. I must admit I've never before encountered anyone on a philosophy forum who didn't understand why ad populum arguments are fallacious.

Nor have you met anyone now. Ad populum arguments are fallacious LOGICALLY, but that doesn't mean they are not "reasonable". I believe the world is round and Alaska is the biggest state because most educated people say that is the case. Am I wrong? Also, making personal comments IS ad hominem, but the only reasonable excuse for the pretentious Latin is if a fallacious argument is involved. Making personal comments need not be an argument, and not every post need be an argument. Arguments are overrated, as our endless and fruitless disagreements demonstrate. Branch out a little, GE. Try writing in a different style, sometimes.

No, he shouldn't. He should, instead, consider the evidence for his belief. Other people's beliefs are not evidence for the veracity of his own.

So you don't think Alaska is the biggest state?

Ah. And just what are those postulates you dismiss as "silly"? I suspect you can't say, because you've never actually examined the argument. You disregard it because the conclusion affronts a belief to which you have an emotional attachment, comparable to a religious belief. Religious zealots don't debate heretics; they demand they be burned at the stake.

Please list the postulates you deem "silly."

Your most basic postulates currently escape my failing memory. However, here's one:

"Life and liberty are "possessions"", and therefore the right to life and liberty are akin to property rights.

I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. It's an equivocation.

Logic, as I've repeated many times, can only prove what we already know (because conclusions are restatements of the premises).

[LuckyR]

I assume the usual dictionary definition:

"Benefit (noun):

"1a: something that produces good or helpful results or effects or that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit

You do, however, have to keep in mind that what constitutes "well-being" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. But assuming you know what a given person values, whether he has received a benefit is objective.

Less objective than you make it. If I said: "you can get out of paying taxes if you declare that you aren't receiving a "benefit", something tells me that suddenly there would be a dearth of self described benefit.

As I said, whether one receives a benefit from some tax is objective (assuming one knows what that taxpayer values). E.g., if he values his life, bodily integrity, and property, then he will benefit from a public policy and practice which reduces risks to them.

So if 97% of taxpayers self describe as valuing those things, 3% don't have to pay taxes?

[GE Morton]

As I said, whether one receives a benefit from some tax is objective (assuming one knows what that taxpayer values). E.g., if he values his life, bodily integrity, and property, then he will benefit from a public policy and practice which reduces risks to them.

So if 97% of taxpayers self describe as valuing those things, 3% don't have to pay taxes?

Er, no. We don't discern a person's values by what he says, but but what he does --- how he acts, how he invests his time and energy. E.g., if he makes monthly mortgage payments on his house, insures it, maintains it, we can assume he values the house. If he visits a doctor when sick, we can assume he values his health. Etc.

[LuckyR]

As I said, whether one receives a benefit from some tax is objective (assuming one knows what that taxpayer values). E.g., if he values his life, bodily integrity, and property, then he will benefit from a public policy and practice which reduces risks to them.

So if 97% of taxpayers self describe as valuing those things, 3% don't have to pay taxes?

Er, no. We don't discern a person's values by what he says, but but what he does --- how he acts, how he invests his time and energy. E.g., if he makes monthly mortgage payments on his house, insures it, maintains it, we can assume he values the house. If he visits a doctor when sick, we can assume he values his health. Etc.

So should this evaluation be done individually or on average for groups of individuals?

[GE Morton]

Ad populum arguments are fallacious LOGICALLY, but that doesn't mean they are not "reasonable". I believe the world is round and Alaska is the biggest state because most educated people say that is the case. Am I wrong?

Yes indeed. That is a very poor reason for believing anything. A rational reason would be that that you've looked at a map, and perhaps a US geography text. An even better reason would be that you've driven around that state and others, or even flown over it.

Also, making personal comments IS ad hominem, but the only reasonable excuse for the pretentious Latin is if a fallacious argument is involved. Making personal comments need not be an argument, and not every post need be an argument. Arguments are overrated, as our endless and fruitless disagreements demonstrate.

Yikes. Methinks you're using the wrong forum. Perhaps Facebook would better serve your interests.

Ah. And just what are those postulates you dismiss as "silly"? I suspect you can't say, because you've never actually examined the argument. You disregard it because the conclusion affronts a belief to which you have an emotional attachment, comparable to a religious belief. Religious zealots don't debate heretics; they demand they be burned at the stake.

Please list the postulates you deem "silly."

Your most basic postulates currently escape my failing memory.

As I suspected. Yet you can dismiss them as "silly."

However, here's one:

"Life and liberty are "possessions"", and therefore the right to life and liberty are akin to property rights.

I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. It's an equivocation.

That is not a postulate supporting the conclusion you reject. It is just an observation, and hardly controversial. You don't possess your life, liberty?

"Possess (transitive verb):

"1a: to have and hold as property : OWN
b: to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess

[GE Morton]

So should this evaluation be done individually or on average for groups of individuals?

For the purpose of apportioning taxes, Individually, of course.

[Ecurb]

Ad populum arguments are fallacious LOGICALLY, but that doesn't mean they are not "reasonable". I believe the world is round and Alaska is the biggest state because most educated people say that is the case. Am I wrong?

Yes indeed. That is a very poor reason for believing anything. A rational reason would be that that you've looked at a map, and perhaps a US geography text. An even better reason would be that you've driven around that state and others, or even flown over it.

The map and the U.S. geography text are equivalent to "educated people saying it is the case". The entire peer-review system for scientific journals is a form of ad populum decision making. Most of what we "know", we know because other people have informed us, and the more popular the "facts'(the more widely accepted they are among educated people), the more likely we are to accept them. Barry Bonds hit the most home runs in the history of Major League baseball. The experts all say he did, and I believe them.

However, here's one:

"Life and liberty are "possessions"", and therefore the right to life and liberty are akin to property rights.

I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. It's an equivocation.

That is not a postulate supporting the conclusion you reject. It is just an observation, and hardly controversial. You don't possess your life, liberty?

"Possess (transitive verb):

"1a: to have and hold as property : OWN
b: to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess

[/quote]
We don't "hold life or liberty as a property". That's your mistake. We don't "own" liberty; we sometimes have it, and we sometimes don't have it. Life and liberty are states of being, not "possessions". You are twisting the definitions to imply otherwise.

Please enumerate those basic principles from which you think you can reason your way to Libertatianism. I'll be glad to discuss them. Also, it's not incorrect to think that any postulates from which incorrect or "silly" conclusions can be correctly drawn must be silly themselves. Since conclusions are mere restatements of the postulates (unless invalid), it is a logical necessity that if the conclusions are incorrect, the postulates must be incorrect.

[GE Morton]

The map and the U.S. geography text are equivalent to "educated people saying it is the case".

Well, no, it's not. We don't believe the maps and texts because someone else does (including the authors). We believe it because we assume those authors gathered evidence supporting their claims --- conducted surveys, made measurements, etc. That is a rebuttable presumption, but warrants acceptance until some reason appears for doubting it (and quite often it does). Public opinion, however, on almost any subject, does not warrant that assumption, because most of "the public" are ignorant on most subjects and will have no evidence for their beliefs. But it doesn't matter how educated the person is. If he can't produce evidence supporting his belief, that belief is worth no more than that of an ignoramus.

The entire peer-review system for scientific journals is a form of ad populum decision making.

Well, you clearly have no idea of what "peer review" entails. It means that others familiar with the topic in question have reviewed the evidence and arguments provided by the author and decided either that 1) the evidence is clear and sufficient and the arguments sound, or 2) that they are not. In the latter case the author may be asked to provide more evidence or repair errors in his statistical analysis. Then, when the article is published, others can try to duplicate the results (and often enough, fail to do so). Peer review is not poll-taking.

Barry Bonds hit the most home runs in the history of Major League baseball. The experts all say he did, and I believe them.

Do you believe them because they are "experts" and said so, or because you assume they actually counted them and could produce evidence for every one of those home runs?

"Life and liberty are "possessions"", and therefore the right to life and liberty are akin to property rights.

I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. It's an equivocation.

That is not a postulate supporting the conclusion you reject. It is just an observation, and hardly controversial. You don't possess your life, liberty?

"Possess (transitive verb):

"1a: to have and hold as property : OWN
b: to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess

We don't "hold life or liberty as a property". That's your mistake. We don't "own" liberty; we sometimes have it, and we sometimes don't have it. Life and liberty are states of being, not "possessions". You are twisting the definitions to imply otherwise.

Egads. You assert, "I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. " I give a dictionary definition clearly asserting otherwise. Now I've "twisted" that definition? Are life and liberty not attributes of (living) persons?

You seem to be construing "possessions" narrowly, embracing only tangible, physical objects. The term has a much broader scope.

Please enumerate those basic principles from which you think you can reason your way to Libertatianism.

You now want a complete argument for libertarianism? How about one for the conclusion you rejected, which was, I believe, "No person has any a priori duty to meet any other person's needs, medical or otherwise."

Note, first, that that is a denial of an alleged duty. The burden of proof would fall on the person who asserts there is such a duty. I asked you before, "What rational moral principle permits Alfie to force Bruno to support Alfie's favorite charity, or any charity?"

You offered no answer (other than the fallacious ad populum argument).

But the argument for my claim is simple enough: Alfie has no a priori duty to pay for Brunos' health care because there are no a priori duties. All moral duties arise from some act of the agent. Alfie may have a duty to pay for Brunos' health care if he has injured Bruno, or made some sort of promise to him, or entered into a contract with him imposing that duty upon him. Duties claimed to exist a priori are arbitrary and baseless, and usually defended on emotional, religious, or other non-rational grounds.

So I ask again: do you have a rational argument for that duty?