Dominoes - Pay a little more

[doodab]

You're just replacing 'being forcibly put in a cage' with 'being forcibly moved'. The force/coercion is still there whether you change the words used or not. That's the most thoughtless resposnse you could have possibly given.

Not at all, I'm drawing a comparison between left with no realistic choice but to pay tax and being left with no choice but to work for peanuts. It's not at all clear why you consider the choice between paying tax or moving significantly different than the choice between starvation or slave wages. They are each coercion of a sort, in the sense that there is really no choice at all, so why do you consider one offensive and the other acceptable?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It's people like you jizzing on your own pizza who are killing the business.

Home wanking is killing pizza.

And it's illegal.

[Mich the Tester]

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; he makes quite clear that in his view morality stems from the innate ability of non-psychopathic humans to reflect the emotions of others in themselves. That's emotion, not reason. Unless you think that emotion and reason are one and the same.

[Zero Liability]

Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.

[vetran]

Read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; he makes quite clear that in his view morality stems from the innate ability of non-psychopathic humans to reflect the emotions of others in themselves. That's emotion, not reason. Unless you think that emotion and reason are one and the same.

Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

[Zero Liability]

Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

You'll probably get a lot more valuable insights about the interaction of emotions and reason out of Aristotle than Smith. The Enlightenment brought with it a strong dichotomisation between emotion and so-called reason.

[vetran]

You'll probably get a lot more valuable insights about the interaction of emotions and reason out of Aristotle than Smith. The Enlightenment brought with it a strong dichotomisation between emotion and so-called reason.

Agree that part wasn't particularly enlightened.

Emotion almost always has a reason, even the love for V minors can be distilled into rational reasons, the fact it can be so overpowering it stifles reason doesn't mean it doesn't have a logical base.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.

Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

You are both right of course, but in arguing the point with a person like Spontaneous Order, who seems to have a fundamentalist zeal about market economics, Adam Smith might prompt him to think a bit further.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Not at all, I'm drawing a comparison between left with no realistic choice but to pay tax and being left with no choice but to work for peanuts. It's not at all clear why you consider the choice between paying tax or moving significantly different than the choice between starvation or slave wages. They are each coercion of a sort, in the sense that there is really no choice at all, so why do you consider one offensive and the other acceptable?

Presumably then you're also ok with the choice of being raped or leaving the country?

And no - having to work for peanuts if that's the only choice you have is NOT coercion. It's voluntary trade, and calling it coercion is rank intellectual dishonesty.

[SpontaneousOrder]

If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?

Yes, because you are violating my property rights. You are initiating aggression towards me when you refuse to leave when I ask you.