MODERATOR NOTE: This thread is an offshoot of this one, and this OP is a reply to the OP in that thread.



Perhaps he's wrong. If so, so what? This point is utterly irrelevant, since even if ALL moral codes are subjective, there's no justification for imposing any onto another person. In fact, even if we can show that this code is NOT objective AND we can find another that IS objective, it's not a problem, since individuals can still prefer subjective codes over objective ones. Objective != correct, subjective != incorrect.


Probably, but again, so what? They are probably more complete than any other "moral code" while maintaining a higher level of consistency.


Incapacitation does not equal a loss of ownership. And again, even if you're right, so what?

Nothing you've presented here is a fatal flaw in what Nielsio has presented. Certainly all competing moral codes that have been put forth are either as deficient if not vastly more so OR (in the case of trivially simple "codes" such as "might makes right") suffer from other defects.

You keep repeating this but it's contradictory. "Imposing a moral code on someone" is in itself a normative judgment to be defined by some kind of subjective moral code.

It has been pointed out to PVN repeatedly that the portion you quoted doesn't follow. He'll ignore it, and then regurgitate the same thing in a later thread, as we're seeing again. The flimsy philosophical pinings of ideologues at play.

No, imposing is not a judgment, it's an action.

Saying there's no justification for imposing is a judgement.

No, it's a fact. Nobody has demonstrated an objective, universal justification for imposing a given moral code upon other people. In fact, if, as some suggest, that moral codes are inherently subjective, there cannot be such a justification that is objectively true and universal.

DUCY?

No it's not. Justification is relative to the moral framework.

Nice bait and switch. Nobody said anything about objectively true and universal justifications. Nobody has ever demonstrated an objective, universal justification for anything because they don't exist. Objective and universal are irrelevant here.

Now we're getting somewhere!

It's not a bait and switch, it's not irrelevant, it's precisely the point.

I have a personal subjective opinion that backs up my claim that everything you "own" should be transferred to me. Yet you aren't transferring it. I have a justification, so fork it over.

Of course he isn't transferring it, because according to his moral philosophy, you do not have a claim to anything he owns.

But what possible objection can he have if I force him to transfer it? After all, I have a justification!

I have no clue what you guys are talking about

Morally, his objection will depend on his moral philosophy. Practically, his objection will refer to social (and legal) conventions of ownership.

I'm not sure if I understand. Lets say that I know my neighbor is a serial killer who eats children for his enjoyment. Under his moral code, this is not wrong. Under my moral code, it is wrong. Pvn, do you think that I am not justified in stopping him (by telling the police perhaps), because I would be imposing my moral code on him?

PVN, even ACists believe it is justified to impose moral codes on others.
Lets I don't believe that property rights are moral, and you do.
If I take something that you say is your property, and then you assault me to get it back, you are imposing you moral code on me, right?

Are these cartoon children or real children with their own preferences?

Lets say they are real children with their own preferences. I'm not sure why this matters. Pvn said:

The children having preferences does not change the fact that in my example, I would be imposing my moral code on the serial killer.

But wasn't the serial killer imposing his moral code on other people in the first place, by killing them?

Why?

He's already imposing his code on the children, isn't he? You're not imposing anything on him, you're just stopping him from imposing upon others. Since he initiates the interaction here without consent or prior arrangements, he can't possibly have any legitimate complaint when someone else closes the interaction without his consent.

What if he ate adults with their consent?

I think we've already had this thread, haven't we?

It's sad after upteen thousand posts here that you make these basic mistakes. They show a glaring hole in your ability to critically analyze your own philosophy and others.

I don't see an answer to my question in there.

PVN, you never answered my question.
Do you feel it is justified to impose your own moral code of property rights on people who do not believe in property rights?

Sorry, I've answered this so many times I guess it just slipped by.

Answer: Nope.

Also, "property rights" are not my moral code.