Post AX1Vda4nftCEj6CpcW by sue@liberdon.com
(DIR) More posts by sue@liberdon.com
(DIR) Post #AX1Vda4nftCEj6CpcW by sue@liberdon.com
2023-06-24T17:31:18Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
Logical arguments against the state are more powerful than appeals to morality.The state's existence relies on an illogical premise: namely, that one group of rational agents arbitrarily have rights that another group of rational agents do not.https://sue.hashnode.dev/the-state-cannot-be-defended-logically#state #government #philosophy #anarchy #law #estoppel
(DIR) Post #AX1XiJ2ycIuNGbjZJo by apodoxus@mastodon.online
2023-06-24T17:54:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue That's just more morality: your moral is that everyone should have the same rights (or that no one should have any rights.)
(DIR) Post #AX1hHxOXUnda7stUsi by sue@liberdon.com
2023-06-24T19:41:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@apodoxus It's not. It's based on the logical principle of universalizability. It's not a moral argument. I'm not saying that by being consistent, you are being moral, or that by being inconsistent you are being immoral.
(DIR) Post #AX1hcjhXbS8zjngrJo by apodoxus@mastodon.online
2023-06-24T19:45:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue It's literally a value judgement. You're valuing consistency, specifically the consistent application of things like rules in human behavior, so, more morality.
(DIR) Post #AX1hlWG4x90SeS27g8 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-06-24T19:47:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@apodoxus I'm simply stating that the state cannot be defended with the use of logic. This isn't a value judgement, this is a fact. Now whether you *should* act in a logically defensible manner or not is a value judgement, but not the crux of my argument.
(DIR) Post #AX1i8tGtYZd6gaYjce by apodoxus@mastodon.online
2023-06-24T19:51:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Of course it can. They think some people have those rights based on certain properties like where they were born and other people that do not share those properties do not have those rights. There's no violation of universality in that at all, unless you impose universality normatively like you're trying to do.
(DIR) Post #AX1iDMQj5V5AHIHzu4 by sue@liberdon.com
2023-06-24T19:52:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@apodoxus That's an arbitrary judgement, not a logical one.
(DIR) Post #AX1ihhh4auocuhP720 by apodoxus@mastodon.online
2023-06-24T19:57:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue "Arbitrary" judgements can be logical. Those are not mutually exclusive properties.
(DIR) Post #AX1iugLcuSyeVIYqrg by sue@liberdon.com
2023-06-24T20:00:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@apodoxus Perhaps we are using different definitions of the term "arbitrary"."Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". "
(DIR) Post #AX1j37UvqmB71bwATo by apodoxus@mastodon.online
2023-06-24T20:01:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Perhaps you just don't know what logical means. There's nothing logically inconsistent or "illogical" with me liking one person and not another, yet it can be completely arbitrary.