I realize I'm presenting a strictly Kantian perspective at the moment. A complete political and economic position would. I think require a little more nuance. But regarding property rights, and establishing other such rights, I find it easiest to frame in this manner.

@damian This will be my last post before I go to bed, so don't wait up for me after this.

The problem I see with a purely abstract view of this is that consequences and material circumstances actually do matter. I would argue that the maxim we are universalising isn't that we should steal to eat, it's that we should make sure that everyone has met a minimum threshold of being so that they can actualise their freedom effectively. Your right to life and liberty is sometimes threatened by my right to property.

Universalising maxims is perhaps an effective way of deriving certain morals, but it's not effective for determining action in the material world on its own. When you abstract away present conditions, you forget that we're operating within a dynamic system that changes constantly and that you can predict a number of material consequences which are undesirable. Life is complicated, and the black and white world of the categorical imperative often misses this.

@damian Didn't see your second post. So this one's my last post.

Even if it's easier to frame something in such a way, that doesn't mean we should or that it's an effective guide for action. Material circumstances and consequences matter, and a pure Kantian framework ignores this.

Why do I have any obligation to respect your rights if doing so puts me at a severe disadvantage or even threatens my life? Why shouldn't I return to a state of nature? Moreover if a government protects those three rights of an individual at a severe cost to a majority of it's citizens from what does that government draw it's legitimacy? I mean to say if a majority of a citizenry finds that respecting those rights is not at all to their benefit and instead desire a return to a state of nature, upon what basis will society survive?

Honestly, I despise consequentialist morality with a passion. I think when we evaluate the consequences of the action we will often make decisions that are simply, least bad, as opposed to actually correct. When I say I'm framing it this way, because it's easiest for me, what I really mean is that I find it the most effective method for determining the appropriate rights and duties. But that it may be ineffective for other matters.

The principle you're trying to maximize doesn't refer to an action. That's the problem. How should people obtain their minimum threshold? If your answer is taxes, then the maxim you are actually advocating, is that we should expropriate wealth to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Which is identical to stealing to feed yourself.

I'm also relatively confident I would disagree with what you mean by actualize your freedom effectively. But it is difficult to say, because it's a nebulous way of putting it.

I'm not sure if I've answered your original query. If I haven't let me know and I'll try again.

What the fuck is a "state of nature"?

@ mendax

Oh, come on. The communes weren't socialist.

state of nature the philosophical thought experiment of man's interaction with other man and the world before the existence or in the absence of society.

You say its not useful to evaluate the outcomes of actions when deciding what is right, but simply the action itself, but in the absence of consequences then by what basis are you determining what is right? If all that matters it the action stage then shouldn't any action be indistinguishable from any other?

state of nature is the philosophical*

if all that matters is the action*

"state of nature the philosophical thought experiment of man's interaction with other man and the world before the existence or in the absence of society. "

I know that smartass, what I was asking (rather sarcastically) is how you're defining man's natural state. Do you believe man to be fundamentally evil, or good? It's a thought experiment with many different outcomes. Personally I'm partial to Rousseau's discussion which suggests that society spawns man's evil, rather than assuming a naturally evil nature.

All that matters in the intention, when evaluating the ethical nature of an action. Two actions may be ethically equivalent even if they have results that are vastly divergent. Consequences do matter. Just not for determining the ethics of an action. The only evaluation of consequences involved in considering ethics from my perspective is when attempting to determine if the action you are performing is universalizable.

Don't call me a smartass, "What the fuck is a "state of nature"?" I answered that question, I'm sorry you were unclear.

Well if it is disgruntled members left behind by society, its probably going to take the for of something along the lines of a Hobbesian State of Nature.

Intent is a dangerous basis, I can ethically do whatever I want as long as I intend it to do good for people I think are good. If you don't judge actions based on outcomes, then there is no ethical basis for prohibiting any action.

SMARTASS...

'the world before the existence or in the absence of society.'

But society is the consequences of the 'man's interaction with other man' - thus the absence of society is the state of man's interaction with other man in the absence of interaction with other man.

In the absence of tradition to guide our interactions we would invent them.

State of nature is a pet peeve of mine, because everyone has an assumption about what it means. You're right. My question was unclear. But your answer was laughable.

You've defined state of nature now. Your "state of nature" is Hobbesian. Fine.

"Intent is a dangerous basis, I can ethically do whatever I want as long as I intend it to do good for people I think are good."
That's not how I'm evaluating intent. I'm running off a strictly Kantian ethical evaluation.

Universalizability kinda requires one to consider the outcome of that action, otherwise how can you say that it would be good for everyone to behave that way?

I already acknowledged that.

"The only evaluation of consequences involved in considering ethics from my perspective is when attempting to determine if the action you are performing is universalizable."

The thing is you aren't judging an action to be good, because it has good consequences. But because the action is done out of a duty to follow universalizable principles.

The evaluation of consequences in universalization is different too, because it doesn't evaluate the continent circumstances.

@damian @Puddle @orathaic
I think the discussion about the state of nature is tangential—if it is even related—to the matter at hand. I ain't sign no social contract.

But I think the issue Puddle was trying to raise is similar to one I described in my longer post: that if rights only exist because they are means to an end, then if they are ineffective means, they should not be used. Using the state of nature is here is not an attempt to justify rights or morals, but a proposal for a consequence of the absence of rights. He (or she) is asking why there is any incentive to respect social mores if it is to his or her disadvantage. In short, Puddle is objecting to a utilitarian conception of rights, and not the presence of society.

With regard to universalisation, I shall illustrate my point with an example. Imagine you're sheltering a child from some bad guy (the specifics here are not terribly important). You have a reasonable expectation that this bad person will do harm to the child, so you allow the kid to hide in your basement. If the bad guy comes to the door and asks if you have seen the child, do you tell him? Upon consulting the categorical imperative, you realise that lying is wrong because it leads to a contradiction. But telling the bad guy the truth will lead to him harming the child.

I doubt very many people would let the bad guy get the kid, and rightly so. If you have a reasonable expectation of the consequences of your action, you have to take that into consideration when you make a moral evaluation. As I wrote above, the categorical imperative is great for figuring out if something is wrong in the abstract. Outside of material circumstances, lying is wrong. But in this particular scenario, it isn't wrong. And therein lies the weakness of a purely Kantian moral framework: it doesn't account for the practical limitations of the real world.

To bring this back to my original question, as to the justification of private property, I don't think we've quite come to an answer. (Don't worry, there's no definitive answer out there anyway). I asked after the moral justification of having private property, especially with regard to an absolute right. You've replied with a notion of rights that considers them only abstractly, independent of material outcomes. But, if I may put this bluntly, this formulation of right and wrong is out of touch with the real world: the homeless man on the street doesn't care if your universal maxims don't result in a logical contradiction. All he knows is that he's hungry and cold, and there's something that you and everyone else can do about it. He sees a society that values individualism and the equal moral worth of everyone, and a world that refuses to help him, justifying inaction as the most moral thing to do.

I'm not 100% in favour of a consequentialist moral philosophy either, but I acknowledge that to some extent outcomes do matter. We live in the material world and we can’t just ignore the results of our actions. Intentions are not the entirety of morality, and neither are outcomes. There is room for nuance and none for absolutes.

" If the bad guy comes to the door and asks if you have seen the child, do you tell him? Upon consulting the categorical imperative, you realise that lying is wrong because it leads to a contradiction. But telling the bad guy the truth will lead to him harming the child.

I doubt very many people would let the bad guy get the kid, and rightly so. If you have a reasonable expectation of the consequences of your action, you have to take that into consideration when you make a moral evaluation. As I wrote above, the categorical imperative is great for figuring out if something is wrong in the abstract. Outside of material circumstances, lying is wrong. But in this particular scenario, it isn't wrong."

I always love when people bring up this particular example, because it provides, in my opinion a perfect example of binary thinking.

The question is always framed as, lie to the murder and save your friend, or tell the truth to the murder and doom your friend. In my opinion neither is particularly wise. In that situation the moral choice is to, truthfully, tell the murder you are unwilling to help him.

I'm continuously showing my human capacity to err today/yesterday. I missed an entire paragraph of your post pangloss.

"To bring this back to my original question, as to the justification of private property, I don't think we've quite come to an answer. (Don't worry, there's no definitive answer out there anyway). I asked after the moral justification of having private property, especially with regard to an absolute right. You've replied with a notion of rights that considers them only abstractly, independent of material outcomes. But, if I may put this bluntly, this formulation of right and wrong is out of touch with the real world: the homeless man on the street doesn't care if your universal maxims don't result in a logical contradiction. All he knows is that he's hungry and cold, and there's something that you and everyone else can do about it. He sees a society that values individualism and the equal moral worth of everyone, and a world that refuses to help him, justifying inaction as the most moral thing to do. "

The thing about Kantian ethics, is one cannot justify being uncharitable using them. In fact being charitable to your fellow man is, arguably, a universalizable principle.

Me personally. I acknowledge my moral failings. I am a grumpy, selfish and uncharitable person. However the moral imperative is essentially a more sophisticated golden rule: treat others, how you would want to be treated. Which if people followed would probably resolve the problem of poverty.

Anyway, yes, I advocate for private property on the grounds of abstract ethical principles. While there are other reasons to support private property that is the reasoning I find most compelling. So I guess I have answered your question. But my answer isn't necessarily compelling to your in the same way it is to me. Which is cool. People are different, different explanations will be more compelling to different people.

I'd like to apologize for yesterday's rather vague rambling. I was tired and not at all in a proper state for discussion thus I am sure I came across as rather ignorant and/or unintelligent. That is my fault for entering the conversation against my better judgement when I should have waited until I was in a clearer state of mind. In regards to Nigee, yes I will admit my comments were rather poorly worded and came across entirely different from what I intended, however, your comment was both unnecessary and juvenile.

That being said I rather like where pangloss has taken the conversation. I can understand where you're coming from though I can't say I fully agree. Your point on luck playing a role in individual societal stature was excellent and I can agree that there should be a minimum standard for economic status in a society (status including base income, healthcare, basic education, and the like). However, to pose a question arguing a virtue of capitalism (mind you I realize a capitalist system is quite flawed and I can agree that it could be corrected through a mixture of other economic ideologies). Would you not agree some healthy competition is good for an economy and society? A minimum standard would be a good idea, but also realize this could have potential negative repercussions. A secured standard of living could (and likely would) drastically reduce the potential of a society with many settling for the minimum and not striving to achieve more. You see it now in both schools and the standard work force. I don't want to give the idea that we should not try given these negative possibilities, but they are something to consider when planning. Perhaps there are ways to avoid them while still meeting everyone's base needs, though I cannot say for sure.

In regards to the merits of private property I can agree a little with both damian pangloss. I agree there is room for circumstance and nuance as well as the fact that nothing is entirely absolute or certain. There can always be flaws and that makes sense because we as humans are inherently flawed. Where the merits of private property and in a more general sense material wealth, can come in to play are in rewarding improvement and providing incentive to make things better. It's how we get people to work so hard for goals that many of us cannot reach such as doctors finding cures/treatments for cancer or businesses developing revolutionary new ideas such as the cellphone or automobile which make life easier and more convenient for the majority. Yes there is some moral satisfaction, but you can't live your life based on good feelings in a material world. Please note that I do not think materialism is all positive as it has many downsides and repercussions as do many things. It is for this reason that there are so many different perspectives and ways of viewing things. Some take the ethical view and base actions mainly on morals while others take the logical view and base actions on what is best for the majority. Neither view is entirely right or wrong though I have to admit I err more on the side of logic than ethics.

(I realize my post jumps all over the place but I am trying my best to catch up with the conversation as it is really a good discussion)

correction * damian and pangloss at the top of paragraph 3

I also realize that those who take up a logical stance are not devoid of ethics and those who take up a ethical stance are not devoid of logic. I merely assert that they favor one over the other.

"And ethical stance". Ethics are subjective - it's an invalid stance. For anyone that makes an ethical stance that socialism is good because it provides for the greater good or some other bullshit, I can make the stance that it is unethical to provide for those that won't provide for themselves, even to the point of saying that it is detrimental to the human race in its entirety to facilitate the lifestyle and ease the burden on those with fewer innate skills to survive on their own, who will then procreate and pass those bad lazy genes on. The evolutionists among us should abhor socialism from an ethical standpoint.

Speaking of ethics, how long is it right to wait after Mandela's death before it is acceptable to debate his achievements (or lack of)?

And if you make the argument that it isn't "bad lazy genes" that cause people to not thrive on their own, then you are further supporting the argument that socialism is bad, because they are supported in their less-than-productive lifestyle by the easing of burden that is provided by the redistribution of wealth, which would then be exacerbated by true socialism. So either way - nature or nurture - socialism degrades humanity as a whole.

Lack thereof....nothing to debate.

@krellin, that's a good point. Perhaps moral is a better term than ethical. Of course when I say moral I meam it from a perceived right and wrong, not necessarily certain as morals themselves are also subjective.

Kramerkov, I've read your long post twice, and I'm still not sure I understand why you're characterizing your position as a blend of my position and pangloss's. As much as I'd like to have someone on my side, (besides perhaps krellin?)Your position seems to be identical to panglosses so I'm a little confused.

I'm always a little uncomfortable when krellin seems to be sharing a side with me. I realize it's an outdated thought, since my own personal position has shifted so much since I first started posting, but I'm so used to arguing against him.

@damian, understandable given I was trying to catch up with a whole conversation in one go and did not have much time to elaborate. I'm saying I agree with your stance on private property, perhaps for different reasons, but agreement nonetheless. Privatization ensures those in control of something are actually invested in it and will care for it. Whether for good or ill reasons they are responsible which is not a trait in many publicly owned properties. While I think that a guaranteed minimum standard has its benefits I can also recognize the draw backs in that it cuts the desire to work harder or really earn what you have. So I guess you could say while I can see the reasoning behind such a point I could not agree with it on the grounds that the benefits do not outweigh the cost. Perhaps there is some form of alternative but I've yet to think of one. I am merely trying to find some common ground between the two sides if I am making any sense at all.