What do you think or feel about the Constitution?

[technomage]

Firstly, the article is specifically about the market response to the expectation of government interventions (the government trying to manipulate the gold market):

You read it--you did not understand it. You immediately assumed that any government sale, for whatever purpose, is an attempt to "manipulate" the market.

[technomage]

Until we settle the moral relativism/realism debate, perhaps we can speak in terms of what is in accordance with human nature--since you too have appealed to that repeatedly.

I do not think that will suffice. For both you and I, our conceptions on "human nature" are far too diverse, and the crux of that difference rests in (a) our disagreement about the existence/non-existence of "natural law," and (b) our disagreement about the existence/non-existence of "objective morality. Until we have those issues settled, we are fundamentally speaking around each other, not to each other--we might as well be speaking separate languages.

Would you state that Natural Law is dependent upon Objective Morality, the other way around, or that neither depends upon the other?

[joel]

You read it--you did not understand it. You immediately assumed that any government sale, for whatever purpose, is an attempt to "manipulate" the market.

The author was writing in the context of central-banking (monetary) policy. The applications addressed were things like maintaining a price ceiling or pegging the price of gold. The whole reason for the term "attack" is that the government doesn't want its gold stock depleted. (If you have paper money backed by gold, a draining of that gold makes the central bank less solvent.) If the government simply has gold it wants to get rid of, then people buying the gold it wants to sell is not an "attack" from anyone's perspective. I don't see how the market response in any of these cases is bad.

Would you state that Natural Law is dependent upon Objective Morality, the other way around, or that neither depends upon the other?

I consider them the same thing. Or more precisely I usually use "natural law" to refer to that subset of morality that deals with justice and the use of force.

However natural law can also be discussed as what is in accord with man's well-functioning. As Rothbard points out that Even Hume "recognized and accepted that the social . . . order is an indispensable prerequisite to man's well-being and happiness: and that this is a statement of fact." This has a historical basis as well. I understand that Aristotle and Aquinas, for example, considered the Good to be the perfection of something's nature and that which is in accord with the thing's well-functioning, which, in the case of man, means his happiness. (And, in the other direction, evil is privation.)

And we can investigate such things. E.g., as I explained before how the idea that everyone owns everyone else equally would forbid all human action and thus is clearly contrary to man's good.


By the way, in related discussions I've had in the past, I've found that the word "objective" has different meanings and can confuse the issue. For this reason I tend to prefer saying that I'm a "moral realist", meaning that I think there are true moral propositions. And that if someone believes something contrary to such a proposition they are mistaken. In this sense, "objective" means independent of subjective opinion.

[technomage]

By the way, in related discussions I've had in the past, I've found that the word "objective" has different meanings and can confuse the issue. For this reason I tend to prefer saying that I'm a "moral realist", meaning that I think there are true moral propositions. And that if someone believes something contrary to such a proposition they are mistaken. In this sense, "objective" means independent of subjective opinion.

The way I use "objective morality" is that Objective morality is defined as a standard (or set of standards) of moralty that exists outside of human culture, and is or should be theoretically the same for all cultures, in all times, under all conditions." A bit more expansive than your definition. If you can work with my definition, then I propose that we start a separate thread to discuss the existential status of objective morality.

ETA: I must also add that I am a moral realist--moral realism and moral relativism are not exclusive--but that the truth value of a moral statement is contingent upon the cultural context of the discussion. In other words, if we are discussing the moral behavior of chimpanzees, then coercion, "might makes right", and morality based on power-over all become acceptable (in that such behavior is accepted within the social structures of a group of chimpanzees--while the picked-on chimpanzee may object, he accedes to the situation). On the other hand, if we are comparing (say) a Wiccan coven to a Christian local congregation, moral statements that are true of one group may not be true of the other group.

[joel]

The way I use "objective morality" is that Objective morality is defined as a standard (or set of standards) of moralty that exists outside of human culture, and is or should be theoretically the same for all cultures, in all times, under all conditions." A bit more expansive than your definition. If you can work with my definition, then I propose that we start a separate thread to discuss the existential status of objective morality.

We can work with that.
If you'd like to start a new thread, I'll join you.

ETA: I must also add that I am a moral realist--moral realism and moral relativism are not exclusive--but that the truth value of a moral statement is contingent upon the cultural context of the discussion. In other words, if we are discussing the moral behavior of chimpanzees, then coercion, "might makes right", and morality based on power-over all become acceptable (in that such behavior is accepted within the social structures of a group of chimpanzees--while the picked-on chimpanzee may object, he accedes to the situation). On the other hand, if we are comparing (say) a Wiccan coven to a Christian local congregation, moral statements that are true of one group may not be true of the other group.

I agree that context makes a difference, but I'd put it differently. I'd say that there is a universal standard, and that it applies differently in different contexts. Whether throwing a brick through a window is immoral depends on other factors. But in all such instances, it is the same universal principles that are applied.

I suspect that all moral realists must have universal principles. E.g., a hypothetical relativist-realist who holds that majority opinion (or cultural consensus) is always really morally binding upon the dissenters would be therefore affirming a universal principle, and in that sense isn't really a relativist. Though the effects of the application of such a principle to different situations would appear different.

But perhaps this is something for the other thread.

[technomage]

We can work with that.
If you'd like to start a new thread, I'll join you.

Splendid. I've got the new thread here. Now, a word of warning--I had originally written that OP in order to post it as a free-for-all in Apologetics 101, so it reads like I'm addressing a crowd, not an individual, but bear with the style on the OP please--I promise the replies will not sound like stump speeches.