Technomage and Joel discuss Morality

[joel]

Sorry for the delay. I've been distracted.

"Means" is also problematic, but is the only thing I can think of.

However, we must make a distinction between means that are intrinsic to the person (thoughts, abilities, etc), and means that are extrinsic to the person (wealth, social status, political pull, etc).

All right, I'll assemble the argument as you requested. For brevity's sake I'm putting it in a somewhat rough informal form (e.g., making use of enthymeme). We can fill in "gaps" as needed.

P1) If there is a norm/standard presupposed by all rational argument, then it cannot be argued against (without refuting yourself).
P2) Avoiding physical conflict requires a norm/standard regarding the use of scarce physical means."
D1: A "physical means" is "a material thing that one uses to achieve an objective".
P3) Human action requires the use of specific, scarce physical means (e.g. your body).
P4) Rational argument presupposes an absence of physical conflict (at least regarding your body).

C1) Rational argument presupposes a norm/standard. (From P2 and P4)
C2) Rational argument requires not just any norm, but a particular one: that each person has exclusive use of their own body. (From C1 and P3.)
C3) This specific norm cannot be argued against (without refuting yourself) (From C2 and P1).

corollary) Furthermore, note that because this follows from the nature of rational argument itself, and thus is true for all argument, it obtains for all cultures, and thus this norm is an example of "objective morality".


Hopefully P4 is obvious, but I'll point out a couple things in its defense. My using your body in a way that is incompatible with your arguing, would prevent your engaging in argument. My hitting you over the head and forcing my way upon you is not arguing, but puts an end to argument.

[technomage]

Sorry for the delay. I've been distracted.

Heck, I assumed you got busy--absolutely not a problem.

P1) If there is a norm/standard presupposed by all rational argument, then it cannot be argued against (without refuting yourself).

Leaving aside the question of whether any such norm exists.

P2) Avoiding physical conflict requires a norm/standard regarding the use of scarce physical means."
D1: A "physical means" is "a material thing that one uses to achieve an objective".

No. You equivocate on your definition of "physical means".

Scarcity (as in "scarce physical means") is solely an economic term. My face (or any other intrinsic attribute, such as my ability to think, my physical strength) is neither a good, nor a service. They cannot be transferred, sold, or stolen without destroying them.

More to the point, my intrinsic attributes are not "scarce" to me, nor to anyone else. They are completely unavailable to anyone else (thus "scarcity" does not apply), but they are available, without stint, to me (also rendering "scarce" inapplicable). Even were I enslaved, by ability to think is my own.

P3) Human action requires the use of specific, scarce physical means (e.g. your body).
P4) Rational argument presupposes an absence of physical conflict (at least regarding your body).

And here you equivocate on the concept of "physical conflict." (Not to mention P4 is factually incorrect: physical conflict can interfere with rational argument, but does not necessarily do so. I had a martial arts coach teach me that.)

C1) Rational argument presupposes a norm/standard. (From P2 and P4)
C2) Rational argument requires not just any norm, but a particular one: that each person has exclusive use of their own body. (From C1 and P3.)
C3) This specific norm cannot be argued against (without refuting yourself) (From C2 and P1).
corollary) Furthermore, note that because this follows from the nature of rational argument itself, and thus is true for all argument, it obtains for all cultures, and thus this norm is an example of "objective morality".

Considering the potential problems I see in your propositions, you can of course see that I must reject the conclusions as unsupported.

My using your body in a way that is incompatible with your arguing

And here, again, we have equivocation, this time on the word "use." If you were to attempt to engage in "lead-pipe persuasion", you are not "using" my head--you are assaulting it. While I can guarantee you that I would object vociferously were you to do so, I am still forced to point out that there is no objective standard to state that your actions are wrong.

[joel]

P2) Avoiding physical conflict requires a norm/standard regarding the use of scarce physical means."
D1: A "physical means" is "a material thing that one uses to achieve an objective".

No. You equivocate on your definition of "physical means".

Scarcity (as in "scarce physical means") is solely an economic term. My face (or any other intrinsic attribute, such as my ability to think, my physical strength) is neither a good, nor a service. They cannot be transferred, sold, or stolen without destroying them.

I did not mean to imply anything about market exchange.
The only reason I included "scarce" is to differentiate from non-scarce means: e.g., breathing air; my breathing doesn't prevent you from breathing, so we can avoid physical conflict over breathing without a rule about when each of us can breathe. If you like we can strike the word "scarce" and just understand that P2 is talking about those things over which physical conflict can arise.

More to the point, my intrinsic attributes are not "scarce" to me, nor to anyone else. They are completely unavailable to anyone else (thus "scarcity" does not apply), but they are available, without stint, to me (also rendering "scarce" inapplicable). Even were I enslaved, by ability to think is my own.

That's why I added "physical", as in "a material thing".

P4) Rational argument presupposes an absence of physical conflict (at least regarding your body).

And here you equivocate on the concept of "physical conflict."

How so?

(Not to mention P4 is factually incorrect: physical conflict can interfere with rational argument, but does not necessarily do so. I had a martial arts coach teach me that.)

P4 can be refined as needed to refer specifically to that physical conflict that interferes with rational argument. Then at minimum we have a norm regarding that subset of physical conflict.

My using your body in a way that is incompatible with your arguing

And here, again, we have equivocation, this time on the word "use." If you were to attempt to engage in "lead-pipe persuasion", you are not "using" my head--you are assaulting it.

It is only required that it is a means to achieve an objective.
E.g., a person might use your head as a punching bag merely for a achieving the enjoyment the person derives from the activity.
Or a person could use your brain as food or to tan leather.
Such actions can be incompatible with your arguing.
Even assault can be a means to the objective of "persuasion", as you put it.
But "using" was just an example. In general, for P4 we are talking about physical conflict, of which assault is an example--even if we are talking about something other than your body: If we came to physical conflict over who gets to use, say, a bicycle (or over how it will be used) the physical conflict might involve person X assaulting the other person Y's body as a means to prevent Y's activity that conflicts with X's desired use of the bicycle. Rational argument presupposes an absence of at least that physical conflict that is incompatible with rational argument.

[technomage]

I did not mean to imply anything about market exchange.

Then the word "scarce" is trebly inappropriate--the two reasons I listed, plus your sentence above makes three reasons in total.

If you like we can strike the word "scarce" and just understand that P2 is talking about those things over which physical conflict can arise.

You can change the terminology--you will simply make your explicit equivocation implicit. Joel, "scarce" is only a symptom: the argument itself is fallacious.

That's why I added "physical", as in "a material thing".

This still equivocates on "use." No matter what you to to me, you are not capable of "using" my body in the sense that I use it. You are also not capable of stinting my use of my body.

Face it, Joel--changing specific words in your argument does not overcome the flaws. Your argument fails, catastrophically.

How so?

Because you use differing definitions of "physical conflict" in P2 and P4.

P4 can be refined as needed to refer specifically to that physical conflict that interferes with rational argument.

No, Joel--it can't, because physical conflict does not necessarily interfere with rational argument.

It is only required that it is a means to achieve an objective.

Joel, this does not remove the equivocation. These senses of the word "use" are still nowhere near same as "I use my body to lift this chair (or whatever)". The two definitions are so far apart that they are not even in the same time zone.

[joel]

If you like we can strike the word "scarce" and just understand that P2 is talking about those things over which physical conflict can arise.

You can change the terminology--you will simply make your explicit equivocation implicit. Joel, "scarce" is only a symptom: the argument itself is fallacious.

There is no inherent equivocation with some premises referring to market exchange and some not, because I don't intend any of the propositions to refer to market exchange.

This still equivocates on "use." No matter what you to to me, you are not capable of "using" my body in the sense that I use it.

Irrelevant. Of course things can be used in different ways or senses. That's part of the point. When two people want to interact with one physical thing in different, mutually exclusive ways, then there is the potential for physical conflict. The relevant thing is not whether two actions are the same kind of action. The relevant thing is whether the two actions are mutually exclusive.

You are also not capable of stinting my use of my body.

To be picky like you, Wikitionary does not have a transitive verb definition of "stint", so it's not clear what you mean. If you mean stopping or impeding your desired use of your body, then your statement is obviously not true. There are lots of ways for a person to incapacitate you, or impede you from using your body in a particular way, or, say, cut off your hand, to stop you from using your hand the way you would like.

Because you use differing definitions of "physical conflict" in P2 and P4.

No, in both cases I mean two or more people attempting mutually exclusive actions involving a physical thing and/or assaulting one another in an attempt to prevent their mutually exclusive action involving the thing.

P4 can be refined as needed to refer specifically to that physical conflict that interferes with rational argument.

No, Joel--it can't, because physical conflict does not necessarily interfere with rational argument.

This makes no sense.
It's as if I had a premise about quadrilaterals, and you objected, complaining that what I said is true only of squares, not all quadrilaterals. And so I said, "Fine, for now, let's limit the premise to only talking about squares, since the predicate is true of squares." and your response is that "You can't do that because not all quadrilaterals are squares." On the contrary, I can make the substitution, because the predicate is true of squares. What matters is that the new premise is true. Its relationship to the old premise is irrelevant, because the old premise has been thrown out.

That is, I could replace the earlier P4 with something like

P4) Rational argument presupposes an absence of that physical conflict that is incompatible with rational argument.

The new version is not saying that all physical conflict interferes with rational argument.

[technomage]

There is no inherent equivocation with some premises referring to market exchange and some not, because I don't intend any of the propositions to refer to market exchange.

Then you must change not only the specific terminology, but the concepts that the propositions express. Until you do that, while you may not accept that you are equivocating, you are.

This makes no sense.

It makes no sense because you don't seem to be able to understand that the changes that you are making in the terminology do not actually change the underlying concepts. When you spoke of "scarce material means," you speak of an economic concept: the minor changes that you are making do not actually change the concept--they simply make it implied rather than explicit.

[joel]

Then you must change not only the specific terminology, but the concepts that the propositions express. Until you do that, while you may not accept that you are equivocating, you are.

Just because you think I'm trying to say something different from what I'm trying to say, doesn't mean I'm equivocating. None of the propositions are intended to express anything about market exchange.

It makes no sense because you don't seem to be able to understand that the changes that you are making in the terminology do not actually change the underlying concepts. When you spoke of "scarce material means," you speak of an economic concept: the minor changes that you are making do not actually change the concept--they simply make it implied rather than explicit.

No, I do not intend to imply any such thing. I have made this painfully clear.

[technomage]

Just because you think I'm trying to say something different from what I'm trying to say, doesn't mean I'm equivocating.

Joel, you are not nearly so deficient in your English skills as to be unable to express your thoughts. One's body is not "a material thing that one uses to achieve an objective". "Use" is multivalent, and you are using the word differently in two of your propositions.

If you cannot see that, or will not see that, then I cannot help you--but I do see it, and I reject your "logic."

[joel]

I've modified the premises to hopefully better communicate what I'm intending.

P1) If there is a norm/standard presupposed by all rational argument, then it cannot be argued against (without refuting yourself).
P2) Avoiding physical conflict requires a norm/standard regarding actions that involve material things.
D1: Physical conflict is two or more people attempting mutually exclusive actions involving a material thing and/or assaulting one another in an attempt to prevent their mutually exclusive action involving the thing.
P3) Every human action involves specific, material things (e.g. your body).
P4) Rational argument presupposes an absence of that physical conflict which interferes with rational argument.

One's body is not "a material thing that one uses to achieve an objective".

Yes, it is. It is material. And try achieving an objective (or performing any action) without making any use whatsoever of your body (including your brain).

However, for you I've eliminated this from the argument. I changed it to be more clear that I intend to speak generically about all action (and all action does involve material things, and any action you do involves your own body in particular).

"Use" is multivalent, and you are using the word differently in two of your propositions.

I addressed this above, when I said I was using "use" as a category including both kinds of "using". "That's part of the point. When two people want to interact with one physical thing in different, mutually exclusive ways, then there is the potential for physical conflict. The relevant thing is not whether two actions are the same kind of action. The relevant thing is whether the two actions are mutually exclusive."

However, as I said, I've changed the premises to make this clearer.

[technomage]

I've modified the premises to hopefully better communicate what I'm intending.

A response may have to wait a couple of days. At this point, I am so ticked off (at a situation having nothing to do with you) that coherence is not likely. I'll be back as soon as I can.