puppydog85 wrote:The only reason I continue with this is that I like Austrian economics, stalin. I hate it when arguments devolve into, "well, just read this book, it crushes your argument". I find it to be a fallacious appeal to authority. It essentially is saying that you do not understand your position well enough to engage in discussion using it. (If you are meaning to say that you do not have the time/inclination to finish the discussion, then that is fine just say so when you offer a book that lays out your position.)
Again, you are doing the same thing you mocked me of earlier. You are now just saying, "well, I have this article written that proves you wrong". That is the same straw man you accused me of with the theses.
Honestly, I haven't read that article in years, and I don't intend on re-reading it to win an internet debate.
The action axiom is..... what's it called? "In the effort of disproving it, you actually contradict yourself." So whatever that term is.
It's independent of the empirical in the sense that praxeology (Mises' study) can't be tested to show if it's correct or not. Through self-reflection, the truth of his axiom becomes clear.
Of course, if you want to take the skeptical position about sensory experience, then be my guest, and please start to sincerely doubt the existence of a floor as you get out of your chair to do whatever.
puppydog85 wrote:Well, walk me through the dilemma. I will state that good and wrong is a label applied by humans to the character of God (ie. it is a reflection of what He is and therefore, how he ordered the world).
And let's not have this be a one way street. Where do you say that ethics come from? On what grounds would you state that me finding out your address, coming over and stealing your password and posting that you concede defeat, would be wrong?
"Is it morally good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?"
If you say, "it is morally good because god commands it," then that's an arbitrary position. If God said that raping your wife on sunday was totes cool, then that would be moral. Joking aside, since the bible is the word of god, and since the morally good is what god commands, then any morally relevant rule within the bible is morally good. So, are you willing to accept that every command and rule in the Bible is morally good?
Your position, "I will state that good and wrong is a label applied by humans to the character of God," can lead to contradictory moral rules. So, how do you know which truly reflect the judea-christian God and which ones don't?
If we agree on the latter part of the dilemma, then this means that morality/ethics is independent of god, and of religion. I'm fine with that. Ethics comes from human interaction and evolves into informal and formal rules. Ethics is derived from feeling and reason, but which is the more influential? I'm not sure. We've seen many societies develop their own ethics which are distinct from our own. Their rules adapt to their own environment. This is self-evident throughout history; it's an irrefutable fact.
For example, to say that the Inuit's (IIRC) practice of having their elderly go off to die is immoral totally misses the point. It's acceptable within that society due to the constraints it faces in such a harsh environment. Life is about trade-offs, and a group's ethics reflect this.
If you wish to say that some portion of the moral rules which are right reflect God, then that's okay, but it's unfalsifiable. I could disagree by saying that "No, they reflect Allah, or FSM, or Thor, but not the J-C God, so you're wrong." That doesn't advance the field of knowledge for humans, so I tend to avoid that discussion.
On what grounds would you state that me finding out your address, coming over and stealing your password and posting that you concede defeat, would be wrong?
It would be wrong on grounds of my "Don't Be a Dick, Man" Philosophy. But seriously, I'm a big fan of property rights. If I didn't give you permission to do so, then it's morally wrong--depending on the consequences. For example, if you were to do get onto my account, and it would somehow save my life, then okay, sure, that was morally good. So, it depends on the consequences.
For me, I like libertarianism, but I'm not arrogant to say that libertarianism is a must for all societies. Really, it depends on their tradeoffs, their own distinctly developed rules, and yada yada yada.