Ecurb wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 9:18 am
GE Morton wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 7:16 pm
Well, first, my comments regarding the basis of property is not a "theory;" they were reports of historical facts, of which I've provided abundant evidence in previous posts.
Secondly, what I said required arguments from self-evident, morally neutral premises were claims alleging moral duties, not claims regarding ownership of property. The latter are not even moral questions; they're factual ones.
So, please set forth the moral arguments for the
duties you allege we all have.
The "historical facts" you allege appear to ignore history. I doubt that such seminal 20th century figures as Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro would find your "historical facts" accurate.
Yikes! "Seminal figures" --- really? Is that the Left's current euphemism for "infamous"? You're really groping the bottom of the barrel there. I'm sure those tyrants wouldn't agree with the definitions of "murder," "genocide," "theft," or "tyranny" either. Why didn't you include such eminent moral and historical authorities as Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, and Idi Amin?
Was that comment tongue-in-cheek?
Yes, that the first possession criterion for determining property ownership is all but universally applied when those questions arise, not only in the West but virtually everywhere else as well --- in common law courts and by the "man on the street" on a daily basis ("finders, keepers;" "First-come, first-served") --- is beyond serious dispute. It is a
fact. If you dispute that, it is you who is ignoring history.
Here's an excerpt from a decent history of the principle (which I've linked before):
"First possession has been the dominant method of establishing property rights (Berger 1985, Epstein 1979, Rose 1985). This rule grants an ownership claim to the party that gains control before other potential claimants. First possession is both more prolific and more viable than suggested by the exotic treasure trove and wild animal cases that typically come to mind. In fact, first possession has been applied widely in both common and statute law in such varied settings as abandoned property, adverse possession, bona fide purchaser, fisheries and wildlife, groundwater, intellectual property, land, non-bankruptcy debt collection, nuisance law, oil and gas, pollution permits, the radio spectrum, satellite orbits, seabed minerals, spoils of war including prisoners and slaves, treasure trove, and water rights. First possession is also a powerful norm (Ellickson 1991) tightly woven into the fabric of Anglo-American society, where it is better known as "finders keepers" or "first come, first served," in cases ranging from street parking and cafe seating to setting up fishing huts on frozen lakes. First possession has also been a fundamental component of civil law, traditional African and Islamic legal systems, as well as informal and customary rule-making around the world (Dukeminier and Krier 1993, Lawson 1975)."
https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/1st%20poss%20 ... lgrave.doc
The historical fact is that definitions of property have varied wildly from culture to culture and civilization to civilization. However, you are free to define property however you want, as long as you don't claim that your definition is a "historical fact".
The
definition of property is not what is at issue. I accept the following dictionary definition:
"Property (noun)
2a: something owned or possessed
specifically : a piece of real estate
b: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property
What may be
counted as property varies somewhat from place to place and time to time. What is at issue is the basis for assigning property titles, and the criterion for determining what property --- whatever is countable as property at a particular time and place --- belongs to whom. That the first possession principle is that basis and criterion is an historical fact, whether the likes of Mao and Pol Pot agree with it or not.
Well, if you see no need to provide rational arguments for the duties you assert, why are espousing them on a philosophy forum?
"Analogical"? Does that mean, "If it feels good, do it"?
Your notion that I shouldn't say anything unless I say everything is ridiculous, as is your ignorance of a mode of moral thinking that has dominated Christendom for two millenia.
Now, now. I never claimed you had an obligation to "say everything." I did say that if you allege a moral duty, you have an intellectual/philosophical obligation to provide some rational argument for it. How about responding to what is actually said, rather than to concocted straw men?
A "mode of moral thinking"? What "mode" would that be? Can you elaborate? What other "modes" do you prefer, or believe contrast with it?
Neither you nor I are Christians, but since you are the one who keeps offering historical justifications for your definition of property, it would behoove you to recognize modes of moral thinking that have a far greater historical precedent.
Ok, please set those forth, and cite the historical support you claim.
By conflating "value" and "price" you succeed in seeming to make "value" measureable.
Where have I conflated value and price? On the contrary, I've drawn the distinction between those a couple of times. Please cite the comment upon which you base that claim.
Let's look at one almost universal human urge: sex. If a man pays $100 to a prostitute, we can "measure" the value (supposedly), but isn 't it (perhaps) MORE valuable if the sexual congress costs nothing, but is freely and lovingly given? When we try to measure the value in dollars and cents, we actually devalue the experience.
Actually, we can't measure the value of X to P (which is, say, V) by looking at the price P pays for X. What P pays only establishes a
lower bound on the value he places on X. We can only determine V by also leaning what P will
not pay. That gives us an upper bound. By observing a number of such transactions on P's part we can "close in" on that value, V.
And you're conflating two different values of two different things there, namely, the value of a momentary sexual release vs. the value of a loving relationship. And, yes, P may well place a higher value on the latter than on the former.
That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. It is the "torches and pitchforks" argument ("If we don't meet their demands they'll storm the castle with torches and pitchforks"). Morally, it is a version of the ad baculum argument.
So is taxing people to pay for the military or the police -- which you support. Of course government policies should consider practicalities -- ad baculum or no.
Er, no. Taxing people
to pay for government services which benefit them has a moral basis. It does not require an
ad baculum argument.
All logical arguments are circular; logic involves nothing more than restating the premises.
Egads. No, it doesn't. It involves drawing out the
implications of the premises, which are often not obvious.
Your premise (I don't feel like looking it up and quoting it right now) is neither self-evident, empirically verifiable, nor morally neutral. It is just as fraught with cultural conditioning as those I listed, and less endowed with empathy and love. Oh well.
Are you referring to the Fundamental Principle, i.e., "Develop principles and rules govering interactions between moral agents in a social setting which enable all agents to maximize their welfare"?
That the above has been the central aim of most moral codes and systems over the centuries is empirically verifiable. It is also morally neutral, in that it doesn't, per se, set forth any moral principles or rules. It is subjective, of course, and hence no one has any logical (or moral) reason to adopt it as the goal of their moral system. An egoist, for example, might prefer an axiom to the effect, "Develop principles and rules which benefit me." Or a moral anarchist may eschew any moral rules, i.e., "If it feels good, do it!"
So if you prefer some alternate axiom, what would that be?