It feels subjective because the foundation isn't there. The foundation I think has to be built from the understanding of self-ownership. It's the most obvious and basic peice of property that EVERYONE has, their own body. Once that foundation is firmly in place....the subjectivity of these other things really falls away man. Trust me on this one please. All these questions get easier and easier to answer and comprehend. They are not mind benders. They are difficult to talk about when we have different foundations or when one person is lacking the essential foundation.moda0306 wrote: But you didn't answer the question about killing wild animals that aren't your property... Is that wrong? Also because of "stewardship?" So basically an animals only moral status is in the fact that someone else might value it as property, and you're making them "poorer" by killing it?
This whole "stewardship" thing sounds like a bunch of cacophony from the standpoint of anarcho-capitalism. Now we're in a whole new realm of subjectivity.
Not only do I have to respect YOUR arbitrary claim to property, but I have to respect your arbitrary definition of what proper "stewardship" is of my property, lest you come "protect" it from my actions?
And this is all just morally self-evident, is it? Just easily wrapped up in obvious moral truths that nobody could reasonably disagree with, but, of course, if they do, we just "cooperate" our way to an agreement?
What if I think that razing a forest isn't proper "stewardship?" What if you don't think my letting my grass grow long is proper "stewardship?"
I'm not saying the concept is bunk... in fact, I think stewardship is huge piece of "property," because I really don't think humans can make moral claims to property with a completely straight face. I think saying that you have some DUTY to use/treat that property in a reasonable way is not only ok, but to be expected... however, this is super subjective stuff.
Again, K, it isn't that we think your ideas are asinine... they're sometimes very reasonable positions to have... it's the fact that you build in almost zero room for disagreement in your moral/economic theories that is so dumbfounding.
If you can't understand WHY a person owns themself you will never ever get why it's ok to kill some animals and not others, why it's ok to mow your lawn or not mow it bladdy blah.
I'm not trying to avoid your questions. Gosh isn't it obvious I seek out disscussions on complex topics like a heat seeking missle? It's that it's completely useless to spend on this time and effort explaining something to a person who is CONVINCED that it can't be explained. You are biased against any explanation because you don't believe one exists or that a human can actually understand this stuff correctly.
Gotta start by understanding that humans own themselves and what that really means. Your eyes will open and these other "gut feelings" you have about things will suddenly make a lot of sense. And you will of course agree 100% with every word I type from here on out.
