I should add that pure hedonists, as distinguished from hedonistic utilitarians, etc., would likely reject the entire foundation of Stefan's theory; that there is any relevant moral framework which "justifies" or "condemns" actions. A pure hedonist thinks that it's desirable for her to do whatever brings her pleasure. There's no necessary notion that everyone ought to do anything, or that she is morally obligated to do anything. She's not evaluating her actions according to the standard of "right" and "wrong", but rather "desirable" or "undesirable". In doing so, she would be rejecting the distinction that Stefan draws between "aesthetics" and "ethics" by claiming that there's nothing special about "inflicted behaviors" which requires us to adhere to some sort of universal law of acceptable behavior.

I'm exactly the same person I was decades ago. Any quick look in the mirror will attest to that!

- NonE

Stewart, I recognize that you reject the foundation for morality; I wasn't trying to unveil a reductio. I was only trying to say that your objection isn't an objection specifically to the self-ownership model, or to the property rights model in general, but rather to person-regarding morality in general. So given that the possible absurdity of person-regarding moral theories has to be set aside in a conversation like this, I don't think it's fair to object to a particular person-regarding principle in the way that you did. It's like if someone were to say "The redness of apples isn't mind-dependent, rather than mind-independent, because apples don't exist." It's not a bad position, but it's just sort of destructive to the discussion, in the sense that it hijacks it and moves it to the subject of whether or not physical object realism is tenable. To put it more concisely: Gosh darn it, you moral skeptic, let us have our fun!

Regarding the Eastern sunyata, I tend to come down on Nagarjuna's side. Embracing paramartha without understanding and acknowledging the samvriti is a mistake; it is paralyzing to action and cannot lead to happiness. If you'd like, I can probably dredge up a paper I wrote on Nagarjuna's metaphysics two years ago if you send me your e-mail address.

Lizzard, did you read my blog post explaining the structure of Stefan's theory?

In any case, it's unclear what you mean by "use" empiricism. To go back to your example of pacifism, you suggest that by not resisting violence, we somehow "support" violence. But no pacifist would agree with this. In fact, Stefan himself advocated pacifism in his earliest podcasts, while condemning violence as reprehensible. Pacifists would agree.

It's critical to understand that justifications for pacifism differ, and that's why I keep stressing that we need to understand what moral systems are trying to achieve. One reason someone might be a pacifist would be because they didn't think that self-defense generally accomplished anything but producing more suffering. This was the position Stefan took: self-defense generally fails to achieve its goal of lessening the suffering of the victim, and often increases that suffering by provoking a more forceful response from the attacker. Accordingly, pacifism would be a better means than self-defense for achieving the goal of reducing suffering.

But someone might also be a pacifist because, like Jesus, they believe that one should love their attacker, and never do harm themselves. Self-defense, viewed from this perspective, would not alter the righteousness of the attacker's actions, or promote the spread of positive ideals. If anything, it would legitimize the use of violence, and blind attackers from the truly horrible nature of their actions.

Notice that the structure of both of these views makes their support of pacifism contingent on positive facts. The first view sees pacifism as the most effective means to an end; if it were actually the case that self-defense really is effective, they would support self-defense instead of pacifism. Disproving the positive fact doesn't support the moral hypothesis ("Whether self-defense is to be supported is contingent on whether it has the capacity to reduce the suffering of the victim"); it just shows that certain people misapplied the hypothesis and incorrectly arrived at pacifism.

The same thing works for the second viewpoint. If you were to show that self-defense actually does promote righteousness, that pacifism promotes aggression, and that the harm being done to the attackers is consistent with loving them, then a good Christian pacifist would be compelled to change her position. But again, not because her moral hypothesis was wrong ("Whether pacifism should be supported is contingent on its capacity for promoting righteousness and its being consistent with loving all people"). The moral hypothesis would be intact; pacifism would simply be rejected.

Oh, and I should add that Stefan would probably not want to even call self-defense an ethical issue. Self-defense isn't "inflicted" in any meaningful sense, given that it is perfectly avoidable for those affected by it (much more avoidable, in fact, than many seemingly "more" inflicted behaviors, like lying, which Stefan labels as "aesthetic").

And it's a good thing, too, because if self-defense were inflicted, Stefan would have to say that it's either obligatory to do it, or obligatory not to do it (don't blame morality in general for that one; Stefan made that bed all by himself).

sorry, that was Conrad, not Zeb

Hmmm... Pacifism fails because failure to resist is tacit endorsement of violence? If I hit you, and you just sit there, it's fair to assume you approve... If I tax you, and you keep handing it over, is it fair to assume you are doing so voluntarily?

I am no pacifist, and if you hit me, I will hit back. In fact, on a personal level if you threaten me or someone close to me (proximally or emotionally) I will hit you first. I just did that, my drunken room mate was threatening my girlfriend late one night after returning from the bar, so I smashed his head into the wall, breaking a mirror and sending him crashing into the bathtub, shower curtain tumbling after. He quit threatening her, left the house, and he no longer even lives in the state, though we remain friends, albeit a strained relationship.

Yet, I pay taxes. All the time. Am I logically inconsistent? Am I a bully who only picks on the weak? Am a I coward who refuses to fight for my rights? Am I a pragmatist who resists only when my chances of winning look good? What's up with me?