pull down to refresh
I don't think the is-ought problem has been solved. There doesn't seem to be a sound philosophical defense for it. You cannot derive an ought from an is.
That said, I wasn't defending the position from a merely philosophical stance without regard to real implications. I recognize the implications on ethics and morality, and I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors by building our ethics on unsound foudations. The opposite, actually. The reason I engaged here is because I think the ancient Germanics/Norse did have a much more coherent world-view and that's what we lack - coherence. Our morality and ethics don't add up and so we end up with a massive state monopoly on violence controlled by whichever party happens to be in charge today, which is ultimately determined by whichever interest can prop them up financially or with enough media power. We practice Orwell's 2-minutes hate for hours while we doomscroll to figure out which opinion on trans people or Ukraine we're supposed to have today.
I'd prefer to coexist with slavery, even if the slaves weren't content, if it meant we had coherence.
What's not to like? Society is eating itself from the inside. The virus that is abrahamic morality has developed to a point beyond recovery. It mutated and evolved into a variety of forms all fighting eachother for the right to destroy the host. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, secularism, humanism, progressivism, libertarianism 😱.
As has been done before, the barbarians will rise and conquer. Become a barbarian and your perspective will change. The future is bright for you and your posterity.
Yes, we all deal with epistemological abrahamism. It's a bane on the West for sures. I agree that some seem to crave the chains. I think most slaves in history were content to be so. But if we're throwing off abrahamism, why worry about this at all? Why concern yourself with whether or not they are classified as the same type of human as their "thinking man" masters? I think traditional epistemology would suggest we don't have to think our way through the morality of slavery. People either earn their freedom, or they don't. It has always been thus and still is today. No creature is born into the world entitled to freedom or even to life. We, like all creatures, must earn them both - perhaps daily. What gives a man a right to something? That no one is able to take it from him. If he has no way of stopping the theft, he is not entitled to the property. Why should it be any other way? On what basis could a man have a fundamental right to life and property; what basis that is somehow prior to his will, actions, ability, and effects in the world?
This is a refreshing take. I'm not sure we can access truth outside of tradition but I'll be following your posts.
I paid to read your post fully expecting it to be some shallow view of the ancient Nordic way of life by someone who understands economics and believes NAP but has no knowledge of ancient Norse tradition and beliefs. I was wrong and I apologize. This is a great post.
I'd like to challenge or offer critique, but I don't have much disagreement here. I might add something:
All conflict occurs on multiple fronts at the same time - and all the time.
As I think it's important to accept that conflict is natural and not necessarily to be avoided. Even that it should be embraced as a natural imperative of life. This is something I think you were getting at with your mention of NAP not always being defensive, though I'm not sure what you mean there. Why not do away with NAP altogether?
Determinism. This relies entirely on material causality. Are you sure that causation is the sole mover of all things? How could we be sure? Just because a thing follows another thing in every case you've seen doesn't necessarily mean that it always will or that it always must.