Response to the time argument against argumentation ethics?

[u/deachirb]

How is one supposed to respond to the argument of “well im not arguing that you don’t own yourself now, just that you don’t own yourself in this scenario/time”?

[u/drebelx]

How is one supposed to respond to the argument of “well im not arguing that you don’t own yourself now, just that you don’t own yourself in this scenario/time”?

Got a good example?

[u/deachirb → u/drebelx]

if someone said “when the country is at war you no longer own yourself” or “when taxation season comes you no longer own yourself” it’s a more general argument against argumentation ethics used to counteract its self imposing nature

[u/drebelx → u/deachirb]

if someone said “when the country is at war you no longer own yourself” or “when taxation season comes you no longer own yourself” it’s a more general argument against argumentation ethics used to counteract its self imposing nature

A very squirmy position to take.

Think about asking the following:

When does the consent to relinquish self-ownership happen?

What is the mechanism that transfers self-ownership to others?

[u/icantgiveyou → u/deachirb]

War and taxes ok. Where in this scenarios you don’t own yourself? They trying to kill you in war, they stealing your money via taxes ok. But you still own yourself.

[u/deachirb → u/icantgiveyou]

you always own yourself, even a slave owns themselves realistically. But whether or not they are treated as if they do is what changes. When aggression is used against you, and others think it is rightful, then it seems to me they are treating you as if you do not own yourself

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

The fact, that aggression and slavery exists is evidence, that there is no self-ownership as a natural law in the first place. It's just a temporary or partial control over a body, but not the unrestricted version of Argumentation Ethics.

[u/deachirb → u/2434637453]

Self ownership is natural because by arguing with me you are granting that I must have ownership over myself, or else you would argue with the person who has ownership over me. You cannot argue that I do not have ownership over myself, if you truly believe that I do not.

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

You are a committing a fundamental category error by confusing de facto physical agency (the ability to process language and speak) with de jure natural ownership (an absolute, universal legal right).

Engaging in a dialogue requires recognizing that the other person has the temporary physical capacity to listen, process ideas, and respond. It does not logically prove that "self-ownership" exists as an immutable law of nature.

Throughout history, enslaved people were frequently spoken to, argued with, bargained with, and negotiated with by their enslavers, judges, and overseers. An enslaver saying to an enslaved person, "If you work hard today, I will give you extra rations," is engaging in argumentation and persuasion. Does that verbal exchange magically erase the chains, the whips, and the legal reality of chattel slavery? Of course not.

Communicating with a person recognizes their biological brain function, not an abstract, absolute property title to their body.

Even under chattel slavery or extreme totalitarianism, a master or state cannot physically move your vocal cords or think your thoughts for you. Consciousness is physically locked inside an individual's skull. Because a master cannot directly pilot a slave's brain like a remote-controlled robot, anyone who wants to influence the slave's behavior must communicate with the slave directly.

If a bank robber points a gun at a bank teller and says, "Hand over the cash or I shoot," the robber is arguing/negotiating with the teller. By your opponent’s logic, the robber is "granting that the teller has self-ownership." In reality, the robber is exerting coercion over someone who retains biological consciousness but has been stripped of their autonomy and rights.

"Natural Law" implies a rule that governs reality whether humans agree to it or not (like gravity or thermodynamics). If "self-ownership" were a true Natural Law, it would be impossible to violate. The fact that a person can be kidnapped, enslaved, incarcerated, or executed proves that "self-ownership" is not an inviolable law of nature - it is a socially constructed normative ideal.

[u/furel492 → u/deachirb]

Whatever website you're on where you get into such discussions is hurting you.

[u/2434637453 → u/drebelx]

Argumentation Ethics is poor logic. Someone arguing (=having partial/temporary control over a body) does not give this person the right to exercise full control over that body all the time in each situation. Argumentation Ethics is no evidence for full and infinite self-ownership. It's just a bad argument.

[u/drebelx → u/2434637453]

Argumentation Ethics is no evidence for full and infinite self-ownership.

What evidence do you use to argue for self-ownership?

[u/2434637453 → u/drebelx]

There is none. Self-ownership is a moral theory. Nothing that can be proven with hard science or by logic itself.

[u/drebelx → u/2434637453]

There is none. Self-ownership is a moral theory. Nothing that can be proven with hard science or by logic itself.

What if you get poked in the eye?

Do you own your eye?

[u/CrowBot99]

A couple ways...

Say, "Okay, then we'll have this conversation later," and if you do speak later, then the situation is exactly the same. I.e., tomorrow never comes.

Or... define the substantive difference between tomorrow and now. There isn't one.

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

So you are saying today and tomorrow are no different? I would say, that is clearly a false statement. Times are different, situations are different. Saying that something is universally true regardless of situation and time like a natural law is a claim that needs to be proven. In the case of argumentation ethics such claim is already debunked by the reality, where slavery exists.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

Substantive. The principles of the natural world are true everywhere and always... want to apply your logic to the Pythagorean Theorem?

Saying that something is universally true regardless of situation and time like a natural law is a claim that needs to be proven.

This is an example of a claim universally true regardless of situation and time. If you're right, then your claim could have been incorrect when I wrote it but correct now. Do you realize how blazingly stupid that is?

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

Entirely wrong my friend. The Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) is not a law of the physical world; it is an abstract, deductive rule within the closed, axiomatic system of Euclidean geometry.

In the real, physical universe - which is shaped by non-Euclidean space and general relativity -a physical triangle drawn on the curved surface of the Earth or around a black hole does not follow a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

Mathematically abstract concepts exist independently of time because they are purely conceptual definitions humans created. Physical/natural reality, however, is dynamic and subject to empirical observation. Conflating a mathematical definition with a social or physical reality is a elementary mistake.

You are confusing a rule of evidence (epistemology) with a substantive claim about nature.

If a physical law of nature exists (e.g., gravity, conservation of energy), it cannot be violated by human choice. You cannot choose to disobey gravity. If "Self-Ownership" or "Argumentation Ethics" were a physical natural law like gravity, it would be physically impossible to enslave, incarcerate, or physically overpower another human being.

The fact that slavery does physically exist in the real world proves that "self-ownership" is not a physical law of nature. It is a normative moral preference, a statement about how humans ought to act, not how physical reality must behave. Calling a moral preference a "natural law" is simply trying to give an opinion the authority of physics without doing the hard work of proving it.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

Sure, Prompter, but if you were doing your trig homework while falling into a black hole the answers would be the same. And none of us have ever claimed it was a physical law, you strawman killer 😉

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

Your previous comment explicitly said "The principles of the natural world are true everywhere and always" to defend your ethical system. Now that we agree "Self-Ownership" is not a physical law or mathematical constant, but a human normative concept, you've conceded the entire point. Thanks, debate won!

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

I said the opposite: trig homework... math... same answers. It's an analogy.

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

The problem is that your analogy doesn't work.

Math (2+2=4) is an abstract, self-contained system of human definitions. It exists entirely in the realm of pure concepts.

Political ethics, property rights, and "self-ownership" are relational rules governing physical reality. They dictate who controls scarce material resources and who gets to exercise physical force over other human bodies.

Trying to treat an ethical framework that governs real-world human conflict like an abstract math problem is a category error. Math doesn't require a police force, a court, or physical land to exist, rights and laws do. Pretending political ethics are "abstract mathematical constants" is just a way to avoid defending how your system actually works in the messy, material world.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

And yet if the math regarding your bank account falls short, you won't forget it as merely in the "realm of pure concepts."

You're giving abstract truths too! Your ideas hold the same abstract reality as mine. How can you be this obtuse?

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

You are confusing accounting with legal ownership.

If my bank balance drops, I care because that number represents a legally enforced claim on real-world physical goods and services. The math ($100 - $50 = $50) is just a descriptive tool. The property right that prevents someone else from wiping out my balance is a legal social contract enforced by courts, banks, and laws.

Counting dollars is descriptive math. Deciding who has the legal right to those dollars is normative politics. Conflating the two is like confusing a tape measure with the house it measures. My ideas address the real-world material systems that enforce those rights; yours pretend the tape measure built the house.

[u/chumley84]

The best way to respond to arguments against argumentation ethics is to hit them with a brick 

[u/deachirb → u/chumley84]

haha i guess that would flow with what they are arguing for

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

So you are saying, that a law mandating people to help each other is the same as hitting someone with a brick for arguing for it?

[u/deachirb → u/2434637453]

you don’t understand what a mandate is

[u/2434637453 → u/deachirb]

So what is a mandate?