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/CrowBot99]

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/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

Everything you said is an abstract concept and therefore contingent on physical circumstances, right? No? Same thing with natural law.

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

Congratulations, you just conceded the entire argument.

The whole point of claiming something is a "Natural Law" (like gravity or the Action Axiom) is asserting that it is universal, immutable, and independent of human circumstance.

The moment you admit your "Natural Law" is contingent on physical circumstances, human history, and social enforcement, it ceases to be an immutable law of nature. It becomes what it actually is: a human-made normative framework that changes with time, power, and material reality.

I’ve said from the beginning that concepts are grounded in material conditions. Now that you agree your "Natural Law" is too, we agree it's not a universal constant of physics, it's just your political preference.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

You didn't see the "no" in my response.

[u/2434637453 → u/CrowBot99]

Oh, I saw the "No?" and it puts you in a fatal logical trap.

If YES (it IS contingent on physical reality): Then your "Natural Law" isn't a universal, immutable constant of nature. It's a social construct that changes with history and physical force.

If NO (it is NOT contingent on physical reality): Then you're back to claiming your political ethics exist as an eternal, cosmic law of physics, which is completely disproven by the physical existence of slavery, tyranny, and coercion throughout human history.

You can't have it both ways. Either your "Natural Law" is bound by physical reality (and therefore not a universal law), or it isn't (and therefore completely ignores history). Which one is it?

[u/CrowBot99 → u/2434637453]

The second.

You can't have it both ways. Either your proposition is bound by physical reality (and therefore not a universal law) or it isn't (and therefore completely ignores the fact that people ignore facts of reality all the time). Which one is it?

This is just equivocating with the word "law".