[Morality Games]

In the above post I tried to convey the origins and rights to property. People have a right to property that they create through their labor, and they have the right to protect it either with reason or with force.

I have read the works of social contract philosophers and remain unimpressed. They were foundation layers, not interpreters, and craftily ignored the 'emptiness' that existed beyond the paramets of their logic.

The origin of rights is not through subjective feeling and carried out by consensus. As history has shown, this can lead to genocide, which is a right to liberty and person. Therefore, you are validating genocide.

In order to validate genocide, I would have to feel as though genocide was acceptable, which I don't. Real validation must be a genuine emotional affirmation, a resounding, "Yes!", not feigned for logical purposes.

The origin of rights is an emotion and feeling driven history, with 'reason' suboordinate to desire and impulse. Hence, rights were distributed unevenly for most of human history.

Again, I do not see how anyone can validly lay claim to the property produced by others. If someone produces a boat from a tree, then that boat is their property. People may feel they have the right to other people's property, persons, and liberty, but this is just not so.

Except you aren't appealing to anything, and even if you did, why should what you appeal to matter to someone who doesn't care about the your chosen authority? Aka, the Christian can appeal to God's authority as a basis for why people shouldn't have the right to thieve, the Humanist can appeal to his conception of human nature for why you shouldn't take the boat, but these are meaningless gestures to the person determined to have your boat.

You can wail to the world when they make off with your property, but nature is cold and impartial, and the universe doesn't care about your hurt feelings at all. In fact, most of your own community doesn't care ... the only one who will feel wronged for a substantial period of time is you.

You need to back up this claim.

It is inappropriate for you, who are pre-supposing numerous logical conditions, to make a request like that. Moreover, this is a speculative debate. However, if you think reason precedes sensation, emotion, thought, and feeling, then look at the animal kingdom as evidence to prove you wrong. 'Reason' is a refinement of these psychological processes.

As I stated before, a degree of objectivity, not strictly objective. I still await you to justify how theft coercion, and murder can lead to individual and societal well-being.

Uh ... individuals do those things all the time. Sometimes they get away with it and live perfectly content lives (their conscience works differently from the collective) and sometimes they don't. Doing or not doing those things is actually sort of a gamble, kind of like, "I'm assuming I'm not one of those types who would benefit from behavior the community calls immoral, so I will go along with the community and hopefully benefit from that." Or the opposite.