Hacker News Reader

Still confused. The argument goes: we can only assess the truth of statements through computing, computing requires control over some resources (e.g., you can’t have somebody come in and flip some bits randomly, or else your computation might be flawed), thus any use of logic requires control of resources because they are finite, hence private property?

Doesn’t the first step conflate verification of truth with truth?

View on HN

Argumentative ethics is not about determining "truth".

It's about deriving the minimal ethical that we can agree upon using a logic derivation.

If the aim is to determine possible agreement it requires arguments.

Coming up with arguments require private property, starting with self ownership, and extending it to objects that can be delimited, modified, and protected.

Turns out the requirement for private property is the minimal ethical, as we can only agree (or disagree) that we can form arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com