RE: Demonstrated Preference, Socialism, and Steemit
One could say that despite the socialist desiring such things as the abolishment of money they are forced to live in a situation where it is necessary.
How could we say that? What reactionary consequence is there for not using cryptocurrency? Certainly no one would initiate force against you for not using Steemit or Bitcoin. On the contrary, when we say that people need money in order to exchange for the things they want or need, we're not saying that they are "forced" to do so; we're saying that they find it advantageous to do so.
In essence the system can force coercion in things we don't agree with because if we don't participate for example we can't pay our bills and hence survive. Survival will always trump everything else even political or moral beliefs.
But how can it be claimed that the need to survive equals compulsion? What would be the corollary? You're being compelled to survive by biological limitations therefore theft is moral in this context? I don't see how that would follow. That would render the concept of "morality" and even language and logic meaningless.
Whilst they may not be 100% comfortable with this they may see it as the lesser of two evils.
How would this negate the fact that they chose what they felt was the least bad, or most preferable (from their perspective), available option?
Theories like "demonstrated action" are certainly useful but I think one needs to view them in context of the fact that people are quite complex and their exact thinking or motivation for an action may not be immediately apparent.
I don't disagree. That's what praxeology and deductive reasoning are for.
I think you miss the point. If you have 2 ways to make money and neither of them are consistent with your beliefs there is no actual choice. Money exists and is a necessity. Cryptocurrency can be seen as an evolution of money.
People are forced to use money. It is not simply a matter of advantage. One simply cannot survive in the modern world (in most countries) without it.
It is the strongest compulsion there is. Also morality is highly subjective and dependant on the context and situation. Whilst people may ascribe to absolute beliefs in regards to morality they rarely stick to them. Life is simply to complex for that kind of black or white thinking.
Somebody who is starving and steals food would likely rationalise that it was justified in order to survive. I doubt most people would even consider that as being immoral.
If there is more than one available option, how is it not a choice?
Money certainly is a necessity when one wants to achieve certain goals, but choosing means to accomplish ends doesn't imply that you were compelled to choose a means.
Who forces people to use money? When is force administered as a punishment for not using money, and by whom?
Compulsion is an action of a moral agent. How can a biological limitation be a moral agent?
If morality is subjective then when is rape or slavery moral? How does deviance from morality imply subjectivity of morality rather than immorality?
Isn't the statement, "life is too complex for that kind of black and white thinking" itself an example of black and white thinking? In what way is my thinking black and white?
How does the ability of someone to rationalize theft in terms of survival mean that theft isn't immoral? How is morality determined by majority vote? If morality is determined by majority vote, does that mean it was moral to nuke Japan or gas the Jews?
How is it not a choice if there is more than one option? You literally just asked how choices are choices, meaning you just admitted it was a choice.
Lack of shelter, hunger and humiliation aren't moral agents; they're conditions one chooses to change through the use of scarce means. When we talk about compulsion, we're talking about the actions of moral agents; not the conditions which presuppose life itself.
It is universally impossible for any human to consent to a violation of their own bodily integrity without consent, therefore it is objectively and universally immoral to violate the bodily integrity of another human without consent.
If you disagree, when would rape or slavery be moral?
If both choices are equally bad how is it a choice?
Lack of shelter, hunger, humiliation - are all different kinds of force.
Define morality in a way that is not subjective.