Bob:

“Rad Geek, I am not saying that it is morally permissible. I am denying the existance of this moral sphere.”

Fine, but that is a position different from Max’s; Max holds that rights-claims are significant objectively binding; he just holds that they only have that significance and that force within the context of certain sorts of political structures. That’s the claim that I am responding to; although what I have to say bears on plain moral nihilism, too.

“From where do you get your morality? God?”

Hardly; I’m an atheist, and even if I were a theist I’d still regard divine command ethics as incoherent. I can give you a long account of what I take to be the proper grounds of moral claims if you want but this isn’t the best forum in which to do it. So for the moment let me just point out (1) that there are many ethical theories on offer that ground objectively binding moral claims in the nature of the human person, as either a thinking or a feeling being (or both); and (2) that whatever involved arguments and theoretical frameworks you might get tangled up in the course of having ethical arguments, statements such as “You’re really doing something wrong to innocent foreigners if you boil them alive” is far more obvious than any of those arguments or theories. If it could be showed that some set of premises that I endorsed undermined or failed to support the anti-boiling conclusion, that would be as good a reason as any to reject at least one of the premises—not a reason to start deliberating about whether boiling innocents alive is a good idea or not.

[On premise 2 of my argument, that there really is something wrong with boiling innocent foreigners…] “I still am not convinced.”

But Bob, I’m not interested in whether you’re convinced or not; I’m interested in whether or not you have reason to be convinced. (See my discussion of the here-is-one-hand argument and charges of questions-begging for why that’s important.) My argument is (1) that the burden of convincing is clearly on the person maintaining that you’re really not doing anything wrong to an innocent foreigner by boiling them alive, and (2) that a good reason for convincing someone can’t be made. And certainly this is not that reason:

“Right and wrong are constructs of society; naturally, every man or group of men are free to do whatever they choose insofar as they have the physical power to do it.”

I don’t agree; and the fact that boiling innocent foreigners alive really is wrong whatever you feel about it and whether or not you have the might to force it on someone else without untoward consequences is as good a reason as any to reject such sweeping arm-chair theorizing about moral claims in a state of nature.

“You may argue against the efficacy of boiling people, or argue that it is counterproductive,”

Counterproductive to what ends?

“cruel,”

“Cruel” is a moral term; there’s no good way to distinguish cruelty from fair punishment for wrongdoing except by reference to the question of whether the person does or does not deserve the harsh treatment. And that is just the sort of moral question that you claim to be somehow meaningless.

“or ineffective”

Again, ineffective for what ends?

‘But that is not a reason why it is “wrong.”’

Nobody in her right mind says that boiling people alive (or impaling them on sharp sticks and leaving them to die over several days, say) is wrong because it “undermines society” or some nebulous set of rules. It’s wrong because you’re forcing the most excruciating pain, and ultimately a hideous death, on a completely innocent person. You don’t need some extra theoretical reason to condemn that: it’s horrible enough on its own.

Historical note:

“… the first democratic election in Afghanistan (not post-Taliban, but ever) earlier this year.”

This is not accurate. During the period of the Constitutional monarchy (1964-1973), the Afghan Constitution (which you can find translated online at http://www.dsg.unito.it/dircost/Afghanistan%201964.htm, if you’re interested) provided for universal suffrage and established democratically elected municipal and provincial councils as well as bicameral national Parliament with a democratically elected lower house (Wolesi Jirgah) and direct elections for 1/3 of the members of the upper house (Meshrano Jirgah). Afghanistan’s first nationwide elections were held in September 1965, and a second round was held at the end of the first 4 year legislative term in 1969.

“Max’s point was not that he wanted to boil people, or that he would enjoy it, or that we should.”

But Bob, nobody that I’ve read on this topic yet has claimed that Borders advocates boiling people alive. What Barganier and others have pointed out is that Borders’ own stated position *leaves the question open for deliberation* based on considerations of strategy and personal taste. Whatever you might think of that account, it’s not a libertarian account, but rather something else.

“The point was simply that it was neither moral or immoral. And I challange anyone to prove otherwise.”

The argument has already been taken up elsewhere (at http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/12/05/the_humane among other places). There is no possible non-question-begging argument that Borders could give for the (moral) permissibility of boiling innocent foreigners alive; any argument that shows a set of premises lead to that conclusion is, at the strongest, a reductio ad absurdam of the premises that are used.