Can you be a truly moral person without an objective moral system?

[quote=“Bremen, post:221, topic:39967”]
There is no objective moral force. We could all kill, rape, and steal but then society would fall apart.
[/quote]So being moral is the same as keeping society from falling apart because that is the most rational choice (for most folks) for peace and prosperity? Which is what you mean when you say a person may be “moral” without an objective moral system? In other words, the system you employ is subjective and based on desired outcomes? If the outcome is achieved, a stable society, then the person is moral?

I do not advocate utilitarianism.

What I advocate starts from first principle or concepts that can not be denied without contradiction. People own their own physical bodies. The Lockean Homesteading Principle and property rights follows. Reason and logic are objective because they can be compared to a consistent reality. Societies who follow or do not follow these prinicples can be evaluated to see which is most successful.

That’s a lot of stuff to read and discuss, Bremen. It seems in the end the question of whether someone can be moral without an objective moral system can only be answered by the individual, making it relative and non-objective.

This statement, for example, only defines morality subjectively:

Hoppe establishes self-ownership by pointing out that argumentation, as a form of action, implies the use of the scarce resources of one’s body. One must have control over, or own, this scarce resource in order to engage in meaningful discourse.
It’s an argument that we’re in control of our own bodies, therefore we own them. It’s like a definition of ownership. But this idea doesn’t really morally preclude another individual taking control by binding your hands and feet, for example. It’s only wrong because you say so or because it’s the best way for folks to get along in society. The ability to hae discourse does not define whether it is moral for me to bind your hands and feet.

Further just arguing and using the same “rational” tool you do for discourse does not prohibit me morally from decking you, which is contrary to what I’m understanding from the Hoppe discussion.

In your previous post about Lockean principals, you say, “Societies who follow or do not follow these prinicples can be evaluated to see which is most successful.”

It all comes back to what works for society as a justification for your position. It does sound utilitarian. So you own your body and the stuff you do make and work with it. What does ownership mean? Control? That’s what Hoppe suggests. If I do not care about society, prosperity, peace or your well-being, how do I make the connection objectively and morally that it is still wrong to harm you to get my pizza? Your control over the pizza you bought by working using your body may mean nothing to me if I want it and can steal it without being caught.

On the other hand, many who don’t particularly believe in an objective system, like God said so, still believe it’s wrong to steal a pizza if they can get away with it. So they *can *live a moral life according to your standard, but that standard remains subjective, meaning we really can’t define it as objectively moral. That leaves them with the inability to live a moral life because the standard is subject to individual definition based on whatever an individual chooses to believe. An objective moral system is the only way to determine whether a person is truly moral.

At the same time, you haven’t really been arguing that a person can have morals without an objective moral system. You’ve been trying to prove an objective moral system exists. Right?

Life would be so easy as a low functioning sociopath.

2 Likes

BullsOnParade,

You posted the above Smedley Butler article in another thread in defense of your good buddy Bremen against my criticisms of his positions in this thread, and in light of the fact that you did that, I wrote the following observations just to have some fun, hope you like the observations.

** BullsOnParade, all this below, put together, strikes my mind as childish nonsense: **

You defend Bremen who is anti-military and you praise Bremen as having “very impressive critical thinking skills” and you say “In my opinion, he is much more valuable to the world then most on this forum”, and you know that Bremen fully agrees with Smedley Butler (Bremen is famous here for posting that same Smedley Butler “War Is A Racket” article several times) and then you come here to RO and announce that you are going to join the United States Military knowing that the United States Military is in the business of making war, and that when you join the military your duty will be to participate in that war-making and do all you can to push for victory in whatever war it is that is being fought, yet you post against your own self and your own self’s future plans to join America’s military by posting Smedley Butler’s “War Is A Racket” article.

**Your assumption is that Butler’s article “War Is A Racket” is the truth, otherwise you are deliberately posting (as evidence supporting Bremen’s position) what you know to be false. This would make you a deliberately dishonest person. ** So you DO believe that Smedley Butler told the truth in his piece when he said “War Is A Racket”, ** yet you intend to join the United States Military, and if war arises, to participate in what you know full well to be a racket. **

This is childish immature reasoning at the lowest level. Smedley Butler’s chapter 5 is titled “To Hell With War” and you post favorably that chapter and the whole “War Is A Racket” article favorably, and as truth in defense of Bremen while you announce that you are going to join the United States Military’s war machine which you believe is a racket.

So we end up with BullsOnParade in effect believing it true that “War Is A Racket” and sympathetic with Butler’s notion “To Hell With War” while at the same time making plans to join America’s Military War Machine and participate in America’s wars if called upon to do so.

Imo, it is absurd nonsense for someone who has announced his plans to join America’s military, to FAVORABLY post that Smedley Butler “War Is A Racket” article, and there is no doubt that you posted it as being favorable to it.

All this ↑ ↓ is quite possibly the most childish and immature collection of absurd bafflegab ever assembled in one place on the web.

** Exhibit A **

** Exhibit B **

** Exhibit C **

BullsOnParade wrote:
I am going to join the United States Military .

[Jack Note: BullsOnParade has announced he is going to join the very people who wage war as a racket namely the United States Military … lol … …]

** Exhibit D **

**Bremen has posted several times that America’s soldiers who kill other soldiers unless they were “directly and immediately threatened” (which is Bremen’s definition of justified self-defense) are immoral killers. **

**BullsOnParade has announced several times that he is for certain going to join the United States Military and that would mean, if war arises, he will have to do the very thing that Bremen will pronounce him an immoral killer for doing.

BullsOnParade knows this, yet says of Bremen that he has “very impressive critical thinking skills”, …

… and “makes great points” …

… and “In my opinion, he is much more valuable to the world than most on this forum.” **

… lol …

… at liberals …

Duly noted. You think I’m childish and all lotta other stuff. Solid.

Yes, quite solid.

Cheers.

♫ ♪

PS

( But you’re not mean-spirited and you don’t have any hate in you like some of these liberals do /grin …

… and you’re my *“Dearest Friend”, right? )

… lol …

Btw, where’d you go to “poem school”? The headmaster must have been hitting on his bong every hour on the hour … /big grin

*Post 207

`

Argumentation ethics is one of those strategies that ends up just being incredibly contrived. The classic example of a contrived ethics is egoism. Suppose a person tortures innocent children just for the fun of it. For the egoist (like a Randian) the wrongness in the person’s torturing of innocent children has to be located in some harm to the person doing the torturing. So imagine someone being told of this person who tortures innocent children just for the fun of it, and him responding “wow, it’s just so awful what that guy did to himself!” Ridiculous, eh?

Argumentation ethics suffers from a similar problem. But instead, imagine the answer: “wow, it’s just so awful that he was illogical like that!”

If ever the cliche of “forest for the trees” was warranted. . .

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
That’s a lot of stuff to read and discuss, Bremen. It seems in the end the question of whether someone can be moral without an objective moral system can only be answered by the individual, making it relative and non-objective.
[/quote]I completely diagree here.

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
This statement, for example, only defines morality subjectively:It’s an argument that we’re in control of our own bodies, therefore we own them. It’s like a definition of ownership. But this idea doesn’t really morally preclude another individual taking control by binding your hands and feet, for example. It’s only wrong because you say so or because it’s the best way for folks to get along in society. The ability to hae discourse does not define whether it is moral for me to bind your hands and feet.
[/quote]Are you saying that reason ought not be followed? That it is neither right nor wrong to follow reason? Hmm I don’t think so. As soon as you try and argue with me you have agreed to all these presuppositions. You have acknowledged that one ought to follow reason, one ought not to convince one with violence, that I own my physical body and the barriers should be respected. You can say this is or is not morality but this is how humans ought to act and do act as soon as they try to argue and solve conflict without violence.

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
Further just arguing and using the same “rational” tool you do for discourse does not prohibit me morally from decking you, which is contrary to what I’m understanding from the Hoppe discussion.
[/quote] As soon as you violated my physical body without aggressive violence on my part you have revealed yourself to not be enemy to the law of reason and thus a non-self owner. Therefore I can defend myself and use violence to enforce my rights. We already went over that this the law of reason is not a physical law like gravity. One can obey reason or not obey reason. But once that person has shown themselves an enemy to reason they can not not use it to justify their actions. What happens to an Outlaw within society?

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
In your previous post about Lockean principals, you say, "Societies who follow or do not follow these prinicples can be evaluated to see which is most successful."It all comes back to what works for society as a justification for your position. It does sound utilitarian. So you own your body and the stuff you do make and work with it. What does ownership mean? Control? That’s what Hoppe suggests. If I do not care about society, prosperity, peace or your well-being, how do I make the connection objectively and morally that it is still wrong to harm you to get my pizza? Your control over the pizza you bought by working using your body may mean nothing to me if I want it and can steal it without being caught.
[/quote]How is it utilitarian when I am specifically describing the means of how one should act? Are you not ignoring this part or are you just saying it false then moving on from there? My point in measuring the ends is that the actions and behaviors reasonably allowed within society can be compared to physical reality when followed. This is not the basis of my argument but only to show that it works.

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
On the other hand, many who don’t particularly believe in an objective system, like God said so, still believe it’s wrong to steal a pizza if they can get away with it. So they *can *live a moral life according to your standard, but that standard remains subjective, meaning we really can’t define it as objectively moral. That leaves them with the inability to live a moral life because the standard is subject to individual definition based on whatever an individual chooses to believe. An objective moral system is the only way to determine whether a person is truly moral.
[/quote] Well I disagree that it is not objective. Reason and logic is objective and I derive through these what is the right and wrong conduct for humans. So I don’t understand what you are getting at.

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:225, topic:39967”]
At the same time, you haven’t really been arguing that a person can have morals without an objective moral system. You’ve been trying to prove an objective moral system exists. Right?
[/quote] Yes that is correct. But you and I part here because I believe that morality is innate to humans where you believe that it must be taught. Otherwise when a child steals a siblings toy why does she lie when confronted? If they did not know it was wrong they would just say that they did. I am bigger therefore it is mine. No the child trys to hide the truth from the parent. They innately know what they did was wrong.

I completely diagree here.

Are you saying that reason ought not be followed? That it is neither right nor wrong to follow reason? Hmm I don’t think so.

As soon as you try and argue with me you have agreed to all these presuppositions. You have acknowledged that one ought to follow reason, one ought not to convince one with violence, that I own my physical body and the barriers should be respected.

You can say this is or is not morality but this is how humans ought to act and do act as soon as they try to argue and solve conflict without violence.

As soon as you violated my physical body, without aggressive violence on my part, you have revealed yourself to be enemy to the law of reason and thus a non-self owner. Therefore I can defend myself and use violence to enforce my rights.

We already went over that the law of reason is not a physical law like gravity. One can obey reason or not obey reason. But once that person has shown themselves an enemy to reason they can not not use it to justify their actions. To use reason to justify unreasonable actions is a contradiction.

What happens to an Outlaw within society?

How is it utilitarian when I am specifically describing the means of how one should act? Are you not ignoring this part or are you just saying it false then moving on from there?

My point in measuring the ends is that the actions and behaviors reasonably allowed within society can be compared to physical reality when followed. This is not the basis of my argument but only to show that it works.

Well I disagree that it is not objective. Reason and logic is objective and I derive through these what is the right and wrong conduct for humans. So I don’t understand what you are getting at.

Yes that is correct. But you and I part here because I believe that morality is innate to humans where you believe that it must be taught. Otherwise when a child steals a siblings toy why does she lie when confronted? If they did not know it was wrong they would just say that they did. I am bigger therefore it is mine. No the child trys to hide the truth from the parent. They innately know what they did was wrong.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
I completely diagree here.
[/quote]All Hoppe, for example, seemed to say to me is I own myself, therefore it is bad to mess with me. There’s nothing that objectively says I ought not steal you or your stuff simply because you “own” yourself.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
Are you saying that reason ought not be followed? That it is neither right nor wrong to follow reason? Hmm I don’t think so.
[/quote]Reason is a tool. Who follows a hammer?

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
As soon as you try and argue with me you have agreed to all these presuppositions. You have acknowledged that one ought to follow reason, one ought not to convince one with violence, that I own my physical body and the barriers should be respected.

You can say this is or is not morality but this is how humans ought to act and do act as soon as they try to argue and solve conflict without violence.
[/quote]How so? Why does talking mean that barriers should be respected? Perhaps it’s unreasonable to attempt to steal from you. I might get hurt, and I ought to just reason with you. That’s just self-preservation not morality. What about it says morally that I ought not? Even if I do agree that we should reason things out, it just means you and I reached an agreement. Some sociopath may not respect those boundaries at all. He’s not in violation of his moral code but rather ours.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
As soon as you violated my physical body, without aggressive violence on my part, you have revealed yourself to be enemy to the law of reason and thus a non-self owner. Therefore I can defend myself and use violence to enforce my rights.
[/quote]So morality requires agreement to be morality. It is relative to the participants.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
We already went over that the law of reason is not a physical law like gravity. One can obey reason or not obey reason. But once that person has shown themselves an enemy to reason they can not not use it to justify their actions. To use reason to justify unreasonable actions is a contradiction.
[/quote]No one is compelled to use reason to justify unreasonable actions. At worst one who does not “obey” reason shows himself an enemy of reason, but it does not necessarily follow that he is an enemy of morality.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
What happens to an Outlaw within society?
[/quote]He is hunted like the enemy of the society he is? Enemy of society does not equal an immoral person does it?

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
How is it utilitarian when I am specifically describing the means of how one should act? Are you not ignoring this part or are you just saying it false then moving on from there?
[/quote]You haven’t really described the means of how one should act, not as an objective fact. Spell it out for me slowly in crayons please.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
My point in measuring the ends is that the actions and behaviors reasonably allowed within society can be compared to physical reality when followed. This is not the basis of my argument but only to show that it works.
[/quote]So you are using society as a measure? But you deny it is your reason for following reason and being moral. I would expect as much of you being you are an individualist, but you keep talking to me about how well a society works. That weirds me out a little and your appeal to it makes little sense to me. I want to find out from you or anyone what about your ownership over your body means I shouldn’t do as I will to achieve my own ends for my life even if it hurts you.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
Well I disagree that it is not objective. Reason and logic is objective and I derive through these what is the right and wrong conduct for humans. So I don’t understand what you are getting at.
[/quote]You own yourself. Therefore it is wrong to mess with you. That’s the gist of your argument is it not? How does one follow the other? We argue, therefore I agree you own yourself and recognize the supremacy of reason over violence, perhaps out of a sense of preservation or potential gain. So what? How does it follow I oughtn’t mess with you, especially if my standard of morality is based on my desires? There is no logic that can sway me. I am an enemy of reason, but that is only because you say so. You are the subjective creator of the morality.

[quote=“Bremen, post:232, topic:39967”]
Yes that is correct. But you and I part here because I believe that morality is innate to humans where you believe that it must be taught. Otherwise when a child steals a siblings toy why does she lie when confronted? If they did not know it was wrong they would just say that they did. I am bigger therefore it is mine. No the child trys to hide the truth from the parent. They innately know what they did was wrong.
[/quote]I believe humans know right from wrong innately too. I believe that they choose to do the wrong things in pursuit and sometimes choose to do the right things (and we have to teach them to do the right thing). I believe that is in their nature too. But isn’t that very innate conscience subjective by definition? Some folks are sociopaths. Is my conscience or yours an authority over them? An objective authority?

Hello J,

Argumentation between Conservatives and Liberals and between Conservatives and Anarchists (when all camps are fully-committed to their positions) is the principle-of-war by another name. “Argumentation” in this situation is nothing but a euphemism for the principle-of-war being conducted, so the “argumentation” is not like a Gentleman’s Debating Club between friends. Btw, the word “contrived” harmonizes grandly with the principle-of-war, also when waging verbal war all sides (when it gets really heated) issue decrees as to what the rules of “true ethics” are, so their side can win and claim the moral high ground as they proceed along in the conflict, and in that context I observe that your word “strategies” was delightful :smiley: I have observed the regular and deliberate use of Ad hominem, Strawman, Misdirection, Bold Lying, Spin, Continually Ignoring Irrefutable Points, and *Obfuscation in arguments web-wide and here at RO between Conservatives, Liberals, Ronulans, Randians, Anarchists, and all other factions as well. And we can add Atheists that are becoming quite numerous and mouthy-ugly in their attacks on religion, religious people, God, faith, and especially Christianity, here in Webby World.

*“Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.”

Egoism:

a. The ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest.
b. The ethical belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive for all human conduct.

The definition seems to harmonize quite well with the principle-of-conflict among men who hold settled-committed positions and are locked-down in steel as members of a specific political or ideological camp, as noted above.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

“Reason is a tool. Who follows a hammer?” Do you not see your contradiction here? Who follows reason? Do do realize that you are trying to use reason to make me believe that I should not follow reason. Therefore, if I am to believe you then I should not take you seriously either. In fact all knowledge is completely subjective, and realitive. My truth is just as valuable as your truth.

Reasoning is how we think correctly to arrive at truths. Can a hammer pound out truths?

So when Hoppe reasons that human’s own their physical bodies and that the boundaries should not be violated and you ask, “how so?”, Well reason is why. If you do not think reason should be followed,as I stated before, this discussion is pointless. You and I are reasoning now to get to truth.

Libertarian ethics is how humans should act, you already know it. Argumentation ethic is the proof for such ethics.

It follows because once someone violates the boundaries of another’s physical body they contradict themselves. They have disregarded reason. To disregard reason places a human back in the Hobbesian jungle. Following reason is not subjective contrary to popular belief. I have not created this morality, it is only the true morality that has been discovered by reason by people much smarter than I am. Just as humans discovered mathematics through their reason and logic and compared it to physical reality the philosophers have done the same. It is not subjective to start from first principles reason out how humans act then compare this to reality. This is called the scientific method! Not Utilitarianism.

For your comment about sociopaths, I am unsure what your point is here. That the existence of someone who does not follow morality thus proves there is no morality? Morality is optional, as is reason. There are wild animals that do not follow morality because they are incapable of it, as are the sociopaths.

When humans try and resolve a conflict peacefully they do so through reason and logic. Current court systems have been corrupted by positive law but Customary Law which was co-opted to become British Common Law used reason in this way. In court does the murder use the defense that, “your morality, your conscience has not authority over me!” Why would this not hold up? Answer this for yourself and you will have the answer to your questions.

“Reason is a tool. Who follows a hammer?” Do you not see your contradiction here? Who follows reason? Do do realize that you are trying to use reason to make me believe that I should not follow reason. Therefore, if I am to believe you then I should not take you seriously either. In fact all knowledge is completely subjective, and relative. My truth is just as valuable as your truth.

Reasoning is how we think correctly to arrive at truths. Can a hammer pound out truths?

So when Hoppe reasons that human’s own their physical bodies and that the boundaries should not be violated and you ask, “how so?”, Well reason is why. If you do not think reason should be followed, as I stated before, this discussion is pointless. You and I are reasoning now to get to truth.

Libertarian ethics is how humans should act, you already know it. Argumentation ethic is the proof for such ethics.

It follows because once someone violates the boundaries of another’s physical body they contradict themselves. They have disregarded reason. To disregard reason places a human back in the Hobbesian jungle. Following reason is not subjective contrary to popular belief. I have not created this morality, it is only the true morality that has been discovered by reason by people much smarter than I am. Just as humans discovered mathematics through their reason and logic and compared it to physical reality the philosophers have done the same. It is not subjective to start from first principles reason out how humans act then compare this to reality. This is called the scientific method! Not Utilitarianism.

As to your comment about sociopaths, I am unsure what your point is here. The existence of someone who does not follow morality does not prove there is no morality. Morality is optional, as is reason. There are wild animals that do not follow morality because they are incapable of it, as are the sociopaths.

When humans try and resolve a conflict peacefully they do so through reason and logic. Current court systems have been corrupted by positive law but Customary Law which was co-opted to become British Common Law used reason in this way. In court does the murder use the defense that, “your morality, your conscience has not authority over me!” Why would this not hold up? Answer this and you will have the answer to your questions.

[quote=“Bremen, post:236, topic:39967”]
“Reason is a tool. Who follows a hammer?” Do you not see your contradiction here? Who follows reason? Do do realize that you are trying to use reason to make me believe that I should not follow reason. Therefore, if I am to believe you then I should not take you seriously either. In fact all knowledge is completely subjective, and relative. My truth is just as valuable as your truth.

Reasoning is how we think correctly to arrive at truths. Can a hammer pound out truths?

So when Hoppe reasons that human’s own their physical bodies and that the boundaries should not be violated and you ask, “how so?”, Well reason is why. If you do not think reason should be followed, as I stated before, this discussion is pointless. You and I are reasoning now to get to truth.

Libertarian ethics is how humans should act, you already know it. Argumentation ethic is the proof for such ethics.

It follows because once someone violates the boundaries of another’s physical body they contradict themselves. They have disregarded reason. To disregard reason places a human back in the Hobbesian jungle. Following reason is not subjective contrary to popular belief. I have not created this morality, it is only the true morality that has been discovered by reason by people much smarter than I am. Just as humans discovered mathematics through their reason and logic and compared it to physical reality the philosophers have done the same. It is not subjective to start from first principles reason out how humans act then compare this to reality. This is called the scientific method! Not Utilitarianism.

As to your comment about sociopaths, I am unsure what your point is here. The existence of someone who does not follow morality does not prove there is no morality. Morality is optional, as is reason. There are wild animals that do not follow morality because they are incapable of it, as are the sociopaths.

When humans try and resolve a conflict peacefully they do so through reason and logic. Current court systems have been corrupted by positive law but Customary Law which was co-opted to become British Common Law used reason in this way. In court does the murder use the defense that, “your morality, your conscience has not authority over me!” Why would this not hold up? Answer this and you will have the answer to your questions.
[/quote]Line one is mostly tongue in cheek.

In a court of law, you would be subject to the immorality of U.S. law, Bremen. Are you sure you want to appeal to a courtroom, which is obviously not a source for morality. An anarchist can easily say exactly what you suggested, and perhaps he might be right. It then simply comes down to self-preservation and self-defense not an objective moral code.

I think you are unsure because I am very unsure about what you are saying. I’m also not heading toward any particular goal with this discussion. I’m just trying to spend some time thinking, learning and understanding. I’m not even attempting to persuade you or anyone else to any particular position. May we try this one step at a time?

It follows because once someone violates the boundaries of another’s physical body they contradict themselves.
If I beat you with hammer, how am I contradicting myself?

Also, what do you think about the actual original question?

[QUOTE=Bremen]Do do realize that you are trying to use reason to make me believe that I should not follow reason. Therefore, if I am to believe you then I should not take you seriously either.[/QUOTE]

Bremen, your posts sometimes read like those of a man who has never bothered to read a single word by anyone who disagrees with his positions. Let’s go through some basic Hume 101. If a proper use of reason undermines itself, then reason is in big trouble. There is no contradiction here. Again: if a person seeking to undermine reason makes use of reason for that purpose, there is no problem here.

However: here is the hornets nest for you. Reverse this complaint: how can reason be justified except through use of reason? What could be used to justify reason except for reason itself? And if only reason can justify reason, then doesn’t that mean that reason can only ever make use of a circular justification? But reason also holds that circular arguments are fallacious. Hence, it would seem that a non-fallacious justification for reason is impossible. Going on three hundred years later, no one has come up with a good answer to Hume’s problem.

2 Likes

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”

~Adolf Hitler

Seriously?!? You’re using the extreme of fascism to support the extreme of anarchism? How does that even work? That only serves to feed into Godwin’s Law.

1 Like

We justify reason by comparing it to a consistent physical reality.

If your argument invalidates what you are using to make the argument one should have the sense to realize they have made a mistake somewhere.

One does not justify the justification with the justification.