Proving Morality

[Kshartle]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't say that belief in God is "purely faith", nor would I say that it can be rationally proven.  I also wouldn't say that any manmade moral framework can be rationally proven, but that remains to be seen here in this thread.

How can it not be faith and also not rationally provable?

The moral framework wouldn't be man-made. It would be a function of reality. It would exist just like we exist. Are you saying "I woudn't say that anyone can prove an objective moral standard exists"?

If that's what you're saying then are you also saying "It is impossible for someone to prove an objective moral standard exists in reality"?

See if you say the next two lines:

I woudn't say that anyone can prove an objective moral standard exists
I woudn't say that anyone can't prove an objective moral standard exists

then you aren't saying anything as far as I can tell. I don't mean this to be harsh. But be honest with yourself whether or not you can have an open mind.

I'm tired of hearing "you didn't convince me!" as if that is actually an argument. It's not and it's very frequent and it's very often just a product of a closed mind.

If your mind is really closed off to the possibility of right and wrong actually existing and being provable then please please don't interfere with the discusion because constantly typing "you didn't prove it to me" is annoying, unhelpful and not an argument.

It's difficult to convey tone over the internet and I don't mean this in a negative way I mean it in a positive way. Jumping to the conclusion that you've already locked in on is not helpful.

[Pointedstick]

Perhaps this simply leads to a #5

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

Skipping far ahead - where this leads is that right and wrong are not absolutes, but at least to some extent a function of society.  This makes intuitive sense.  Even though they're both human beings, right and wrong to a caveman (anywhere on earth) is quite different from right and wrong to someone born and raised in the United States in the late 20th century.  Perhaps not as radically different, right and wrong to nomadic native Americans in the 1500s is different from right and wrong to people born in the same place now.

I would agree with your #5 but dispute that it invalidates #4. Despite the fact that we all exist within a society, and our options and modes of thought are to a large part due to the impacts of our society, we still control our own thoughts and actions. It may be true that I only have access to movie theaters because I live in a prosperous country, but within the context of being able to go to a movie theater, I still get to choose which movie to watch. Or even not to watch a movie at all. And despite the fact that I live in a society that encourages car ownership, I can still choose not to own a car (as doodle has, for instance). The fact that society is organized in a certain way doesn't strip me of the freedom to make my own decisions. It simply informs the incentives I face.

[Kshartle]

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

I'm not sure I buy #4.  This implication is that the natural state is unbrainwashed.  By the time you're an adult, you have become part of a society which has rules and norms you have internalized.  Those who fail to do this are considered psychopaths.  Hardly anyone chooses what society they become part of - it's mostly a function of where on the planet you were born (and historically when).  This is important because I think where you're probably going is "you control (or are responsible for) your own actions".  This is not true in an absolute sense.  You control your own actions within the context of the societal norms that you internalize - so society has a say in your actions as well.

Perhaps this simply leads to a #5

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

Skipping far ahead - where this leads is that right and wrong are not absolutes, but at least to some extent a function of society.  This makes intuitive sense.  Even though they're both human beings, right and wrong to a caveman (anywhere on earth) is quite different from right and wrong to someone born and raised in the United States in the late 20th century.  Perhaps not as radically different, right and wrong to nomadic native Americans in the 1500s is different from right and wrong to people born in the same place now.

We are talking about objective right and wrong as a function of reality and a shared definition of what right and wrong is. It would be no different for the caveman or the person in the US.

Does that make sense? We've only taken one step in the journey of 1,000 miles.

Society can only influence your actions, you still control them. Provided your rights (if they exist) are not violated, you completely choose your actions, even if you are influenced by others.

Does that make sense also? 

[Kshartle]

Perhaps this simply leads to a #5

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

Skipping far ahead - where this leads is that right and wrong are not absolutes, but at least to some extent a function of society.  This makes intuitive sense.  Even though they're both human beings, right and wrong to a caveman (anywhere on earth) is quite different from right and wrong to someone born and raised in the United States in the late 20th century.  Perhaps not as radically different, right and wrong to nomadic native Americans in the 1500s is different from right and wrong to people born in the same place now.

I would agree with your #5 but dispute that it invalidates #4. Despite the fact that we all exist within a society, and our options and modes of thought are to a large part due to the impacts of our society, we still control our own thoughts and actions. It may be true that I only have access to movie theaters because I live in a prosperous country, but within the context of being able to go to a movie theater, I still get to choose which movie to watch. Or even not to watch a movie at all. And despite the fact that I live in a society that encourages car ownership, I can still choose not to own a car (as doodle has, for instance). The fact that society is organized in a certain way doesn't strip me of the freedom to make my own decisions. It simply informs the incentives I face.

Bingo

[Kshartle]

Moda do you see why this cannot be laid out in 10 premises that you can follow from start to finish?

Every premise must be understood and definitions agreed upon and clarification made.

It will take forever.

Ohh well......I think a decent goal is 2-3 premises a day and whoever is around can take a stab at them.

[Kshartle]

Perhaps this simply leads to a #5

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

Skipping far ahead - where this leads is that right and wrong are not absolutes, but at least to some extent a function of society.  This makes intuitive sense.  Even though they're both human beings, right and wrong to a caveman (anywhere on earth) is quite different from right and wrong to someone born and raised in the United States in the late 20th century.  Perhaps not as radically different, right and wrong to nomadic native Americans in the 1500s is different from right and wrong to people born in the same place now.

I would agree with your #5 but dispute that it invalidates #4. Despite the fact that we all exist within a society, and our options and modes of thought are to a large part due to the impacts of our society, we still control our own thoughts and actions. It may be true that I only have access to movie theaters because I live in a prosperous country, but within the context of being able to go to a movie theater, I still get to choose which movie to watch. Or even not to watch a movie at all. And despite the fact that I live in a society that encourages car ownership, I can still choose not to own a car (as doodle has, for instance). The fact that society is organized in a certain way doesn't strip me of the freedom to make my own decisions. It simply informs the incentives I face.

Bingo

Except that society doesn't exist in objective reality. It's just an word that represents an idea in our heads. It's like the forest thing. A forest is an idea, the trees and bushes and wooland creatures are what actually exist. We look at a group of it and call it a forest for simplicitiy's sake but that's a subjective evaluation and not objective reality. Does that make sense?

[moda0306]

I would agree with your #5 but dispute that it invalidates #4. Despite the fact that we all exist within a society, and our options and modes of thought are to a large part due to the impacts of our society, we still control our own thoughts and actions. It may be true that I only have access to movie theaters because I live in a prosperous country, but within the context of being able to go to a movie theater, I still get to choose which movie to watch. Or even not to watch a movie at all. And despite the fact that I live in a society that encourages car ownership, I can still choose not to own a car (as doodle has, for instance). The fact that society is organized in a certain way doesn't strip me of the freedom to make my own decisions. It simply informs the incentives I face.

Bingo

Except that society doesn't exist in objective reality. It's just an word that represents an idea in our heads. It's like the forest thing. A forest is an idea, the trees and bushes and wooland creatures are what actually exist. We look at a group of it and call it a forest for simplicitiy's sake but that's a subjective evaluation and not objective reality. Does that make sense?

We often have words for groups of things that IS important when discussing an overall system as a whole as being different from just one individual part, even though the system is made up of many individual parts.  This is called the fallacy of composition. The assumption that just because something is made up of a bunch of smaller parts, that it behaves the same way, but just on a larger scale.

So it's an important word, and I think DOES play into logic and even ethics quite a bit, but I think for now I'm willing to accept each individual as such, and ignore social elements as being directly pertinent to self-ownership... of course this becomes REALLY tough when you start analyzing the family unit (vs society), since it's hard imagining life being possible without it in humans, but, as K said, let's save that for later .

[moda0306]

Moda do you see why this cannot be laid out in 10 premises that you can follow from start to finish?

Every premise must be understood and definitions agreed upon and clarification made.

It will take forever.

Ohh well......I think a decent goal is 2-3 premises a day and whoever is around can take a stab at them.

Sort of.  I think I was taking a lot of these weird ones for granted that we agree... but I'm VERY glad you're bringing them up for the sake of a more grounded, robust logical structure!

[Xan]

How can it not be faith and also not rationally provable?

"Purely faith" was the question that was asked.  What I'm saying is that it's not irrational to believe in God, but I wouldn't say that His existence could be deductively proven based on non-God premises.  I don't know why anyone would expect it to.

The moral framework wouldn't be man-made. It would be a function of reality. It would exist just like we exist. Are you saying "I woudn't say that anyone can prove an objective moral standard exists"?

Well, I don't really believe that one even exists, apart from God.  So the question of whether one would be provable if it existed is hard to answer.  By all means, prove one and show me I'm wrong.

If that's what you're saying then are you also saying "It is impossible for someone to prove an objective moral standard exists in reality"?

I believe that's the case, yes.

See if you say the next two lines:

I woudn't say that anyone can prove an objective moral standard exists
I woudn't say that anyone can't prove an objective moral standard exists

then you aren't saying anything as far as I can tell. I don't mean this to be harsh. But be honest with yourself whether or not you can have an open mind.

I don't see how anything I've said means that I couldn't be shown to be wrong.  Go ahead and do it.

I'm tired of hearing "you didn't convince me!" as if that is actually an argument. It's not and it's very frequent and it's very often just a product of a closed mind.

But part of what you're trying to sell here is an objective morality that 100% of the human race will get on board with on their own, with no enforcement of any kind.  So...  You kinda DO have to convince everyone, or else you're automatically wrong.  Like Moda said, you've laid out a really hard task for yourself.

If your mind is really closed off to the possibility of right and wrong actually existing and being provable then please please don't interfere with the discusion because constantly typing "you didn't prove it to me" is annoying, unhelpful and not an argument.

If you constantly think that you've proven something when you really aren't even close (not that you've failed to prove it, but that you've failed to even start), then it's useful to point that out.

It's difficult to convey tone over the internet and I don't mean this in a negative way I mean it in a positive way. Jumping to the conclusion that you've already locked in on is not helpful.

Pray tell, how open is your mind to the idea that morality cannot be objectively proven?

[Mountaineer]

May I suggest that before pursuing Kshartle's 4 premises too much further, those engaged in the discussion watch this:

http://new.livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/ ... s/45061401

... Mountaineer

[rickb]

We are talking about objective right and wrong as a function of reality and a shared definition of what right and wrong is. It would be no different for the caveman or the person in the US.

Does that make sense? We've only taken one step in the journey of 1,000 miles.

Society can only influence your actions, you still control them. Provided your rights (if they exist) are not violated, you completely choose your actions, even if you are influenced by others.

Does that make sense also?

You are perhaps missing my point.  People exist within a societal context which is as much a part of reality as anything else.  The control you exercise on your actions is a function of the society you were (loosely) born into.  If you stray too far from the societal norms you're considered a psychopath - so the notion that you, and you alone, control your actions is not correct.  Because you're socialized within a specific society, this socialization process ends up controlling your actions as well (again, unless you're a psychopath).

We might need to back up a bit and explore why humans gather together in groups and what it fundamentally means to be part of a group.  There's a rule 0 that we haven't stated yet

0. Might makes right (or, perhaps, might preserves life).

Like it or not, living on this planet means you have to compete against the other things (all of them) that also live on this planet.  Humans discovered fairly early on that they survived better in groups than by acting alone.  The reason for this is that a group is mightier than an individual.  The basic thing you get by being part of a group is protection (of course there are other benefits as well), which at the beginning included protection from other individual humans (no matter how mighty an individual may be, a sufficiently large group is going to be mightier) - but as humans formed groups the protection equation extended to include protection from other groups (a group may be mightier than any individual, but once all the individuals are part of groups then we're talking about one mighty group against another).  As the size of the groups grows larger, the mightiness increases as does the degree of protection. 

However, to be part of the group you give up something.  What you give up is your #4 (or the consequence you're setting up by your #4 which will be ".... therefore you own your body" or something similar).  You're part of a group - not a unique individual separate from everything else in the world, but one of many similar individuals in a group.  You don't in an absolute sense own your actions anymore - the group has at least some say.  If you do something the group doesn't like, the group can (and is perfectly within its rights to) take action against you (up to and including taking your life from you).  Basing your notion of right and wrong purely on individuals, without considering the impact of this "groupness", is short sighted and will ultimately lead to false conclusions.

[Pointedstick]

If you do something the group doesn't like, the group can (and is perfectly within its rights to) take action against you (up to and including taking your life from you).

If you approve of the state of affairs where the group can kill the individual for doing something not appreciated by the group, there's probably not much more to talk about here because this is such a fundamental disagreement on so many of the basics that the divide is most likely unbridgeable.

However, thank you for reminding me why I am glad I own and am proficient in the use of firearms.

[Mountaineer]

We might need to back up a bit and explore why humans gather together in groups and what it fundamentally means to be part of a group.  There's a rule 0 that we haven't stated yet

0. Might makes right (or, perhaps, might preserves life).

Like it or not, living on this planet means you have to compete against the other things (all of them) that also live on this planet.  Humans discovered fairly early on that they survived better in groups than by acting alone.  The reason for this is that a group is mightier than an individual.  The basic thing you get by being part of a group is protection (of course there are other benefits as well), which at the beginning included protection from other individual humans (no matter how mighty an individual may be, a sufficiently large group is going to be mightier) - but as humans formed groups the protection equation extended to include protection from other groups (a group may be mightier than any individual, but once all the individuals are part of groups then we're talking about one mighty group against another).  As the size of the groups grows larger, the mightiness increases as does the degree of protection. 

However, to be part of the group you give up something.  What you give up is your #4 (or the consequence you're setting up by your #4 which will be ".... therefore you own your body" or something similar).  You're part of a group - not a unique individual separate from everything else in the world, but one of many similar individuals in a group.  You don't in an absolute sense own your actions anymore - the group has at least some say.  If you do something the group doesn't like, the group can (and is perfectly within its rights to) take action against you (up to and including taking your life from you).  Basing your notion of right and wrong purely on individuals, without considering the impact of this "groupness", is short sighted and will ultimately lead to false conclusions.

rickb,

I think you are on to something with rule 0. 

I realize that my worldview begins and ends with God, and your rule 0 expresses my worldview to me.  "In the beginning ..... etc."  On a deep level, I think most humans realize your rule 0 too, e.g. think of the expression "Almighty God" or the Martin Luther hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is our God". 

When I read your rule 0, the first thing that entered my mind was, I'm so very thankful that our mighty God is the source of "rightness" rather than the alternatives.  So, after pondering several of the responses to Kshartle's premises, I do not see how it is possible to keep God out of the mix if we are to come up with any sort of proof to anything - but then again, I, like Xan, do not think it is possible to logically prove "absolute right or wrong or morals" anyway, they just "are".  At some point a leap of faith is involved, whether it be faith in God, faith is self, faith in logic, faith in all the alternate creation hypotheses, faith in faith itself, or faith that there is no faith.  If others see it differently, I'm all for going on the ride to see where it ends.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

If you do something the group doesn't like, the group can (and is perfectly within its rights to) take action against you (up to and including taking your life from you).

If you approve of the state of affairs where the group can kill the individual for doing something not appreciated by the group, there's probably not much more to talk about here because this is such a fundamental disagreement on so many of the basics that the divide is most likely unbridgeable.

However, thank you for reminding me why I am glad I own and am proficient in the use of firearms.

PS,
The group has been able to kill the individual in this country since its founding.  Hopefully, it is based on the rule of law.  And, PS, I'm with you on the firearms thing whether or not one personally chooses to own them - that is the major reason behing the 2nd Amendment, to prevent a corrupt government from trampling on the individual outside the rule of law and if it does, to replace that corrupt organization.  I would offer it is our "duty" as citizens to own and be proficient in the use of firearms, but that freqently gets shouted down by the more "trusting of big bro" part of the citizenry. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

PS,
The group has been able to kill the individual in this country since its founding.

It's one thing to acknowledge the reality of this state of affairs; obviously you are correct. It's quite another to approve of the concept. My question for those who approve would probably concern which things they believe they should be killed for doing if the group doesn't like it.

Hopefully, it is based on the rule of law.

Heh, that's a good one. 

And, PS, I'm with you on the firearms thing whether or not one personally chooses to own them - that is the major reason behing the 2nd Amendment, to prevent a corrupt government from trampling on the individual outside the rule of law and if it does, to replace that corrupt organization.  I would offer it is our "duty" as citizens to own and be proficient in the use of firearms, but that freqently gets shouted down by the more "trusting of big bro" part of the citizenry. 

... Mountaineer

Exactly.

[rickb]

If you do something the group doesn't like, the group can (and is perfectly within its rights to) take action against you (up to and including taking your life from you).

If you approve of the state of affairs where the group can kill the individual for doing something not appreciated by the group, there's probably not much more to talk about here because this is such a fundamental disagreement on so many of the basics that the divide is most likely unbridgeable.

However, thank you for reminding me why I am glad I own and am proficient in the use of firearms.

Are you saying you are philosophically opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances?  Or forced military drafts?

Actually I'm opposed to both of these, but on pragmatic rather than philosophical grounds.  Death penalties are applied entirely too erratically and carry the possibility of executing someone who's innocent, and military drafts typically become a permanent device allowing excessive war mongering.  But this is quite distinct from the notion that a society fundamentally has the right to enforce a death penalty, or the right to compel people to be part of a national defense force (aka military).

The group taking an individual's life is extreme, but the same principle is what allows the group to take part of your wages in the form of tax - and put you in prison if you don't pay.  These are things that Kshartle's logic is going to say should never be permitted because they involve the use of force against an individual.  And he gets there because he's ignoring the rights of the group.  Well, if you want the group to use force to defend you then you pretty much have to put up with the possibility that the group might use force against you if are too far outside the societal norms (which, for example, murderers are in our society, or people who don't pay their taxes).

Perhaps we should let Kshartle continue with his logic - my guess is we'll get back to this topic (individual vs. group) fairly quickly.

[Pointedstick]

Are you saying you are philosophically opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances?  Or forced military drafts?

Yes.

Actually I'm opposed to both of these, but on pragmatic rather than philosophical grounds.  Death penalties are applied entirely too erratically and carry the possibility of executing someone who's innocent, and military drafts typically become a permanent device allowing excessive war mongering.  But this is quite distinct from the notion that a society fundamentally has the right to enforce a death penalty, or the right to compel people to be part of a national defense force (aka military).

I agree with you, and oppose them on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds.

The group taking an individual's life is extreme, but the same principle is what allows the group to take part of your wages in the form of tax - and put you in prison if you don't pay.  These are things that Kshartle's logic is going to say should never be permitted because they involve the use of force against an individual.  And he gets there because he's ignoring the rights of the group.  Well, if you want the group to use force to defend you then you pretty much have to put up with the possibility that the group might use force against you if are too far outside the societal norms (which, for example, murderers are in our society, or people who don't pay their taxes).

Exactly right on all counts. That's why the only logically consistent position is to oppose all of it.

As for rights, they are convenient social constructions, but to my knowledge no "group rights" have ever been invented. All rights I've ever heard of are rights that constrain or protect individual behavior. Can you give me an example of a "group right" that exists in a modern society? Even in the example of protection, it's not the group that's protecting you; it's specific individuals who signed up for (or were forced into) "protection duty." And in the United States of America, they don't actually have to protect you at all! Despite the fact that you are forced to pay for it and submit to it, they are not forced to actually render the service they ostensibly exist to render; it's only at their convenience. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v. ... f_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[rickb]

Are you saying you are philosophically opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances?  Or forced military drafts?

Yes.

Actually I'm opposed to both of these, but on pragmatic rather than philosophical grounds.  Death penalties are applied entirely too erratically and carry the possibility of executing someone who's innocent, and military drafts typically become a permanent device allowing excessive war mongering.  But this is quite distinct from the notion that a society fundamentally has the right to enforce a death penalty, or the right to compel people to be part of a national defense force (aka military).

I agree with you, and oppose them on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds.

The group taking an individual's life is extreme, but the same principle is what allows the group to take part of your wages in the form of tax - and put you in prison if you don't pay.  These are things that Kshartle's logic is going to say should never be permitted because they involve the use of force against an individual.  And he gets there because he's ignoring the rights of the group.  Well, if you want the group to use force to defend you then you pretty much have to put up with the possibility that the group might use force against you if are too far outside the societal norms (which, for example, murderers are in our society, or people who don't pay their taxes).

Exactly right on all counts. That's why the only logically consistent position is to oppose all of it.

As for rights, they are convenient social constructions, but to my knowledge no "group rights" have ever been invented. All rights I've ever heard of are rights that constrain or protect individual behavior. Can you give me an example of a "group right" that exists in a modern society? Even in the example of protection, it's not the group that's protecting you; it's specific individuals who signed up for (or were forced into) "protection duty." And in the United States of America, they don't actually have to protect you at all! Despite the fact that you are forced to pay for it and submit to it, they are not forced to actually render the service they ostensibly exist to render; it's only at their convenience. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v. ... f_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Ah - so perhaps you want the benefits of being part of a group but you aren't willing to pay the price?  The group ensures that those around you follow "the rule of law".  Imagine life without this group.  Does your child ever leave your presence?  Are you able to protect him/her while you're at work?  How, exactly, is your child protected while you're at work? 

My point is that without societal protection the world is a pretty terrible place.  The benefit you get from being part of a group is immense.  The price you pay is that you are subject to the group's rules.  Your "rights" are whatever the group you're part of deems them to be - i.e. all rights actually belong to the group and your individual rights are always subservient. 

Whether the US legally must defend you is not relevant to this discussion.  We're talking about abstract concepts - not concrete implementations.  At an abstract level you've joined a group (that you were probably born into).  From an evolutionary standpoint the basic function of the group is to protect its members, which means the group and its members continue to exist.  If your group fails to do this, it (and you) will be selected out of the population.  If your group has not been selected out of the population, you can conclude that whatever it's doing is working (at least so far).

Again, I suggest we let Kshartle continue with his logic and we'll quickly get back to this individual vs group issue.

[Pointedstick]

Ah - so perhaps you want the benefits of being part of a group but you aren't willing to pay the price?  The group ensures that those around you follow "the rule of law".  Imagine life without this group.  Does your child ever leave your presence?  Are you able to protect him/her while you're at work?  How, exactly, is your child protected while you're at work?

No, I absolutely want to pay the price. Literally. I pay a price for my car insurance, for the food that somebody else grows for me, for the house I live in that somebody else built for me, for the computer I'm typing on right now, for the internet access I'm using to communicate with you. These benefits of living in a society with a division of labor that allows me to specialize were intermediated by this amazing thing (that governments actually created, historically-speaking) called the market. In notable contrast to taxation and political decision-making, it allows me to pay for the benefits of living in a society by literally giving money to my fellow humans whose productivity I make use of. It is a remarkably violence-free process that has historically facilitated an explosion of productivity, wealth, social tolerance, and human happiness.

It is an altogether more efficient model than the one you are laying out, which seems to consist of having a certain amount of my money (and hence my time) forcibly taken from me and then spent on things desired not by me but by the people who took it, with only a loose, highly flawed link called "voting" between my desires and what I actually receive, to say nothing of the constraints on my non-aggressive actions that the group may impose.

My point is that without societal protection the world is a pretty terrible place.  The benefit you get from being part of a group is immense.  The price you pay is that you are subject to the group's rules.  Your "rights" are whatever the group you're part of deems them to be - i.e. all rights actually belong to the group and your individual rights are always subservient.

That is one societal model. Unfortunately, societies that more fully embrace this model usually wind up being pretty terrible places to live in, and people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves there often try to leave--that is, unless the group decides that "exit" is a right they don't have and tries to kill them for it.


I fully understand that most societies are a balance between the one I laid out (we pay for the things that other people make or give to us) and the one you laid out (the group determines what we can or can't do and kills us if we disobey) but I daresay human experience proves that societies that tend toward the former model wind up being  both much more productive and desirable to inhabit. I certainly know which one I prefer living in.

[rickb]

Ah - so perhaps you want the benefits of being part of a group but you aren't willing to pay the price?  The group ensures that those around you follow "the rule of law".  Imagine life without this group.  Does your child ever leave your presence?  Are you able to protect him/her while you're at work?  How, exactly, is your child protected while you're at work?

No, I absolutely want to pay the price. Literally. I pay a price for my car insurance, for the food that somebody else grows for me, for the house I live in that somebody else built for me, for the computer I'm typing on right now, for the internet access I'm using to communicate with you. These benefits of living in a society with a division of labor that allows me to specialize were intermediated by this amazing thing (that governments actually created, historically-speaking) called the market. In notable contrast to taxation and political decision-making, it allows me to pay for the benefits of living in a society by literally giving money to my fellow humans whose productivity I make use of. It is a remarkably violence-free process that has historically facilitated an explosion of productivity, wealth, social tolerance, and human happiness.

It is an altogether more efficient model than the one you are laying out, which seems to consist of having a certain amount of my money (and hence my time) forcibly taken from me and then spent on things desired not by me but by the people who took it, with only a loose, highly flawed link called "voting" between my desires and what I actually receive, to say nothing of the constraints on my non-aggressive actions that the group may impose.

My point is that without societal protection the world is a pretty terrible place.  The benefit you get from being part of a group is immense.  The price you pay is that you are subject to the group's rules.  Your "rights" are whatever the group you're part of deems them to be - i.e. all rights actually belong to the group and your individual rights are always subservient.

That is one societal model. Unfortunately, societies that more fully embrace this model usually wind up being pretty terrible places to live in, and people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves there often try to leave--that is, unless the group decides that "exit" is a right they don't have and tries to kill them for it.


I fully understand that most societies are a balance between the one I laid out (we pay for the things that other people make or give to us) and the one you laid out (the group determines what we can or can't do and kills us if we disobey) but I daresay human experience proves that societies that tend toward the former model wind up being  both much more productive and desirable to inhabit. I certainly know which one I prefer living in.

I don't think I've laid out any particular society, just what the boundaries are in the limit.  The market driven society you enjoy only works (we're talking about the US here, right?) because the norm in this society is to follow a particular set of laws and regulations that enable the market to function.  When you go to the store to buy something you don't have any particular fear that the transaction will go sour (say, the store owner simply takes your money).  Freedom from this kind of fear is provided by society.  Children in this society are (generally) indoctrinated from birth to obey laws, like not stealing.  Those who are not successfully indoctrinated and end up as thieves are hunted down and captured by police, which you pay for only indirectly (through your local taxes - which you have to pay on the penalty of you being considered a criminal).  In this one example the price of being able to freely engage in market driven transactions is paying your taxes (and indoctrinating your children in this society's norms).

Society provides the context in which individuals act.  No one is a free agent independent from society.

[Pointedstick]

Society provides the context in which individuals act.  No one is a free agent independent from society.

I guess the TL;DR version of my position is that the existence of incentives and consequences does not negate choice. Nobody is arguing that humans can enjoy some kind of mythical state of "perfect freedom" unbound by social rules and where there are no negative consequences. But that doesn't make choice an illusion or a sham or something.

[rickb]

Nobody is arguing that humans can enjoy some kind of mythical state of "perfect freedom" unbound by social rules ...

We'll see.  But I suspect that's precisely where Kshartle's logic will be leading.

i thought he was trying to prove that NAP was the only "logically provable" moral rule and therefore the one rule that should underlie or direct/inform all social rules...

i am not sure such a proof is possible but i am cheering on the effort. logically provable or not it has a lot to offer.

[Kshartle]

But part of what you're trying to sell here is an objective morality that 100% of the human race will get on board with on their own, with no enforcement of any kind.  So...  You kinda DO have to convince everyone, or else you're automatically wrong.  Like Moda said, you've laid out a really hard task for yourself.

If you believe the world is flat I and I can'tconvince you that it's round am I wrong? Is it flat? Come on. It might be that I can't convince you because you're not in a position to change your mind. That doesn't make me wrong. You proving the world isn't round or at least pointing out where my argument contradicts itself would. 

[Kshartle]

Nobody is arguing that humans can enjoy some kind of mythical state of "perfect freedom" unbound by social rules ...

We'll see.  But I suspect that's precisely where Kshartle's logic will be leading.

No.

I'm trying to prove that morally correct or good behaivor is objectively provable and not a subjective value assigned to behavior by different people. I'm trying to prove that there is objective critera for right and wrong as function of reality.

Other people talk about perfect or mythical freedom or utopia. I don't. Those concepts are impossible to me because of the variability of humans and their desire to satisfy their needs. I think we can acheive a point where violence as a solution to problems is seen by almost all as an obvious failure and immoral.

Obviously this is not what 99% of people think if they were asked about this subject. 99% of people are going to tell you that good and bad behavior is just interpretation. Then 100% of healthy minded people will tell you rape, slavery, theft and murder is bad, but struggle to tell you why. I'm pretty certain I know why, and I'm going to try to prove it piece by piece.

There are lots of different premises that we have to come to agreement on. I thought about them this weekend. They don't all flow one from the next in order although some do. Others have a different starting point but they will meet at or before the conclusion.

I'm going to write them all down today as best I can and organize them in order, then present 2-3 at a time for discussion.

[Mountaineer]

Nobody is arguing that humans can enjoy some kind of mythical state of "perfect freedom" unbound by social rules ...

We'll see.  But I suspect that's precisely where Kshartle's logic will be leading.

No.

I'm trying to prove that morally correct or good behaivor is objectively provable and not a subjective value assigned to behavior by different people. I'm trying to prove that there is objective critera for right and wrong as function of reality.

K,
Question for clarity or understanding:  When you use the words "objectively" and "subjective" in the context of your proof, do you mean - objective is proof coming from something external to ones self, and subjective as something that exists within a person?

The reason I'm asking is this:  You kow that I'm a Christian with that set of lenses through which I see the world, regardless of how hard I wish to be totally objective.  Thus, when I hear the word "objective" in the context of something you intend to prove, perhaps somehow leading to the source of right and wrong, it makes me think of why I objectively believe Christianity - i.e. "Christ died for my sins, Christ rose, Christ will come again", something external to myself with a substantial amount of proof that it happened in history.  When I hear the word "subjective", it makes me think of my "feelings" which come from within me and are not externally provable.

... Mountaineer