Proving Morality

[Mountaineer]

Kshartle, where are you?  I hope you are well and functioning.

Here is another interesting article on "Reality".

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/04/5 ... -illusion/

... Mountaineer

[l82start]

merged religion discussion with  Figuring Out Religion thread http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... -religion/

[Mountaineer]

merged religion discussion with  Figuring Out Religion thread http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... -religion/

l8, thank you.  I was ready to send you a note to move the recent stuff as it morphed into a religion conversation (my bad) but you beat me to it!

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I had to take a break after a ten page disscussion of the word "ought". That and the religious diversion were completely draining. I'll continue at a slower pace, I was getting too consumed with this thread and it was affecting my demeanor in other areas and thinking about it too much.

[Mountaineer]

I had to take a break after a ten page disscussion of the word "ought". That and the religious diversion were completely draining. I'll continue at a slower pace, I was getting too consumed with this thread and it was affecting my demeanor in other areas and thinking about it too much.

Glad you are OK.  You "ought" to be great now with the rabbit to snail persona shift   JK.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I had to take a break after a ten page disscussion of the word "ought". That and the religious diversion were completely draining. I'll continue at a slower pace, I was getting too consumed with this thread and it was affecting my demeanor in other areas and thinking about it too much.

Glad to have you back.  As you probably noticed, I'm willing to go ahead with our premise that a decision can be proven wrong, so much as one of the premises of said decision is an incorrect perception of reality, but it can't necessarily be proven right. 

Thanks for your patience with figuring out "ought," "decisions," actions, etc.  I needed that before I could move on .

[Kshartle]

You guys are so nice. I hadn't even read the responses until now.

[doodle]

Just a question....when we say" proving morality" we are only operating within the context of "humankind" right? I think we have already discussed how natural forces and animals don't have "morality" per se. If thats the case then a universal morality doesn't exist and morality is something specifically tied to human civilization.

Then, if we limit morality simply to human civilization, there is going to be a lot of cultural disagreement on what "right" and " wrong" are. The only way to argue against subjective cultural ideas of right and wrong is to argue that the outcomes of certain moral codes are preferable to others, but how can one do this if we do not first establish an objective purpose or meaning for life. If we don't agree on the purpose of life, how can we agree on the moral code that is somehow designed to support it?

In our present society beating a child is seen as wrong, however from the standpoint of a spartan we are morally failing a child by not toughening it up with periodic beatings.....so which society in this case is morally wrong or right? And who is to judge?

[Pointedstick]

I strongly agree with what doodle said there, and would be interested to hear if anyone disagrees. I imagine Kshartle will, and am specifically interested in hearing the response to doodle's first paragraph about animals and their (lack of) morality.

[moda0306]

I strongly agree with what doodle said there, and would be interested to hear if anyone disagrees. I imagine Kshartle will, and am specifically interested in hearing the response to doodle's first paragraph about animals and their (lack of) morality.

I think animals are a huge topic that needs addressing.

However, for the purposes of this initial debate, gray areas have been put aside. Animals, kids, elderly, insane, pollution, risk, extension of ownership from self to property... This all is valid stuff. But we have kind of agreed to just let kshartle attempt to prove self-ownership of adult human beings, and then how that can be proven to extend to property.

Even without all those areas giving us things to ponder, I don't think it can be done.  I vote we I've him a chance, since we might not need to refer to gray areas to make our point...

[MachineGhost]

The universe is a violent, brutal, uncaring and amoral physical reality.  Its existence is a negative right imposed on all life forms.

So of course the concept of morality is but a derivation of anthropomorphism.  But that is what makes us unique as human beings as opposed to all other animals.  As we become more and more aware and informed about the complex emotional realities of animals on Earth, it is but a natural outcome in progressive growth to extend our positive right of compassion beyond the human sphere.  I can envision a day in the future when the raising and slaughtering of animals for food is immoral and hunting is unthinkable barbarism.

Ignorance is pretty amazing in what it can let humans do without feeling any guilt.  But once Pandora's box is opened, there's no going back.  You either adapt or you will die off as irrelevant (either naturally, murdered or imprisoned).

Already, the concept of "ownership" is slowly morphing into "guardianship" when to comes to animals as "property".  I applaud this!  We'll laugh at how tragically silly "life form property" was in a hundred years.

(And yes, I censored several comments I just had to make about wingnuts.  But I wanted to stay on point. ))

[Kshartle]

Just a question....when we say" proving morality" we are only operating within the context of "humankind" right? I think we have already discussed how natural forces and animals don't have "morality" per se. If thats the case then a universal morality doesn't exist and morality is something specifically tied to human civilization.

Then, if we limit morality simply to human civilization, there is going to be a lot of cultural disagreement on what "right" and " wrong" are. The only way to argue against subjective cultural ideas of right and wrong is to argue that the outcomes of certain moral codes are preferable to others, but how can one do this if we do not first establish an objective purpose or meaning for life. If we don't agree on the purpose of life, how can we agree on the moral code that is somehow designed to support it?

In our present society beating a child is seen as wrong, however from the standpoint of a spartan we are morally failing a child by not toughening it up with periodic beatings.....so which society in this case is morally wrong or right? And who is to judge?

We are just discussing humans for the moment. Why do we need to discover the meaning of life to determine objective criteria for what is morally right and wrong? Why do you think if morality exists in an objective sense it must include animals? Is it not possible that animals could be excluded from the concept because of their inability to be truly responsible for their actions? Animals may appear to choose actions but they can't contemplate the idea of morallity so they can never actively choose to do something immoral. It seems impossible to me that an animal could be morally responsible for it's actions.

I think it's best if we leave animals out for now until objective human morallity is proven or dissproven. If it is then we can see if the criteria applies to animals.

Doodle, the questions your asking that I bolded are the ones attempting to be answered. If it's truly immoral in an objective sense to beat a child then it was immoral for the spartans to do it then, just the same as now. I'll be happy to be their judge. Judging a society is the wrong way to approach this concept though because society is just an idea and it doesn't act, either morally or imorally or neutrally. Individuals and only individuals act. Just becuase many individuals act a certain way doesn't mean it's a "society" that's acting.

I think it's important in this particular discussion to be very precise about what is actually happening in what we perceive as reality, as best we can. That means avoiding vauge and subjective concepts like "society" that aren't an actual part of objective reality, just a subjective label for a group of individuals in a geographic area. 

[Kshartle]

(And yes, I censored several comments I just had to make about wingnuts.  But I wanted to stay on point. ))

Teach me self-censorship.

[MachineGhost]

I think it's important in this particular discussion to be very precise about what is actually happening in what we perceive as reality, as best we can. That means avoiding vauge and subjective concepts like "society" that aren't an actual part of objective reality, just a subjective label for a group of individuals in a geographic area.

Most, if not all, people use "society" to vaguely refer to the emergent property of ideas and memes that arise from 1+1 self-organizing humans aka collective intelligence.  So the concept is not really subjective per se; it is metaphysical and is just as valid as physics.  It would be neat and clean if we could reduce the real world to simple Objectivism or NeoTech/Zonpower or only physical property, but that's not how human meta-existence works.  We're not animals doomed to be at the whims and mercy of the grand uncaring universe.

[Kshartle]

I think it's important in this particular discussion to be very precise about what is actually happening in what we perceive as reality, as best we can. That means avoiding vauge and subjective concepts like "society" that aren't an actual part of objective reality, just a subjective label for a group of individuals in a geographic area.

Most, if not all, people use "society" to vaguely refer to the emergent property of ideas and memes that arise from 1+1 self-organizing humans aka collective intelligence.  So the concept is not really subjective per se; it is metaphysical and is just as valid as physics.  It would be neat and clean if we could reduce the real world to simple Objectivism or NeoTech/Zonpower or only physical property, but that's not how human meta-existence works.  We're not animals doomed to be at the whims and mercy of the grand uncaring universe.

The difficulty in this discussion is people refer to society as if it's a living breathing that acts. The argument has been made that morality changes based upon the whims of the society the person is a part of. I've tried to explain that the "society" being referred is not some separate unique creature, it's just another group of individual humans. Soceity doesn't exert pressure on you to act a certain way, some other people do. In any given goup of people there may be dominant beliefs or practices, but there is no such thing a true societal belief or practice. Some individuals in the group are sure to dissagree with the majority. Are they not also part of the "society"?

BTW I have no idea WTF your last two sentences mean. Are you sure you're not insane? j/k

[MachineGhost]

The difficulty in this discussion is people refer to society as if it's a living breathing that acts. The argument has been made that morality changes based upon the whims of the society the person is a part of. I've tried to explain that the "society" being referred is not some separate unique creature, it's just another group of individual humans. Soceity doesn't exert pressure on you to act a certain way, some other people do. In any given goup of people there may be dominant beliefs or practices, but there is no such thing a true societal belief or practice. Some individuals in the group are sure to dissagree with the majority. Are they not also part of the "society"?

I don't have time to read all 20-pages of this topic.  If "society" is too fuzzy-wuzzy for you, how about just calling it what it really is: "cultural brainwashing", "cultural norms", "dominant in-group memes", "ruling elite tyranny", "establishmentarianism", etc..

BTW I have no idea WTF your last two sentences mean. Are you sure you're not insane? j/k

100% sure!

[Kshartle]

The difficulty in this discussion is people refer to society as if it's a living breathing that acts. The argument has been made that morality changes based upon the whims of the society the person is a part of. I've tried to explain that the "society" being referred is not some separate unique creature, it's just another group of individual humans. Soceity doesn't exert pressure on you to act a certain way, some other people do. In any given goup of people there may be dominant beliefs or practices, but there is no such thing a true societal belief or practice. Some individuals in the group are sure to dissagree with the majority. Are they not also part of the "society"?

I don't have time to read all 20-pages of this topic.  If "society" is too fuzzy-wuzzy for you, how about just calling it what it really is: "cultural brainwashing", "cultural norms", "dominant in-group memes", "ruling elite tyranny", "establishmentarianism", etc..  (We've decided that despite the existance of pressure from others in "society", humans still make their own decisions unless truly forced or threatened (which is force). No free pass for people on murdering children just because everyone else thinks it's ok. They all just happen to be wrong (unless it's ok to murder kids which I doubt anyone here agrees)

BTW I have no idea WTF your last two sentences mean. Are you sure you're not insane? j/k

100% sure!

[MachineGhost]

(We've decided that despite the existance of pressure from others in "society", humans still make their own decisions unless truly forced or threatened (which is force). No free pass for people on murdering children just because everyone else thinks it's ok. They all just happen to be wrong (unless it's ok to murder kids which I doubt anyone here agrees)

Sounds to me like it comes down to neuroscience and specifically whether a basic set of morality is built into the brain at birth (yes).  And whether or not those prequel aspects of morality will be modified and/or overruled by environment (yes).  So I suggest identifying the basic foundations and agreeing upon those objectively, then arguing about what comes thereafter.

[MachineGhost]

Wow, I just stumbled across the 9-page origin thread for this topic.

KShartle, as an anarcho-capitalist, you see everything in black and white because the philosophy relies upon a black and white foundation.  The real world does not operate like that and it will not for several centuries, if ever.  So you're better off adapting to the real world in your short lifetime, than remain an obstinate idealist.  That fact is, most humans are caring and worry about others and central government is the most efficient way to allocate resources to them, especially non-secularly.  This is a fact and it will not change; so I suggest you change instead of trying to convince others.

[Stewardship]

Wow, I just stumbled across the 9-page origin thread for this topic.

KShartle, as an anarcho-capitalist, you see everything in black and white because the philosophy relies upon a black and white foundation.  The real world does not operate like that and it will not for several centuries, if ever.  So you're better off adapting to the real world in your short lifetime, than remain an obstinate idealist.  That fact is, most humans are caring and worry about others and central government is the most efficient way to allocate resources to them, especially non-secularly.  This is a fact and it will not change; so I suggest you change instead of trying to convince others.

'Everything that ever has been always will be, and everything that ever will be always has been.'  — Kurt Vonnegut

[Kshartle]

you're better off adapting to the real world in your short lifetime, than remain an obstinate idealist.  That fact is, most humans are caring and worry about others and central government is the most efficient way to allocate resources to them, especially non-secularly.  This is a fact and it will not change; so I suggest you change instead of trying to convince others.

MG.....Thank you for the life coaching! Everyone is so concerned for my mental well-being I'm touched.

Regarding a central government being the most efficient way to allocate resources to humans....you cannot possibly believe this. I nearly spit out my coffee with laughter reading it. You really think the government is efficient at getting resources where we want them?!?!? You really think it works better than value exchange and private charity?!?!?  OMG man...I don't even know if Moda would agree with that although he might.

Government takes a huge chunk of the "resources" for itself to facilitate this transfer. It hordes a big stash that the wealthy and politically connected can lobby to have given to them. It doles out the resources not based on needs but based on political power (votes). It creates additional poverty and dependents by offering other people's money in exchange for those votes.

In short....your "fact", which is not a fact (go back to the pages where we discuss the difference between facts and opinions), is unsupported by logic or evidence. It's counteracted by both.

I'll give you an opinion that is supported by logic and evidence:

Many humans want to steal and enjoy hurting others and central government is the most efficient way to do both actions, especially non-secularly.

[Kshartle]

ok...maybe it's the vegetarian diet I've been on, maybe the warm weather...but I've got renewed energy. I'll dig though the 20+ pages and get together the premises so far in summary. Then we'll move on. I'll stay off other threads because I only have so many time resources and I don't have a central government to wisely allocate them for me!

[moda0306]

you're better off adapting to the real world in your short lifetime, than remain an obstinate idealist.  That fact is, most humans are caring and worry about others and central government is the most efficient way to allocate resources to them, especially non-secularly.  This is a fact and it will not change; so I suggest you change instead of trying to convince others.

MG.....Thank you for the life coaching! Everyone is so concerned for my mental well-being I'm touched.

Regarding a central government being the most efficient way to allocate resources to humans....you cannot possibly believe this. I nearly spit out my coffee with laughter reading it. You really think the government is efficient at getting resources where we want them?!?!? You really think it works better than value exchange and private charity?!?!?  OMG man...I don't even know if Moda would agree with that although he might.

I think most people would agree the market is usually the best way to allocate resources.  I think there is an argument to be made that for some areas of human needs/wants, the government is better.  Maybe it's just military/courts/roads.  Maybe it's a bit more than that.  Maybe it's NOTHING!  But it's not like it is utterly, completely infathomable that people think the federal government is the best tool we have to create certain "safety-nets" and protections.

For instance, I think the federal government is best option at providing a wide military defense.  Currently optimal?  Of course not.  Best option we have, considering the broad alternatives?  IMO, yes.

[Kshartle]

I think the federal government is best option at providing a wide military defense.  Currently optimal?  Of course not.  Best option we have, considering the broad alternatives?  IMO, yes.

It's a FACT..............






that this is your opinion

I love when opinions are turned into facts and facts are called opinions (you didn't do this).

[moda0306]

I think the federal government is best option at providing a wide military defense.  Currently optimal?  Of course not.  Best option we have, considering the broad alternatives?  IMO, yes.

It's a FACT..............






that this is your opinion

I love when opinions are turned into facts and facts are called opinions (you didn't do this).

What is your point?


Of course it is a FACT that people may have opinions.  That is different than stating your opinion as if those assertions (not the fact that you hold them) are facts.

You said "you can't possibly believe this."  Well ask most Americans, and you'll probably find that at least 90% of them believe the federal government is better at some things than "the market."  Why is it so flabbergasting that he might possibly believe that?

I'm not saying it's true.  That's a different debate.  But why would we ever be surprised that someone holds an opinion that most people do, generally?