Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: When you say "accepted," do you mean by agents of government?  A branch of government?  Most people?  The vast majority of people?

Yes by the vast majority of people.

So if the vast majority of people around you want things a certain way, and the government they elect reflects those wants, and you don't like it, maybe the problem isn't everyone else in your way... maybe it's just that you picked the wrong spot to build a home and call your own.  Maybe you DO have a right to it, but since you understand the consequences to your actions, and have acknowledged that the "vast majority" of people around you are essentially, knowingly or unknowingly, trying to steal from you, maybe it's wise to acknowledge your role in creating your current dilemma.

Not trying to be condescending... just trying to shed light on one possible way to look at this.

If we truly do control our actions and understand the consequences, I wonder if the moral obligation isn't on us as individuals to pick the society we want and accept it, rather than point to others who are "stealing from us," which we can't control, but definitely can predict because we've been seeing it happen for centuries that individualss accept and encourage a certain amount of power be given to government.

I certainly wouldn't sit and complain about Somali society if I chose to move there where I know that the "vast majority" of people were in favor of stealing from me.  I'd simply avoid it.

Maybe if there are three people on an island, two guys and one girl and they vote that rape is fine and dandy, it is. As long as she stays there, for whatever reason, she is consenting to her rape and justifying it. What do you think?

Kshartle wrote:The opposite argument is the one that's unsupported. The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

Well, okay, here it is: when two people have different definitions of owning land, and there's a dispute over the same plot of land, then they are both justified in using what you would and have called defensive force to get the other guy to leave.  So, unless you can come up with a definition of property that is unassailably and obviously the One True definition with which nobody can disagree, then there's going to be violence.

Kshartle wrote:I don't need to be able to explain how the entire world will work and how every human will have the exact same understanding of all these concepts.

Yes you do.  Your world requires that everybody agree on everything.

Kshartle wrote:
Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

k.  Do you have facts (not anecdotal observations)  that support your statement, or do you just "believe" it? 

My belief is that we do not have free will when dealing with God things but that we do have free will when dealing with civil things (per the two kingdoms view of theology).  Topic for another day, but I also believe that man is inherently sinful; it is related to the discussion of violence and property.

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: 1. Didn't the British hunt aborigines in Australia for sport before realizing much later that the aborigines' culture and understanding of their environment was no less complex and nuanced than the culture of the people who were murdering them for entertainment? 

2. Since I don't really know what goes on in the mind of anyone but myself, on what basis can I say that my understanding of reality is superior to theirs?

1. I don't understand what that is supposed to be an example of.

The trivialization of one culture's understanding of the world around it by another culture that believes it has all of the answers.

2. Well, If I tell you I think my computer operates based on magic what do you think of my understanding of computers? If you explain to me how a computer works (even in very basic terms) and I persist that it's magic, what do you think about my understanding of reality compared to yours? Can you honestly tell me they are equal? - Please answer that question if possible.

I may say that my understanding of reality is superior to the believer in magic computers, and the believer in magic computers may say that his understanding of reality is superior to mine.  The key is to understand that the other person may believe that he is correct just as vehemently as I believe that I am correct, and who am I to say that he is wrong?  Maybe he is right.  Why would I care if I wasn't relying on his perception of reality in the first place?

Harry Browne talked about this in his audio course, and he described his approach when presented with ideas that didn't make any sense to him as follows: In order to engage me in discussions about an interpretation of reality that exists inside your mind, you must show me the truth of your assertion, AND the relevance of your version of reality to ME.

What you find is that it's very uncommon for others' perception of reality to have any real relevance to you.  So what if people wander around in a fog of stupidity and ignorance?  It's not my job to straighten out their thinking according to my standards.  Maybe they are in a much more blissful state with their current level of understanding than they would ever be if they were forced to think like me.

In other words, is it really necessary to make a judgment about the reasonableness of someone's beliefs if you are not relying in any way on those beliefs being reasonable according to your standards of reasonableness?  Why judge them?  Why not just appreciate them for what they are, which is their way of experiencing reality.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:
Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

k.  Do you have facts (not anecdotal observations)  that support your statement, or do you just "believe" it? 

What are you talking about?

Do I have facts that humans aren't gorillas or facts that we decide what we do and can prejudge whether an action is moral or not? Do I have facts that gorillas don't have a concept of morality?

Are you joking around with me?

Do I have facts that I'm sharing an exchange with another person? Do you?

I don't know what you're getting at here.


"We do not have free will when dealing with God things" - Well....what's a God thing? What are you talking about, I'm genuinly curious.

MediumTex wrote: I may say that my understanding of reality is superior to the believer in magic computers, and the believer in magic computers may say that his understanding of reality is superior to mine.  The key is to understand that the other person may believe that he is correct just as vehemently as I believe that I am correct, and who am I to say that he is wrong?  Maybe he is right.  Why would I care if I wasn't relying on his perception of reality in the first place?

Fine MT. I will now send you this post via magic. Who's to say I'm not correct? When I leave work I will forgo my car and fly home by flapping my arms. I believe I will be able to, and hey, my understanding of reality is just as good as anyone else's. Who's to say that I'm wrong, besides objective reality?

I don't believe you believe what you are typing here.

Does anyone here believe these posts appear here via magic, or that i can flap my arms and fly home? If not, who are you guys to suggest your understanding of reality is better? I propose that whatever anyone believes is true, therefore nothing is true, except the statement that nothing is true, that's the exception.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The government (or the people in it) doesn't claim it has the only and universa right to violence.... and while defending yourself is legal, so is the government collecting taxes based on law, or arresting/incarcerating someone based on due process, or building a road based on a legal levy that is passed.  How is it different?  The government does not illegalize certain forms of force by individuals nor does it legalize all forms of force for itself.

There are a ton of laws that prohibit government agents from being violent given certain scenarios, and when they are violent in an inappropriate way, usually they are punished.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is our rate of punishing violent aggression in the private sector... it's just not always going to work.

First off....nothing is morally acceptable because it's legal or morally unnaceptable because it's illegal. I have never said anything like it or insinuated it. I think you are deliberatly trying to confuse the issues and bury me in the endless task of making explanations of obvious stuff, all by deliberatly misstating me.

Woah man... I specifically said that I didn't think that this was what you were actually trying to say.  You DID say this:

"Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal."

This seems to imply that you're saying the difference between legitimate and aggressive force is its legal status... I wanted to clarify your position, because I know this isn't a Kshartle-esque assertion.

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying something else.


I have to mention defense of one's self as legal because if i say government is a monopoly on violence or the use of force people (yourself included) will claim it doesn't have that because people can defend themselves and it's even legal. It's annoying that the distinction between the two acts and the impact of those differences are still deliberately ignored as though they don't exist.

If you are going to write a sentence that defending ones self has anything in common with the government moderating the level of force it initiates based on law......and think these have anything to do with one another.......then I think you are not debating in good faith and are just trying to fill posts with as many words as possible. I am sorry if that's harsh but I can't believe you are trying to discuss this stuff in good faith when you write something that it, there is no way you believe it.

I'm not saying that defense of oneself and government reigning back force are the same thing.  Really.

But if you're going to say that the government is the only entity that the "vast majority" of people accept "aggressive force" from, then you are pretty correct, for the most part, if you're going to define government as "aggressive force" rather than "legitimate"... and I see what you mean now... however, we have a HUGE number of governments to choose from around this country alone (of course, with one over-arching one above them), but then options all over the world beyond that.  So only within a given geographical area do certain governments have anything that resemble a "monopoly."

And, I'd add, that any time the "vast majority" of people support non-governmental behavior that is forceful (slavery, expansion westward, pollution), now you're moving beyond government being the only entity that the vast majority accepts "aggressive force" from.  Further, if the vast majority of people expect property that is stolen to be still obtained by the thief, and not reclaimable by the person stolen from, then you have generations of people accepting "aggressive force" against the true owners of property.



Regarding the girl getting raped... I hope it's clear that I don't condone her being raped, but if she knew that she was about to go to a desert island with only two men that both are eager to rape, and nobody else, that by choosing that route she bears some small responsibility to what occurs there.  Not that the two men have any fingers to point other than to themselves, but I think we're missing the broader point here that if people aren't willing to avoid OBVIOUS MORTAL dangers, then are they really exercising that mind-muscle well.  I mean we are trying to claim that we are conscious, intelligent people, who should understand the natural consequences of our actions, whether we deserve them or not, are we not?


Further, and very importantly, you are making "threats of violence" (which I would agree are a form of violence) out to be the same as murder.  Violence isn't a scoreboard where every violent act receives a tally.  Violence is a sliding scale.  If I push someone in a bar, is that the same as me pulling out  gun and killing them?

I'd hope not.

Would we consider a country with 1,000 shootings per 100,000 people every year to be "more violent" than a country with 1,001 purse-snatches per 100,000 people?

I'd hope so.

Also, you've already admitted that the "vast majority of people" see the agents of government as having a LEGITIMATE role, then they aren't really acting under the threat of force... they're acting under free will because they believe that government is a legitimate role.  They drive between the lines because they WANT to.  They like having city sewer.  They often will believe in the Social Security they pay into.  They aren't forced at gunpoint... they want these things in place.  By your own words, the vast majority of people broadly accept government as a legitimate entity, and even a lot of libertarians, as you say, want some of these things in place.

Are you stating that someone who advocates for Social Security, including paying in their share, is actually having a gun pointed at their head by government when they pay in?

Would you say that a member of a gang is "forced" to do the bidding of the gang leader if he chose to be in the gang in the first place, if he knew what he was getting into?

So if we account for the fact that a "threat of force" that is easily escaped (most people aren't actually worried about being shot by government) isn't NEARLY as bad as murder (do we agree here?), and that the "vast majority" of people willfully engage with government rules peacefully not because they're "forced" to, but they agree with the authority of government, then, really, how much "violence" can we ascribe to government? 

Not nearly as much as you're trying to...

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

My apologies if this has been mentioned (don't have time to read all twenty-something pages right now).

But this idea that humans could live in a world without violence seems more than a bit of a stretch in terms of our evolutionary history.

Humans are primates of the family Hominidae. We are primates that just happen to have larger brains, with more neurons than our primate cousins. Nevertheless, we are still primates. All primates exhibit violence amongst one another.

What is your argument? We are primates therefore we will be violent towards each other? This is the nature argument. It's a law of nature and not a choice that people are violent, like gravity right?

1. All non-human primates are violent even though they lack free will to choose
2. Humans are primates
3. Therefore humans will always be violent because they are classified as primates even though they have free will to choose

Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

Some humans might always choose violence to solve their problems, in fact I agree they will, but it's not because they're primates. Primates is a just a word that groups "similar" organisms together.

Would you state that a gorilla has more conscious control of its behavior than an ant?  Is there any conscious control there at all?

If there is any consciousness, are you sure that there's NO understanding of morality?  When a gorilla takes care of its young, is there 100% instinct working, or is there any iota of conscious choice there?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The government (or the people in it) doesn't claim it has the only and universa right to violence.... and while defending yourself is legal, so is the government collecting taxes based on law, or arresting/incarcerating someone based on due process, or building a road based on a legal levy that is passed.  How is it different?  The government does not illegalize certain forms of force by individuals nor does it legalize all forms of force for itself.

There are a ton of laws that prohibit government agents from being violent given certain scenarios, and when they are violent in an inappropriate way, usually they are punished.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is our rate of punishing violent aggression in the private sector... it's just not always going to work.

First off....nothing is morally acceptable because it's legal or morally unnaceptable because it's illegal. I have never said anything like it or insinuated it. I think you are deliberatly trying to confuse the issues and bury me in the endless task of making explanations of obvious stuff, all by deliberatly misstating me.

Woah man... I specifically said that I didn't think that this was what you were actually trying to say.  You DID say this:

"Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal."

This seems to imply that you're saying the difference between legitimate and aggressive force is its legal status... I wanted to clarify your position, because I know this isn't a Kshartle-esque assertion.

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying something else.

I said......"I should have said, "Monopoly on the accepted use of violence" or something like that. The government can use violence and claims it as a right that only it has. Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal."

I said that in direct reply to your contention that government's don't claim a monopoly on violence. I even put a little crying face on it because I can't believe you would still compare the two like I don't know and haven't made the distinction more than anyone.

If you can somehow twist that into me asserting that something is moral because it's legal, particularly after all the discussion we've had.......well I just don't believe that. I don't think you have that much difficulty understanding the meaning someone is trying to convey. I think you were deliberately trying to misrepresent what I'm saying, and turn it into the exact opposite of what I've argued against from the start.

It's really exasperating.

moda0306 wrote: But if you're going to say that the government is the only entity that the "vast majority" of people accept "aggressive force" from, then you are pretty correct, for the most part, if you're going to define government as "aggressive force" rather than "legitimate"... and I see what you mean now... however, we have a HUGE number of governments to choose from around this country alone (of course, with one over-arching one above them), but then options all over the world beyond that.  So only within a given geographical area do certain governments have anything that resemble a "monopoly."

Thanks. What I bolded is the EXACT definition of government that I've stated. Check the thread on that. That's almost a perfect match. You are just stating the obvious here man, I don't understand your point. 

moda0306 wrote: Regarding the girl getting raped... I hope it's clear that I don't condone her being raped, but if she knew that she was about to go to a desert island with only two men that both are eager to rape, and nobody else, that by choosing that route she bears some small responsibility to what occurs there.  Not that the two men have any fingers to point other than to themselves, but I think we're missing the broader point here that if people aren't willing to avoid OBVIOUS MORTAL dangers, then are they really exercising that mind-muscle well.  I mean we are trying to claim that we are conscious, intelligent people, who should understand the natural consequences of our actions, whether we deserve them or not, are we not?

How about if she's born there? Does that change anything? Is she still partially responsible? What does that mean for the rapers? Are they any less responsible?

Kshartle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The government (or the people in it) doesn't claim it has the only and universa right to violence.... and while defending yourself is legal, so is the government collecting taxes based on law, or arresting/incarcerating someone based on due process, or building a road based on a legal levy that is passed.  How is it different?  The government does not illegalize certain forms of force by individuals nor does it legalize all forms of force for itself.

There are a ton of laws that prohibit government agents from being violent given certain scenarios, and when they are violent in an inappropriate way, usually they are punished.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is our rate of punishing violent aggression in the private sector... it's just not always going to work.

First off....nothing is morally acceptable because it's legal or morally unnaceptable because it's illegal. I have never said anything like it or insinuated it. I think you are deliberatly trying to confuse the issues and bury me in the endless task of making explanations of obvious stuff, all by deliberatly misstating me.

Woah man... I specifically said that I didn't think that this was what you were actually trying to say.  You DID say this:

"Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal."

This seems to imply that you're saying the difference between legitimate and aggressive force is its legal status... I wanted to clarify your position, because I know this isn't a Kshartle-esque assertion.

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying something else.

I said......"I should have said, "Monopoly on the accepted use of violence" or something like that. The government can use violence and claims it as a right that only it has. Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal."

I said that in direct reply to your contention that government's don't claim a monopoly on violence. I even put a little crying face on it because I can't believe you would still compare the two like I don't know and haven't made the distinction more than anyone.

If you can somehow twist that into me asserting that something is moral because it's legal, particularly after all the discussion we've had.......well I just don't believe that. I don't think you have that much difficulty understanding the meaning someone is trying to convey. I think you were deliberately trying to misrepresent what I'm saying, and turn it into the exact opposite of what I've argued against from the start.

It's really exasperating.

Settle down man... I actually said in my response that I didn't think this was what you were stating.  I wanted to understand why you were bringin illegality into the picture, as it SEEMED like you were implying that the legality of self-defense is what made it NOT "aggressive use of force."

I am NOT comparing reducing your own violence with accepting self defense.

Let's just put this baby to bed.  Christ, we're practically in agreement.  If we are operating under the premise that government is "force" and not "enforcement," then, yes, it is almost entirely the only widely-accepted form of aggressive force, if not the only one.

However, we can't deny the possibility that, as private citizens (often with the aid or approval of government) have commited acts of force on others for centuries that are "accepted" by "the vast majority" of people.  So the private sector has plenty of "accepted force" built into it, as much of this property was never returned.

Kshartle wrote:1. All non-human primates are violent even though they lack free will to choose

Non-human primates don't choose to be violent? How do you know this?

Kshartle wrote:Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

How do you know this?

Kshartle wrote:Primates is a just a word that groups "similar" organisms together.

Umm... yeah. You know why they are "similar", right? Because humans and other primates are descended from a single ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago. Our DNA is 98.8 percent the same.

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:
Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

k.  Do you have facts (not anecdotal observations)  that support your statement, or do you just "believe" it? 

What are you talking about?

Do I have facts that humans aren't gorillas or facts that we decide what we do and can prejudge whether an action is moral or not? Do I have facts that gorillas don't have a concept of morality?

Are you joking around with me?

I don't see why you think he's joking around with you. How do you know that non-human primates don't have a concept of morality? I don't believe its ever been proven one way or another. Seems like you just believe they don't.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Regarding the girl getting raped... I hope it's clear that I don't condone her being raped, but if she knew that she was about to go to a desert island with only two men that both are eager to rape, and nobody else, that by choosing that route she bears some small responsibility to what occurs there.  Not that the two men have any fingers to point other than to themselves, but I think we're missing the broader point here that if people aren't willing to avoid OBVIOUS MORTAL dangers, then are they really exercising that mind-muscle well.  I mean we are trying to claim that we are conscious, intelligent people, who should understand the natural consequences of our actions, whether we deserve them or not, are we not?

How about if she's born there? Does that change anything? Is she still partially responsible? What does that mean for the rapers? Are they any less responsible?

I think we should back of this example as it's a bit graphic.  I think rape is a horrible crime.  I am simply stating that each person bears some level of responsibility for removing themselves from nasty situations, especially if they've been burned over and over.

You're on maybe your 40th year in this oppressive country, and continue to approach the private sector to make $X0,000 per year, only to walk away, with $X0,000 per year less X0% of the amount you'll owe in taxes.  Fool you once, shame on government and society... fool you twice, shame on you.  Right?  Eventually, you OWN yourself and can't keep complaining about your plight.  Especially since nobody is telling you that you can't take what you own and leave.  I'm not trying to blame you... just to state that if we want to open another thread, maybe thinking about this self-ownership with individual behavior rather than pontificating about the role of government might be a useful.

This is all I'm saying... and it's straight from Harry Browne's mouth.  I'm also really glad we live in a world where MOST people have the option to say "you know what, F*CK YOU government... I'm moving away with most of my wealth."

This is a luxury that we take for granted, it would seem.

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:1. All non-human primates are violent even though they lack free will to choose

Non-human primates don't choose to be violent? How do you know this?

Kshartle wrote:Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

How do you know this?

Kshartle wrote:Primates is a just a word that groups "similar" organisms together.

Umm... yeah. You know why they are "similar", right? Because humans and other primates are descended from a single ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago. Our DNA is 98.8 percent the same.

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: k.  Do you have facts (not anecdotal observations)  that support your statement, or do you just "believe" it? 

What are you talking about?

Do I have facts that humans aren't gorillas or facts that we decide what we do and can prejudge whether an action is moral or not? Do I have facts that gorillas don't have a concept of morality?

Are you joking around with me?

I don't see why you think he's joking around with you. How do you know that non-human primates don't have a concept of morality? I don't believe its ever been proven one way or another. Seems like you just believe they don't.

I can't believe I didn't push him on this further.

And even if we can PROVE that humans have a concept of morality vs other animals having absolutely no free choice or concept of morality, how does that prove the existence of moral vs immoral behavior... maybe it's a genetic weakness?  A genetic strength? 

If a species had a "feeling" in its brain that there was a God, does that mean he exists?

If a species had a "feeling" that the world was flat, does that mean it is?

If a species had a "feeling" that their species, as individuals, had certain intrinsic value, does that mean that they do?

This all seems very circular to me.

Uh oh, Kshartle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Wikipedia.org wrote:Humanity’s closest living relatives are common chimpanzees and bonobos. These primates are known to share a common ancestor with humans who lived four to six million years ago. It is for this reason that chimpanzees and bonobos are viewed as the best available surrogate for this common ancestor. Barbara King argues that while primates may not possess morality in the human sense, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of morality. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self", and a concept of continuity. Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Many social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

Michael Shermer wrote:attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

Shermer argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

Social Evolution of Humans


Period years ago
Society type
Number of individuals


6,000,000
Bands
10s


100,000–10,000
Bands
10s-100s


10,000–5,000
Tribes
100s–1,000s


5,000–4,000
Chiefdoms
1,000s–10,000s


4,000–3,000
States
10,000s–100,000s


3,000–present
Empires
100,000–1,000,000s



All social animals have hierarchical societies in which each member knows its own place. Social order is maintained by certain rules of expected behavior and dominant group members enforce order through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of reciprocity. Chimpanzees remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them. Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding.

Animals such as Capuchin monkeys and dogs also display an understanding of fairness, refusing to co-operate when presented unequal rewards for the same behaviors.

Chimpanzees live in fission-fusion groups that average 50 individuals. It is likely that early ancestors of humans lived in groups of similar size. Based on the size of extant hunter gatherer societies, recent paleolithic hominids lived in bands of a few hundred individuals. As community size increased over the course of human evolution, greater enforcement to achieve group cohesion would have been required. Morality may have evolved in these bands of 100 to 200 people as a means of social control, conflict resolution and group solidarity. This numerical limit is theorized to be hard coded in our genes since even modern humans have difficulty maintaining stable social relationships with more than 100-200 people. According to Dr. de Waal, human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. People also apply a degree of judgment and reason, not seen in the animal kingdom.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... _sociality

Yes, "people apply a degree of judgment and reason, not seen in the animal kingdom." However, the concept of morality isn't a boolean value. It's something that is present in primitive and advanced levels in different animals — with humans having the most advanced levels.

Put another way...

Nicholas Wade wrote:Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are...

...Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies...

...Though human morality may end in notions of rights and justice and fine ethical distinctions, it begins, Dr. de Waal says, in concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. At this lower level, primatologists have shown, there is what they consider to be a sizable overlap between the behavior of people and other social primates.

Source: NYTimes: Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Kshartle wrote:
Mountaineer said: "We do not have free will when dealing with God things....."

Kshartle said: - Well....what's a God thing? What are you talking about, I'm genuinly curious.

Kshartle:  If you are genuinely curious to learn more about free will, I suggest you read "On the Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther written about 500 years ago.  Here is a very brief summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will

Here is the whole book.  Warning, it is a 35 MB download of a scanned copy of the book by someone at the University of Toronto.

https://ia600506.us.archive.org/4/items ... thuoft.pdf

If you are just curious about what I meant by "God things", that was my very brief attempt to define the relationship between man and God.  Obviously, tons of ink and electrons have been spilled dialoging on that subject.  The "civil things" I mentioned in the original post is my brief attempt to define relationships among men and among men and the entire creation - more tons of ink and electrons have been devoted to dialoging on that.  Both of these topics may not lend themselves to a deep understanding unless you are called to study Christian theology.  Happy reading!

... Mountaineer

There's also the Paradox of Free Will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Wikipedia.org wrote:The argument from free will (also called the paradox of free will, or theological fatalism) contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible, and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory. The argument may focus on the incoherence of people having free will, or else God himself having free will. These arguments are deeply concerned with the implications of predestination, and often seem to echo the dilemma of determinism.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology

Wikipedia.org wrote:The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Calvinistic circles: if God knows exactly what will happen (right down to every choice a person makes), it would seem that the "freedom" of these choices is called into question.

This problem is related to the Aristotelian problem of the sea battle: tomorrow either there will or will not be a sea battle. According to the Law of excluded middle, there seems to be two options. If there will be sea battle, then it seems that it was true even yesterday that there would be one. Thus it is necessary that the sea battle will occur. If there will not be one, then, by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it will not occur. That means that the future, whatever it is, is completely fixed by past truths: true propositions about the future (a deterministic conclusion is reached: things could not have been any other way).

However, some philosophers follow William of Ockham in holding that necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a given point in time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, and so something that is merely possible from the perspective of one observer may be necessary from the perspective of an omniscient. Some philosophers follow Philo of Alexandria, a philosopher known for his homocentrism, in holding that free will is a feature of a human's soul, and thus that non-human animals lack free will.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology

"Homocentrism" is defined as: "Regarding humans as the central element of the universe." and "Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience."

If one thing is clear, it's that not everyone believes that free will even exists. The "standard argument against free will" (or the "impossibility of free will") is documented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I may say that my understanding of reality is superior to the believer in magic computers, and the believer in magic computers may say that his understanding of reality is superior to mine.  The key is to understand that the other person may believe that he is correct just as vehemently as I believe that I am correct, and who am I to say that he is wrong?  Maybe he is right.  Why would I care if I wasn't relying on his perception of reality in the first place?

Fine MT. I will now send you this post via magic. Who's to say I'm not correct? When I leave work I will forgo my car and fly home by flapping my arms. I believe I will be able to, and hey, my understanding of reality is just as good as anyone else's. Who's to say that I'm wrong, besides objective reality?

I don't believe you believe what you are typing here.

Does anyone here believe these posts appear here via magic, or that i can flap my arms and fly home? If not, who are you guys to suggest your understanding of reality is better? I propose that whatever anyone believes is true, therefore nothing is true, except the statement that nothing is true, that's the exception.

You're talking about things that neither you nor I believe in.  I'm talking about things that others may sincerely believe, but which I don't believe in myself.

I would say that if a certain set of beliefs work for a person, why would I care if those beliefs don't work for me in the same way?

Gumby, you continue, post after post, to present information in a very logical, readable, and thorough fashion without becoming emotional.  I enjoy reading your posts.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Gumby, you continue, post after post, to present information in a very logical, readable, and thorough fashion without becoming emotional.  I enjoy reading your posts.

... Mountaineer

Thanks Mountaineer. I don't have a horse in this particular race, so it's easy for me to keep emotions at bay on this particular topic.

Also, it wasn't always the case, but I've figured out how to manage my stress in the past few months, and it's made a big difference for me. So I feel a bit like Spock (as in much less emotional) these days

Regarding animals having an instinct towards morality... This short video is extremely interesting.

http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were- ... sc4-3a?g=2

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I may say that my understanding of reality is superior to the believer in magic computers, and the believer in magic computers may say that his understanding of reality is superior to mine.  The key is to understand that the other person may believe that he is correct just as vehemently as I believe that I am correct, and who am I to say that he is wrong?  Maybe he is right.  Why would I care if I wasn't relying on his perception of reality in the first place?

Fine MT. I will now send you this post via magic. Who's to say I'm not correct? When I leave work I will forgo my car and fly home by flapping my arms. I believe I will be able to, and hey, my understanding of reality is just as good as anyone else's. Who's to say that I'm wrong, besides objective reality?

I don't believe you believe what you are typing here.

Does anyone here believe these posts appear here via magic, or that i can flap my arms and fly home? If not, who are you guys to suggest your understanding of reality is better? I propose that whatever anyone believes is true, therefore nothing is true, except the statement that nothing is true, that's the exception.

You're talking about things that neither you nor I believe in.  I'm talking about things that others may sincerely believe, but which I don't believe in myself.

I would say that if a certain set of beliefs work for a person, why would I care if those beliefs don't work for me in the same way?

I just wanted to be clear that you're changing the subject. I said people believing in something doesn't make it true. You challenged that statement. Now rather than agree with me or make the disagreeing case you are changing the subject to why you would care if someone believes something different. Ok, that's fine. Constantly changing the subject when someone presses you to support a statement is fairly common. I prefer to stay on topic or not say things I'm unable to support. Unfortunately I've gotten myself into 20 different exchanges on different topics with different people here and it's impossible to address them all.

The argument that humans will always choose violence because they are very similar to gorrillas (an argument so riddled in falseness I should have just ignored it) has now turned into whether or not I can prove that animals don't have a concept of morality. When people here make crazy statements and can't back them up they just try to change the subject as quickly as possible. Others have pointed this out. It's frustrating. 

As for why you would care? Maybe you can answer that yourself. I don't know why you would care. Why do you discuss anything with someone? Do you just want to hear their opinion? Do you never try to explain why you beleive something and maybe teach someone or show them what you know in the hope that they will gain a better understanding?

I find that hard to believe. - therefore it must not be true! hah

Kshartle, a large part of the reason why you're getting such pushback here is your explicit and implicit assertions that every question has a right and a wrong answer and that the right answer is logically provable and that you have found the right answers to all of the questions you have examined.

Now, maybe you have. Maybe you are correct about everything. But your attitude about this, that your arguments are a fortress that will withstand all attack, and that you must defend them from other points of view… well, it's pretty offputting and I wish you were more open-minded. But you don't seem capable of open-mindedness because every time other people express alternative points of view, you rush to attack those points of view, to try to poke logical holes in them, and to otherwise tear them down. You never listen. All you ever do is attack and defend, attack and defend, attack and defend. It's no way to have a civilized discussion, frankly.

The more you carry on this way, the more you run the risk of being right (at least in your own mind) but very very alone.

Kshartle wrote:The argument that humans will always choose violence because they are very similar to gorrillas (an argument so riddled in falseness I should have just ignored it) has now turned into whether or not I can prove that animals don't have a concept of morality. When people here make crazy statements and can't back them up they just try to change the subject as quickly as possible. Others have pointed this out. It's frustrating.

Please. As you describe it, your entire belief system seems to be based on this idea that "free will" separates us from all other animals. Well, we've just established that the building blocks of "free will" — if it even exists — are present in non-human primates. The building blocks of morality ("attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group") are most definitely present in non-human animals.

This idea of "free will" is just something that Homocentrist armchair philosophers have dreamed up to explain our differences from other non-human primates. Biologists and theologians have different opinions on the matter. You can ignore those other opinions if you wish, but you just alienate yourself in the process.