Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: toucee.

Let me be more precise......if we would all do something (fight and claw for the lifejacket or whatever to survive) can that something be immoral?

I repeat myself:

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

This is known as missing the point.

Which one of these adjectives would you assign to clawing for the life jacket to prevent drowning?

Mountaineer wrote: Sorry, I can't pick just ONE.  I'd assign most of them except for the sexual related.  Did you ever see the movie Titanic?  Recall the drowning scene with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio; not too much clawing for survival going on there.  Leonardo, however did go down without a struggle - chivalry vs. selfish greed; or perhaps just loving your neighbor as He loved us.  Good example of man being able to rise above acting on animal instinct.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: I think I'd include:
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, unvirtuous, shameless, lowdown and sleazy. 

Whew, all that for a miserable life jacket.

Stewardship wrote: Assuming you're talking about small militia groups throwing off government (and not government,) it just made me curious as to whether you rooted for the Empire, rather than the rebellion when you watched Star Wars...

Kshartle wrote: Governments and the use of them to solve problems worked out terribly for them.

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: What do you propse to do about that 1-2% that will exploit and rise to the top of any power pyramid and vanquish all you peaceful, pacifist, hippy-loving Anarcho-Capitalists?

I propose that you stop supporting them and building armies for them and swearing allegience to them and asking them to give you stolen goodies and make deals with them and worship them MG.

And stop voting for them. And stop pretending that you'll find a white knight amoungst them to banish the others.

Stop being part of the problem.

doodle wrote: Now I can support that! I don't agree with it necessarily, but at least it's consistent...the only trouble is that it would be pretty darn hard to do and still kind of fit into society.  Actually, it sounds a lot like a Christs message telling people not to use evil to combat evil....in other words take it on the cheek

Desert wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Desert wrote: I think I'd include:
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, unvirtuous, shameless, lowdown and sleazy. 

Whew, all that for a miserable life jacket.

iniquitous even? disreputable?!?!

Definitely disreputable ... I might be willing to negotiate on iniquitous though.

doodle wrote: Reading this immediately reminded me of Kshartle....for anyone who has debated with him you will understand: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Isn't it interesting, the English language?  If one were to substitute only one vowel and one consonant in the title of this thread, we could be having a discussion about "Proving Moronity" instead of "Proving Morality". 

... Mountaineer

Duckin' B.

doodle wrote: Reading this immediately reminded me of Kshartle....for anyone who has debated with him you will understand: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

Absolutism: There is an objective moral standard that communicates moral absolutes. For the Christian, this standard is the Holy Bible, the Word of God. For example, the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes that reveal the Creator’s holiness, so that “right”? and “wrong”? are unchanging as God is unchanging. “Conflicting absolutism”? is the view that, by virtue of sin entering into the world, there are times when, no matter which way we turn in a situation, we will experience the pain of living in a fallen world. This reality makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more precious to the sinner confronted by his or her limitations. What is maintained, however, is that, because of the Creator, there are moral absolutes.

doodle wrote:

Absolutism: There is an objective moral standard that communicates moral absolutes. For the Christian, this standard is the Holy Bible, the Word of God. For example, the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes that reveal the Creator’s holiness, so that “right”? and “wrong”? are unchanging as God is unchanging. “Conflicting absolutism”? is the view that, by virtue of sin entering into the world, there are times when, no matter which way we turn in a situation, we will experience the pain of living in a fallen world. This reality makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more precious to the sinner confronted by his or her limitations. What is maintained, however, is that, because of the Creator, there are moral absolutes.

There are a lot of "Gods laws" in the Old Testament especially that I think you would probably disagree with.

Mountaineer wrote: Probably right given I commit sins that I'm aware of and that I'm not aware of.  I do know for sure that I cannot keep God's Law even if I agree with it; I am a sinner and, “Sin is everything that is contrary to God’s Law”?.  That is why I so desparately am in need of a Savior and thanks be to God, I have one and I know that I'm forgiven.

Kshartle wrote: So we left off with a dissagreement about whether or not there exists an imperative to do what is "right".

I will re-fresh myself on the point of contention but I think it centered around not being certain that there are universal preferences.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

I've said most of this before, but...



An action, to even be possible, must be "in accordance with reality" in some sense.  You need to be more specific about what "in accordance with reality" really means.

To me, an action can't be correct or incorrect... or at least it is not self-evident.  Action is either taken or it is not.  If it is taken, in the sense that it is even possible, it must be "in accordance with reality."  If it isn't possible, that action wasn't taken.

An action, however, does contain a decision to act.  The decision is a conclusion of a set of premises.  If one of the premises leading to a conclusion is not true, it is unsound.  If the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises, then it is invalid.  This is no different, really, than any "argument" one might make attempting to use deductive or even inductive logic.

However, EVERY decision conclusion HAS to contain an "ought" premise, otherwise there is no value system to drive behavior.

For instance, this conclusion is NOT valid:

- Drinking Drano will kill me

--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano


There's no decision-driving value system.  No imperative.


Neither is this one:

- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I prefer to live

--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano

This isn't valid because there is no logical connection between a preference and an action.  I may prefer something, but it doesn't follow AUTOMATICALLY that I should act in a manner to maximize my preferences.  An imperative to act does not necessarily follow a base desire.


This one is valid:

- Drinking Drano will kill me
- I ought to take actions that improve my health

--- Therefore, I ought not to drink Drano




You NEED an ought premise.  It can't just be assumed.  That is not how logic works.


Further, one must ask, if every decision conclusion MUST contain an ought premise, is that "ought premise" self-evident, or does it flow from some other set of premises.  My argument is neither...

- Any "ought conclusion" needs an "ought premise" to base itself on, which is circular, because every premise, insofar as it is a conclusion about reality, would need another ought premise.... and so on and so forth, to infinity, and beyond.

- "Oughts" are not self-evident.  There is no "self-evident" imperative to do anything.

--- So you really can't build an ought argument without some sort of unprovable (unsound) premise that must guide behavior.  Even to have a preference is not an imperative to act.  A preference is just that... a preference.  Unless you include a (unprovable) premise that we OUGHT to maximize our preferences, you have not built a valid argument.






Regarding Truth, it is preferable in the realm of logic and reason.  Why?  Because the entire goal of logic and reason is to develop conclusions and likelihoods about Truth.  Truth may not be preferable in some of situations, but in the practice of logic, it is the ultimate goal, so it is, obviously, preferable.

To say that truth may be unpreferable in some situations ("Sir, it's the Gestapo... have you any Jews in your home?"), this doesn't mean that falsehood is universally preferable.  A negation doesn't imply an opposite.


I hope this serves to enrich the debate, and not confuse...

Kshartle wrote: Is it obvious that when I say "I don't exist", or "you don't exist" that these statements are incorrect?

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Is it obvious that when I say "I don't exist", or "you don't exist" that these statements are incorrect?

No, but who are "you" and "I"? That's a serious question that I think merits some digging.....after all, morality is founded on the idea that duality exists and that one entity can act upon another. This isn't obvious and frankly depending on how you choose to organize "reality" it is just as valid to argue that the universal unity is acting upon itself and if that is the case can a single entity acting upon itself ever be immoral?

Proving morality to me seems about as futile as trying to prove that chocolate pudding tastes better than vanilla pudding. But I'm enjoying the discussion and willing to be swayed