An experiment
-
BoneSoft wrote:
In both cases, fear of punishment (or revenge) is the primary motivation for obeying the laws (written or collectively understood).
Couldn't it be enlightened self-interest?
BoneSoft wrote:
However, I don't know if there is a culture that's figured out how to use positive reenforcement for maintaining peace.
I think the Mennonite "Shunning" is a step in that direction. Shunning, a terrible consequence in that culture to be sure, is still merely a lack of all reinforcement.
BoneSoft wrote:
But an unwritten moral law? I don't think so.
I would offer up the possibility that some form of the golden rule could have been derived by a pre-literate culture, possibly one with only very simplistic communication of any sort - on the level of dolphins or chimps.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Couldn't it be enlightened self-interest?
Well yes. I think it's the combination of fear of consequences and self interest with the faith that if I follow the rules, the system will enforce them for everybody else. I think self interest is more of a motivation for having the laws, and that fear of consequences is the primary motivation for following those laws.
Oakman wrote:
would offer up the possibility that some form of the golden rule could have been derived by a pre-literate culture
I would assume that you're right. I would imagine that even when 10 - 20 people lived in a cave, that one would be adopted as a leader who probably decided most of the rules of interaction. But yeah, I would suspect that any grouping of people had to determine as a group what was acceptable behavior. Nobody thinks about killing until Bob cracks somebody's skull for taking the first chicken leg and the group falls on him for doing so. And from that day forward, everybody thinks twice about braining the grabber of the first leg. Course, they would probably think twice about taking the first leg too. :laugh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Couldn't it be enlightened self-interest?
Well yes. I think it's the combination of fear of consequences and self interest with the faith that if I follow the rules, the system will enforce them for everybody else. I think self interest is more of a motivation for having the laws, and that fear of consequences is the primary motivation for following those laws.
Oakman wrote:
would offer up the possibility that some form of the golden rule could have been derived by a pre-literate culture
I would assume that you're right. I would imagine that even when 10 - 20 people lived in a cave, that one would be adopted as a leader who probably decided most of the rules of interaction. But yeah, I would suspect that any grouping of people had to determine as a group what was acceptable behavior. Nobody thinks about killing until Bob cracks somebody's skull for taking the first chicken leg and the group falls on him for doing so. And from that day forward, everybody thinks twice about braining the grabber of the first leg. Course, they would probably think twice about taking the first leg too. :laugh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Nobody thinks about killing until Bob cracks somebody's skull for taking the first chicken leg
You reminded me of something I read once, but cannot attribute. "Cain wanted to kill his brother, but did not want his brother dead."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ro0ke wrote:
What I may view as a unacceptable might be a normal occurence in another culture.
I agree that is true in some (many?) cases. Suicide for instance seems to be something that mankind hasn't made up its mind about. However, I can't think of a society that accepts stealing/unlawgul killing/lying as moral behaviors - can you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
However, I can't think of a society that accepts stealing/unlawgul killing/lying as moral behaviors - can you?
That's a good point, but again I think this would be a matter of perspective. Hitler was certainly convinced he was doing the right thing. Although many Germans may have accepted it out of fear... the fact is, many more felt entitled to rebuild their economy after WWI. There are still wars going on about land that was "stolen" hundreds of years ago.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Of course, even there you can find plenty of back-and-forth as to whether it derives from empathy, fear, or cold, calculated self-interest.
But why does it matter what we derive it from, as long as we agree that it is a or the moral law?
Shog9 wrote:
And plenty of folks who'll cheerfully classify those they wish to hurt as unreasonable/insane/sub-human in order to avoid feeling guilty over hurting them.
That suggests to me that on some level they are aware that they are breaking a moral law and use rationalization to avoid confronting that fact. It doesn't mean, does it, that there is no law - only that there are lawbreakers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But why does it matter what we derive it from, as long as we agree that it is a or the moral law?
When did we start making that a requirement to argue? ;P
Oakman wrote:
That suggests to me that on some level they are aware that they are breaking a moral law and use rationalization to avoid confronting that fact. It doesn't mean, does it, that there is no law - only that there are lawbreakers.
Sure, maybe. But if lawbreakers outnumber the lawful, does it really matter? What good is a law without teeth?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Oakman wrote:
But why does it matter what we derive it from, as long as we agree that it is a or the moral law?
When did we start making that a requirement to argue? ;P
Oakman wrote:
That suggests to me that on some level they are aware that they are breaking a moral law and use rationalization to avoid confronting that fact. It doesn't mean, does it, that there is no law - only that there are lawbreakers.
Sure, maybe. But if lawbreakers outnumber the lawful, does it really matter? What good is a law without teeth?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
When did we start making that a requirement to argue
Good point. But we could start another thread for it: Experiment2
Shog9 wrote:
But if lawbreakers outnumber the lawful, does it really matter?
I think so. Given time, I could probably make a case for it.
Shog9 wrote:
What good is a law without teeth?
What good is a law that is obeyed only because it is enforced?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Shog9 wrote:
When did we start making that a requirement to argue
Good point. But we could start another thread for it: Experiment2
Shog9 wrote:
But if lawbreakers outnumber the lawful, does it really matter?
I think so. Given time, I could probably make a case for it.
Shog9 wrote:
What good is a law without teeth?
What good is a law that is obeyed only because it is enforced?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
What good is a law that is obeyed only because it is enforced?
I guess that'd depend on the law. If most of us agree to honor and enforce property laws for instance, we can avoid certain difficulties that come from short-sighted use of the land. Without enforcement, the law is nothing - cattle graze where they will, and in a way, so do we. Our nation was founded with the following declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I have no trouble accepting that the men who wrote this more or less believed it. And yet, there's no denying that many of them spent the remainder of their lives aided and comforted by humans they kept as slaves, deprived in whole or in part of both liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These men, establishing with grand words and deeds the charter of a new government, were themselves unable to break free of the prejudices of the time. I can accept that there are Laws of Nature that cannot be broken, and Laws of God that are unwise to break. I can acknowledge that our society operates as well as it does because the majority of us agree to uphold the laws of our Government... or at very least, do not often contest them openly. But it's hard for me to accept as law a moral compass so easily unbalanced or ignored. When, for any given topic, you and i might argue the rest of our lives as to what is "right", our differences arising from disparate base assumptions on each side.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Oakman wrote:
What good is a law that is obeyed only because it is enforced?
I guess that'd depend on the law. If most of us agree to honor and enforce property laws for instance, we can avoid certain difficulties that come from short-sighted use of the land. Without enforcement, the law is nothing - cattle graze where they will, and in a way, so do we. Our nation was founded with the following declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I have no trouble accepting that the men who wrote this more or less believed it. And yet, there's no denying that many of them spent the remainder of their lives aided and comforted by humans they kept as slaves, deprived in whole or in part of both liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These men, establishing with grand words and deeds the charter of a new government, were themselves unable to break free of the prejudices of the time. I can accept that there are Laws of Nature that cannot be broken, and Laws of God that are unwise to break. I can acknowledge that our society operates as well as it does because the majority of us agree to uphold the laws of our Government... or at very least, do not often contest them openly. But it's hard for me to accept as law a moral compass so easily unbalanced or ignored. When, for any given topic, you and i might argue the rest of our lives as to what is "right", our differences arising from disparate base assumptions on each side.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
And yet, there's no denying that many of them spent the remainder of their lives aided and comforted by humans they kept as slaves, deprived in whole or in part of both liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I think there's little question that some of those men (i.e. Adams, Jefferson) who espoused those words and yet left slavery acceptable as the South's "peculiar institution" were well aware that they were breaking their own codes.
Shog9 wrote:
When, for any given topic, you and i might argue the rest of our lives as to what is "right", our differences arising from disparate base assumptions on each side.
I agree that there are many, many actions that we might argue over until the tavern ran dry. But there are some - maybe only a few - that I think that you and I and most of mankind, barring the psychopaths and sociopaths, would agree on very quickly.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Fatso's sig has a ring of truth to it, although I don't agree with it entirely.
Cheers, Vikram.
Zeppelin's law: In any Soapbox discussion involving Stan Shannon, the probability of the term "leftist" or "Marxist" appearing approaches 1 monotonically. Harris' addendum: I think you meant "monotonously". Martin's second addendum: Jeffersonian... I think that should at least get a mention.
-
I'm wondering if it is possible in this forum (or any online forum, actually) to have a discussion about something meaningful without it eventually reducing to a flame war. I find this statement interesting. It was made in the "Words escape me" thread. Someone wrote: It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this. I don't think many here would argue that there is no moral law. People that argue that we don't have a moral law tend to betray their beliefs with their actual behaviors (excepting sociopaths and the like). (Am I wrong on this point?) If we can agree on this axiom (that there is some type of moral law) the question then is where this "moral law" comes from. Is it man made? Is it innate or contrived? Is it part of our evolution or is it more altruistic? Is it absolute? I think a courteous discussion on this topic would be very interesting. The experiment comes in to how long we can keep this thread courteous.
Edmundisme wrote:
It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
I wrote that, and am sorry I didn't have an opportunity to get into this thread earlier. I think our "moral law" is nothing more than entrenched, learned "moral heuristics". When a man steals from another, the victim is unhappy and seeks his possessions back, and probably some kind of vengeance. This leads to fights and unpleasantness, and people learn that stealing causes bad things to happen. They decide that stealing is not to be allowed.
-
Ro0ke wrote:
What I may view as a unacceptable might be a normal occurence in another culture.
I agree that is true in some (many?) cases. Suicide for instance seems to be something that mankind hasn't made up its mind about. However, I can't think of a society that accepts stealing/unlawgul killing/lying as moral behaviors - can you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I have heard about one, a friend read about it in, I think, Dark Nature: A Natural History Of Evil, by Lyall Watson, in which the killing of a man, and assuming his family and tribal responsibilities, is a rite of passage for young men. The young man selects a 'victim', learns about his work and family, and one day kills him and assumes his position as a man of the tribe. Of course, this is lawful killing, but not in the normal sense of self defence, execution, or euthanasia.
-
For that to happen, we would all have to take a pledge not to respond to Iilion or anyone else who wants to hijack the thread. What is your definition of moral law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Who defines "hijacking"? :D
Oakman wrote:
What is your definition of moral law?
The easy response would be "it's like pr0n, we know it when we see it", but that doesn't help much. An attempt: Any codex that promotes group stability, gain and survival over individual. It needs to be applicable in situations that cannot be rationalized effectively or quickly enough, so a fixed set of do's and don't - usually with simple triggers and some wiggle room. Judgement of a codex, besides it's efficiency to achieve the primary goal, would be how it deals with violations, and how much achievable freedom it provides to individuals. Notes: 1. Labeling the first requirement as "Fitness" (maybe a bad choice if you arguee with creationists), we typically want to reach a state where Fitness of the group exceeds the sum of fitness of individuals, i.e. a cooperative system, where excess fitness can be fed back to individuals that benefit most from group support. 2. Most individuals will want to maximize their own fitness and the fitness of those close to them, even if this means reducing the overall sum. Every cooperative system thus needs to cope with "fittness sinks. Ideally, a "fit" codex can defend itself - e.g. by not giving them access to group benefits at all - without spending to much fitness on this. Thereby, cooperative systems - to remain effective - needs to tolerate a certain amount of what Ayn Rand so figuratively labesl "leeches". More in my head, but I got to work for the Man :rolleyes: P.S. Yes, these are conflicting goals. Bummer.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
I have heard about one, a friend read about it in, I think, Dark Nature: A Natural History Of Evil, by Lyall Watson, in which the killing of a man, and assuming his family and tribal responsibilities, is a rite of passage for young men. The young man selects a 'victim', learns about his work and family, and one day kills him and assumes his position as a man of the tribe. Of course, this is lawful killing, but not in the normal sense of self defence, execution, or euthanasia.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Of course, this is lawful killing, but not in the normal sense of self defence, execution, or euthanasia.
No, it's not. It might be, I suppose, a societal adjustment to overpopulation, but even as such there is an evilness about it. I wonder however, whether the society was long-lived. The Shakers were an organization that built beautiful furniture, lived together in a communal setting very peaceably and had only one anti-life quirk. They practiced celibacy, recruiting new members to replaced those who died off only from outside. There are only four Shakers left, down from a high of 6,000. It would seem that in this ancient version of Logan's Run that a survival instinct would suggest to any successful (whatever that meant to them) tribal member that the smartest thing he could do would be to run like hell until he found a more hospitable dwelling place - which might have been much harder in tribal times than it is now, of course, but sooner or later possible for more and more men. And as fewer and fewer positions were available for hostile takeover, even young men might start emmigrating. All of which is a long-winded way of saying "yes, but," I guess.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Of course, this is lawful killing, but not in the normal sense of self defence, execution, or euthanasia.
No, it's not. It might be, I suppose, a societal adjustment to overpopulation, but even as such there is an evilness about it. I wonder however, whether the society was long-lived. The Shakers were an organization that built beautiful furniture, lived together in a communal setting very peaceably and had only one anti-life quirk. They practiced celibacy, recruiting new members to replaced those who died off only from outside. There are only four Shakers left, down from a high of 6,000. It would seem that in this ancient version of Logan's Run that a survival instinct would suggest to any successful (whatever that meant to them) tribal member that the smartest thing he could do would be to run like hell until he found a more hospitable dwelling place - which might have been much harder in tribal times than it is now, of course, but sooner or later possible for more and more men. And as fewer and fewer positions were available for hostile takeover, even young men might start emmigrating. All of which is a long-winded way of saying "yes, but," I guess.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
The whole thing was that the killing was accepted and lawful in that society.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
It doesn't take a God to say that taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
I wrote that, and am sorry I didn't have an opportunity to get into this thread earlier. I think our "moral law" is nothing more than entrenched, learned "moral heuristics". When a man steals from another, the victim is unhappy and seeks his possessions back, and probably some kind of vengeance. This leads to fights and unpleasantness, and people learn that stealing causes bad things to happen. They decide that stealing is not to be allowed.
Brady Kelly wrote:
When a man steals from another, the victim is unhappy and seeks his possessions back, and probably some kind of vengeance. This leads to fights and unpleasantness, and people learn that stealing causes bad things to happen. They decide that stealing is not to be allowed.
I'm not sure you give enough credit to empathy. I believe that even inveterate thieves know that they are doing harm simply because they can, on some level and to some extent, imagine themselves in their victim's place. This is why there's a lot more "victimless" theft (stealing from organizations intstead of individuals) than there is direct person2person theft these days. And (as Willie Sutton pointed out when someone asked him why he robbed banks -- that's where the money is.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Who defines "hijacking"? :D
Oakman wrote:
What is your definition of moral law?
The easy response would be "it's like pr0n, we know it when we see it", but that doesn't help much. An attempt: Any codex that promotes group stability, gain and survival over individual. It needs to be applicable in situations that cannot be rationalized effectively or quickly enough, so a fixed set of do's and don't - usually with simple triggers and some wiggle room. Judgement of a codex, besides it's efficiency to achieve the primary goal, would be how it deals with violations, and how much achievable freedom it provides to individuals. Notes: 1. Labeling the first requirement as "Fitness" (maybe a bad choice if you arguee with creationists), we typically want to reach a state where Fitness of the group exceeds the sum of fitness of individuals, i.e. a cooperative system, where excess fitness can be fed back to individuals that benefit most from group support. 2. Most individuals will want to maximize their own fitness and the fitness of those close to them, even if this means reducing the overall sum. Every cooperative system thus needs to cope with "fittness sinks. Ideally, a "fit" codex can defend itself - e.g. by not giving them access to group benefits at all - without spending to much fitness on this. Thereby, cooperative systems - to remain effective - needs to tolerate a certain amount of what Ayn Rand so figuratively labesl "leeches". More in my head, but I got to work for the Man :rolleyes: P.S. Yes, these are conflicting goals. Bummer.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
Yes, these are conflicting goals. Bummer
In combat, the best odds for the survival of a group almost always depend on immediate, unquestioning obedience to orders. The best odds for the survival of any individual member of that group may require refusal to obey orders. That's why the first words one is taught in basic training are 'Yes, Sargent!" A D.I. once told me that once they (the trainees) got that right, everything else was details.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The whole thing was that the killing was accepted and lawful in that society.
Brady Kelly wrote:
The whole thing was that the killing was accepted and lawful in that society.
I guess I didn't make it clear that i understood that. My point was something along the lines of a society, like a person, can flout moral law but that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist and that someday there will be consequences from consistent breaking of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
When a man steals from another, the victim is unhappy and seeks his possessions back, and probably some kind of vengeance. This leads to fights and unpleasantness, and people learn that stealing causes bad things to happen. They decide that stealing is not to be allowed.
I'm not sure you give enough credit to empathy. I believe that even inveterate thieves know that they are doing harm simply because they can, on some level and to some extent, imagine themselves in their victim's place. This is why there's a lot more "victimless" theft (stealing from organizations intstead of individuals) than there is direct person2person theft these days. And (as Willie Sutton pointed out when someone asked him why he robbed banks -- that's where the money is.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I'm not sure you give enough credit to empathy.
I would, but in another post. I was taking the baseline case where even when one steals with absolute impunity, society will still develop a heuristic for avoiding such scenarios. Yes, empathy definitely also plays a role in probably the majority of cases. Were I absolved from any legal implications, I would balk much less at killing a man much hated in my society, had he no family or other dependants. The misery his removal cause others would be my main impediment to killing him.
-
peterchen wrote:
Yes, these are conflicting goals. Bummer
In combat, the best odds for the survival of a group almost always depend on immediate, unquestioning obedience to orders. The best odds for the survival of any individual member of that group may require refusal to obey orders. That's why the first words one is taught in basic training are 'Yes, Sargent!" A D.I. once told me that once they (the trainees) got that right, everything else was details.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Impressive theory. :) You were a solider you used to be like that
-
Impressive theory. :) You were a solider you used to be like that
-
Martin Jose wrote:
you used to be like that
Operative words: "used to be" ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:laugh: "UNDERSTOOD SIR"