An experiment
-
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"
-
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.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Fatso's sig has a ring of truth to it, although I don't agree with it entirely.
Society needs rules. Without them society, and us as individuals, are weaker. In a astrong society we are stronger because we all benefit from a stable fair society, and humanity has always tried to acchieve that. So society dictates the rules acording to this end, and for most societies the world over in spite of their relative differences, jungle dewllers in brazil to new yorkers, there are common rules such as the right of property, the right to life (ie uinjustified (by society) murder is a crime). These are the gross moralities. Of couse there are many finer moralities. Lying, legal age of sex, number of wives, that are different between societies. Now, the ultimate proof that rules are about protecting society is seen when two societies clash. When they do all rules and morality go out the window. Why? Because society wants to protect itself. So in times of war kids can carry guns, killing people is OK, right of ownership of property is gone, women and children get killed, and along with the general looseness of morality during war, other abuses occur. Rape, torture etc, showing the inate depravity of man when let loose. Truly, society dictates morality for its *own* protection. Morality is only social proscription.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Fatso's sig has a ring of truth to it, although I don't agree with it entirely.
Society needs rules. Without them society, and us as individuals, are weaker. In a astrong society we are stronger because we all benefit from a stable fair society, and humanity has always tried to acchieve that. So society dictates the rules acording to this end, and for most societies the world over in spite of their relative differences, jungle dewllers in brazil to new yorkers, there are common rules such as the right of property, the right to life (ie uinjustified (by society) murder is a crime). These are the gross moralities. Of couse there are many finer moralities. Lying, legal age of sex, number of wives, that are different between societies. Now, the ultimate proof that rules are about protecting society is seen when two societies clash. When they do all rules and morality go out the window. Why? Because society wants to protect itself. So in times of war kids can carry guns, killing people is OK, right of ownership of property is gone, women and children get killed, and along with the general looseness of morality during war, other abuses occur. Rape, torture etc, showing the inate depravity of man when let loose. Truly, society dictates morality for its *own* protection. Morality is only social proscription.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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.
I think Buddhism sums this up pretty well: "Actions have consequences" or "For every action there is a consequence". I would say that it is innate and that it is absolute. Of course trying to work out the consequences of an action is another matter so here are two over simplified examples: Actions (a)Bush sends thousands of troops into Iraq and murders thousands of Iraqi's etc and ends up immensely rich. (b)A man is in the wrong place at the wrong time and ends up on death row for a crime he did not commit. Consequences (a)Bush becomes totally deluded by the stories he tells himself and his country about moral superiority. As a consequence he is hated by millions and is hardened against the more sensitive and more compassionate aspects of human existence. (b)The man may be murdered by the state, however thousands compaign for his release, he feels loved by many and walks to his death with dignity.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?
Rather than assume that I said something ask if I said it (if you dont understand) or refute it, but dont use the pathetic tactic used by children and idiots to start an argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oakman wrote:
So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?
Rather than assume that I said something ask if I said it (if you dont understand) or refute it, but dont use the pathetic tactic used by children and idiots to start an argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Rather than assume that I said something ask if I said it
When I said: "So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?" you didn't think I was asking you if you said it? I am asking you this because I do not understand your response.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rather than assume that I said something ask if I said it
When I said: "So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?" you didn't think I was asking you if you said it? I am asking you this because I do not understand your response.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
"So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?"
Define law. In common parlance, no, thats not the case, so it isnt what I would say (not that I said anything like that IMO). All law can be broken of course. Doing so leads one to be tried by society. (God, if he exists, clearly couldnt give a toss about law breakers thereby either proving his non-existence, or his unsuitability for the job).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oakman wrote:
"So are you saying that because a law can be broken, it cannot be called a law?"
Define law. In common parlance, no, thats not the case, so it isnt what I would say (not that I said anything like that IMO). All law can be broken of course. Doing so leads one to be tried by society. (God, if he exists, clearly couldnt give a toss about law breakers thereby either proving his non-existence, or his unsuitability for the job).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Define law.
A rule or principle of conduct or procedure.
fat_boy wrote:
Doing so leads one to be tried by society
Not necessarily, but I understand what you mean. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that society determines all laws. And yet some laws seem universal and predate most of what we think of as society. Do you disagree?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface