An experiment
-
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
-
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
Oakman wrote:
you are saying that society determines all laws
Yes, that is exactly what I am stating.
Oakman wrote:
And yet some laws seem universal
Because aspects of society (ie groups of people) are universal.
Oakman wrote:
and predate most of what we think of as society. Do you disagree
Yes. Because society is as old as groups of people. Or cavemen, or apes. "Dont fuck the alpha female if the alpha male is watching" is one chimp law I can think of. Unless you are a Benobo chimp, in which case you can fuck what you like. Different society, diffent laws. In society 'x' its OK to fuck 10 year old girls. In society 'y' its OK to fuck 10 year old boys. In society 'm' both are illegal.
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 think we both agree that morality is not absolute. However, you say it is what society decides it should be, but I think it is more of a personal thing. Eg: I am a vegetarian living in a predominantly meat-eating society (though there are large classes of people who abstain from meat and consider it immoral to eat it). According to me, it is the meat-eaters who are immoral. But according to your theory, morality gets defined by society - for the masses at large, as somebody who abstains, do I become immoral? I still think you make a very good statement. Also, please don't go down to the level of making fun of vegetarianism or some such thing - I am looking for a serious discussion here.
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 think we both agree that morality is not absolute. However, you say it is what society decides it should be, but I think it is more of a personal thing. Eg: I am a vegetarian living in a predominantly meat-eating society (though there are large classes of people who abstain from meat and consider it immoral to eat it). According to me, it is the meat-eaters who are immoral. But according to your theory, morality gets defined by society - for the masses at large, as somebody who abstains, do I become immoral? I still think you make a very good statement. Also, please don't go down to the level of making fun of vegetarianism or some such thing - I am looking for a serious discussion here.
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:
Eg: I am a vegetarian living in a predominantly meat-eating society
But thats choice, not law. However, you have decided, and for moral reasons. But why? What makes you think it IS immoral to eat meat? (The choice to eat meat or not is a fine moral. ie not universal, and not even society specific, but a very individual thing so it still conforms to my model)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Eg: I am a vegetarian living in a predominantly meat-eating society
But thats choice, not law. However, you have decided, and for moral reasons. But why? What makes you think it IS immoral to eat meat? (The choice to eat meat or not is a fine moral. ie not universal, and not even society specific, but a very individual thing so it still conforms to my model)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Who's talking about law here? I thought we were discussing morality.
fat_boy wrote:
The choice to eat meat or not is a fine moral. ie not universal, and not even society specific, but a very individual thing
In your culture, perhaps. There are large sects of Hindus and Sikhs (and even some Buddhists) who abstain from meat, and the Jains abstain in toto.
fat_boy wrote:
But why? What makes you think it IS immoral to eat meat?
Because I do not want to kill animals for my pleasure.
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.
-
Who's talking about law here? I thought we were discussing morality.
fat_boy wrote:
The choice to eat meat or not is a fine moral. ie not universal, and not even society specific, but a very individual thing
In your culture, perhaps. There are large sects of Hindus and Sikhs (and even some Buddhists) who abstain from meat, and the Jains abstain in toto.
fat_boy wrote:
But why? What makes you think it IS immoral to eat meat?
Because I do not want to kill animals for my pleasure.
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:
Who's talking about law here?
Me. From my first response to you: "Society needs rules." Laws, rules, morality though, all overlap to a large degree.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Because I do not want to kill animals for my pleasure.
Its not pleasure, its natural that we eat meat. Physiologically we are equiped to eat the stuff, so its just nature. SO your statement should read, "I dont want to kill animals even though to do so is natural". Now, the question is why dont you want to kill animals.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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
Oakman wrote:
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.
Yes, i don't doubt that. Perhaps then i'm just being pedantic over the word "law" used to describe these common understandings. Which is... rather a useless way to act, so i'll stop. :)
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'