Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 07:52 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 07:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Laws can be created outside the context of moral beliefs, they can be created for practical reasons, for reasons of perceived consequences, sustainability and stability for example rather than what is believed to be right or wrong.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. "Perceived consequences" include harm. A society makes laws because it perceives that someone or something will be harmed in the absence of those laws. "Right or wrong" is absolutely relevant here. Any lawmaker or law enforcer will unequivocally agree that breaking a law is wrong.

[sarcasm]
No, no, no! You can't talk about that because you haven't defined harm. Angry
But if you talk about harm, then you are just forcing your morals on others. Amirite? Consider
[/sarcasm]

Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
11-10-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 02:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:11 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You can insist that I have morals all you like, but it doesn't make it true.
I do not accept that anything is morally wrong or morally right.

No more so do I, but I just term right and wrong and morals as shorthand for my preferences.
I too have preferences, many preferences I just don't label them as morals because right vs wrong does not have any relevance to my preferences. I tie everything down to reality, to real consequences rather than to a personal dream about what I believe to be right or wrong. It is not about me trying to get the world to be a reflection of ME, I am not so arrogant as to think the world should revolve around me and MY beliefs of what is right or wrong.

However, I am selfish in that I want to survive and from this perspective I want laws against murder and theft etc. I do not want anyone to murder me or to steal from me. So I support, what I see as necessary laws, not from a morality perspective but from a selfish survival perspective. This is how I justify my support for laws. This means that I am not enforcing my mere preferences onto other people. I am keeping my own preferences to myself and in doing so, accepting and respecting the diversity of others even if I don't like certain things that others do. It's called self control and cohabitating peacefully without the need to control others because I mistakenly think that I know better than everyone else.

Morondog, I hope you can understand my position. It is not about lack of empathy, it is not about extending my personal preferences on to others in the belief that I know best. It is about me keeping my preferences in check, keeping them to myself and not using law in order to force me onto others.

(11-10-2016 02:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  I assume you prefer that people are not murdered in your society? Therefore that preference I label a moral. When you codify that moral into law it becomes no longer a statement of right and wrong but more a statement of consequences.
I want the law because of me, and my need to exist in a stable and safe society.
I don't want people to kill me, I don't want people warring around me because that makes things dangerous for me. I don't want my parents, wife, children or friends to be killed, I don't want my employers to be killed, I need safety and stability. It is a need rather than a preference. There is nothing wrong with killing me, but I want a law against it none the less.

(11-10-2016 02:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  We can flap our gums about whether or not you have morals some more if you like.
Not really, in this thread I'm more interested in discussing whether govt should support businesses or whether they should raise taxes and minimum wage, and how each scenario will impact employment opportunities and the local economy.
How on earth we got onto a discussion about morality is beyond me. I tried to get off the topic when EK brought it up, but it seems others want to keep morality in the picture.

(11-10-2016 02:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  Regarding "living in lala dreamland" I think I prefer my version of dreamland to yours.
Of course you do, but how do we take your la la dream land and make it real? How is it possible to make it work in reality? People will always compete because resources are indeed limited. If there is a girl that you like, and another guy likes her too, would you really not pursue her because you feel it might make the other guy sad? If there is a job you want, will you not pursue it because someone else also wants that job and if you get it then that other someone will then be sad on missing out?
You just can't make everyone happy all the time.

If we talk about businesses, perhaps a business that grows timber. They cut trees down, well that's going to impact some wildlife, and make some people feel sad. Does this mean that in order to keep those people happy we aren't to use wood?

Anyway, I'm just not sure how this takes us towards a discussion on jobs (via businesses) vs lifetime on the wellfare state.

Are people saying that they don't care about jobs, they don't care if businesses shut down and jobs are lost? Just as long as we can stop hurting the trees, the water, the air? Perhaps these people want to live like the days of old, pre industry?

I understand that some people want to raise minimum wage because they feel that if the minimum wage earners get more money then that will improve their lives. But it seems to me that this ignores the consequence that if minimum wage goes up then so does the cost of operating a business which means that less businesses will be viable (hence less jobs) and also the cost of the goods and services go up so that means that cost of living goes up, plus it also means that certain jobs are going to be fulfilled offshore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 07:52 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Any lawmaker or law enforcer will unequivocally agree that breaking a law is wrong.
Let's say that it is illegal for gay people to get married.
Do you think that in that country it is harmful for gay people to get married?
Do you think that in that country it is morally wrong for gay people to get married?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  The context of the conversation is with regards to supporting businesses (which creates jobs) vs heavy taxes and raising minimum wage (which increases costs for businesses)

Clearly, it is not. Like I already said, you appear to be upset that we're getting grey into your black and white.
I'm not upset at all, I'm just wondering how to keep this thread on track. I don't know why you go off on a tangent about morality and that all businesses are evil. I think this is absurd.

(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  My question is, how do we create jobs by increasing costs for businesses.

By increasing demand. If you bleed the consumer base dry by trying to appease the corporation's desire for cheaper labor, then you're necessarily shrinking your own market by limiting the purchasing power of the consumers (because, you know, their wages are stagnant while the cost of living rises).

This has been brought up more than once. Your question is a weak deflection
I have heard you talk about this. I have no idea how you can reason that increasing costs of a business will result in more profit for that business. It doesn't make any economic sense.

You appeal to emotional statements "bleed the consumer base dry", "greedy, evil businesses", I don't think you are presenting a considered or logical argument.

(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm interested here in job creation.
Whether businesses are creating pollution or not is an entirely different topic. a.k.a. not relevant to the concern about where jobs are coming from.

Right, once again, you're insisting we all ignore the ethical components of decisions rife with ethical implications.
If you want to discuss the ethical aspects of business then I think that would be for a different thread, why are you trying so hard to rope me into an ethical discussion? I don't even believe in morality or ethics so I'm hardly the right person to discuss the ethics of business with.

(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why are you so dead set on sidestepping the topic?
Create another thread about the ethics of business, and discuss that aspect with people who find that topic interesting or relevant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 11:41 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:52 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Any lawmaker or law enforcer will unequivocally agree that breaking a law is wrong.
Let's say that it is illegal for gay people to get married.
Do you think that in that country it is harmful for gay people to get married?
Do you think that in that country it is morally wrong for gay people to get married?

I do not think so, no, and that's why I support removing such laws from the books. However, the people who made the law certainly did think that it was wrong and harmful -- that's why they made the law. I don't claim that all laws are good or right. I do claim that behind all laws lies morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I do not think so, no, and that's why I support removing such laws from the books. However, the people who made the law certainly did think that it was wrong and harmful -- that's why they made the law. I don't claim that all laws are good or right. I do claim that behind all laws lies morality.
Well, who knows why they made the law. Perhaps they thought that gay marriage violates their own ideas of the sanctity of marriage - despite whether there is anything harmful about it.

It really depends on what definition of "harm" is being used. Harming the sanctity of marriage vs harming someone's health vs harming someone's freedoms vs harming someone's chances of being president.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I do claim that behind all laws lies morality.
There is a law regarding which side of the road you are to drive, lets say you drive on the left side of the road. Is it moral to drive on the left and immoral to drive on the right? Does that mean NZ is a moral country and USA is immoral?

There are many laws that are there for practical or economic purposes, not becasue the alternative is immoral.

In NZ we removed the law against prostitution. This doesn't mean that it is moral to participate in prostitution. We don't have laws against cheating on your spouse. Again this doesn't mean that it is moral to cheat on your spouse.

We aren't a theocracy in NZ, we don't have a moral branch of the police force like they do in some theocratic countries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 01:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I do claim that behind all laws lies morality.
There is a law regarding which side of the road you are to drive, lets say you drive on the left side of the road. Is it moral to drive on the left and immoral to drive on the right? Does that mean NZ is a moral country and USA is immoral?

There are many laws that are there for practical or economic purposes, not becasue the alternative is immoral.

In NZ we removed the law against prostitution. This doesn't mean that it is moral to participate in prostitution. We don't have laws against cheating on your spouse. Again this doesn't mean that it is moral to cheat on your spouse.

We aren't a theocracy in NZ, we don't have a moral branch of the police force like they do in some theocratic countries.

Your example about roads seems like a good counterpoint, but I claim that even that law is guided by morality -- the morality that says unnecessary death and destruction is bad, wrong, and immoral. It's not important whether people drive on the left or on the right -- that's arbitrary. But it is extremely important that everyone drives on the same side -- because, you know, head-on collisions are bad and harmful and stuff like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-10-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 02:13 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But it is extremely important that everyone drives on the same side -- because, you know, head-on collisions are bad and harmful and stuff like that.
Yeah, but not bad in a moral sense. Collisions aren't morally bad. They are accidents and bad in a sense that it's not an outcome that you want. People don't generally choose to have collisions, "bad" people aren't generally choosing to collide. So it is bad, but in a different context from "morally bad".

The law here is creating a rule in order to make roads safe, not safe from immorality, not safe from immoral drivers and immoral choices. It is entirely a law based on a practical thing such as safety of people travelling on roads. Somewhat like the law about wearing a safety belt or a helmet. There is nothing immoral about not wearing a safety belt, nothing immoral about not wearing a helmet. (well of course you are free to believe that wearing a safety belt is moral, but I don't think many people would classify it as a matter of morality).

What about my example of cheating on your spouse? Would you consider that immoral? Do you think there ought to be a law against it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 11:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I too have preferences, many preferences I just don't label them as morals because right vs wrong does not have any relevance to my preferences. I tie everything down to reality, to real consequences rather than to a personal dream about what I believe to be right or wrong. It is not about me trying to get the world to be a reflection of ME, I am not so arrogant as to think the world should revolve around me and MY beliefs of what is right or wrong.

However, I am selfish in that I want to survive and from this perspective I want laws against murder and theft etc. I do not want anyone to murder me or to steal from me. So I support, what I see as necessary laws, not from a morality perspective but from a selfish survival perspective. This is how I justify my support for laws. This means that I am not enforcing my mere preferences onto other people. I am keeping my own preferences to myself and in doing so, accepting and respecting the diversity of others even if I don't like certain things that others do. It's called self control and cohabitating peacefully without the need to control others because I mistakenly think that I know better than everyone else.
I do think I know better than a lot of people Tongue And I will definitely fight for what I believe is right. Even though I know that that belief is rooted in subjectivity. If you want laws for survival of yourself that's fine, but personally... I find that too limited. We aren't bound by our biology any more. We can go further. I don't want to control anyone either though.

Quote:Morondog, I hope you can understand my position. It is not about lack of empathy, it is not about extending my personal preferences on to others in the belief that I know best. It is about me keeping my preferences in check, keeping them to myself and not using law in order to force me onto others.
I'm not sure that I can. Your definition of not forcing your personal preferences onto others seems to be rather different to mine. For example, I believe that rich people exploiting poor people are both forcing their personal preferences onto others *and* using the law as a tool to do so, which is not coincidental since rich people always have a hand in what becomes law in the first place.

Quote:I want the law because of me, and my need to exist in a stable and safe society.
I don't want people to kill me, I don't want people warring around me because that makes things dangerous for me. I don't want my parents, wife, children or friends to be killed, I don't want my employers to be killed, I need safety and stability. It is a need rather than a preference. There is nothing wrong with killing me, but I want a law against it none the less.
OK so we're just using different terminology. That's more or less exactly how I would justify a law against killing.

Quote:Not really, in this thread I'm more interested in discussing whether govt should support businesses or whether they should raise taxes and minimum wage, and how each scenario will impact employment opportunities and the local economy.
How on earth we got onto a discussion about morality is beyond me. I tried to get off the topic when EK brought it up, but it seems others want to keep morality in the picture.
Morality enters because you seem to argue for an extreme position where businesses are not regulated or are trusted to regulate themselves. You for example say that environmental pollution should be reckoned an acceptable trade off in exchange for a business staying in the country and not taking all those lovely jobs off to China or some forsaken hell-hole, when they can make a hell-hole right here *and* perfectly legally to boot, unless the pesky government comes over all weak at the knees and passes some silly regulations.

Quote:Of course you do, but how do we take your la la dream land and make it real? How is it possible to make it work in reality? People will always compete because resources are indeed limited. If there is a girl that you like, and another guy likes her too, would you really not pursue her because you feel it might make the other guy sad? If there is a job you want, will you not pursue it because someone else also wants that job and if you get it then that other someone will then be sad on missing out?
You just can't make everyone happy all the time.
I'm not arguing for perfect equality or that everyone will be happy, but I am arguing that the purpose of life is not to build the economy. A strong economy is important but more important is a government's committment to the people, that they will rule for the benefit of the people. I think that that benefit is most fully realised with socialist policies like welfare, free education etc.

Quote:If we talk about businesses, perhaps a business that grows timber. They cut trees down, well that's going to impact some wildlife, and make some people feel sad. Does this mean that in order to keep those people happy we aren't to use wood?
If say, it threatens the existence of the planet as we know it then yes, get the fuck off wood. But you said that the business *grows* timber - they're sustainable in other words.

Quote:Anyway, I'm just not sure how this takes us towards a discussion on jobs (via businesses) vs lifetime on the wellfare state.

Are people saying that they don't care about jobs, they don't care if businesses shut down and jobs are lost? Just as long as we can stop hurting the trees, the water, the air? Perhaps these people want to live like the days of old, pre industry?

I understand that some people want to raise minimum wage because they feel that if the minimum wage earners get more money then that will improve their lives. But it seems to me that this ignores the consequence that if minimum wage goes up then so does the cost of operating a business which means that less businesses will be viable (hence less jobs) and also the cost of the goods and services go up so that means that cost of living goes up, plus it also means that certain jobs are going to be fulfilled offshore.

Raising the minimum wage is a call for economists to make, I can see the effect that you claim, but the same damn claim could be made for child slavery. How much do *you* care about jobs? Would you be prepared to work in a sweatshop? Or to condemn others to work in one, 'cos hey, if you don't want to we can always send the jobs offshore?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: