Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The Non-aggression principle says, that it is immoral to initiate aggression. (force, threats, lies) Find a moral reason to initiate aggression (not defense or self-defense) and you've disbanded the Libertarian movement.
This is completely contradictory to how the world works.
The boundaries of our actions, our beliefs in rights are formed by what impels us to act aggressively. Aggression is at the very core of our society, at the very core of people's beliefs in right and wrong.
Without the threat of aggression people would not behave "morally" as perceived under the environment which we currently exist.
For example, there is no threat from retaliation when we choose to slaughter ants or flies. Most of us do this today without any moral concerns.
If a superman truly existed. If he were of a different species to humans, if he were invulnerable to us i.e. we couldn't hurt him. If he didn't look humanoid, didn't feel sexually attracted to any humans, and if he didn't perceive any value to him in us then "morally" why wouldn't he treat us in the same way we treat ants and flies? If he saw our planet as a great place to hang, but saw humans as pests that pollute the planet, then why wouldn't he exterminate us?

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No lions please. Not unless you work in Uganda national park and your internet is like 10 Kb/s.
And what's selfish about self-preservation? How do you know what is selfish? That's a moral judgement.
Anyway, I hope there aren't any kids near you.
Selfish means in one's own self interest. There is no moral judgement implied.
I'm not saying that selfishness is right or wrong.

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But just because people have moral beliefs and act upon them, this does not mean that moral truths actually exist.
They exist the same way that numbers exist. Rationally.
Numbers do not exist via rationality. Numbers don't exist they are conceptual only. You cannot discover a number.
Numbers are a useful conceptual tool but they have no inherent existence.
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Morality must be consistent, or it's nothing.
I disagree with the idea of subjective morality too. But no-one has ever been able to show any objective morals or how to objectively discover them thus I lack a belief in these too.
Some people come up with an argument "out of necessity" e.g. why don't we just go around killing each other? We can't have a society or laws without morality thus we must have morality.
But this argument is vacuous and fill of unfounded assumptions.
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Is it moral or immoral to drive on the left hand side of the road?
Neither, of course. Driving on the road is not a moral or immoral action. Of course you can do it in a stupid or clever way, but if you don't actually hurt anyone or damage something, there is no moral violation.
Why? Because no matter how fast you drive, it is not actively aggressing against anyone. Nobody has the moral right to attack you (such as demand ransom by ticket) if you don't cause actual harm.
So you admit that at least some laws have no moral basis?
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In most countries it is illegal to give birth to a baby and not to register this birth. Does that mean that it is immoral not to register a human birth?
Not registering is not a positive action and as such it is not initiating aggression against anyone. Nobody has the moral right to attack you if you don't register a baby.
But you miss the point. Your "proof" of objective morality has been discredited because here we have a case that does not follow your proof.
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment for you.
Are you kidding me? A 100 people as product of lousy parenting and government schools?
Huh? where did your poor assumption of "lousy parenting and government schools" come from?
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That is a recipe for disaster. Such people have no morals, logic or backbone, they're conformity sluts and culture whores. They'll flock to those they consider strong, they'll shun intelligent people and they'll flock according to their religion, skin color, language and sports team.
I think you have some issues.

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Give me a few generations of peaceful parenting and voluntary education and then repeat the island scenario. The people will be different down to neurological and genetical level.
You are going to do some genetic experimentation on them?
Look, if you throw a bunch of tree hugging, weed smoking pacifist hippies into an extreme situation, with limited resources and do or die consequences, you will get some extreme stuff happening. The desperately poor (those without fish) will look at those with fish as greedy and will do what they need to do to survive, or they will hold to their principles and die. The next generation of survivors will be those that take action to survive rather than those that stubbornly hold onto principles.

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Initially, there is no leader in the group, you are a bunch of people in dissarray, each scared and anxious but with one common aspect "survival". Each of you thinks about how to survive, how to get food, water, shelter...
After a week, you are all starving. One person has managed to catch some fish and is happily feasting himself.
You walk up to him and ask him to share, but he tells you to piss off.
No, I don't. I ask him where he caught that and how.
The fisherman tells you to piss off.
Once Brutus kills the fisherman and takes the fish, you stupidly go over to Brutus and ask him to share.
He smacks you over and takes your jacket. You are now broken, bruised and cold.

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Stop taking LSD, because such people typically don't fly on the planes. However, you might want to name him Ahmed, that would explain the plane crash and his singed beard.
But seriously, that sounds like a standard fight or flight scenario, preferably to nearest people to tell them about the murder.
This is a new society, there are no laws thus no murders.

(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hey! As far as I'm concerned, murder is already outlawed, because it's initiating aggression.
It doesn't matter what you think. This is a new society, there is no governing body, no laws.
Other people don't necessarily agree with you because they have no awareness or objective ability to discover these universal morals you are talking about.
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  People like Brutus who initiate aggression become a fair game. If he likes to kill people who own stuff, then he can easily be provoked, ambushed and look his liver face to face.
Even if you are able to convince a couple of others to join you to take him out, he will fight back and being so brutish he kills one of you and seriously injures two others. So if you wish to take him on violently then you had better be prepared to accept the consequences.

Of course, if Brutus is smart he will also understand that attacking you one by one will eventually lead to people grouping together and defeating him as a group. It seems if Brutus is able to think about the consequences he may understand that it is not in his own best interests to be seen as a threat to the others.

Let's say you and your group of vigilantes have managed to over power Brutus, now what?
Do you take a rock to his head and kill an unarmed beaten man whom has given up fighting? Or do you banish him from the society and hope he doesn't steal back in the middle of the night and kill you (as the leader of the vigilantes) while you sleep?
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The NAP and UPB provide a universal moral framework that needs no passing of laws. All the other rules are just for convenience.
Who would agree to follow this moral framework without laws or coercion to do so?
If there are no legal implications then cold and freezing Brutus is going to take your jacket off your back despite your insistence that he ought to obey your universal moral framework.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2014 09:26 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is completely contradictory to how the world works.
The boundaries of our actions, our beliefs in rights are formed by what impels us to act aggressively. Aggression is at the very core of our society, at the very core of people's beliefs in right and wrong.
Without the threat of aggression people would not behave "morally" as perceived under the environment which we currently exist.
For example, there is no threat from retaliation when we choose to slaughter ants or flies. Most of us do this today without any moral concerns.
If a superman truly existed. If he were of a different species to humans, if he were invulnerable to us i.e. we couldn't hurt him. If he didn't look humanoid, didn't feel sexually attracted to any humans, and if he didn't perceive any value to him in us then "morally" why wouldn't he treat us in the same way we treat ants and flies? If he saw our planet as a great place to hang, but saw humans as pests that pollute the planet, then why wouldn't he exterminate us?
I don't care how people say the world works, especially culturally. For 100,000 years slavery was "how the world works". Then some Enlightenment white pasty-assed individuals came and started harassing slave traders and lo and behold, there aren't black slaves picking cotton anymore. For even longer than that, bubonic black plague was how the world worked.

Do not mix ants and flies into that. They operate in the state of nature, they have no choice to act morally towards people. Objective biological differences, remember?
The thing I hate the most are the evil abusers who know exactly how to act morally with empathy and they do, quite often, to cover for sadism in public and to make sadism even worse and to confuse the victims so that they think they deserve the sadism and they stay around and internalize the self-attack. They know exactly what goodness is and they misuse it on purpose. Their responsibility is much greater for that.

I will deal with superman arguments when there are actually some supermen around. The same goes for gun and boat scenarios, pushing people on rails to save the people in the train, or what if someone really wants a house of gold. These are bullshit arguments and I refuse to deal with them.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Selfish means in one's own self interest. There is no moral judgement implied.
I'm not saying that selfishness is right or wrong.
Please prove that your definition is falsifiable. Show me any behavior that is not "selfish", i.e. that does not ultimately in some way serve one's own self-interest.
Until then, I will use the mainstream meaning of the word selfish, which means immoral self-assertion at the detriment of others, for the sake of clarity and making sense to most people here.
Please don't re-define any more words.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Numbers do not exist via rationality. Numbers don't exist they are conceptual only. You cannot discover a number.
Numbers are a useful conceptual tool but they have no inherent existence.
Numbers are not objects, but they are derived from physical properties and attributes of objects to such a degree, that they have a predictive power about physical reality. This is evidence that numbers are a fundamental property of reality. Of course not Arabian numbers, but singularity, duality, triplicity and their derivations are physical. Numbers are as real as it can possibly get. Numbers are consistent, reality is consistent. Numbers are what you see if you read between the lines of reality.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I disagree with the idea of subjective morality too. But no-one has ever been able to show any objective morals or how to objectively discover them thus I lack a belief in these too.
Some people come up with an argument "out of necessity" e.g. why don't we just go around killing each other? We can't have a society or laws without morality thus we must have morality.
But this argument is vacuous and fill of unfounded assumptions.
Very well, so please read the book and tell me what you think. It's free.
http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF
For thousands of years, humanity has attempted to enforce ethics through supernatural and secular punishments; this rabid aggression has been both necessary and ridiculous. It has been necessary because a rational proof of secular ethics has never been achieved; it has been ridiculous because it is impossible to imagine any scientific or mathematical argument being advanced in such a hysterical and violent manner.

“Ethics” has been one of the great government programs of history; since kings and priests ruled mankind, only those philosophers who served their interests tended to get promoted to prominence, rather than imprisoned, poisoned or burned. Thus, over 2,500 years since its inception, the discipline of ethics remains largely subjectivist, relativist and cultural – and was not only unable to restrain, but may have played a part in promoting the horrors, wars and genocides of the 20th century, the bloodiest hundred years of history of our species.

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, has written "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics,” which presents radical and rational arguments for a nonreligious, non-statist, entirely secular set ethical standards which validate the nonaggression principle – thou shalt not initiate force against thy fellow human – and the fundamental logic for respecting property rights.

Rigorous, analytical and challenging, “Universally Preferable Behavior” provides a solid foundation for secular ethics. This book solves the ancient philosopher Petrarch’s dichotomy, which is that it is better to will the good than know the truth. Armed with the arguments in “Universally Preferable Behavior,” you can both know the truth and will the good.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So you admit that at least some laws have no moral basis?
Of course I do! Clap That's what I'm saying! Laws are basically immoral, because they deny if there is some "natural philosophical morality" out there in nature, they erase it all by setting up a constitution and central power to enforce that constitution and thus overrule the UPB. Law is the greatest make-believe. Yes, some laws are good, but abusive husband buys his battered wife roses after he beats her, so she doesn't run away and he can beat her again. If some laws are good, then law-givers are even worse, because they know how to make good laws, but they still make bad laws. Maybe most laws are bad and the good are made so that we tolerate more bad laws.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But you miss the point. Your "proof" of objective morality has been discredited because here we have a case that does not follow your proof.
What case? People can only follow rational morality to the degree that they themselves are rational. Irrational people can't disprove rational proof of secular ethics (UPB), that's another evidence that it is universally preferable to be rational.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Huh? where did your poor assumption of "lousy parenting and government schools" come from?
From all my life, from everyone I know, from all science articles I read.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That is a recipe for disaster. Such people have no morals, logic or backbone, they're conformity sluts and culture whores. They'll flock to those they consider strong, they'll shun intelligent people and they'll flock according to their religion, skin color, language and sports team.
I think you have some issues.
I see no argument from you.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are going to do some genetic experimentation on them?
Look, if you throw a bunch of tree hugging, weed smoking pacifist hippies into an extreme situation, with limited resources and do or die consequences, you will get some extreme stuff happening. The desperately poor (those without fish) will look at those with fish as greedy and will do what they need to do to survive, or they will hold to their principles and die. The next generation of survivors will be those that take action to survive rather than those that stubbornly hold onto principles.
Genetics, or better said, epigenetics changes with behavior, experiences and environment. A nifty little thing to know for such arguments.

I have no confidence in tree-hugging, weed-smoking pacifist hippies. They have no negotiation skills, no practical skills, no self-discipline, no reasoning skills to work out differences and no self-respect. All they do is self-narcotize with weed and ideas to escape reality and real problems. They are very passive-aggressive, because anyone around them who wants to do something real is "bothering too much", which is his problem and his fault, not the hippie's.

We do not deal with fish shortages in any other way than more fishing or other hunting and gathering. And then voluntary exchange. Basic economy. If there is too few fish, then no matter how we divide them, we're all fucked anyway, because the island sucks, there's no way around that. Philosophy and morality is about prevention, not making gold out of shit or making God's manna fall on the desert. Philosophy says, use reason and science and design your airplanes well, so that they don't fall on abandoned islands.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The fisherman tells you to piss off.
Once Brutus kills the fisherman and takes the fish, you stupidly go over to Brutus and ask him to share.
He smacks you over and takes your jacket. You are now broken, bruised and cold.
No, I don't. There's no way people like Brutus would move undetected in human society and on airplanes with people like me. They have no negotiation skills, they'd end up in jail long ago and they'd fly, if ever, on different airplanes than me. If I get told to piss off, of course I go fishing.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is a new society, there are no laws thus no murders.
A rose by any other name would smell the same. No new word definitions please.


(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It doesn't matter what you think. This is a new society, there is no governing body, no laws.
Other people don't necessarily agree with you because they have no awareness or objective ability to discover these universal morals you are talking about.
Of course they do! It's toddler curriculum. Even thieves understand property rights, because they want to own the stolen property. The evil is in inconsistency, they respect their ownership but not other people's ownership. The same goes for life or self-ownership.
We tell toddlers, don't hit, don't steal. We know perfectly well what to do.

If they can understand language, they can understand ownership.

(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Even if you are able to convince a couple of others to join you to take him out, he will fight back and being so brutish he kills one of you and seriously injures two others. So if you wish to take him on violently then you had better be prepared to accept the consequences.

Of course, if Brutus is smart he will also understand that attacking you one by one will eventually lead to people grouping together and defeating him as a group. It seems if Brutus is able to think about the consequences he may understand that it is not in his own best interests to be seen as a threat to the others.

Let's say you and your group of vigilantes have managed to over power Brutus, now what?
Do you take a rock to his head and kill an unarmed beaten man whom has given up fighting? Or do you banish him from the society and hope he doesn't steal back in the middle of the night and kill you (as the leader of the vigilantes) while you sleep?
I don't know why do you ask that. Philosophy is about universal long term prevention of evil and pursuit of morality. Philosophy's job was many years ago broadcasting and persuading people not to beat their children (Brutus). Philosophy is not a magical quick fix on irrational people. Philosophy can't magically re-grow Brutus' shriveled brain and empathy centers. Biologically, Brutus is not a human, he's objectively, neurologically a predator.

I will not be immoral for killing Brutus, not any more than killing a rabid tiger would be immoral. It won't be pretty and won't make me feel good, but at the moment it will be the only possible choice. Just because he's momentarily immobilized, that doesn't make it immoral to kill him, if other solutions are risky. Brutus' life is not worth of risking any other lives. That would be using my own virtue against me. Evil people do that a lot to paralyze good people, prevent them from action, defense, uniting and so on. That is why good people are such wimps, they want so much to be good, that they don't notice that evil people control the definition of what is or isn't good.
There is only ONE defense against that. Evil is logically inconsistent, it is never universal, it always demands special rules. That is the only weak point that evil has. People can only recognize and oppose evil to the degree that they can think rationally.


(10-06-2014 08:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who would agree to follow this moral framework without laws or coercion to do so?
If there are no legal implications then cold and freezing Brutus is going to take your jacket off your back despite your insistence that he ought to obey your universal moral framework.
People would agree to follow this to the degree that they can process a simple rational argument. Those who can, would. Processing a rational argument does not mean to think fast, only to think straight. We are born thinking straight (Allison Gopnik: The Philosophical Baby) Those who can't would after a few generations on the island lag behind in terms of technology and science and social productivity and so eventually reason and morality would prevail. As I said, philosophy is no magical quick fix.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 01:17 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(11-06-2014 06:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Do not mix ants and flies into that. They operate in the state of nature, they have no choice to act morally towards people.
But i was focussing on the human's behavior towards the ants and flies, the choices made by the humans.
(11-06-2014 06:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I will deal with superman arguments when there are actually some supermen around.
If you are not willing to open your mind and view human behaviour from the outside, then how can you come up with a universal morality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 01:22 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(11-06-2014 06:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Please prove that your definition is falsifiable. Show me any behavior that is not "selfish", i.e. that does not ultimately in some way serve one's own self-interest.
I consider only selfish choices to be rational. But not everyone is rational all the time.
People often make choices (take action) out of panic, out of beliefs and ideals, due to brain misfirings, due to emotional crisis etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 01:44 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Just a friendly reminder for all Luminon threads.

[Image: 43508757.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-06-2014, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2014 07:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(12-06-2014 01:17 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But i was focussing on the human's behavior towards the ants and flies, the choices made by the humans.
OK, so the UPB theory totally fails to protect ants and flies! Satisfied? Tongue However, it's very good at protecting these monkey species, I don't know if you've heard of them, they're called homo sapiens.

Anyway, if you really want to be a nitpicker, ants and flies are neurologically incapable of reciprocal moral behavior towards people, which is an objective biological difference. Moral (rational) theory relies on objective empiricism for corrections.

(12-06-2014 01:17 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-06-2014 06:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I will deal with superman arguments when there are actually some supermen around.
If you are not willing to open your mind and view human behaviour from the outside, then how can you come up with a universal morality?
First there has to exist some morally relevant outside before I can open my mind to it. Made-up examples just won't do. I am perfectly all right with a universal morality that only includes real people and discriminates against non-existent people and extremely unlikely situations.

What is your argument? Do you actually say that if a moral theory can't deal with some extremely rare and non-existent circumstances, then it's all worthless?

(12-06-2014 01:22 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I consider only selfish choices to be rational. But not everyone is rational all the time.
People often make choices (take action) out of panic, out of beliefs and ideals, due to brain misfirings, due to emotional crisis etc.
Yeah, sounds like theMax Weber's division of action on instrumental rationality and other kinds.

But do you know what moral means? What about universal standards of behavior? Rationality and logic is universal. So a morality logically derived from rationality is universal too. It will be very general, but that's good, lots of freedom, no special rules, no cultural ballast.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(10-06-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 11:30 AM)DLJ Wrote:  This is where we part company.
Nope, this is where we start! Let me play a guessing game. You like peace and goodness. And you can not imagine any other way to peace and goodness than to
...

Oooh! Goody. A guessing game.

Nice try but wrong. No

You have two more guesses.

Sleepy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  OK, so the UPB theory totally fails to protect ants and flies! Satisfied? Tongue However, it's very good at protecting these monkey species, I don't know if you've heard of them, they're called homo sapiens.
This means your "universal" morality isn't universal at all.
If you only apply it to humans then its source must in someway be related to DNA.
The problem of basing on homo sapien DNA is that there is no definitive boundary.
Evolution is somewhat continuous. There is no boundary between Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus for example or between homo sapien and whatever it is that we are evolving into.

(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anyway, if you really want to be a nitpicker, ants and flies are neurologically incapable of reciprocal moral behavior towards people, which is an objective biological difference.
So it seems that in your own moral theory that if you deem that the recipient of an action is not a moral agent, (lets say a cat) then a moral agent (in your opinion a human) has no moral obligation not to torture the cat.

(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  First there has to exist some morally relevant outside before I can open my mind to it. Made-up examples just won't do.
Philosophers do this all the time. Just look at the thought experiments devised by many of the great theoretical physicists. In order to come up with a universal model you need to look inside and outside.

(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What is your argument? Do you actually say that if a moral theory can't deal with some extremely rare and non-existent circumstances, then it's all worthless?
1. Your own moral theory isn't universal.
2. moral truths have never been proven to exist.
3. There is no objective method of discovery for moral truths.
4. The only options you have at your disposal is the choose to believe in a flavour of morality or to hold a position of lack of belief in moral truths.

(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But do you know what moral means? What about universal standards of behavior?
there is a difference between morality and behaviour. All animals, insects, plants exhibit behaviour. Even streams and fire exhibit behaviour.
Morality entails:
Existence of right and wrong
Knowledge of right and wrong
Ability to freely choose between right and wrong
Obligation to do right
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(12-06-2014 06:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oooh! Goody. A guessing game.

Nice try but wrong. No

You have two more guesses.

Sleepy
OK. Second guess: Your position is, that there are multiple sets of moralities, depending on cultures, civilizations, nations, local customs.

You can of course tell me at any time to push this silly game into my arse and talk to you normally. In fact, I would prefer that.

(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But do you know what moral means? What about universal standards of behavior?
there is a difference between morality and behaviour. All animals, insects, plants exhibit behaviour. Even streams and fire exhibit behaviour.
Morality entails:
Existence of right and wrong
Knowledge of right and wrong
Ability to freely choose between right and wrong
Obligation to do right
Sounds good to me. I'd just generalize it, that the capability to be moral is the capability to change one's behavior, it's having a choice. Beings can be only moral to the degree to which they can make choices. The greatest choices are of course rational, but morality is not limited to reason. Morality is limited to consistency.
Making up special rules for me or special rules for others (without objective biological differences) is immoral, it's what we call corruption, for example in politics.

(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 06:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  OK, so the UPB theory totally fails to protect ants and flies! Satisfied? Tongue However, it's very good at protecting these monkey species, I don't know if you've heard of them, they're called homo sapiens.
This means your "universal" morality isn't universal at all.
If you only apply it to humans then its source must in someway be related to DNA.
The problem of basing on homo sapien DNA is that there is no definitive boundary.
Evolution is somewhat continuous. There is no boundary between Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus for example or between homo sapien and whatever it is that we are evolving into.
Hold your horses, dude. There is an alternate explanation. The morality is universal among those who have the capability to be moral. That is not universal, but within that bounds morality is universal.
Boundary is in variability of the brain, not in the DNA. DNA is an accident, it has no moral content. Morality is in the responsibility, response-ability of a being. Thus we can have morality towards some animals, towards extra-terrestrials and even supermen - if they are capable of reciprocation. If not, we might as well feel morality to falling stones that can't change their trajectory no matter what we do.
But that is simple enough. Proving the moral dimension of children is more difficult, because children are cognitively deficient. Cognitive deficiency does not justify initiating aggression. They have an objective biological potential to be mature and intelligent and responsible and that is what matters morally.

(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So it seems that in your own moral theory that if you deem that the recipient of an action is not a moral agent, (lets say a cat) then a moral agent (in your opinion a human) has no moral obligation not to torture the cat.
I totally disagree. The non-aggression principle still holds. Torturing a cat would be initiating aggression against a cat.
However, I am most concerned about children, not cats. If we do not initiate aggression against children, they will not see torture as moral and they will not try to test moral theory boundaries regarding the torture and such.

(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Philosophers do this all the time. Just look at the thought experiments devised by many of the great theoretical physicists. In order to come up with a universal model you need to look inside and outside.
There are many bad philosophers out there. When physicists do what you propose, they are performing woo-woo, metaphysics and supernatural. There may be some merit in what you say and I am OK with exploring it when the main problem is solved: initiating aggression against standard 100% human people, namely the most helpless and vulnerable people, called children. Please let's start there and commit to this area of morality first. We can work out the grey or hypothetical areas in other times. Let's not treat acne when artery is bleeding.

(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. Your own moral theory isn't universal.
2. moral truths have never been proven to exist.
3. There is no objective method of discovery for moral truths.
4. The only options you have at your disposal is the choose to believe in a flavour of morality or to hold a position of lack of belief in moral truths.
1. I disagree. The capability to be moral isn't universal.
2. They were proven. Read the UPB.
3. There are objective methods to discover all kinds of truths. Moral truths are the simpliest of them, they are about demanding consistency in relationships, save for objective biological differences.
4. Nope, there is one more option - demand consistency in your relationships. No unchosen moral obligations that bind some people and don't bind other people. No arbitrary moral rules. Anyone can make a moral rule, but that rule must apply to him too, it must apply to everyone. If it can't, it's not immoral to disobey that rule. Thus there are no unchosen moral obligations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(12-06-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. Your own moral theory isn't universal.
2. moral truths have never been proven to exist.
3. There is no objective method of discovery for moral truths.
4. The only options you have at your disposal is the choose to believe in a flavour of morality or to hold a position of lack of belief in moral truths.
1. I disagree. The capability to be moral isn't universal.
2. They were proven. Read the UPB.
3. There are objective methods to discover all kinds of truths. Moral truths are the simpliest of them, they are about demanding consistency in relationships, save for objective biological differences.
4. Nope, there is one more option - demand consistency in your relationships. No unchosen moral obligations that bind some people and don't bind other people. No arbitrary moral rules. Anyone can make a moral rule, but that rule must apply to him too, it must apply to everyone. If it can't, it's not immoral to disobey that rule. Thus there are no unchosen moral obligations.

Presuppositionalism: not just for theists anymore.
Protip: things aren't objective just because you say they are.

But also, you cannot simultaneously say there are moral truths (objective ones!), but that all moral obligations are chosen. What is a moral truth but that which admits of a moral obligation? It's wholly incoherent.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: