These are major assumptions that make sense

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:26 pm

the big idea in this thought experiment is, to the extent the society or world you inhabit cannot be blamed because it is perfect, then any transgression of individuals where they knowingly break the rules of such a society can be deemed right or wrong in a non-relativist framework, since by design acting outside of the rules of the society hurts you as much as anyone else affected by your behaviour, not due to any subsequent judicial punishment (which may or may not follow), but by the fact that your optimal life has already been calculated for you before you were born, and deviating from that will only hurt you.

so even if you do something and it gives you 102 points of joy instead of 100 in a given moment, you'll pay for it in the next moment when you only get 78 points of joyful experience (degree of joyful experience) instead of 100, because you deviated from the optimal trajectory, independent of any judicial punishment (as added negative experience, for example, or reduced joyful points)

it's no different than chess. the reason people, especially people who have not yet mastered the game, play 'by the book' is because chess the game has been worked out to roughly 32 moves ahead from the start where if you stick to the book your chances of winning are highest. chess masters can still win playing differently against an opponent who plays by the book, but for someone who isn't a master and doesn't plan to be, or for whom that is an unrealistic or undesired goal for whatever reason, they can still reach a high level by simply following the book of moves.

and therefore, in a general sense, that is below master level, there is a right and wrong move in chess! (as per the explicit goal of the game: winning)

so, if we can agree on the goal of life, IF (and i provided one, though it is not the last word on it, that could serve as good 'common goal'; the point here is more that it is held in common, not its precise merits), then it is possible for us to have a solid justifiable non-relativist moral framework.

that is the idea here. your points about the particulars of the 'utopia' are well merited but the substance provided was only given to illustrate the main idea here, that i am saying now more directly, as i didn't want to lengthen that post any further with details that would distract from the main idea.

thoughts?

EDITED: just changed some numbers in the 'points section' so it's more clear

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:22 pm

The absolute bottom line is this :

Can any ideas pertaining to moral self improvement actually be translated into practice ?
I would implement what could be implemented and discard the rest as that has no utility
And then through trial and error work on refining it and making it as practical as possible

Morality is something that can be developed individually so that is the level I would work from
Its less practical at a collective level because it is subjective so consensus isnt always possible

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:24 pm

1) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable

Broadly, in a way that satisfies scientists, philosophers and priests: yeah, but for the individual (where free will begins and ends) the knowing is simple and irrefutable.

#

2) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil.

No, more and more it appears 'freedom' is viewed with suspicion, a view promoted by those who want to direct, adopted by the those who fear to self-direct, opposed by those who can and do self-direct.

#

3) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom.

It's not my moral to duty to be free or act freely: I 'am' free; it's my natural state.

#

4) There is no absolute moral law; ethical norms are derived from the contract.

Agreed.

#

The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence.

With the understanding, of course, I will use violence to defend myself, defend others.

#

Ethics of the contract includes the conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) and compliance with the contract (fidelity to his word, adherence to rules, responsibility for violation).

Agreed.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:30 pm

"i think free will vs determinism is one of the silliest debates in philosophy"

I agree. Unfortunately some savvy sons of bitches 'are' attempting to use the silly debate to "justify real world policy decisions" (responsibility, crime, justice system etc.).

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:33 pm

"you have to accept the realization of the greatest equal happiness for everyone surviving birth as the ultimate and only worthwhile value worth pursuing given the human condition."

Yeah, I don't have to accept that, I don't accept that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:42 pm

"no one should have access to more than someone else is capable of accessing, because perceptions of unfairness will ruin the merit of this system"

The hell you say.

Simply: if I'm more capable than Joe then I'm probably gonna have more of what I want than Joe; and Stan, who's more capable than me, will have more of what he wants than me.

Ain't nuthin' fair about it and it doesn't have to be fair.

Go to a hospital nursery: there's little Lou, sickly, ugly and stupid plunked down next to little Al, healthy, beautiful and smart. From the start living is unfair. Sure we 'pretend' otherwise, make small efforts to prop up the incapable, but what you suggest is an intolerable level of micromanagement.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I tell you plainly, as a Crom-lovin' anarchistic shotgun owner...

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:48 pm

...this if an infant is born with certain obvious deformities or handicap it may have to be killed is shit.

My 12 year is a healthy (but weird) boy but if he had come into this world sickly, ugly, and stupid, and someone like you suggested that he might "have to be killed" I believe I would've stomped that person's head in.

Your notions are bankrupt.

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:31 am

the wide range of genetic differences we see at birth in nurseries are due to immigration/emigration, exogamy (breeding outside your ancestral group), and things that bring new genes or gene frequencies into a population.

when humans were evolving, prior to civilization and thus cities where people effectively moved from all over the world into densely populated, highly diverse centers, they only bred locally, and with people they basically evolved with for thousands of years, resulting in great similarities, right from birth, similar heights (obviously males were taller than females though), similar appearance, attractiveness, intelligence...other than mutations there simply was no real source of new genes coming in, nor did such populations of humans gather with other different populations of humans at any significant point prior to cities from elsewhere in the world, so each of their worlds living in their bands as far as human makeup is concerned consisted of people basically all alike, again with difference across the sexes being the only major really.

yes, there may have been taller humans over at the other side of the world but they weren't relevant because they was basically no contact or meaningful contact.

modern societies basically evolved by everyone around the world moving into cities - people who spend thousands of years evolving in a particular location different traits, etc, now gathering in one location.

and that is the seed that has stuck with us since the dawn of civilization in terms of the diversity you see when you look at out your window at a busy intersection in a big city. tall people. short people. different races. people of different intelligence level, capabilities, etc.

i am simply saying here that it is not natural, so saying it is a 'given' of life is false, as if humans have always been as diverse as they are today (in certain parts); moreover, plenty of groups around world, even in these modern times where it's increasingly difficult to maintain the integrity of a genetic population, have survived with little out-breeding and thus maintained their genetic integrity and thus similarity: sub-national groups in the USA like amish, some groups in africa (who've also managed to avoid aids because of this), and some other remote tribal groups all around world on nearly every continent.

the practical question is, could the last 5000 years or whatever of people moving around the world be undone? no, but if everyone agreed to it, we could move people with similar genetics to designated spots around the world where they would live and breed together without mixing with other groups, based on things like tallness, skin color or race, ability, etc.

initially, the grouping of people in such a way would necessarily result in still fairly diverse groups; moreover, since humans are so dependent on technology now, and since we tend to keep people alive who are handicapped, etc, we would humanely of course incorporate such people into populations where they would be supported, even the most handicap person today. however, people with significant genetic (heritable) handicaps would not be allowed to breed. again, this is the weakness of my idea - which i am elaborating on beyond the thread topic at this point - and i fully acknowledge that it is not an ideal aspect, however i don't think even such handicapped persons would take major issue with it, if the communities they joined, and thus their life, was good, better than it is now. it would be a small sacrifice for something better.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:34 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:39 pm
What if my moralistic framework says it is right and your moralistic framework says it is wrong ?
Do you have a methodology that will resolve such a dilemma to mutual satisfaction every time ?
Yes. War.

If the death of one person is a tragedy then the death of all people is a worse tragedy. The Worst tragedy. This is my point of departure. My objective morality.

Human objective No.1 is to avoid extinction. Objective No.2 is to build safe societies for individuals. The Greater Good is literally NOT about you and me. It's about us. If you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs (or some such wisdom).

We can use science to help us predict such outcomes. Simulate trends/growth trajectories etc. and reasonably guess what would happen to ALL society and when. Obviously It is a hammer not a scalpel, but when the cost of error is so great it's better to be pessimistic than optimistic.

HYPOTHETICALLY: If China is contributing 80% of emissions to global warming and shows no intent of slowing down or concern for the existential threat this poses to all of mankind then going to war with China would be justifiable.

Why? Trolley problem.

Do nothing and go extinct.
Do something and lose the war, then go extinct.
Do something and win the war, then lower the risk of extinction.

The gamble is obvious.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:45 am

War does not result in mutual satisfaction even if it is sometimes necessary or unavoidable
I was actually thinking of something where disagreement could be resolved more amicably

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:45 am
War does not result in mutual satisfaction even if it is sometimes necessary or unavoidable
I was actually thinking of something where disagreement could be resolved more amicably
The primary objective is "avoid extinction". First you have to be alive to be satisfied or unsatisfied.

Can you think of a way to resolve extinction more amicably?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:11 am

Education / Shared Values / Mutual Co operation / Learn From Mistakes / Collective Responsibility /
Individual Responsibility / Distribute Resources Fairly / Maximise All Potential / Eliminate Tribalism

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:18 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:11 am
Education / Shared Values / Mutual Co operation / Learn From Mistakes / Collective Responsibility /
Individual Responsibility / Distribute Resources Fairly / Maximise All Potential / Eliminate Tribalism
How long will it take you to share your values, reach cooperative agreement, educate them and let them see their mistakes, eliminate tribalism, adopt collective responsibility and finally - cut their emissions?

Will you get it right before we are extinct?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:28 am

Ants are very co operative as a species for they work together for the greater good
And human beings could be equally as co operative but instead choose not to be so

Probably too late for us to change our ways now but I mentioned ants to show how it could be done
Other examples of co operative species such as bees and wasps so it is not just an isolated example

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:36 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:28 am
Ants are very co operative as a species for they work together for the greater good
And human beings could be equally as co operative but instead choose not to be so

Probably too late for us to change our ways now but I mentioned ants to show how it could be done
Other examples of co operative species such as bees and wasps so it is not just an isolated example
It has been the same HOW for the last 5000+ years. The story of Noah's ark.... it's about surviving natural disasters.

The question now is "how soon?" or perhaps "when?"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests