Basic questions of the moral life

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by prof »

osgart wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:42 am
A rich man might build his fortress of wealth, and riches, and economy, and exclude many people by nature of competition.

Nowhere in our system of government and economy seems to be any room for charity.

But is it cheaper to be charitable? And why disdain the poor who work menial jobs, or the disabled, or the as of yet uneducated.

We rely on all people to be safe, responsible citizens. And for most of history we have been either unable, or unwilling to help the poor.

Can we in this day and age rise above desparation, and merely surviving.

Is it right to foster cooperation?

And by what means do we do That? And what is the excuse for not doing so?

Too many people in the world? The poor make poor choices and don't deserve? Lose the weak?

Do these attitudes foster civilized society?

The economy alone won't give a hoot.

And the government must tax, for revenue. And many things must be done to ensure the future of society.

Are all are societal establishments living in the dark ages?

And is it hard times in the land of plenty for a reason?

What's the reason?

What would a system of cooperation look Like?

Should everyone be afforded opportunity to live?
Very well said, osgart :!:

You ask some very-profound questions.

Today we have, in the U.S.A. a "Me-Society." "Me, me !!" is the orientation prevailing.

If we manage to change it into a "We-Society" we will all be better off.
So let us work on that goal. With the layman to Philosophy, rather than use the word "virtue," it is preferable we speak of, and emphasize, goodness of character (-which also is taught by Virtue Theorists-) and making moral sense -- having a clear conscience (with the peace-of-mind that goes with it.)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Communism requires a whole set of instincts/incentives/desires not commonly found among folks as nature made them.

Post by henry quirk »

Prof,

Alastair Young writes nano- and meta-science fiction on his site 'The Eldraeverse'.

One of the entries, 'Questions: Great Powers' includes this...

Equality Concord

The Equality Concord and its dozen worlds share the dubious distinction of being the galaxy’s only genuinely functional, non-corrupt, decent-standard-of-living-enabled, etc., communist state.

(As opposed to genuinely non-functional communist states, like the former People’s State of Bantral.)

That’s because the Concord’s founders recognized the fundamental problem of Real True Communism requiring a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among sophonts as nature made them. So they studied the gentle art of sophotechnology, and they built themselves some nice bionic implants to fix that problem, and create the perfect collectivist people for their perfect collectivist utopia. And then, and this is the important bit, they avoided the classic trap by applying the implants to themselves before applying them to anyone else.

It works. It may not be the most innovative of regimes, or the wealthiest, or up there on whatever other metric you choose to apply, but it does work, and self-perpetuates quite nicely.

Pity about that whole “free will” thing, but you can’t make an omelette, right?


Seems to me: unless you have a great deal of faith in evolution, neuro-alterations and -implants are the only way your 'We Society' is gonna see the light of day.

And, for folks who want such a thing, who are willing to undergo (in my view) lobotomization, that's fine, but me, I'd rather live here (from the same Eldraeverse entry)...

Rim Free Zone
The Rim Free Zone isn’t, technically, a polity. It is, however, 49 worlds scattered through the rimward end of the Shadow Systems, the biggest bloc in that location, and so it has to be called something.

It’s not a polity because it’s 49 worlds all adherent to anarchocapitalism, of one strain or another. Which strain you get depends on exactly where you are, ranging from polite and civilized as the North American Confederacy, through somewhat less reputable but still perfectly reasonable places like, say, New Hong Kong, all the way down to pits of scum and villainy like Jackson’s Whole. You pay your money – no, you literally pay your money – and you take your choice.

But they are a big and ugly enough bloc to figure into the interstellar political calculus as a Great Power because it turns out that you don’t need to be a government to be mighty troublesome for one. That, and 49 worlds full of anarchocapitalists have a lot of guns, belike.


So, my question for you: assuming folks like yourself make it happen, what does your 'We Society' do with folks like me?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by prof »

Henry,

With regard to actual practical policy that may be legislated - made into law - in the U.S.A., how do you feel about banning bump stocks?

Is it okay for anyone to purchase automatic weapons, multi-shot type machines?

What restrictions, if any, would you - as an anarchist - put into a background check requirement?

How do you feel about seat belts mandated for cars?

Thanks in advance for any responses replying to my questions.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

i'll answer your questions, but you still owe me an answer to mine

Post by henry quirk »

"how do you feel about banning bump stocks?"

It ain't the tool or accessory that's the problem, so: banning bump stocks won't accomplish much of anything, but, if it makes folks 'feel better', they should go for it.

#

"Is it okay for anyone to purchase automatic weapons, multi-shot type machines?"

Prof, as an 'anarchist', I think a body should be able to transact for whatever is on the (unrestricted) market.

#

"What restrictions, if any, would you - as an anarchist - put into a background check requirement?"

I don't support background checks.

#

"How do you feel about seat belts mandated for cars?"

I think folks are self-responsible or they aren't...mandating 'safety' (when common sense ought to be all the mandate needed) is self-defeating.


Now: assuming folks like yourself make it happen, what does your 'We Society' do with folks like me?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by prof »

We welcome folks like you.

Don't you recall the last chapter of BASIC ETHICS by M. C. Katz, Ph.D., a chapter which proves that individuality and autonomy are among the highest values, and thus are emphasized as an integral part of the Ethical way to live :!:

You did not get my point - and thus I failed to communicate well - about "the We society." It doesn't mean we all live Kibbutz style. It means we regard each other as Brothers and Sisters.....as fellow members of the human species. There are no strangers. It means we develop a sense of solidarity. We are to regard each others as members of our support group.

It is the way I hope your son and you feel about each other: family.

Of course we still need to get educated as to how to make our families functional; how to defer to one another, how to best create value, be of service. It all starts at home and generates outward from there.


You write: "I think a body should be able to transact for whatever is on the (unrestricted) market."
Does this mean that it is okay that Nicholas Cruz, given his mental state, could buy his several AK47 guns at the gun-shop; and then use them to mow down 17 kids and a Geography teacher in Florida? He also could buy belts of cartridges with no questions asked.

I believe there is a place for government.
In the 1950s, when workers' rights were more protected, and there were safety standards for employees, and the National Labor Relations Board was functioning well, we were, in the USA, all better off than today.

What say you?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"Don't you recall the last chapter of BASIC ETHICS..."

I didn't read that book, so...*shrug*

#

"There are no strangers."

From where I stand, there are roughly seven billion strangers millin' around. Absolutely not possible for me to regard these folks as family.

#

Nicholas Cruz: a nutjob who was gonna do wrong no matter what. Guns, knives, rat poison, pressure cooker bombs, etc. The quest for 'safety' is an exercise in diminishing returns. I'd rather err on the side of freedom (self-direction, self-responsibility, self-defense).

#

"I believe there is a place for government."

I believe there's a place for proxies (public servants).

#

"worker's rights": if you can assert it, defend it, then it's yours.

#

"We welcome folks like you."

Forgive me, Prof, but I don't believe that.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by prof »

.Here is that pamphlet you could request from Google, or click here:

http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

See what it says in its review of Thomas Hobbes, p. 43.

When the state of Illinois was considering modifying its gun laws to permit "open carry," an excellent cartoon appeared in the Tribune. In the first scene, the interior of a crowded bus, someone yells out, "What?!" In the next scene everyone on the bus has a gun drawn, and cocked, and is pointing it at someone's face. This included a baby sitting up in her carriage: she was pointing a hand-gun also - at the others in the bus.

Is that what "liberty" is all about?



I'd welcome you into my condo unit but not your rifle.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"Is that what "liberty" is all about?"

The example you give is kinda silly and extreme, but -- yeah -- the capability to self-defend is part of liberty.

#

"I'd welcome you into my condo unit but not your rifle."

No problem...I'd leave my shotgun in the car.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

As the reader can by now infer, every individual's autonomy and individuality is encouraged by the theory. Everyone is free to comply or to not comply with any part of the theory if they so choose. ...just as they can ignore what we know about Physics, or about nutrition, or Psychology.

:angry:
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re:

Post by thedoc »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:03 pm As the reader can by now infer, every individual's autonomy and individuality is encouraged by the theory. Everyone is free to comply or to not comply with any part of the theory if they so choose. ...just as they can ignore what we know about Physics, or about nutrition, or Psychology.

:angry:
The problem is that you can ignore anything you want but if it is sound it will still effect you somehow. Ethics, Physics, Nutrition, and Psychology are what they are even if humans do not understand them and try to apply them incorrectly. What you don't know or choose to ignore can still hurt you.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Thing is: I don't believe the 'science of ethics' is sound...I think its foundation is specious.

I think the 'We Society' "requires a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among people as nature made them".

I think for Prof to see the 'We Society', folks like me are gonna have to submit to volition-blunting technologies (the implanted super-intelligence module Prof mentions in his opening)...this is not sumthin' I'm willing to do.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by thedoc »

For example I don't claim to know a lot about Astrophysics as it doesn't effect me very much here on earth, but I do try to know and understand as much as I can about the physics here on Earth. I have watched several physics professors give a demonstration of the co-efficient of friction and after demonstrating that the amount of surface area has no effect on the force between the two materials, will end the lesson by claiming that putting wider tires on a car has no effect, an incorrect application of the co-efficient of friction as every hot rodder knows that putting wider tires on a car makes it go faster. And the argument that it is the compound that makes the difference is complete BullShit. If it was the compound the tire Manufactures would put those compounds in narrow tires and open wheeled racers would be using them, there would be less air resistance.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Basic questions of the moral life

Post by thedoc »

I think the Prof is blowin' smoke, everyone should agree and be nice to each other is just a code for everyone should think and act just like Prof. It doesn't work that way since everyone is just a little bit different.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"I think the Prof is blowin' smoke"

Nah, like a lot of idealists, he just wants what's best for folks. And, like a lot of idealists, he doesn't much care what folks think is best for themselves.

Truly, he can't see why I object to his 'science of ethics' and why I would resist implantation of an artificial conscience.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re:

Post by prof »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:20 pm ...he doesn't much care what folks think is best for themselves.
I do care that people who may have something valuable to contribute act like lemmings just about to march over that cliff down into the abyss {and take all the rest of us with them.} I do care that Trump [the guy who "plays the dozens" with the cultist-god of N. Korea, bragging "My button is bigger than your button!] has enablers and supporters. They, in their ignorance, are dong what they - to quote Henry -" think what is best for themselves." I just believe that nuclear fallout over the whole planet is not best for anybody.

Truly, he can't see why ... I would resist implantation of an artificial conscience.
The above statement by Henry is a Red Herring fallacy!
Nowhere did I ever advocate "implantation of an artificial conscience." It's a good thing I don't believe in lawsuits, or I would sue you for libel, slander, and passive aggression.



....All attempts at humor aside, what I actually wrote in the o.p. is this:
Do we need intelligent learning machines to teach us?

How will a super-intelligence module implanted in our bodies show us what we should want if only we knew what is in our self-interest for maximum benefit?

The doc is right that remaining ignorant does eventually do harm both to the individual and to those around him/her.

Yes, I have high ideals and don't mind being called 'an idealist.' That is only half of the story. I'm a Realist-Idealist. That is all explained on pages 44-45 of http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf
Those who care to learn will study that material, and reap the benefits.
Post Reply