Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:19 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:33 am 'B 'Civilization is unnatural. ' -Robert E. Howard

It feels natural to me !

What say the rest of you??

Posted: **Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:08 pm**

Not me.

#

"What say the rest of you??"

Yeah, how many dream of bein' cogs (or food)?: speak up!

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:10 pm**

Civilisation happened. It did not have to happen in the sense that it was planned. There is probably no preordained order; there is probably only chaos.

We men happened but we men did not have to happen in the sense that we were planned.

"A quality life for all" (Prof) seems to be the goal of all social species, and of sociable individuals.

The big question is how might we men arrange for a quality life for all to happen?

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:52 pm**

From where *I stand: that ain't the question.

The real BIG question: by what means (or 'ethic') can peace be had between reasonable men?

The answer: for each to take as gospel 'mind your own goddamned business and keep your friggin' hands to yourself...or else'.

There, problem solved. Now go, spread the good news...amen.

*wacky anarcho-capitalist/individualist/minarchist/ill fittin' piece that I am

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:34 pm**

Where does your own business begin and where does it end?

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:39 pm**

With 'me'.

If what I do doesn't take food offa your table, money outta your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head: it's none of your business (and vice versa).

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:01 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:39 pm With 'me'.

If what I do doesn't take food offa your table, money outta your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head: it's none of your business (and vice versa).

Are you familiar with the economic concept of externalities, and how your choices can have positive effects for you, but negative side-effects for others?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:45 pm**

I am a pragmatist not an idealist but still try to make sure that my choices do not have a negative effect upon any one
I cannot think of anything I do that has such an effect as I live a very isolated life and avoid others as much as possible

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:05 am**

https://mises.org/library/what-externality

https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument

https://mises.org/library/accounting-un ... ernalities

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:40 am**

Thanks Logik for the information about the theory of externalities. I also looked up the link to tragedy of the commons which is an issue. I myself have benefitted from grazing an animal on a village common field where grazing rights were carefully controlled by all villagers who had rights to the common land, and it's easy to imagine that the land would have been overgrazed and unfenced and so on had the villagers not correctly maintained their rights and responsibilities.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:22 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:05 am https://mises.org/library/what-externality

https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument

https://mises.org/library/accounting-un ... ernalities

However long you have been on this Earth, surely by now you recognize that word "argument" is synonymous with the phrase "elaborate rationalization of one's biases"? This "contrarianism" you see me demonstrating is precisely that.

I can contrive an iron-clad argument for any position I want. That's why arguing is a waste of time.

My favourite anti-libertarian argument goes like this: It's unprofitable to build unsafe airplanes - there's just no economic incentive to do so!

Free market economics theory 101 stuff, right? That's why we have the Boeing 737MAX fiasco underway at present.

You default to your instincts because it's easier than the alternative. You are just a lazy thinker.

P.S This is the conclusion in one of the links you posted:

Finally, we must conclude that externalities are a consequence of the laws of nature, not some anomaly in a model of perfect competition. This does not, however, mean that one should not care about how his or her actions affect others.

And so the whole "my right to swing my fist ends at another man's nose" doesn't really work. because actions have broader consequences than immediate surroundings.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:12 pm**

Okay.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:54 am**

prof wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:23 am How can we, working cooperatively, construct a sound Ethical Theory?

For 55 years I have been thinking about how to construct better ethical theories than those with which we are familiar. By themselves, the conventional standard theories do not seem to me to have done the job. Yes, they make you think, but do they result in more ethical people? A good Ethical theory should change lives, in my humble opinion.

During this time of reflection I also did some research and, as a result have come up with this:

http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

I named the effort THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.

or, if you wish to see a preview first, read the first three pages here: https://tinyurl.com/yd6wafvm then continue on by scrolling down further.

Check it out and let me know what you think. Did I succeed in the project of creating a better ethical theory?

Can you offer an ethical theory that is superior to the one linked to above, and tell us why it is superior? I am curious to study your alternative.
You may wish to print out the document (at the above link) before you read it. Their might be something in this essay that you can use in class. If you are a student, you can teach it to the professor. If you are a mentor, or a coach, or are an instructor, you can teach it to your students

After you look the essay over, let's hear your views Okay?
.

Ethics is in the DNA, no need to view it a tranformational. either you hear it or you kill it for personal gain.

as it was a million yrs ago and today.

default man is ethical, some kill the voice, as always, most do not.

nothing profound here.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:26 am
The Golden Rule / Silver Rule is the foundation for all morality and is a truly universal rule all should live by

actually no, Reciprocity (not the Golden Rule - the heavenly ideal) is the foundation/rule in this world.

Reciprocity works for me and the old testament.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am**

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:35 am
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:26 am
The Golden Rule / Silver Rule is the foundation for all morality and is a truly universal rule all should live by

What is that rule?

Golden Rule is to love your enemies and turn your cheek for the next strike from the bully.

not my view - but the Golden Rule - the ideal one in an ideal realm.

here in the real world, i reject that concept and strive for the Reciprocity Rule.

never start the fight/never offer the first strike - but offer the reply (strike back - in same measure (not more, for to offer more only offer the bully to escalate - add infinitum).

nor do i feel the need to love my enemy.

Philosophy Now Forum

How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Re:

"You seem like a real nice guy, Henry."

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

"The big question is how might we men arrange for a quality life for all to happen?"

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

"Where does your own business begin and where does it end?"

Re: "Where does your own business begin and where does it end?"

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

externalities: an austrian view

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Re: externalities: an austrian view

"You are just a lazy thinker."

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?