A Modust Proposal

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:08 pm

Morality as ethics is a form of relationship between each person and their community... As with all forms of relationship, it demands sacrifice.. In other relationships we may have to surrender some of ourselves, be less selfish; but morality may demand the surrender of our lives for the community.. If that should happen, and the demand is made of you, it does not matter then what my sense of morality is, or what THE Definition of morality is, but it does matter what your sense is.. Morality is not just the form of relationship, but is the relationship.. This is always dynamic, and subjective..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:09 pm

Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:00 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:31 am
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.
So you are doing multi-variate optimisation.

Do you know what the variables you are optimising for are?

Would you say that human rights feature in your optimisation process?
In your classification which is useless in discussions of morality you are making the mistake of the second intention.. The second intention is when we begin to talk about talking, about the process of communication rather than using language to communicate.. Define a flower.. Fine.. Don't bother to define love without a lot of ink..
Ohhh , a “mistake”. I smell a prescriptivist!

Use all the ink you need to define your values according to which you decided I have made a mistake.

Make sure you juxtapose it with non-mistakes.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:22 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:09 pm
Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:00 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:43 am

So you are doing multi-variate optimisation.

Do you know what the variables you are optimising for are?

Would you say that human rights feature in your optimisation process?
In your classification which is useless in discussions of morality you are making the mistake of the second intention.. The second intention is when we begin to talk about talking, about the process of communication rather than using language to communicate.. Define a flower.. Fine.. Don't bother to define love without a lot of ink..
Ohhh , a “mistake”.

Use all the ink you need to define your values according to which you decided I have made a mistake.

Make sure you juxtapose it with non-mistakes.
One might argue that Socrates died and Heidegger was ruined for being to specific.. Philosophy is better and safer conducted in General.. With physics it is easy.. I say the moon, and you say the moon and we can be certain that we are talking about THE MOON.. With moral forms, I say love and you say love and there is no certainty that we are talking about LOVE, the same love, either love.. And yet love is essential to philosophy.. So what is the choice.. Is it to pick nits, or to bury ourselves in words.. Since certainty is specious, why not just try to find general agreement about general subjects and avoid specifics..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:24 pm

Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:22 pm
One might argue that Socrates died and Heidegger was ruined for being to specific.. Philosophy is better and safer conducted in General.. With physics it is easy.. I say the moon, and you say the moon and we can be certain that we are talking about THE MOON.. With moral forms, I say love and you say love and there is no certainty that we are talking about LOVE, the same love, either love.. And yet love is essential to philosophy.. So what is the choice.. Is it to pick nits, or to bury ourselves in words.. Since certainty is specious, why not just try to find general agreement about general subjects and avoid specifics..
Because morality doesn't allow for such general sophistry.

The most important questions have simple and certain yes/no answers.

Is murder wrong?
Should we reduce poverty?
Should we increase literacy?
Should we cure cancer?
Should we tackle global warming?
Should we empower women?
Should we love one another?

I would argue that you already have answers to these questions above, so whatever "argument" you present is just unnecessary rationalization.

Unless we disagree on the answers.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:20 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:24 pm
Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:22 pm
One might argue that Socrates died and Heidegger was ruined for being to specific.. Philosophy is better and safer conducted in General.. With physics it is easy.. I say the moon, and you say the moon and we can be certain that we are talking about THE MOON.. With moral forms, I say love and you say love and there is no certainty that we are talking about LOVE, the same love, either love.. And yet love is essential to philosophy.. So what is the choice.. Is it to pick nits, or to bury ourselves in words.. Since certainty is specious, why not just try to find general agreement about general subjects and avoid specifics..
Because morality doesn't allow for such general sophistry.

The most important questions have simple and certain yes/no answers.

Is murder wrong?
Should we reduce poverty?
Should we increase literacy?
Should we cure cancer?
Should we tackle global warming?
Should we empower women?
Should we love one another?

I would argue that you already have answers to these questions above, so whatever "argument" you present is just unnecessary rationalization.

Unless we disagree on the answers.
As perhaps already noted: There are no imaginary cases.. There is no imaginary, or hypothetical morality.. I am not saying people should not ask questions or give morality some thought, but it is imperfect thought.. Look at the time Socrates gave to discussing the Good.. He could not define good because the examples and situations in which it occurs are infinite.. And yet, Voltaire warned: If you would discuss with me, define your terms.. In morality we cannot define our terms except generally and subjectively.. But this is not necessary.. If we live our morality rather than discussing it, which is possible, then we do not need a definition of morality, and still we need morality to define ourselves.. I say I am a moral man.. I think there is ample evidence that I am a moral man.. Being a moral man means no matter what comes up in life, I will face it morally as a form of self expression.. Morality is not just what I am, but who I am as well.. I can certainly define morality as community.. I can define morality spiritually, as we would use the word morale.. This sense ties me to my community, I know who I am in relations to my community, and I will die so that my community will live..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:20 am
As perhaps already noted: There are no imaginary cases.. There is no imaginary, or hypothetical morality.. I am not saying people should not ask questions or give morality some thought, but it is imperfect thought.. Look at the time Socrates gave to discussing the Good.. He could not define good because the examples and situations in which it occurs are infinite.. And yet, Voltaire warned: If you would discuss with me, define your terms.. In morality we cannot define our terms except generally and subjectively.. But this is not necessary.. If we live our morality rather than discussing it, which is possible, then we do not need a definition of morality, and still we need morality to define ourselves.. I say I am a moral man.. I think there is ample evidence that I am a moral man.. Being a moral man means no matter what comes up in life, I will face it morally as a form of self expression.. Morality is not just what I am, but who I am as well.. I can certainly define morality as community.. I can define morality spiritually, as we would use the word morale.. This sense ties me to my community, I know who I am in relations to my community, and I will die so that my community will live..
I was looking for a policy definition. Something useful at social scale. Not for something that you, individually are happy with.

Something WE are happy with.

Belinda
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:57 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:20 am
As perhaps already noted: There are no imaginary cases.. There is no imaginary, or hypothetical morality.. I am not saying people should not ask questions or give morality some thought, but it is imperfect thought.. Look at the time Socrates gave to discussing the Good.. He could not define good because the examples and situations in which it occurs are infinite.. And yet, Voltaire warned: If you would discuss with me, define your terms.. In morality we cannot define our terms except generally and subjectively.. But this is not necessary.. If we live our morality rather than discussing it, which is possible, then we do not need a definition of morality, and still we need morality to define ourselves.. I say I am a moral man.. I think there is ample evidence that I am a moral man.. Being a moral man means no matter what comes up in life, I will face it morally as a form of self expression.. Morality is not just what I am, but who I am as well.. I can certainly define morality as community.. I can define morality spiritually, as we would use the word morale.. This sense ties me to my community, I know who I am in relations to my community, and I will die so that my community will live..
I was looking for a policy definition. Something useful at social scale. Not for something that you, individually are happy with.

Something WE are happy with.


Charm would die so that his community will live. I do hope that Charm's community is not Daesh!

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:41 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:57 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:20 am
As perhaps already noted: There are no imaginary cases.. There is no imaginary, or hypothetical morality.. I am not saying people should not ask questions or give morality some thought, but it is imperfect thought.. Look at the time Socrates gave to discussing the Good.. He could not define good because the examples and situations in which it occurs are infinite.. And yet, Voltaire warned: If you would discuss with me, define your terms.. In morality we cannot define our terms except generally and subjectively.. But this is not necessary.. If we live our morality rather than discussing it, which is possible, then we do not need a definition of morality, and still we need morality to define ourselves.. I say I am a moral man.. I think there is ample evidence that I am a moral man.. Being a moral man means no matter what comes up in life, I will face it morally as a form of self expression.. Morality is not just what I am, but who I am as well.. I can certainly define morality as community.. I can define morality spiritually, as we would use the word morale.. This sense ties me to my community, I know who I am in relations to my community, and I will die so that my community will live..
I was looking for a policy definition. Something useful at social scale. Not for something that you, individually are happy with.

Something WE are happy with.


Charm would die so that his community will live. I do hope that Charm's community is not Daesh!
😂😂😂😂😂

As some general somewhere said - the point is not to die for your cause.

The point is to make the other guy die for his.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:49 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:57 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:20 am
As perhaps already noted: There are no imaginary cases.. There is no imaginary, or hypothetical morality.. I am not saying people should not ask questions or give morality some thought, but it is imperfect thought.. Look at the time Socrates gave to discussing the Good.. He could not define good because the examples and situations in which it occurs are infinite.. And yet, Voltaire warned: If you would discuss with me, define your terms.. In morality we cannot define our terms except generally and subjectively.. But this is not necessary.. If we live our morality rather than discussing it, which is possible, then we do not need a definition of morality, and still we need morality to define ourselves.. I say I am a moral man.. I think there is ample evidence that I am a moral man.. Being a moral man means no matter what comes up in life, I will face it morally as a form of self expression.. Morality is not just what I am, but who I am as well.. I can certainly define morality as community.. I can define morality spiritually, as we would use the word morale.. This sense ties me to my community, I know who I am in relations to my community, and I will die so that my community will live..
I was looking for a policy definition. Something useful at social scale. Not for something that you, individually are happy with.

Something WE are happy with.


Charm would die so that his community will live. I do hope that Charm's community is not Daesh!
Well now, you bring up a good point because honor and morality are synonymous.. Where people are honorable as the societies we all came out of, then they are also moral.. You cannot cut one off of the other. I was just trying to read a book on honor by a man who clearly did not understand his subject, so I gave it up as self abuse.. We have nothing of regard for honor that primitive peoples have, and we all came out of primitive societies where honor was highly regarded, virtually the only thing of lasting value.. What the author did not get is that we are not simply dealing with a different cultural characteristic, but a different cultural character in the honorable man.. Look into why Socrates would not try to escape the sentence of his people around him.. Yet for us, where honor is an artifact of the past, we look at the behavior of Muslims as insane.. It is understandable when you know that all of Islam is held together by honor.. They say, many times a day: I Testify: The Swear, and swearing is reserved for honorable men/people.. What you are seeing essentially is two different economies: A Money Economy like ours against an Honor Economy.. Where money is dear, honor is cheap, and where honor is dear, there is little of wealth of any kind so all relationships are expressions of honor, forms of honorable relationship.. There is a reason that primitives honor societies still exist in this world. They are durable, and effective.. Everyone's honor is their credit card.. Everyone must count on the honor of their neighbors and family.. No one would suffer a dishonorable person to live near them.. This is the meaning of the term re-habilitate: Restored to honor, for home, habitation, is a place of honor.. Just as morality is community, community is also honor, and honor is also morality.. Our word honor holds the sense of moral good, so the Expressions of Cicero taken up by Jerome is that Good; Honestum est Utile, Useful.. Nothing is less useful for the course of society than dishonorable people.. And thanks for the reply..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:27 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:41 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:57 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am

I was looking for a policy definition. Something useful at social scale. Not for something that you, individually are happy with.

Something WE are happy with.


Charm would die so that his community will live. I do hope that Charm's community is not Daesh!
😂😂😂😂😂

As some general somewhere said - the point is not to die for your cause.

The point is to make the other guy die for his.
What you paint with a broad brush here is the history of Rome.. Rome excelled in conquest because the valor of the individual soldier meant little, and so they became the first true army.. Waves of Celts and Germanic peoples were crushed on the shore of the Roman legions because the Romans fought as a unit, and the Barbarians fought as individuals.. You can see the Roman General, Suetonius Paulinus pursued by Boadicea in England searching for a defensible battle field.. What this meant for the Romans was the opportunity to narrow their front.. Because they fought as a unit, when one man grew tired, he would duck under the sword of the man behind him, and rest while another took up the fight.. Celts and Germans fought to the death, each man pledged upon his honor to do so while a fresh man stepped up to face the Roman Round Robin.. Heroes are what the Roman Army destroyed, and they destroyed many mobs of individuals, and were notably destroyed, losing three legions under Varus in the Teutoburg forest against Arminius in AD 9, where it was impossible to narrow their front. Western Armies have never had to deal with anything like Islam before where the life and death, victory or defeat of any individual is insignificant.. You cannot spill so much blood in Afghanistan that others will not step once more into the breach.. The best lesson in the art of war is to understand your enemy, and in regard to Islam, we do not..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:33 pm

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:27 pm
The best lesson in the art of war is to understand your enemy, and in regard to Islam, we do not..
Talk about broad brushes...

Before you can understand your enemy first you must identify your enemy.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:57 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:33 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:27 pm
The best lesson in the art of war is to understand your enemy, and in regard to Islam, we do not..
Talk about broad brushes...

Before you can understand your enemy first you must identify your enemy.
That is why it sucks to be Chinese.. I'm not Chinese, but during the most recent warlord period, two warlords were fighting each other, and one would cut off the heads of civilians if they had no pigtails, and the other warlord would cut the heads off those with pigtails.. How do you win??? Everyone wants their shibboleth ... Who is it cool to kill..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:00 pm

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:57 pm
one would cut off the heads of civilians if they had no pigtails, and the other warlord would cut the heads off those with pigtails.. How do you win??? Everyone wants their shibboleth ... Who is it cool to kill..
I have no pigtail. It takes 8-12 months to grow one. That's an awful long time to wait to die.

Kill the guy who wants to kill me now...

The faster you end the fight you didn't start, the lower your risk of personal injury.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:15 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:00 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:57 pm
one would cut off the heads of civilians if they had no pigtails, and the other warlord would cut the heads off those with pigtails.. How do you win??? Everyone wants their shibboleth ... Who is it cool to kill..
I have no pigtail. It takes 8-12 months to grow one. That's an awful long time to wait to die.

Kill the guy who wants to kill me now...

The faster you end the fight you didn't start, the lower your risk of personal injury.
There is a whole nation of people who offer justification for killing perceived threats.. All I can say is: How convenient.. Don't wait for cause.. Don't try to communicate or negotiate.. Just take out those you fear, and so what if you fear them because you have wronged them..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:35 am

Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:15 am
There is a whole nation of people who offer justification for killing perceived threats..
What do you mean "perceived" threats?

These are your words: "two warlords were fighting each other, and one would cut off the heads of civilians if they had no pigtails, and the other warlord would cut the heads off those with pigtails.."

Were the beheadings actual or perceived? Is the above statement fact or fear-mongering?
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:15 am
Don't try to communicate or negotiate.. Just take out those you fear, and so what if you fear them because you have wronged them..
Can you run me through the negotiation that you envision would take place with the person who's trying to behead you because of your hairstyle?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests