How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

[Logik]

I am discussing morality while you are discussing murder so we cannot agree

You don't think murder is a moral concern? Fine.

[Logik]

But if everyone agrees that murder is wrong then why does this not equally apply to all morally questionable actions ?

Because some moral issues are more complex than murder and so require a greater length discourse.
And maybe even multiple dialectics until settled.

For if there was universal agreement about morality then society would actually be the best that it could possibly be ?

It is "The best it can possibly be". And it's getting better. Slowly - but it's getting better.

The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain

Holy fuck! That's a Stalinist over-reaction right there.

Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean we should burn it all to the ground?

For every 1 person that commits an immoral act millions do not! Why are you condemning all of humanity based on the actions of a few?
There is a name for this fallacy: hasty generalization.

[surreptitious57]

Just because its not perfect it doesnt mean we should burn it all to the ground ?

I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to say
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve

I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so

[Logik]

I never said or even implied that and dont accept it for a second - what a ridiculous thing to say
The default position should be that we individually and collectively constantly strive to improve

I however can only improve myself so what others do is beyond my jurisdiction as long as no one imposes on me
It is not for me to educate others as I am just a work in progress and so do not have the moral authority to do so

Then I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this:

The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain

Man has free will. Fact.
We have been making continued moral progress for thousands of years. Fact.

Given the two premises above I don't understand why you see free will as an obstacle to moral progress?

it sure sounds a lot like an "all or nothing" mindset...

[surreptitious57]

My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time
Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can
We can however despite that work within such limitations and so become better human beings

[Logik]

My point was that if we did not have free will we could do what was morally right all the time

And who wold decide what is morally right?

Having free will therefore does not guarantee we will always choose wisely when ever we can

Mostly is better than never....

[surreptitious57]

And who would decide what is morally right ?

Nobody would because there would be no free will
For everyone would think and act exactly the same
However that is not a society I would want to live in

[FlashDangerpants]

Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.

I-Values, being derived as you have written from quantitative measurement of the amount of attention units given by an observer to the observed, also include jealousy and hate. Indeed, passionate hate would probably be one of the most potent sources of I-Value imaginable. So Hate > Functions > Opinions.

"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation. When such a sign appears in an exponent, it greatly reduces the over-all value in the outcome.

The same applies to passionate jealousy.

So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.

[Logik]

So now you are in agreement that hate, scorn,envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision are indeed sources of I-Value if it is calculated in the way you described based on amount of attention given.

Economists call this revealed vs stated preference. It's nothing new. It's the erudite way of saying "actions speak louder than words".

The gap in communication is that for as long as you are using real-world measurements of human behaviour you will always be making descriptive not prescriptive arguments. And yet morality is dead in the water without a prescriptive element.

Murder is wrong. Not because <descriptive argument> but because prescriptive reasons. By the authority vested in our sheer numbers - we will lock you up! Or if we are less than civilized - we might even sentence you to death.

[prof]

Murder is wrong. Not because <descriptive argument> but because prescriptive reasons. By the authority vested in our sheer numbers - we will lock you up! Or if we are less than civilized - we might even sentence you to death.

Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.
Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.
Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone. In that sense, murder contradicts Ethics; to murder is to be unethical. And, of course, to also be immoral. Murder violates morality.

All the above is descriptive. Yet, by connotation and implication it is at once prescriptive. A situation can be both at the same time.

Problem solved.

[Logik]

Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.

That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).

Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.

While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.

Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.

I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.

[Eodnhoj7]

Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.

That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).

Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.

While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.

Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.

I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.

ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.

It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.

[Logik]

Morality is a sub-branch of Ethics concerned with how many Moral Principles one actually lives up to and puts into practice.

That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).

Ethics is the perspective that arises when one Intrinsically values an individual, or a group of them.

While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.

Therefore, if one Intrinsically values someone one wouldn't want to murder that someone.

I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.

ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.

No, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.

It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.

See! This is where you keep fucking up!

The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!

5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!

That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is just your view. In my view - morality is the output of the process of ethics, which is itself a social negotiation.

Morality (the social contract) is the product of the social dialectic (ethics).


While you seem to accept the above axiomatically - I do not. I reasoned myself INTO the above position by starting from egoism.

Moral behaviour is a social context is advantageous to my selfish goals.
Cooperation, segregation of duties, specialization. We all have a role to play in building a civilized society.


I don't value you. I value your contribution to society. You are more useful to me alive than dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

And in the context of political affiliation our disagreement can probably be reduced to one distinction in narratives: Does equality mean equally powerful or equally powerless?

Are you trying to neuter the human spirit or make it live up to its true potential?

If knowledge is power then I appreciate and want more power. And so ethical discourse can be stated simply as "the moral use of knowledge".

It boils down to defining the moral/ethical Übermensch.

ROFL!!!! Says the man who is trying to put everything in a box and that the human condition, as a computer, is fundamentally one of a tool!!!


ROFL!!!!

"I am going to kill philosophy...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!

"It sterilizes the human spirit...grrrr".

ROFL!!!!!

What you should do is take a week or two off...then come back, because quantifying the human condition not only robs it of the quality of spirit you claim philosophy kills but in itself is fundamentally irrational.

Picking and choosing axioms, only necessitates that all axioms exist as true; hence what you call "choice" is strictly a process of negating some truths in value of others...while completely failing to realize is that "choice" is a simple progression of one axiom to another (resulting in your identity) which determined your choice to begin with.

No, Don Quixote. You are fighting a windmill again.

It is called choice "theory" for a reason. You fail to take into account that if the human constitution is strictly a computer...then the methodology of "rationality" has no room for error in one respect (as no choice can be made under a series of causal chains) while in a seperate respect there is no assymetry as the human conciousness (as symmetric) is an extension of the environment that forms it under this same cause and effect paradigm.

See! This is where you keep fucking up!

The answer to "Is murder wrong?" is ALWAYS YES!

5000 years of philosophy you are YET to find any fucking axioms which give "Yes" as the answer!

That is WHY I retrofit the axioms to the answer! Because I KNOW what the correct answer is! Without any axioms.

Actually "murder is wrong" is an axiom....it is assumed and as assumed it projects the course of people's lives.

So "without any axioms"....ROFL!!!!!

Alot of philosopher's talk about the evils of suicide (ie murder) as well as "murder" of other's...google it. Save the "you are for killing" argument.

[Arising_uk]

Self-defence is not murder. ...

I was thinking more of a slave/master relationship(shouldn't have used abusive), in that I plot to murder for my freedom and succeed in that aim.

Unless, of course - you live in a fucked up country like the UK where personhood means nothing, and self-defence is not a constitutional human right

What on earth is 'personhood'? But in the UK you can kill someone in self-defense but you will have to be prepared to justify it on the grounds of fear for one's life and there being no other alternative.