religion and morality

[iambiguous]

As I noted above, I'll let you choose an issue that we have not discussed...one important to you.

This here...

Let's focus in on a new issue in which many disagree and explore our repective moral philosophies in depth.

...is what you wrote. I ain't seein' no invite from you to pick a topic.

Me: I don't care what we talk about. You know it's gonna really be about Datsun for you, and natural rights for me.

Alas, he will do almost anything but actually note a new issue that is important to him to discuss as it pertains to our respective moral philosophies.

So, do you insist that defending your "way of life" with bazookas is perfectly in sync with the only way that all rational men and woman are obligated to think?

Nope, never said it or hinted at that.

Okay, so then he is agreeing that those who say that private citizens buying and selling bazookas is unreasonable and immoral are able in turn to make philosophically and politically sound arguments? They are rational given their initial assumptions no less so than he is rational given his?

He is not an objectivist here?

then, again, I did say...

"self-defense is not only permissible but mebbe obligatory"

....now, what could I have meant by that?

Can you pull your puzzle pieces together and offer an answer, bubba?

How many of us here would argue that it is not rational or not moral for one to defend oneself? Hell, that's built right into our genes...the survival instinct.

But where's the gene that pins down that bazookas are an inherent, necessary component of that?

Nope, down through the ages, when it comes to the ever evolving and changing relationship between the government and its citizens in regard to what weapons are permitted to be used in order to defend oneself, there have been any number of different historical and cultural and interpersonal moral narratives and political agendas.

And still today we are confronted with those on both sides -- all sides -- of the issue able to make reasonable arguments merely by construing the human condition itself from conflicted perspectives.

Again, the main distinction that I make here is between those who insist that you are either "one of us" [the righteous] or "one of them" [the wicked]. And the manner in which I root individual value judgements in dasein more so than in any "wise" philosophical conclusions/resolutions.

And, re this thread, the role that God and religion play in bringing into existence and then sustaining one's morality.

[henry quirk]

then he is agreeing that those who say that private citizens buying and selling bazookas is unreasonable and immoral are able in turn to make philosophically and politically sound arguments?

No, bubba. It's about preference. Jack likes anchovies on his pie, Leon doesn't. Neither Jack or Leon is unreasonable or immoral, they have individual preferences.

It's what you do with anchovies (force others to eat 'em, deprive others of 'em) that takes us into realm of what's reasonable and moral.

It's unreasonable and immoral for Jack to force Leon to eat anchovies; it's unreasonable and immoral for Leon to deprive jack of anchovies. It would be unreasonable and immoral for me to force you to own a bazooka; it would be unreasonable and immoral for you to deprive me of my bazooka.

Get it?

Five bucks sez no, you don't get it.

Let's ground it in what is, then...

I don't, at the moment, own a bazooka: I own a shotgun. You believe, becuz some folks, don't like guns, that mebbe my ownership of a shotgun is sumthin' those folks ought to have a say in.

I don't find their distaste for guns unreasonable or immoral. I do find their desire to take my gun sketchy. They're contemplatin' theft. And they're contemplatin' theft becuz of what I might do, not becuz of what I've done.

Get the difference?

Anywho, as this relates to the actual matter: is there an ethic all men can subscribe to? Yes, there is.

I'll respect your life, liberty, and property; you'll respect my life, liberty, and property.

Reasonable, moral, minimal.

[iambiguous]

then he is agreeing that those who say that private citizens buying and selling bazookas is unreasonable and immoral are able in turn to make philosophically and politically sound arguments?

No, bubba. It's about preference. Jack likes anchovies on his pie, Leon doesn't. Neither Jack or Leon is unreasonable or immoral, they have individual preference.

It's what you do with anchovies (force others to eat 'em, deprive others of 'em) that takes us into realm of what's reasonable and moral.

Well, this doesn't surprise me.

The incredible shrinking exchange.

I've been precipitating them with the objectivists among us now for years.

Another notch on my bazooka let's call it.

From bazookas to anchovies?

Meanwhile out in the real world the battles go on between those who want to own the bazookas and those who want even the handguns taken away.

Reasonable arguments from both sides given a selective set of initial assumptions about the "human condition".

Start with the individual or "the people"? Start with capitalism or socialism? Start with genes or memes? Start with materialism or idealism? Start with determinsim or free will?

Or, sure, start with "preferences".

Then the part where I root individual preferences in dasein and the objectivists root them in Gods and religions, or ideologies, or political dogmas, or moral obligations, or deontology, or in Nature.

There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of moral and political and spiritual objectivists out there. But: Only one frame of mind [if any] can be the optimal path. But without exception they all claim that it is their own.

Then this part:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

The "psychology of objectivism" I call it.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[henry quirk]

Nope, didn't get it...may not be capable of gettin' it.

Anywho, as all this falderal relates to the actual matter: is there an ethic all men can subscribe to? Yes, there is.

I'll respect your life, liberty, and property; you'll respect my life, liberty, and property.

Reasonable, moral, minimal.

It works for anchovie-lovers and -haters, for the pro- and anti-bazookaneers, for moral realists and fractured nihilists, for everyone.

[iambiguous]

Nope, didn't get it...may not be capable of gettin' it.

Anywho, as all this falderal relates to the actual matter: is there an ethic all men can subscribe to? Yes, there is.

I'll respect your life, liberty, and property; you'll respect my life, liberty, and property.

Reasonable, moral, minimal.

It works for anchovie-lovers and -haters, for the pro- and anti-bazookaneers, for moral realists and fractured nihilists, for everyone.

You're beat my friend. At least have the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to it.

Just one more notch in the belt for me.

I'd recommend that you move on to others. Why take the chance that I might succeed in deconstructing your own precious Self; as I have with so many other objectivists over the years.

Starting with my own I might add.

Next...

[henry quirk]

You're beat my friend.

Nope.

Why take the chance that I might succeed in deconstructing your own precious Self

Deconstruct away, bubba: I ain't goin' nowhere.

[iambiguous]

You're beat my friend.

Nope.

Why take the chance that I might succeed in deconstructing your own precious Self

Deconstruct away, bubba: I ain't goin' nowhere.

Not much further this exchange can shrink, right?

And I don't doubt he will take his own -- No God? -- Libertarian philosophy to the grave. He strikes me as particularly fanatical about it. He has so much invested in it emotionally -- re the "psychology of objectivism" above -- the comfort and consolation it provides in allowing him to always be right about everything is just too much to bear if lost.

And, again, I know this because I was once an objectivist myself. First as a Christian. Then as a Marxist. It took the longest time for me to detach myself from the peace of mind that being an objectivist provides. After all, even if in any particular instance you lose this or that battle you still get to fall back on the belief that at least you were on the right side.

And I truly do wish to bump into someone -- God or No God -- that might manage to convince me there really is a way to look at myself in the world around us given an overarching purpose and meaning again.

Preferably God because that way it carries over into immortality and salvation on the other side.

So, sure, to all of the objectivists here, given it your best shot.

By all means, "save me".

[RCSaunders]

They do promote it as incorruptible none changing. A standard to be trusted and invested in. Bitcoin could be perceived as pure, like pure gold and the bitcoin could be perceived as incorruptible. Whereas the value of something like gold or cash can change and or be corrupted. Some may hold bitcoin as pure and treat it like its sacred, clean, and pure. Hence treated as a god or treated like a highly valued religious object is treated. Which can be observed as religious.

i agree it seems to be a scam, but if it caught on and became the international standard for currency. trade would be like some of the Sci-Fi's one sees and gov would have full control of every transaction except for trading object for object.

one must remember, I do believe it in the early 1900's it was illegal in the US to sell insurance. now, you can't fart without it being insured.

Bitcoin, and all the other, "electronic," versions, are not money at all. Real money is an instrument or means of storing and trading real goods and services and it's objective value is determined by the actual material products it represents, and its market value is determined by how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Fiat money (created by banks and governments) has no objective value (does not represent any actual goods or services), and only has market value based on how much faith the market has in the promises of governments that print it and how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Electronic money does not exist at all except as so many numbers stored on computers, has no objective value (because it is not backed by anything), it's market value detemined mostly on the basis of GFT, aka, "the greater fool theory," that is, the belief that whatever one invests in bitcoin will increase in value because some greater fool will be willing to pay more for it. It is the same principle the value of antiques, most art, and collectibles are determined by.

It's not a scam. It is, in many ways like stocks and bonds for those who invest in such things ignorantly. It is gambling. Only the house always wins.

sure, its true that nothing is worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it, but the agreed units of measure is the standard. Which could be the US dollar, gold, and in the future bitcoin. no different then a greed use of feet and miles, or agreed use of meters and klicks. they're not physical objects but yet they are applied to the object of interest. the meter doesn't change value, hence a bitcoin could be used in the same way.

You are confusing unit of measure with monetary value. Every dollar is a dollar and ten dimes are always a dollar, but the value of the dollar (or dimes) is determined by what you can buy with them. The dime you could buy a loaf of bread with a year ago but today takes a dollar (ten dimes) is the same monetary unit (1 tenth of a dollar), but it's value is only one tenth of what it was a year ago.

When a bitcoin unit sells at a higher price its actual value (purchasing power) is reduced. [It's a little more complicated than that because money has that mix of objective value (real goods and services it can be exchanged for) and market value, (because money itself is a commodity). So it depends on what bitcoin will ultimately be used to buy: more money or actual goods and services. As a rule of thumb, the more money you can by with bitcoin the less real goods and services you can buy with it because its value is inflated. In actual markets one does not always follow the other directly--but in time always will.]

[DPMartin]

Bitcoin, and all the other, "electronic," versions, are not money at all. Real money is an instrument or means of storing and trading real goods and services and it's objective value is determined by the actual material products it represents, and its market value is determined by how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Fiat money (created by banks and governments) has no objective value (does not represent any actual goods or services), and only has market value based on how much faith the market has in the promises of governments that print it and how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Electronic money does not exist at all except as so many numbers stored on computers, has no objective value (because it is not backed by anything), it's market value detemined mostly on the basis of GFT, aka, "the greater fool theory," that is, the belief that whatever one invests in bitcoin will increase in value because some greater fool will be willing to pay more for it. It is the same principle the value of antiques, most art, and collectibles are determined by.

It's not a scam. It is, in many ways like stocks and bonds for those who invest in such things ignorantly. It is gambling. Only the house always wins.

sure, its true that nothing is worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it, but the agreed units of measure is the standard. Which could be the US dollar, gold, and in the future bitcoin. no different then a greed use of feet and miles, or agreed use of meters and klicks. they're not physical objects but yet they are applied to the object of interest. the meter doesn't change value, hence a bitcoin could be used in the same way.

You are confusing unit of measure with monetary value. Every dollar is a dollar and ten dimes are always a dollar, but the value of the dollar (or dimes) is determined by what you can buy with them. The dime you could buy a loaf of bread with a year ago but today takes a dollar (ten dimes) is the same monetary unit (1 tenth of a dollar), but it's value is only one tenth of what it was a year ago.

When a bitcoin unit sells at a higher price its actual value (purchasing power) is reduced. [It's a little more complicated than that because money has that mix of objective value (real goods and services it can be exchanged for) and market value, (because money itself is a commodity). So it depends on what bitcoin will ultimately be used to buy: more money or actual goods and services. As a rule of thumb, the more money you can by with bitcoin the less real goods and services you can buy with it because its value is inflated. In actual markets one does not always follow the other directly--but in time always will.]

hence the bitcoin can do the same job as the dollar or any other international monetary standard, and one can store an endless amount can't they? and in you example its the value of the bread that changed, the dollar still takes ten times to make a dollar, no matter how many dollars it takes to buy a loaf of bread.

i do know what the monetary system is and what is meant by "dollar value", but the reality is, how many dollars to pay for.

[henry quirk]

"save me"

Not me, bubba. All I'm obligated to do is respect your life, liberty, and property, and defend myself when you don't respect mine.

[RCSaunders]

sure, its true that nothing is worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it, but the agreed units of measure is the standard. Which could be the US dollar, gold, and in the future bitcoin. no different then a greed use of feet and miles, or agreed use of meters and klicks. they're not physical objects but yet they are applied to the object of interest. the meter doesn't change value, hence a bitcoin could be used in the same way.

You are confusing unit of measure with monetary value. Every dollar is a dollar and ten dimes are always a dollar, but the value of the dollar (or dimes) is determined by what you can buy with them. The dime you could buy a loaf of bread with a year ago but today takes a dollar (ten dimes) is the same monetary unit (1 tenth of a dollar), but it's value is only one tenth of what it was a year ago.

When a bitcoin unit sells at a higher price its actual value (purchasing power) is reduced. [It's a little more complicated than that because money has that mix of objective value (real goods and services it can be exchanged for) and market value, (because money itself is a commodity). So it depends on what bitcoin will ultimately be used to buy: more money or actual goods and services. As a rule of thumb, the more money you can by with bitcoin the less real goods and services you can buy with it because its value is inflated. In actual markets one does not always follow the other directly--but in time always will.]

hence the bitcoin can do the same job as the dollar or any other international monetary standard, and one can store an endless amount can't they? and in you example its the value of the bread that changed, the dollar still takes ten times to make a dollar, no matter how many dollars it takes to buy a loaf of bread.

i do know what the monetary system is and what is meant by "dollar value", but the reality is, how many dollars to pay for.

Oh well. If I were a con man, you'd be one of the first I'd look up. Good luck. You're going to need it.

You mght like to look at this: "Dismal Economics."

[henry quirk]

I might succeed in deconstructing your own precious Self

So, when do we get started?

[iambiguous]

"save me"

Not me, bubba. All I'm obligated to do is respect your life, liberty, and property, and defend myself when you don't respect mine.

Right, like we haven't been going back and forth above relating our own conflicting moral philosophies in regard to "life, liberty, and property". And while we both seem to overlap in regard to the part that assumes a God, the God does not exist, I still construe your Libertarian philosophy as just another secular rendition of religion. My philosophy however situates Libertarianism itself squarely within the subjective, problematic parameters of dasein rooted out in the particular world that we live in historically, culturally and experientially.

All we can do here is to note moral and political conflicts other than abortions and bazookas. New issues in which we attempt to convey our respective points of view. I have in fact invited you to choose one yourself.

Instead, you simply ignore all of this...

And I don't doubt he will take his own -- No God? -- Libertarian philosophy to the grave. He strikes me as particularly fanatical about it. He has so much invested in it emotionally -- re the "psychology of objectivism" above -- the comfort and consolation it provides in allowing him to always be right about everything is just too much to bear if lost.

And, again, I know this because I was once an objectivist myself. First as a Christian. Then as a Marxist. It took the longest time for me to detach myself from the peace of mind that being an objectivist provides. After all, even if in any particular instance you lose this or that battle you still get to fall back on the belief that at least you were on the right side.

...and focus entirely on the largely tongue-in-cheek "save me".

But: my aim here is to take discussions of what we believe morally and politically more in the direction of how and why, given the life we lived, we came to embrace one set of prejudices rather than another. Libertarianism [like nihilism] is just one of many, many, many moral and political philosophies "out there" that we as individuals might come to champion and defend.

The bottom line however always remains the same: They can't all be right. But to an "ism" those like you utterly insist that their own dogmas are indeed the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

Which then takes me back to the "psychology of objectivism" above. And the more those of your fulminating fanatic ilk go there the greater the likelihood that you own Precious Self is threatened.

On the other hand, I readily acknowledge that my own conclusions here are not exempt from my own point of view. Instead, I'm merely interested in those who might be able to convince me that moral nihilism [in a presumed No God world] is in fact not a reasonable frame of mind at all.

Given a particular context.

[henry quirk]

we haven't been going back and forth above relating our own conflicting moral philosophies in regard to "life, liberty, and property"

No, we haven't. You've been drivin' around, showin' off your Datsun, ignorin' pretty much everything I post ('cept where it allows you to hawk your wares).

Bottomline: I gave you what you claimed you were lookin' for, you don't like it, you turn away.

meh...it is what it is.

Now: I want you to follow thru with your lil threat to deconstruct me.

I have in fact invited you to choose one yourself.

Not at first, you didn't. And: I did choose one. You ignored it too. It didn't/doesn't, I guess, fit in the trunk of your Datsun.

Instead, you simply ignore all of this...

self-aggrandizement

...and focus entirely on the largely tongue-in-cheek "save me".

I ignored the self-aggrandizement beuz it's nuthin' but self-aggrandizement.

As for your save me: that there is probably the only honest thing you've posted in-forum, Bubba.

Now: let's get to the deconstructin'.

[promethean75]

All this is rooted in Datsun tho. Each one of you expresses his own Datsun's trajectory... the direction your Datsun has been going since you've been driving it.

The only thing you have in common is that you're each driving a Datsun, and very, very little about the Datsuns is the same.