|
|
| Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' (1444092) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1444509) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 22:19:51 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:12 2017. It still doesn't with regard to the land thing. And it also doesn't prevent backdoor violations of the fifteenth amendment. Like permanently disenfranchising felons in Florida. |
|
|
| (1444510) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:24:52 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 22:16:58 2017. It's also a misunderstanding of the rule itself. The 3/5 compromise didn't say that a slave is 0.6 people. It said that in presidential contests, a non-enslaving white man gets 1 vote, a slaver gets 1.6 votes and a slave gets no say at all. |
|
|
| (1444511) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:27:38 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 22:19:51 2017. It's over 200 years old and hasn't received a meaningful update in about 150 years. That the country functions at all is a small miracle; that it's a neo-feudal oligarchy is hardly a surprise. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1444519) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 25 23:38:41 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:27:38 2017. I agree with you. |
|
|
| (1444558) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 08:26:25 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:20 2017. If rights transcend governments but don't arise from morality, where do they come from?They are divinely ordered. Such is the only way in which they do not change with the times. Even the most essential rights you can think of and the most basic tenets of "basic morality" can be changed with enough revolution and popular opinion shifts. I'm not sure what you mean "in a vacuum." You would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." Everyone else on the planet would probably assert: "I don't want to be shot." The best way for each person to guarantee they don't get shot is to impose (and enforce) a universal rule of "no shooting," so we say that "no shooting" is a basic moral rule. So morality to you is just a matter of what is found practical given the current climate? So that would be all changeable then, right? There could conceivably arise a situation in which many/most people want to be shot. Would that change "morality?" And at what point would the change be made? Nothing arises out of the vacuum; working for the good of a group that works for the good of the people working for the good of the group is a basic social dynamic that tends to produce the best outcome for the entire group. Now here morality for you is based strictly on outcome (ends). The goal is a "better group." This again implies that the world is oscillating between absolute good and absolute evil. These terms demand clarification. You determine for yourself what you perceive as gain or harm to yourself. Well yeah, perceptions, but I mean. . .how about reality? They tell you (what is good or bad for them). And who told them? I'm not saying people should not be able to stand up for themselves against the government, but this question needs to be asked if we are to reach any greater understanding of "basic morality." However, a system that provides the greatest gain overall statistically benefits everyone; as such, everyone has reason to uphold that system. Even when it acts against your interest, the cost of that harm is always less than the cost of tearing down a system that's to your benefit overall. This is not mathematically sound. A system providing the greatest statistical gain still leaves plenty of room for significant amounts of people to be hurt overall by it. Are you advocating utilitarianism? That a system of rules exist such that following the rules produces the greatest overall gain for those who follow the rules is a fact. That a person seeking to maximise their personal gain would benefit from the implementation and enforcement of that system is a fact. The first, yes. The second, not necessarily. So if you don't seek to craft rules as close to the perfect system as humanly possible, and ensure widespread enforcement of those rules while remaining constantly vigilant for proposed changes that would make the rules closer to perfection than they already are, then either (a) you're irrational, (b) you're mistaken on a question of fact, or (c) you don't want the things you want, or have confused notions of what you want. I basically agree. |
|
|
| (1444562) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 09:26:10 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 08:26:25 2017. They are divinely ordered.That's just factually untrue. You can't build a moral system on a falsehood. Such is the only way in which they do not change with the times. Even the most essential rights you can think of and the most basic tenets of "basic morality" can be changed with enough revolution and popular opinion shifts. On the contrary; the unchanging will of God changes with every revolution, every generation, even every fad, while the existence of people's fundamental desires tend to be fairly universal. So morality to you is just a matter of what is found practical given the current climate? So that would be all changeable then, right? Just the opposite. That no one wants to be shot is a constant; that a universal no-shooting rule is the best way to fulfill this universal desire is a constant; as such, "do not shoot" is a constant no matter the climate. Depending on what happens, violations of that rule may become commonplace but they will never become right. There could conceivably arise a situation in which many/most people want to be shot. Would that change "morality?" And at what point would the change be made? A situation in which everybody wants to be shot seems a bit absurd. If this absurd situation did arise, it would not change the fundamental moral calculations but it would change their outcome. Which is to be expected. Autonomy is paramount; you have the right to decide what you want, and what you want is the basis for determining whether you gain or lose through an action. A normal person is harmed by being killed, but a terminally ill person may actually desire a quick and painless death in which case that person would gain by being killed. Morality evaluates gains and harms where a "gain" is when you get your way and a "harm" is when you don't. The underlying rules that evaluate gains and harms don't change, but if a person's desires change then what constitutes a "gain" or a "harm" for them changes too. So if we posit an absurd scenario in which most people genuinely want to be shot, then in that scenario the "no shooting" rule won't apply— not because the rules of morality have changed but because the rules of morality are a function whose input has changed. Now here morality for you is based strictly on outcome (ends). The goal is a "better group." Not necessarily. That each of us wants what we want is sort of a given; humans have desires. That each of us takes action to pursue our desired ends is also sort of a given; humans have always pursued their goals and doubtless always will. Morality is a tool for achieving our goals. More specifically, morality arises out of the recognition that (1) agreeing to a system of universal rules can facilitate your ability to achieve your own goals overall even when the system stands in the way of those goals by diminishing conflict with other people pursuing their goals, (2) if the system can be modified to increase the extent to which people achieve their goals in general, it will result in a statistical gain in the odds that you personally will achieve your own goals, and (3) the incentives to maintain the system provided by (1) and (2) apply to everyone, which means the system is sustainable; everyone has reason to agree to it and reason to maintain it. The goal isn't a "better group." At its core, morality is selfish— which means that people can support it out of self-interest. This again implies that the world is oscillating between absolute good and absolute evil. These terms demand clarification. They're your terms. What do you mean by "absolute good" and "absolute evil?" Well yeah, perceptions, but I mean. . .how about reality? What you desire is subjective and can only be determined by you. And who told them? I'm not saying people should not be able to stand up for themselves against the government, but this question needs to be asked if we are to reach any greater understanding of "basic morality." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your goals are yours; nobody but you can possibly decide what you want. You know what makes you happy or miserable; you know what you enjoy or find unpleasant; you know what kinds of experiences and sensations you want and don't want, and you can choose your goals accordingly. You can even choose goals that will make you miserable, because you desire misery, or feel you deserve misery, or are simply confused about what makes you happy. That's not within the domain of morality, however; morality asks what you want, but doesn't care why you want it. Self-inflicted misery is not a moral issue. This is not mathematically sound. A system providing the greatest statistical gain still leaves plenty of room for significant amounts of people to be hurt overall by it. Yes, but what are they going to do? The system which produces the least harm creates the smallest group of outcasts trying to tear it down. Most (if not all) of the people "hurt" by a perfect moral system would be hurt more by any other system, so if they're rational they wouldn't even try to tear it down. Are you advocating utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a distant cousin which shares a few fundamental building blocks, but it's not the same thing. I'd think of morality as more akin to traffic control at an extremely complicated intersection. Each car would rather go than yield and rather yield than crash. However, if each car tried to go, most would crash. The problem is entirely practical in nature— there exists a ruleset that, if followed, would produce zero crashes and an aggregate minimum of yielding. If the ruleset were proposed, each car would have reason to agree to it because each would say: "Statistically, this outcome is better for me than any other outcome would have been." If the ruleset were enacted, no car would have reason to break it because violations are incredibly likely to result in the violating car crashing. Yes, some cars will be forced to yield while another ruleset would have allowed them to go, but they'd still agree to the "perfect" ruleset because the one that lets them go is unattainable— only the perfect ruleset can legitimately achieve the universal assent needed to be enforceable. Human interactions have far more complexity than any intersection, the range of our desires is much greater than a simple hierarchy of three possible actions, specific desires vary between individuals and over time, and morality must be vigilant of cheating, but it's still a fundamentally practical problem. The first, yes. The second, not necessarily. The system which produces the best aggregate outcome for its members is statistically better for each person to join. You may still lose, but no other system will give you better odds. And a system which is imperfect for your sake is unlikely to garner the universal support it needs to be meaningful. |
|
|
| (1444576) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Jul 26 09:44:59 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Tue Jul 25 22:09:17 2017. There has occasionally been a case where someone was acquitted on self-defense grounds after shooting at police. The most prominent one I know of involved a guy named Larry Davis. But such verdicts are extremely rare. With regard to crooked politicians, the best-known case is the so-called "Battle of Athens [Tennessee]" (Google it).Actually, I don't really want everyone walking around with a gun either. But the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, like it or not. And I don't want the precedent set that the Bill of Rights can be weakened by a new Amendment. If they can do it to the Second, they could do it to the First. |
|
|
| (1444591) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 10:16:45 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Jul 26 09:44:59 2017. There has occasionally been a case where someone was acquitted on self-defense grounds after shooting at police. The most prominent one I know of involved a guy named Larry Davis. But such verdicts are extremely rare.Then you concede that guns are useless as a tool for opposing corrupt governments. Actually, I don't really want everyone walking around with a gun either. Good. Then I suppose you agree that there is no right to own a gun. But the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, like it or not. 1. The Constitution has no bearing on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights transcend governments; a piece of paper can't abolish them or create new ones. 2. The Second Amendment doesn't actually establish a right to own guns; that was the product of activist judges misreading the amendment to legislate from the bench. And I don't want the precedent set that the Bill of Rights can be weakened by a new Amendment. If they can do it to the Second, they could do it to the First. That's a somewhat bizarre concern. There is already a precedent of constitutional "rights" being weakened by new amendments— the 13th Amendment abolished the "right" to own slaves which had been enshrined in the body of the constitution itself. It didn't weaken any of the real rights. There is also a precedent of the Bill of Rights being weakened by activist judges "interpreting" them as not really meaning anything; already the Fourth has been effectively repealed by court rulings that a single FISA rubber stamp can justify wiretapping the entire planet, and the Fifth and Sixth have been effectively repealed by court rulings that the government can imprison, torture, and kill anyone at the President's discretion. (Merrick Garland was one of the judges responsible for that mess— and Obummer wanted to put him on the Supreme Court!) In fact, even your precious First Amendment is gone— because if the government can lock you up forever at their sole discretion, all other rights become meaningless. Manning was imprisoned and tortured for exercising her First Amendment rights; Snowden is a refugee who was essentially exiled under threat of being arrested for same. That amending the constitution to remove "rights" that were never legitimate in the first place might result in the loss of important freedoms that are already long gone is a bit odd. |
|
|
| (1444636) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 12:45:49 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 09:26:10 2017. That's just factually untrue.Proof, please. Or revise to something like "That has not been substantiated or shown." On the contrary; the unchanging will of God changes with every revolution, every generation, even every fad Agreed as apparent when it comes to religion to the extent that it sells itself to the times. people's fundamental desires tend to be fairly universal. Agreed. But why is it that constant universal desires should automatically be "blessed" via rights? In effect, they're not. Nobody wants to go to prison, and yet some go. There are benefits to others when one goes to prison. So nobody wants to be shot. . .you still have not indicated why one should not be shot, objectively speaking, since there almost always stands someone to benefit, however indirectly, from the loss of another's life. what you want is the basis for determining whether you gain or lose through an action Yes, if what you want is indeed good for you, ok (there's no guarantee of that by the way). But that still doesn't tell me that it's good for a select population to gain. And if we don't know that, then we don't know if overall "gain" is even a good thing because it's defined by you or whoever labels it gain. You don't want felons to gain. Or those who hurt society in not-so-obvious ways. At its core, morality is selfish— which means that people can support it out of self-interest. Or resist it, or manipulate it, out of self-interest. Selfism is always a dead end. morality asks what you want So then there are billions of different moralities, really. Now if you use the term "basic morality" to describe what those 8 billion agree to, you will not come up with much. Maybe you can squeak in the idea of no shooting for the sake of not being shot, but there are instances in which one actually may need to shoot in order to avoid being shot. Now what? They're your terms. What do you mean by "absolute good" and "absolute evil?" You're looking to make the world "better." (If not, why bother with this whole enterprise?) That means you're looking to approach some "goodness" mark, or some type of perfection. What would that be? How would we know if we're getting there, or further away? You can't go by majority happiness (since minority unhappiness may outweigh it), you can't even go on greater overall happiness at a given time becuase human happiness at any given moment is not reflective of whether future human unhappiness will outweigh that, or even if other species' happiness should be taken into account. One needs a definite end. What is that? If there is none, we're wasting time with the whole thing. Most (if not all) of the people "hurt" by a perfect moral system would be hurt more by any other system, so if they're rational they wouldn't even try to tear it down. Again, not necessarily. Those people may hurt others by challenging the system to help themselves. That doesn't necessarily make it bad for them and it can be a quite rational decision for them to preserve their own happiness (since selfism is key in your philosophy anyway) even at the expense of others' happiness. Humanity has been doing this all through history. . .we may say it's wrong, but your system has not explained why or how. I'd think of morality as more akin to traffic control at an extremely complicated intersection Ok, but then how do you decide who goes first, or who gets the longer "green" phase of the cycle? Isn't this a picturesque version of utilitarianism? Yes, you want a "fair" cycle so that it is enforceable and most people will agree to it, but this tells me nothing about how rights transcend governments. It just tells me that governments should look at what people will agree to in their respective territories and then decide what rights are good just based off that so they won't be constant lawbreakers -- in which case those rights can vary over time and do not transcend the government. a system which is imperfect for your sake is unlikely to garner the universal support it needs to be meaningful. Right, this is a drawback to a person in the minority trying to assert his/her will on a greater number of people, and so probably a waste of time. So do rights come from the government or do they transcend it? If in a given territory circumstances exist such that a right recognized elsewhere is not seen as practical (by an overwhelming majority of the people), does that mean that that government should not recognize that right? |
|
|
| (1444665) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 14:26:44 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 12:45:49 2017. Proof, please. Or revise to something like "That has not been substantiated or shown."Linguistic nitpick. It's an absurd claim with no evidence; "that has not been substantiated or shown" is just a euphemistic way of saying: "It's factually untrue." Agreed. But why is it that constant universal desires should automatically be "blessed" via rights? Because everyone wants them. If every single member of a group reaches a unanimous decision on something that doesn't affect any outsiders, why shouldn't the group follow the unanimous decision? In effect, they're not. Nobody wants to go to prison, and yet some go. There are benefits to others when one goes to prison. Until every human on the planet has perfectly compatible desires, there will always be people who don't get their way. Morality seeks to minimise that, knowing it can never be eliminated. So nobody wants to be shot. . .you still have not indicated why one should not be shot, objectively speaking What does that mean? If everyone decides they don't want to be shot, that unanimous agreement is an objective fact. If a no-shooting rule guarantees everyone's desire to not be shot will be fulfilled, then that's an objective fact. If every rational person would agree to that rule, knowing that they forfeit their right to shoot others and perceiving that loss as worthwhile to attain the benefit of not being shot, then that agreement is an objective fact and a moral rule is cemented. since there almost always stands someone to benefit, however indirectly, from the loss of another's life. And again, morality doesn't mean everyone always gets what they want. It means that in general, the extent to which people don't get what they want is at minimum. Shootings are invariably negative sum; the benefit to the shooter is always smaller than the cost to the victim. As such, forfeiting the right to shoot in exchange for the right to not be shot is a good deal. Yes, if what you want is indeed good for you, ok (there's no guarantee of that by the way). As I noted before, getting what you want can make you miserable. However, that's not a moral concern— morality isn't about an abstract "greater good," it's about traffic control— who gets their way when people's desires conflict? Morality only considers what you want; whether getting that is good for you is your own problem. But that still doesn't tell me that it's good for a select population to gain. And if we don't know that, then we don't know if overall "gain" is even a good thing because it's defined by you or whoever labels it gain. Again, morality is about traffic control. The traffic control system is concerned with preventing crashes and minimising the number of times a car must yield; where the cars are ultimately going and whether they'll enjoy being there is not really within its purview. Similarly, morality is about minimising the extent to which a person finds their desires subordinated to those of another person— and, by extension, maximising the extent to which you get your way. Whether getting your way will make you happy is your own problem; morality take your expressed desires into consideration but has no need to ask why you express those particular desires. You don't want felons to gain. Or those who hurt society in not-so-obvious ways. Well, actually... One of the big concerns for morality is cheating. A moral system can only stand if people obey it en masse, and people can only be counted on to obey it if the benefit of doing so is greater than the cost. As such, moral systems are vulnerable to cheaters; people who break the rules while benefitting from other people's compliance. If cheaters can claim a free ride, the entire system will collapse, so any moral system must impose a heavy cost on cheating. That said, violating the rules of morality doesn't necessarily preclude you from gaining. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "felons or those who hurt society.") It does mean, however, that you'll need to face a penalty sufficient to discourage cheating by other people. Or resist it, or manipulate it, out of self-interest. Selfism is always a dead end. On the contrary. Selfishness is a given. Any moral system predicated on the assumption that people will act purely selflessly is a dead end. That's just human nature; we can't change it, so morality must adapt around it. Luckily, altruism is selfish. Most "selfless" actions are actually within the self-interest of the person performing them. Morality arises out of selfishness. So then there are billions of different moralities, really. Now if you use the term "basic morality" to describe what those 8 billion agree to, you will not come up with much. Maybe you can squeak in the idea of no shooting for the sake of not being shot, but there are instances in which one actually may need to shoot in order to avoid being shot. Now what? There are billions of different sets of desires. There is one optimal moral system that guarantees desires are filled to the maximum extent possible. There are countless inferior moral systems, some closer to the optimal one than others. Morality is not limited to the desires that are themselves purely universal; its goal is to minimise the extent to which one person's desires must yield to another's. If the optimum system were made available to us, we'd all know it would deny us our wishes at least some of the time— but we'd also know that no other system would deny us our wishes less often. Since the optimal system isn't available, we're stuck with an inferior version, groping towards the optimal form but never actually reaching it. However, the same principle applies. You're looking to make the world "better." (If not, why bother with this whole enterprise?) I'm looking to get what I want. And the best way to do that is to impose a set of rules such that people get what they want to the maximum extent possible. No other system could get me closer to my goal of getting what I want. That means you're looking to approach some "goodness" mark, or some type of perfection. What would that be? "Perfection" is the state in which the number of times someone has to yield to someone else's desires is as low as it can be given the conflicting nature of human desires. You can't go by majority happiness (since minority unhappiness may outweigh it), you can't even go on greater overall happiness at a given time becuase human happiness at any given moment is not reflective of whether future human unhappiness will outweigh that, or even if other species' happiness should be taken into account. "Happiness" isn't the relevant criterion— getting your way is. After all, it is your responsibility to choose your goals such that achieving them will make you happy. Different people weight different desires differently, but pretty much everyone places the greatest value on autonomy, which largely precludes the utilitarian minority problem— we all agree that respect for our autonomy is vital, so oppression is always a negative sum game and thus precluded as not in the aggregate interest. Since past and future desires can never come into conflict, morality will never be called upon to resolve such a conflict. As for the desires of other species— I noted above that cheaters can quickly destroy a moral system. This is because a moral system can only function if the cost of obeying its rules is outweighed by the benefit of other people's obedience; a free rider who gains the benefit without paying the cost creates an incentive for others to ride for free, which eliminates any benefit, which destroys the incentive to participate, which destroys the system. A moral system can only function if it excludes free riders. As such, while moral consideration is not specific to humans per se, it is limited to people who can understand, accept, and obey its rules. We have not yet found any other species who can do so, though some might be worth partial consideration. Again, not necessarily. Those people may hurt others by challenging the system to help themselves. That doesn't necessarily make it bad for them and it can be a quite rational decision for them to preserve their own happiness (since selfism is key in your philosophy anyway) even at the expense of others' happiness. Humanity has been doing this all through history. . .we may say it's wrong, but your system has not explained why or how. All through history, humans have tried to get ahead at others' expense. And all through history, humans have gone out of their way to punish cheaters who profit at the expense of others. With limited success, admittedly, but the drive is practically instinctive. If you're proposing those "harmed" by a system will try to cheat it, see my examples above; moral systems need to be resilient against cheaters. If you're proposing they night tear down the system entirely, then that's irrational— however much they're "harmed," they're still guaranteed to be worse off with anything else. Ok, but then how do you decide who goes first, or who gets the longer "green" phase of the cycle? Again, the goal is to minimise yielding and eliminate crashes. Which ruleset does that is a practical problem; a question of fact, with one answer that is objectively true for everyone. Yes, you want a "fair" cycle so that it is enforceable and most people will agree to it, but this tells me nothing about how rights transcend governments. If Ruleset A produces zero crashes and 12 yields, and it is logically impossible for any ruleset to produce zero crashes and 11 or fewer yields, then Ruleset A is optimal and every rational driver will support it. That's a fact and will be true no matter what any government decrees. Since Ruleset A and the process that establishes it is the morality of our simple traffic-based analogy system, that proves morality transcends government. Real-life morality is more complicated of course, but the same principle applies. It just tells me that governments should look at what people will agree to in their respective territories and then decide what rights are good just based off that so they won't be constant lawbreakers -- in which case those rights can vary over time and do not transcend the government. That's really just a fancy way of saying that governments should look to morality to establish which rights should be enshrined in law— or, in other words, that morality transcends government. So do rights come from the government or do they transcend it? If in a given territory circumstances exist such that a right recognized elsewhere is not seen as practical (by an overwhelming majority of the people), does that mean that that government should not recognize that right? Morality transcends government. Rights derive from morality. As such, rights transcend government as well. However, while morality is by its nature universal, rights are a tool to facilitate morality which means they may change slightly with circumstances. Most fundamental rights won't change much under most circumstances, but extreme circumstances may create exceptions. Just for example— the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. Humans really can't function without some degree of privacy, so we all want it. But suppose a hurricane sweeps through and a large crowd find themselves in a shelter where privacy is functionally unattainable. In that case, the right to privacy is temporarily suspended simply because it's impossible to fulfill. Remember, morality is about resolving conflicts between the desires of different people; it can't provide a remedy for someone whose desires are rendered physically impossible to achieve. Even a universal desire of the sort that gives rise to a fundamental right must sometimes yield to intractable physical reality. However, no government suspension of the moral right to privacy is valid— if the government removes the legal right to privacy under circumstances that violate the moral right to it, then the government is in violation of morality and should be corrected. |
|
|
| (1444720) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 21:08:52 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 14:26:44 2017. So we have completely different goals.I actually agree with your claim that there is always an optimal solution to minimize yields, even if hard to pinpoint. But when you label that morality, I could not help but be unsatisfied since the dictionary definitions of morality that I have been looking through don't mention anything about "getting most people what they want" or anything even close to that. Of course, you and others may tell me "The dictionary has no authority" and maybe that's true, but what was I supposed to do - mind-read your definition of morality? When I hear "morality," I think more of what is objectively right. For you, all that seems objectively right is for governments to locate the perfect "ruleset" for the traffic circle, not to actually make sure that the entire operation of the traffic circle to begin with is actually good for the world. And that may very well be beyond the purview of governments in general (otherwise we risk losing the look of democracy and fast), but then that can simply be a testimony of the limits of any government. "Helping people get what they want" without reflection on whether or not that's any good for them is exactly what leads to government corruption (the government official carries his/her inherited selfism into office) and even the great tragedies of history (those who helped Hitler were helping themselves by keeping him happy). It is not necessarily good for the world for people to get what they want. And since I identify morals with conduct that is objectively good for the world, I hold that any transcendental list of such conduct requires a definition, or at least elaboration, of ultimate, objective goodness. Take quickly your murder case. Yes, between the two parties it's an overall loss since one lost his/her entire life. But there are more than those two people in the world. Was the murder good, overall, for the world? Unanswerable without further info. Once again, I do not condone murder, but my opposition of murder is not philosophically sustainable based only on your systems. |
|
|
| (1444724) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 21:51:28 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 26 21:08:52 2017. So we have completely different goals.Luckily, morality can accommodate that! :D But when you label that morality, I could not help but be unsatisfied since the dictionary definitions of morality that I have been looking through don't mention anything about "getting most people what they want" or anything even close to that. From my dictionary, it just says morality is about the distinction between right and wrong behaviour; the dictionary hardly comments on why a particular behaviour is right or wrong. When I hear "morality," I think more of what is objectively right. What do you mean by "objectively right?" For you, all that seems objectively right is for governments to locate the perfect "ruleset" for the traffic circle, not to actually make sure that the entire operation of the traffic circle to begin with is actually good for the world. In the traffic control metaphor, the traffic circle is "the world." The whole point of the metaphor is that it contrives a simple "world" to explain principles that can be universally applied. Mind you, it's not governments that are searching for the perfect ruleset; people are. An update to make the ruleset more perfect requires at least supermajority assent, and when it occurs, governments adopt it for the simple reason that any democratic government will pass a law with near-unanimous support. "Helping people get what they want" without reflection on whether or not that's any good for them is exactly what leads to government corruption (the government official carries his/her inherited selfism into office) and even the great tragedies of history (those who helped Hitler were helping themselves by keeping him happy). You misunderstand. It's about helping people in aggregate get what they want, not each individual person pursuing their own desires. In fact, the whole point is that a rational person would willingly yield their desires to maintain a system that grants their desires more than the alternative and eagerly tear down a corrupt system that privileges certain individuals (eg, those in government). Each person submits their desires for consideration by a system which tries to ensure that as many desires as possible are granted. Which desires you submit for consideration are up to you; if they don't make you happy, that's your problem. Similarly, in the traffic circle, each car submits its destination for consideration by the control system which aims to get it there as quickly as possible and without regard for whether it's happy to be going there. It is not necessarily good for the world for people to get what they want. What does that mean? If you found yourself alone in a world with no other people, where your actions could never affect anyone but yourself, would anything you do be considered morally good or bad? And since I identify morals with conduct that is objectively good for the world, I hold that any transcendental list of such conduct requires a definition, or at least elaboration, of ultimate, objective goodness. What does "objective goodness" even mean? Under your view of "objective goodness," is it possible for an action that doesn't affect any other people to be good or bad? Take quickly your murder case. Yes, between the two parties it's an overall loss since one lost his/her entire life. But there are more than those two people in the world. Was the murder good, overall, for the world? Unanswerable without further info. Once again, I do not condone murder, but my opposition of murder is not philosophically sustainable based only on your systems. If by murder, you mean killing, then yes there are a tiny handful of rare circumstances under which it would be tolerable. However, opposing murder is still sustainable under this system— if murder is allowed, then you might be murdered, so you have an incentive to keep it banned. Everyone else shares that incentive, so all rational people will agree to ban it. Except, of course, under the incredibly rare circumstances where the alternative is worse. |
|
|
| (1444765) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jul 27 08:00:35 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Wed Jul 26 21:51:28 2017. From my dictionary, it just says morality is about the distinction between right and wrong behaviour; the dictionary hardly comments on why a particular behaviour is right or wrong.Right, because it doesn't know why. It appeals to no authority on that. But not knowing why it is right or wrong to do something does not change the fact that it is right or wrong. This is still far from "getting people what they want." What do you mean by "objectively right?" What is the right thing to do: the right thing, independent of popular opinion, animalistic desire, selfish wish. . .that there is a right thing to do and it should be done. For example, you seem to be of the opinion that it is the right thing to set up your traffic system if it can be ascertained as the optimal one for minimizing not getting people what they want. That seems to be what you think is objectively right. I do not necessarily agree. In the traffic control metaphor, the traffic circle is "the world." The whole point of the metaphor is that it contrives a simple "world" to explain principles that can be universally applied. Then the metaphor fails. I do not think of the world merely as a bunch of random people trying to get their way. And even if that's all the world was, there is no baseless transcendental reason why anyone should be trying to help these people get their way (keeping order and helping me try to get my own way being ultimately meaningless affairs). An update to make the ruleset more perfect requires at least supermajority assent, and when it occurs, governments adopt it for the simple reason that any democratic government will pass a law with near-unanimous support. Again here you are talking about practicality for governments. People change opinions and so the government follows suit. But what if people's opinions are wrong (bad) and the government knows it? Wouldn't it be the role of any conscientious governor to put a halt on things? In that case the government is acting on its own accord, not according to the "transcendental." By "transcendental" do you just mean "what people want?" Because that would be another source of difficulty in our mutual comprehension. In fact, the whole point is that a rational person would willingly yield their desires to maintain a system that grants their desires more than the alternative and eagerly tear down a corrupt system that privileges certain individuals (eg, those in government). So? Does this have anything to do with rights being transcendental? Or morality being transcendental? I'm aware of the history of revolutions against government. Are you saying that people in aggregate getting what they want equals those transcendental rights? That would basically be your opinion, that the transcendental rights are strictly meant to get people what they want, even if what people want in aggregate is bad for them? This is far from the definition of "right and wrong" I'm accustomed to in morality, but more just "keeping the government respectable" which has nothing to do with morality. If you found yourself alone in a world with no other people, where your actions could never affect anyone but yourself, would anything you do be considered morally good or bad? Yes. Morality transcends governments. Morality transcends me too. This is our breakdown point in conversation. All you are worried about is people getting what they want. I concern myself with much more than that because I know that people can very well land in better places (and I'm not even talking about afterlife) by not getting what they want. Someone all by himself in the world can look back a few hours and say "I should have done x while I was at y because x would have been the right thing to do back there. . ." that would be a moral statement, even though nobody else was involved. What does "objective goodness" even mean? Under your view of "objective goodness," is it possible for an action that doesn't affect any other people to be good or bad? I argue that the vast majority of actions done in the world affect other people, even if nobody witnesses to them. When you act, your own behavior patterns can and often do become modified by virtue of your own actions. You then become a different person when next exposed to someone else, thus having an effect on them, positive or negative. This is how fads develop, for example, or things once thought horrible become tolerable in society so quickly. The only way I can see your scenario developing is if I really am the last person in the world. In this case, my conduct will only affect myself, if this world is all there is. I would have to be sure that there are no future people who it could affect. And still, yes, I could be making life as a whole (even if I'm the only one around) better, objectively, or worse, objectively, through each of my actions. My actions have objective "rightness" and "wrongness" even then - it's just that I'm the only one who stands to benefit / suffer from the world's movement toward or away from objective goodness. Except, of course, under the incredibly rare circumstances where the alternative is worse. So what would those circumstances be? Even one such circumstance means that murder is only "relatively" bad, which implies that I need to back up my opposition to murder with other explanations regarding when murder is good and I can't just let it stand on its own. |
|
|
| (1444780) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Jul 27 09:53:42 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jul 27 08:00:35 2017. What is the right thing to do: the right thing, independent of popular opinion, animalistic desire, selfish wish. . .that there is a right thing to do and it should be done. For example, you seem to be of the opinion that it is the right thing to set up your traffic system if it can be ascertained as the optimal one for minimizing not getting people what they want. That seems to be what you think is objectively right. I do not necessarily agree.Well, in the simple "world" of the traffic system, what greater good could anyone aspire to? Remember, the "world" consists of nothing but a group of cars with conflicting routes and destinations who would rather go than yield and rather yield than crash. Then the metaphor fails. I do not think of the world merely as a bunch of random people trying to get their way. There are people. Each has desires. Each wants to see their desires fulfilled. The desires conflict, so it's impossible for everyone to see their desires fulfilled. Fulfillment is not all-or-nothing; any degree of fulfillment is more desired than any smaller degree. There may be more to the world than that, but that's the part of the world morality is concerned with. And even if that's all the world was, there is no baseless transcendental reason why anyone should be trying to help these people get their way (keeping order and helping me try to get my own way being ultimately meaningless affairs). We are these people. You have desires you want to see fulfilled. I have desires I want to see fulfilled. Morality can help us do that by creating a system in which rules exist to optimise the extent to which the desires of people (and thus, by extension, you and me) are fulfilled. Again here you are talking about practicality for governments. People change opinions and so the government follows suit. But what if people's opinions are wrong (bad) and the government knows it? What do you mean by "if people's opinions are wrong/bad?" Your desires are your own, and are fundamentally subjective; your wanting something is neither good nor bad. That desire is one of many considered by a moral system which can declare an action you take to fulfill that desire to be good or bad, but the desire itself is neither. By "transcendental" do you just mean "what people want?" Because that would be another source of difficulty in our mutual comprehension. There exists a perfect ruleset that maximises the extent to which our desires are fulfilled. If this ruleset were known, all rational people would agree to it. If a rule change were proposed that would get our existing ruleset closer to the perfect one, all rational people would agree to it. These rules, which all rational people would agree to, exist independently of governments. Governments can comply with those rules or violate them, but they can't declare them void or nonexistent or lacking the properties they plainly have. That's what I mean by the rules transcending governments— because if the rules say killing is wrong and a government says killing is right, then the government is wrong because it did a thing the rules say are wrong. So? Does this have anything to do with rights being transcendental? I'm not sure what you mean by "transcendental." I said that rights transcend governments— that is, rights are a product of morality, which governments are subject to and have no ability to change. However, you seem to be using "transcendental" is a vaguely religious sense. The point I made about a rational person yielding some desires to uphold the system that fulfills their desires more than the alternative is that a rational person would tear down an immoral government, which means a government can be immoral, which means a government is judged by morality and subject to its rules, not in a position to decree them. Are you saying that people in aggregate getting what they want equals those transcendental rights? Not quite; rights are an expression of shared interest. I have a right to X because everyone universally wants X, and thus any rational person would agree to a rule guaranteeing X for everyone as the most reliable way of securing X for themselves. That would basically be your opinion, that the transcendental rights are strictly meant to get people what they want, even if what people want in aggregate is bad for them? "What people want in the aggregate" doesn't refer to a single collective desire; if I want the room to be either pink or blue and hate green, you want the room to be either blue or yellow and hate pink, Alice wants the room to be either blue or green and hates yellow, Bob wants the room to be either pink or yellow and hates green, and Carol wants the room to be either blue or white and hates red, then painting the room blue means that in aggregate, the maximum number of people get what they want. Bob's not happy, but in aggregate we've got the best possible outcome. Since there's no single collective desire, it's impossible for such a thing to be bad for anyone. Individual desires can be bad for the individual, but only the individual can make that call— who but me can tell me that getting my desire to make the room blue is bad for me? Yes. Morality transcends governments. Morality transcends me too. This is our breakdown point in conversation. On the contrary. Morality transcends all of us. I think the breakdown point is that you're appealing to some objective good that's entirely independent of humanity, but failing to define what that may be. All you are worried about is people getting what they want. Everyone wants what they want by definition. Everyone will pursue what they want by human nature. Morality must accommodate because neither of those things is going to change. I concern myself with much more than that because I know that people can very well land in better places (and I'm not even talking about afterlife) by not getting what they want. It's true that getting your desires fulfilled might make things worse for you and you'd be better off if they weren't. The trouble is that nobody on the planet can tell you that your desires should be unfulfilled for your own good. Autonomy is paramount; anyone who can act on their own behalf wants to, and there are basically no circumstances where denial of autonomy can be desirable. Or in other words, getting what you want might not make you happy, but it will make you happier than any meaningful alternative. Someone all by himself in the world can look back a few hours and say "I should have done x while I was at y because x would have been the right thing to do back there. . ." that would be a moral statement, even though nobody else was involved. I don't agree that's a moral statement. If you take east path and walk for several hours before realising you're going the wrong way, you can regret your decision and lament that you should have taken the west path because it would have been the right thing to do, but you're not talking about morality; you're just talking about your own desires and what would have fulfilled them. An act counterproductive to getting what you want, taken in error, might make you unhappy, but it's not immoral. Morality by its nature is about interpersonal relations. You need at least two people involved before a decision can be moral or immoral. I argue that the vast majority of actions done in the world affect other people, even if nobody witnesses to them. That may be true, but I'm trying to get a sense of your underlying beliefs about what morality is. If you think an action that cannot possibly affect other people can still be immoral, then you're working off a very different definition of the term. And still, yes, I could be making life as a whole (even if I'm the only one around) better, objectively, or worse, objectively, through each of my actions. My actions have objective "rightness" and "wrongness" even then - it's just that I'm the only one who stands to benefit / suffer from the world's movement toward or away from objective goodness. Well, that's the thing. In that example, where you are the only inhabitant of a private planet and your actions can never possibly affect any other person, what does it mean to make your life "objectively better" or "objectively worse?" How is it measured? If an "objectively better" life is one that you, personally, find happier or more fulfilling, then it's true that your actions can make your life better or worse, but I wouldn't say that's an issue of morality. If an "objectively better" life is one that conforms to some external standard, then where does that standard come from? Who is expecting you to conform to it? Why are you expected to conform to it? |
|
|
| (1444788) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jul 27 10:45:40 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Thu Jul 27 09:53:42 2017. Yes, in the past I have been accused of being wordy . . .SMILE Mike |
|
|
| (1445032) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jul 28 13:39:57 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Thu Jul 27 09:53:42 2017. Oh, if only I had the time to type more. :( But thank you for the intellectual engagement.Well, in the simple "world" of the traffic system, what greater good could anyone aspire to? I don't live exclusively in that world. The traffic system has roads leading to and from. Traffic can be stopped earlier on before reaching it if a particular desire is found to be disordered, taking strain off the traffic system. This also means that even the optimal system found for the traffic circle may not be the overall optimal situation for life, because the traffic circle can be patterned differently if there are less conflicts, or more destinations closer to each other instead of in all opposite directions. Yes, this takes a forming/re-forming of humanity, but ultimately could end up the most efficient thing for all! Easier said than done, of course. Main Point: Just keeping the traffic system optimal does not necessary equal everything being optimal. Optimal would be no traffic system necessary. You're just settling for validating everyone's desires because you know they wouldn't like you if you didn't do that. Morality does not need to be liked for it to still exist. that's the part of the world morality is concerned with. I disagree. Why must morality be concerned strictly with desires? That is your definition, and not equivalent to the "right" and "wrong" language of the dictionary. Put another way, why must "right" and "wrong always be based on what people want? Is it just to gain respect for the system. . .that is, is it just that you are sacrificing the optimal for the limited optimal that exists when everyone's desires are treated equally (before arriving at the intersection)? I think the breakdown point is that you're appealing to some objective good that's entirely independent of humanity, but failing to define what that may be. I don't need to because I am not making any positive claim. I am criticizing the idea that "basic morality" and "basic rights" "just exist" in a cloud for governments to reach up and find, or even in the middle of a crowd of people and their desires for governments to sift through. There is no reason for me to believe this and I think one who asserts it should defend it instead of just expecting everyone to accept it on authority. you're not talking about morality; you're just talking about your own desires and what would have fulfilled them. So wait - morality is no longer about (an attempt at) fulfilling the desires of the population (in this case, just me)? What is it for then? I'm trying to get a sense of your underlying beliefs about what morality is. If you think an action that cannot possibly affect other people can still be immoral, then you're working off a very different definition of the term. I stated that I believe morality and rights are divinely ordered. I have neither the time or energy here to substantiate that claim and I admit that. I thus do not impose it on you or anyone for immediate acceptance. what does it mean to make your life "objectively better" or "objectively worse?" How is it measured? Getting closer to the divine will, which purifies our desires to the extent that we have a level of happiness that what we thought we wanted would never have obtained for us. Same disclaimer here as above - no imposition, just telling you what I think. We can probably clarify a whole lot between us if I understand you just on this point: Do you consider morality itself an objective good? Because if it isn't, then there's no objective reason for me to follow it or support it. I can do so if I'm in the mood, but there's no good reason. If it is, then you are declaring the wants of humanity, exclusively, to inform morality, which means that morality will always be changing with the wants. No human desire is permanent, not even the desire to live life as we know it. Is that what you are saying, that "rights" can switch in and out of being fundamentally moral? |
|
|
| (1445066) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 18:11:56 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jul 28 13:39:57 2017. Main Point: Just keeping the traffic system optimal does not necessary equal everything being optimal.Except it does. The whole point of the analogy is that the traffic system is everything; there is nothing but the traffic system in existence. Because the traffic system is a metaphor to describe morality. Morality is applicable universally (and thus incredibly complex), which is exactly why I invented a tiny and simple world with a correspondingly tiny and simple universal morality to help explain the principle. I disagree. Why must morality be concerned strictly with desires? That is your definition, and not equivalent to the "right" and "wrong" language of the dictionary. Put another way, why must "right" and "wrong always be based on what people want? The dictionary doesn't explain what "right" and "wrong" are in a moral context, but morality is concerned with desires because those are the fundamental drivers of human behaviour. If some higher calling exists, only those who desire it will pursue it, and those who don't desire it will not feel their lives diminished by its absence. If morality is going to impose rules on human behaviour, it needs to account for what drives human behaviour at an incredibly immediate level. A moral system that can't survive contact with human nature isn't much use. Is it just to gain respect for the system. . .that is, is it just that you are sacrificing the optimal for the limited optimal that exists when everyone's desires are treated equally (before arriving at the intersection)? Well that's actually a very important issue right there. A moral system will always require buy-in. There's no external authority to enforce moral rules, which means a moral system can only work on a largely-voluntary basis; it doesn't require literally every person on the planet to agree to it, but it requires a large enough supermajority that the handful of holdouts are forced into going along lest they be cut off completely. (Remember, there can be no free riders; a lone holdout who opts out of morality is in turn denied the benefits of moral consideration.) So the "limited optimal" that arises when people get their way most of the time is as optimal as we're going to get. A system that grants everyone's desires is impossible, and a system that appeals to some non-universal higher purpose will never get enough buy-in to function. I don't need to because I am not making any positive claim. I am criticizing the idea that "basic morality" and "basic rights" "just exist" in a cloud for governments to reach up and find, or even in the middle of a crowd of people and their desires for governments to sift through. I've already made the case for this before. You have desires. You want them fulfilled. However, they conflict with other people's desires, and other people will likely deny you the chance to fulfill them much of the time. However, a particular set of rules which reduce fighting and encourage cooperation can guarantee that people, as a whole, get their way more often than any other system would allow. You, personally, stand to benefit (statistically) from that system, and have a strong incentive to see it implemented. Everyone else has the exact same incentive. Since everyone wants to see the system implemented, the rational choice is to implement the system. Under that system, certain things are guaranteed to you by the rules such that it is never legitimate to deprive you of those things. You may object to calling the system "morality" (basic or otherwise) and the things it guarantees you "rights" (basic or otherwise) but that's the definition I've used. The rule is established; it's legitimacy is established, so what it's called is hardly relevant. There is no reason for me to believe this and I think one who asserts it should defend it instead of just expecting everyone to accept it on authority. Except you're doing exactly that; you want everyone to accept morality on your authority. So wait - morality is no longer about (an attempt at) fulfilling the desires of the population (in this case, just me)? What is it for then? In this case, you are the population; there is no one else. Fulfilling your desires is the same thing as fulfilling the desires of the planet's lone human inhabitant. That said, morality exists to mediate between people with conflicting desires. A single person whose actions cannot possibly affect anyone else poses no issues for morality to consider in the same way that a single car in an otherwise-empty traffic circle poses no issues for the traffic control system to consider (other than the trivial "do as you wish"). I stated that I believe morality and rights are divinely ordered. I have neither the time or energy here to substantiate that claim and I admit that. I thus do not impose it on you or anyone for immediate acceptance. It's fair that you don't want to sidetrack (or drag on) this thread, but I can't help but ask... If you believe morality is divinely ordered, presumably you feel God has laid out the rules for us. Can I get the rules directly from God? If I must get the rules from some other source, can I ask God to authenticate them? Even if God personally vouches that I have the correct copy of the rules, why should I accept them? You yourself denigrate the idea of accepting a moral system on authority. Getting closer to the divine will, which purifies our desires to the extent that we have a level of happiness that what we thought we wanted would never have obtained for us. I don't think that's physically possible. Desires are a function of extensive brain activity, all of which is connected with feedback from external responses. It isn't really possible to alter the mechanisms that generate desires— nor is it possible to alter the mechanisms of happiness. It also sounds really skeevy. Be very wary of those who tell you they know better than you what will make you happy; by those very words, they ask to deny you autonomy. We can probably clarify a whole lot between us if I understand you just on this point: Do you consider morality itself an objective good? Well, it depends on what you mean by "objective good." If you mean happiness, (which you seem to imply; it's why we should pursue divine will in your example), then essentially yes. Happiness is, we seem to agree, an objective good. We don't know exactly how to attain it, but the best method we have is to fulfill our desires. We can't do that exactly, but the best method we have is contingent on morality. So morality is necessary (but not sufficient) to get as close to true happiness as possible given physical limitations that cannot possibly be surmounted. Not necessarily "an objective good," but at least an indispensable part of one. Because if it isn't, then there's no objective reason for me to follow it or support it. I can do so if I'm in the mood, but there's no good reason. That's just it— morality is fundamentally selfish. It may not be elegant, but appealing to self-interest tends to be far more effective than any other means. If you want things and morality gives you the best shot at them, that is an objective reason to support it. And if you're not in the mood to accept a moral system? The people who did accept it can force your hand by making life as a lone holdout intolerable. If it is, then you are declaring the wants of humanity, exclusively, to inform morality, which means that morality will always be changing with the wants. No human desire is permanent, not even the desire to live life as we know it. Morality is constant because morality is the function that transforms a list of desires into a list of outcomes and prescribed behaviours. Yes, its outcomes change with desires, but isn't that desirable? Humanity is not static; any system which we participate in needs to be able to change with us. In the traffic example, if most cars want to get to Exit A, the traffic control system might forbid the use of Tunnel 7 on the grounds that it would clog everything up. If, just an hour later, most cars wanted to get to Exit B, the traffic control system might advise any car bound for Exit B to use Tunnel 7, but ban the use of Service Road 9 which cuts across the Exit B ramp. The outcome has changed, but the traffic control system itself does not— and the change in outcome facilitates the goal of moving traffic smoothly given the change in traffic patterns. Is that what you are saying, that "rights" can switch in and out of being fundamentally moral? Well, some human desires are rather thoroughly entrenched. The desire for autonomy, the desire for survival while healthy, the desire to avoid pain and oppression and deprivation, have been with us since we existed and will never go away. Rights arise from these universals. The rights don't change because the universals don't either. |
|
|
| (1445089) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jul 28 21:07:11 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 18:11:56 2017. The whole point of the analogy is that the traffic system is everything; there is nothing but the traffic system in existence.So the traffic system processes zero cars per time-unit, because the system is all that exists, leaving no room for the cars' existence. Such a system has no application. You cannot ignore the question of the origins and destinations of the cars, which are necessarily outside the system. a moral system can only work on a largely-voluntary basis; it doesn't require literally every person on the planet to agree to it, but it requires a large enough supermajority that the handful of holdouts are forced into going along lest they be cut off completely. Right, this is all to make a moral system "work" in the sense of gain basic respect by its adherents, but not at all to prove that we "should" have this moral system, or that the system is the "right" one. morality exists to mediate between people with conflicting desires As defined by you, a definition accepted by those who have no other way of understanding right and wrong. Can I get the rules directly from God? If I must get the rules from some other source, can I ask God to authenticate them? Even if God personally vouches that I have the correct copy of the rules, why should I accept them? You yourself denigrate the idea of accepting a moral system on authority. Fair questions. The rules have to be derived from recognition of the divine ordering made known by a mediation that essentially "demands" (not in the sense of being bossy, but in the sense of a sort of irresistible courtship that makes one just "know") acknowledgement and commitment. It is only such a mediation, and not a mere human person like you or I, that can pose morality authoritatively. One of our differences is that you define right or wrong as whether or not you are helping the traffic circle, which I hold does not, and cannot, be exclusively representative of the world, while I define right and wrong as whether or not my action in and of itself is an ultimately good one, in accordance with what can lead to the highest possible fulfillment, even if the traffic circle doesn't approve. Before we go any further with this, just to be clear, I do not support theocracy or the like -- please do not think that this is a political commentary. It's not. I'm stating an ideal as I see it, one that cannot be actualized by any form of government. the rational choice is to implement the system Even if so, this still would not make it the correct one. Rationalism is not a viable philosophy. If you want things and morality gives you the best shot at them, that is an objective reason to support it. It's motivation for my animalistic instinct. I don't see it as an objective reason. Another way of putting it is: is morality (as you define it) moral? And yes, this question deserves addressing. Just as rationalism is not rational, so it's quite possible (not that I say so definitively) that your moral system is itself not moral. Well, some human desires are rather thoroughly entrenched. The desire for autonomy, the desire for survival while healthy, the desire to avoid pain and oppression and deprivation, have been with us since we existed and will never go away. Rights arise from these universals. The rights don't change because the universals don't either. Still not sure I'm following. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Should we have a right to evade taxation? You may say, no, taxes are part of the system so that we can ideally gain overall by partaking in the services that the taxes pay for, but then such a cost-benefit analysis can be applied to even the more entrenched desires you mention above. Why, as you see it, should a murder, especially a painless one, not take place if a great number of other people stand to benefit from it? I would say that not paying taxes is a pretty entrenching desire. I don't expect too soon in the future anyone to say "Oh boy! Tax time! I can't wait to pay!" (discounting those getting refunds and related cases) |
|
|
| (1445093) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 21:40:13 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jul 28 21:07:11 2017. So the traffic system processes zero cars per time-unit, because the system is all that exists, leaving no room for the cars' existence. Such a system has no application. You cannot ignore the question of the origins and destinations of the cars, which are necessarily outside the system.Hardly. Just presume cars materialise at one point and desire to get to another, where they just as inexplicably vanish. It's an analogy. It explains a complex concept by way of appealing to a simple one; it doesn't need to be perfect. Right, this is all to make a moral system "work" in the sense of gain basic respect by its adherents, but not at all to prove that we "should" have this moral system, or that the system is the "right" one. A moral system that can't get buy-in will never work, and thus cannot be the "right" one. Unless you want morality to be reduced to fantasizing about the system that would be perfect if only it weren't completely impossible. As defined by you, a definition accepted by those who have no other way of understanding right and wrong. Well, morality is about right and wrong. What makes an action right? I define it by appealing to a system that everyone can support. You appear to define it by appealing to some inherent virtue external to humanity, but can't define exactly what it is or why we should accept it. Fair questions. The rules have to be derived from recognition of the divine ordering made known by a mediation that essentially "demands" (not in the sense of being bossy, but in the sense of a sort of irresistible courtship that makes one just "know") acknowledgement and commitment. It is only such a mediation, and not a mere human person like you or I, that can pose morality authoritatively. It doesn't matter exactly how the mechanism works, as long as it's objective— ie, pretty much anyone can use the mechanism and come up with exactly the same result. So. If there is a divine ordering that one can just know, authoritatively, then I'd love to learn what it is. That would be quite the breakthrough. How do I find out? What results do you expect I'll get? You may not be able to give me the answers authoritatively, such that I "just know" them, but you can tell me how to go through the process to get the answers. You can also tell me in advance what answers you got; once I've gone through the process and gotten an authoritative answer, we can compare notes. One of our differences is that you define right or wrong as whether or not you are helping the traffic circle, which I hold does not, and cannot, be exclusively representative of the world, while I define right and wrong as whether or not my action in and of itself is an ultimately good one, in accordance with what can lead to the highest possible fulfillment, even if the traffic circle doesn't approve. Again, for purposes of the metaphor, the traffic circle is a world unto itself. So this reads as: "you define right and wrong as whether or not you are helping the world, which does not and cannot be exclusively representative of the world." If you're appealing to values beyond the world itself, then what are those values? How do we learn of them? Why should we accept them? Even if so, this still would not make it the correct one. Rationalism is not a viable philosophy. Rationalism - the idea that truth can be learned purely from logic and reason without any need for empirical evidence - is absurd, yes. However, that statement doesn't rely on it. Rather, it states that given the empirical facts that certain actions will help us achieve the goals we're trying to achieve, then performing those actions is the rational thing to do. It's motivation for my animalistic instinct. I don't see it as an objective reason Then why do anything? The only reason to take any action is because you have some desire you hope that action might help you achieve. Whether the action actually helps you achieve that goal is objective; whether you continue to desire achieving that goal is entirely up to you. Another way of putting it is: is morality (as you define it) moral? That's not necessarily a meaningful question. Obeying moral rules is moral because it produces better outcomes for everyone (including yourself) but that the rules produce desired outcomes is just a fact. Facts have no moral value; they just are. Still not sure I'm following. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Should we have a right to evade taxation? Assuming a legitimate democratic government, nobody wants to pay taxes, but they would rather pay taxes than forfeit the benefits of taxation. Since you can't have the benefits without the taxes, the average rational person would rather pay taxes than not. Although under a dictatorship, it's certainly legitimate to evade taxes. Why, as you see it, should a murder, especially a painless one, not take place if a great number of other people stand to benefit from it? If you allow one murder for an ill-defined greater good, you will allow others. Many of the people who are OK with the first murder will become victims of the later murders. As such, the people who stand to gain from the first murder actually lose overall if the murder is allowed; the only way they can protect their own lives is to demand that all murder be banned even when they stand to gain from it. I would say that not paying taxes is a pretty entrenching desire. I don't expect too soon in the future anyone to say "Oh boy! Tax time! I can't wait to pay!" Again, it's a question of overall desire. The whole point of morality is based on understanding that deliberately forfeiting any chance of achieving some of your goals gets you the better outcome overall— your desire to not pay taxes is perhaps the perfect example of a lesser desire that everyone will abandon in order to achieve something they want more. |
|
|
| (1445188) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 29 21:03:05 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by Nilet on Fri Jul 28 21:40:13 2017. Just presume cars materialise at one point and desire to get to another, where they just as inexplicably vanish.Are they materializing / vanishing inside or outside of the system? It's an analogy. It explains a complex concept by way of appealing to a simple one; it doesn't need to be perfect. It would not need to be perfect if you did not say that the system represented everything in existence. But since you did, all possibilities and issues are seen as contained in it. It must address every issue because of the gravity you have assigned to it. Thus, I would like to know if the cars "appear" and "disappear" entirely within the system or if they actually approach / depart the system. A moral system that can't get buy-in will never work, and thus cannot be the "right" one. If most people rejected your traffic system analogy, maybe because most people at a given time are not sufficiently rational, would that make it the wrong one then? This is the implication I get from the need for buy-in for the system to be the right one. Unless you want morality to be reduced to fantasizing about the system that would be perfect if only it weren't completely impossible. I don't think of morality as traffic control. I don't propose any system. I think of it as guidelines for people in their decision making that are both good for them and good for the whole, because what is good for the whole is also good for them, because their individual desires are really not that important. If everyone desired what was good for the whole, there would be no traffic system. This is the ideal, and whether or not it is obtainable (actually. . .I don't think it's obtainable here) does not change the fact that it is the perfect system. . .never actualized. I think you are looking out for the good of the whole as well, hence your traffic system. As you can see, I am approaching it differently. If people don't leave their driveways, or at least leave their driveways focused sufficiently more on the good on the whole than on their own individual desires, the traffic control would become obsolete. What makes an action right? I define it by appealing to a system that everyone can support. And as you say, I don't. Everyone can easily be wrong. You appear to define it by appealing to some inherent virtue external to humanity, but can't define exactly what it is or why we should accept it. I appeal to a divinely-ordered morality. You may call it a system if you would like, but in any case it is an arrangement. I have spoken already a little about the unique type of authority involved that evokes acceptance. It doesn't matter exactly how the mechanism works, as long as it's objective— ie, pretty much anyone can use the mechanism and come up with exactly the same result. So. If there is a divine ordering that one can just know, authoritatively, then I'd love to learn what it is. That would be quite the breakthrough. How do I find out? What results do you expect I'll get? You may not be able to give me the answers authoritatively, such that I "just know" them, but you can tell me how to go through the process to get the answers. You can also tell me in advance what answers you got; once I've gone through the process and gotten an authoritative answer, we can compare notes. There is no need for it to be a mechanism, not just a mediation. There is also no need for everyone to have been exposed to it. One exposed to it, and to the extent that this person does not try to block it out when exposed, will become convinced of its authority. It integrates unto itself every truth such that one has the sense of having found Truth itself. One not yet exposed to it may seek it out, among all of the options out there (there are plenty of people / places / things in existence claiming to have authority of some kind so test each one out). In case it has not yet been obvious, I am a Roman Catholic. So as I see it, Jesus Himself is the center of the mediating form, and His Bride, the Church, continues to attest to that form. Laborious, yes, and I predict you will not be satisfied with this. Once again, I am not making any positive claim, though. Thus, I am not expecting governments to revise their constitutions to "Base everything on people who say they know the divine ordering." I'm just saying that you don't know that the correct ordering is to try to maximize people's desires. Furthermore, why I want to know if the cars approach the system from outside is that I want to know if these cars' "packages" are of equal value or not before approaching the intersection. If they are, then the "function" of morality should issue the same results. If x = y, then x' = y' (otherwise the function is a mockery of itself). If on the other hand, the cars are approaching with differently-valued packages, then you are prejudging the cars before they have arrived, labeling one as more important than the other. You seem to want to circumvent this issue by having the cars begin and end their existence in the traffic system itself. But that system is itself a function. A function requires examples of input and output for it to have any bearing on anything. You seem to just want to run the machine's motor to listen to it run. given the empirical facts that certain actions will help us achieve the goals we're trying to achieve, then performing those actions is the rational thing to do Fair enough, I was going off on a philosophical tangent. Then why do anything? The only reason to take any action is because you have some desire you hope that action might help you achieve. Yes, even I will admit that this is why I act. But that reasoning alone does not make my act objectively right. Obeying moral rules is moral because it produces better outcomes for everyone (including yourself) If the moral rules are the correct ones. Who really knows whether the outcomes are "better?" We don't because we still don't know what the best outcome is for everyone. We have no reason to think it is "everyone having their own desires met." If you allow one murder for an ill-defined greater good, you will allow others. Many of the people who are OK with the first murder will become victims of the later murders. As such, the people who stand to gain from the first murder actually lose overall if the murder is allowed; the only way they can protect their own lives is to demand that all murder be banned even when they stand to gain from it. This goes more to my objection on having a system primarily because it is a popular one. There is no reason you have given why "survival of the fittest," no matter how unpopular a system, and how chaotic it is, is not the right one. Why should we not live with unpopularity and chaos? Why should we live or not live with anything? These are the real moral questions, the "shoulds" that cannot be the "is-ness" of "facts." your desire to not pay taxes is perhaps the perfect example of a lesser desire that everyone will abandon in order to achieve something they want more. Right, and a skilled murderer should abandon the lesser desire to keep to your moral system in order to achieve something he wants more: power. |
|
|
| (1445191) | |
Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 29 21:09:52 2017, in response to Re: Editorial: ''De Blasio's Subway Follies'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 29 21:03:05 2017. Correction on my last line in the last post - it should read:"Right, then (in that case) a skilled murderer should abandon the lesser desire to keep to your moral system in order to achieve something he wants more: power." |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
