Moral Algebra

[ldsoftwaresteve]

People survive and cooperate out of self-interest, not a devotion to truth. It matters not to most people whether something is true or not, only that it is useful.

lol. How, pray tell, is something false useful?

I think we have different definitions of what truth is.

Whether it's the guy who makes the arrows or the guy who makes the bows, they'd better know which wood makes a good (valuable) product or they lose their usefulness rather quickly. That's a connection to truth. It is a correct identification of something that is useful for one's survival.

[Panjandrum]

How is something false useful? Have you not heard of religion? Or morality? Or ethics? Or law? Or politics? Or nationalism? People have been directed to fight and die, struggle and endure hardship, devote themselves wholeheartedly and without reward in the names of all these things.

 

As for your hunting analogy, what about the tribal wizard who leads the tribe in hunting dances, who treats illness by exorcising spirits, who consoles the greiving with take of the afterlife? All false, all extremely useful both for social control and to motivate people in the face of adversity.

[C1ay]

If I could demonstrate that on average, I do more of these 'moral' actions than I do immoral ones, would I be able to legitimately claim to be a moral person? If not, why not?

Not really, your moral actions make you less immoral than someone committing the same immoral actions as you, that doesn't keep up with your level of moral actions, but they don't wipe out your immoral actions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

How is something false useful? Have you not heard of religion? Or morality? Or ethics? Or law? Or politics? Or nationalism? People have been directed to fight and die, struggle and endure hardship, devote themselves wholeheartedly and without reward in the names of all these things.

 

As for your hunting analogy, what about the tribal wizard who leads the tribe in hunting dances, who treats illness by exorcising spirits, who consoles the greiving with take of the afterlife? All false, all extremely useful both for social control and to motivate people in the face of adversity.

Yes, in nightmare situations. If that were the norm, fine, anything goes but why take insanity as the norm?

 

You speak of 'directing' people. That involves 'leaders' who make cannon fodder out of the 'common man' (which I am, by the way) and that needs people who will follow blindly thinking they'll be rewarded at the end of the struggle. 'Leading' and 'controlling' people is a necessity only for those who cannot do for themselves and is the hallmark of a dictator or dictator wannabe, i.e someone that's lost contact with existence.

 

But I'm talking about the people who make the world go round, guys like me not the assholes that want to control them. Those I could give a **** about. We identify what's true and deal with existence and make the survival of all the rest possible. We plant the crops and hunt the food and build the homes and we do not need the parasites who lust to control us and take what they cannot produce themselves.

 

The mess we have is because we've screwed up morality and lifted it off the ground and think it applies to something in heaven or worse, think it is arbitrary and made up. We've bought the bullshit and the lies and misdirection that keeps us from seeing that morality is tied to our survival. And why? Duh, because the 'leaders' don't want us to see that by definition they cannot be good. And so they keep us away from all paths that can lead to the truth and ensure that humanity keeps its head up its ***. Otherwise they'd not be able to control us.

 

So go ahead and obfuscate the discussion. But know that I understand the truth. If one is moral, one is good. And unless you are good at something you and others need, you cannot be good and cannot be moral. It isn't any harder than that. But please don't claim that I need the pickpocket or the thief or defrauder or the murderer. I don't. They do not make survival possible. I don't need lies. I need truth.

[Panjandrum]

Not really, your moral actions make you less immoral than someone committing the same immoral actions as you, that doesn't keep up with your level of moral actions, but they don't wipe out your immoral actions.

 

So you would claim there is no such thing as a moral person, only more or less immoral ones?

[Panjandrum]

IdSoftwareSteve, I can see we arent gonna agree. I suggest we settle this in the traditional manner. How about a Quake 3 deathmatch?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

lol. naw, I suck at that stuff.

 

Pool, Chess, dueling banjos, maybe. :rolleyes:

 

Take care.

[IDMclean]

I agree with Panj on one part of morality, that it is an essential Social mechanism.

 

As for wheather an immoral act outweights a moral act or visa versa? Neither and both. Rather than the two being treated as same properties, they are same but different and opposed. If you do a moral act (+1 morality) and then do an immoral act (+1 immorality) the two do not mix. If you meet threshold (an arbitrary and insignificant detail at the moment) of immorality then you have crossed the line irregardless of past morality.

 

It is the fallicy of the christian dogma from my perspective. If I do X now then it makes up for Y that I did then and I will get Z reward. One does what they do and can never undo it, it is a permenant mark, not from society but from within.

 

Morality is therefore defined by me to be external in nature, not imposed by society, though influenced by society. I do what I do because it helps me sleep at night, because it makes me feel like I can continue to exist. If I didn't act "moral" then I would be immoral and that would cause me emotional distress. However I understand for someone who doesn't experience emotion that would be a completely alien concept.

 

Excepting one thing. Psychopaths and Sociopaths do infact have emotion, it's just alienated from the concious mind.

 

Also Morality does relate to truth. Being that this is all specific to the individual, the truth is what you accept. If I am not truthful with myself, then I am dishonest with others. If I am not moral within myself, then I am Immoral with others.

 

Morality is like duty, it's not for those outside of you, it's for that person inside, sleeping behind hidden eyes.

 

Duty is to one's self. It is my duty to be truthful to myself and therefore to others. It is my duty to be moral within myself and therefore to others.

 

I treat other people the way I do because I want them to treat me the same way, I am a mirror for what I wish upon others. I suspect that everyone else is this way, even if they don't conscienciously recognize it.

[Panjandrum]

I reject the view that morality is a duty out of hand. To state such is to accept slavery, and I will not allow another to infringe on my autonomy. For me, the only moral distinction that makes any sense is that actions which preserve my autonomy are moral, and those that limit it are immoral. My reason is quite simple, and stated above. In short, to limit my autonomy is to limit my capacity for moral action, and therefore to limit the maximum possible ammount of morality in the universe.

 

I agree that moral and immoral in the societal sense (that I would designate as ethics, not morals) are indeed apples and oranges. But in the sense of violations of my autonomy, they are of the same kind, tho opposite.

 

I make no reference to what is moral or immoral for others, since thier autonomy is not my concern. If I can violate them without losing out myself, then I see no logical reason not to. Since morality concerns the maintainance of my autonomy, it is not possible to perform a moral action in someone elses favour.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Well, if we're talking about Algebra here, can we state one thing that we consider true about morality? Give me an A.

[Panjandrum]

I refered to algebra to emphasis the concept of arithmetically balancing good moral actions against negative ones. Idnt intend the analogy to hold at all levels.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

So, more like moral arithmetic?

 

Do you believe that your beliefs create reality? Or do you think reality exists independent of our perception of it?

 

The reason I ask that is pretty simple. If morality exists because we say it does, that's one thing (and if I understand you, that is what you think/believe). But if morality exists independent of our knowing about it, that's entirely another. In other words, is morality part of our identity or not?

[IDMclean]

Well, when you start talking philosophy you are talking logics. Boolean reasoning then becomes prevenlant and soon enough you have yourself making binary trees to come to a conclusion.

 

I'm not sure but I believe that my assertion that duty is not to other people. One may say they have a duty to protect their country, and this may seem like a external thing, however in careful analysis one will find this to be projection. Duty starts with you. Duty ends with you. Therefore duty is internal, with influence extending to the external world, via your actions.

 

Slavery requires that you surrender your free will to another person or persons. A slave is only a slave because they allow themselves to be.

 

Oh and Idsotfwaresteve, I'll throw you an A, for Autonomy. M, for mortality. I for Immorality. D for Duty. S for Societial Stigma.

 

We know we need limits to describe our moral calculus.

 

Hypothesis: As Autonomy approaches zero Immorality approaches threshold.

Predicted affect, therefore: Low Autonomy causes for high Immorality and social degredation.

 

Alright someone else, take over and add, modify, or delete our hypothesis, variables, or properties.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Panjandrum:

I reject the view that morality is a duty out of hand. To state such is to accept slavery, and I will not allow another to infringe on my autonomy. For me, the only moral distinction that makes any sense is that actions which preserve my autonomy are moral, and those that limit it are immoral. My reason is quite simple, and stated above. In short, to limit my autonomy is to limit my capacity for moral action, and therefore to limit the maximum possible ammount of morality in the universe.

Well Pan, I actually agree with this.

Let me ask you this, do you believe there is any of you in others?

You and I are of the same kind and I see me in you. Do you see yourself in others?

Isn't it possible (assuming you do) that actions that result in the harm of others can actually harm the 'you' in them as well? Since you are 'of a kind', then it would follow that others will and can do as you do and, therefore, actually completing the cycle which was hinted at by the 'you' in them.

But I would be incorrect if you were acting 'human' and they weren't. In that case, there would be no 'you' in them.

And if you weren't acting 'human' and they were, then there wouldn't be any 'you' in them either.

So, it still gets back to what it means to be human. It still gets back to that identity, whatever it is, and whether or not that identity is made up of any pinch of morality, whatever that is.

[Panjandrum]

An interesting point. If I understand correctly, you are argueing for a sympathy-based moral system, along the lines of 'do unto others...'. It may or may not surprise you that I do not accept such a view. I am not responsible for the well-being or moral conduct of others, only of myself. I assume that this position is held by others, also.

 

People do not act out of altruism, or a desire to foster the 'greater good', but from purely selfish motives. This much is clear from even a cursory examination of history.

 

Merely because some philosophers have considered the possibility of altruism does not make such a reality at any time or place. An analogy could be drawn with conceptions of god, of which there have been a great many, and the existence of such a being, of which there has been none.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

An interesting point. If I understand correctly, you are argueing for a sympathy-based moral system, along the lines of 'do unto others...'. It may or may not surprise you that I do not accept such a view. I am not responsible for the well-being or moral conduct of others, only of myself. I assume that this position is held by others, also.

 

People do not act out of altruism, or a desire to foster the 'greater good', but from purely selfish motives. This much is clear from even a cursory examination of history.

 

Merely because some philosophers have considered the possibility of altruism does not make such a reality at any time or place. An analogy could be drawn with conceptions of god, of which there have been a great many, and the existence of such a being, of which there has been none.

I am not an altruist, quite the opposite which is why your very proud and good statement about standing alone struck a chord with me. Maintaining your 'autonomy' is how you put it. I completely agree with that but you evaded my point about the 'you' in others and Pan, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

I dislike the 'do unto others' bullshit because that sounds like if someone else is nice to me I 'owe' them something or if I am nice to someone else they owe me. I don't buy that one bit. That is NOT what I'm talking about.

I am talking about morality in the sense of it being a species imperative and you keep evading my point. I don't blame you for running from altruism.

But 'you' exist in others whether you like it or not. You are part of the species 'human' and you do need to keep that in mind.

Unfortunately, religion has stolen this idea and dropped it into the cow-pie of the golden rule and a rational look at the real basis for it has been hidden behind that sloppy statement, which, is exactly what they want to do. But as far as cons go, it was a beauty. Even you who are struggling to find a rational morality run from it. And if the key is hidden there, well...

[Panjandrum]

I dont understand in what sense you mean I am in someone else. It sounds like mysticism to me. When I look at another, I dont see something like me.

 

In fact, in my experince I am not in others, since they invariably attribute motives to me that are not applicable. This allows me to control them with them being able to subvert my autonomy. Thus I reject the idea that they have insight into me.

 

As to them in me, I dont understand this either. I predict how others will behave based on my experience, there is no 'innate' insight present. So I must also reject that position. Unless I have misunderstood your question?