|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Look at this way, if a man has genetics, nutrition, but no contact with a single iota of another aspect of humanity, what does his intellect look like? And don't use words, because he won't have them.
You don't think in words. Anyway is there a point to this ridiculous hypothetical? It's probably true that such a man would have no notion of morality but that's only because morality is a system of rules for behaviour between humans and since our feral child has never encountered another individual he could scarcely be expected to develop it.
|
On December 23 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:51 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Genetics, nutrition, access to a good library? Is your question germane to our discussion? Genetics and nutrition aid in the upkeep of and the capacity for an intellect, but they do not "start" the process of knowledge seeking. Who do you suppose writes the books in the library? Look at this way, if a man has genetics, nutrition, but no contact with a single iota of another aspect of humanity, what does his intellect look like? And don't use words, because he won't have them.
How can someone be born and survive without being raised by another human?
|
I find it hilarious that people actually think that owning guns enables them to stand up to an oppressive government.
If you assume that such an oppressive government doesn't get stopped by the safeguards in your constitution it would still have to be backed by the military. Now in that absurd scenario I'm sure that the US military would pee their pants when faced with the combined might of overweight, untrained citizens waving their pistols and guns about.
I've got news for you: it's the 21st century. When the government is coming for your rights/freedom/liberty whatever you want to call it, it doesn't send soldiers. All it needs is a tv station. See: patriot act.
|
On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things.
Not by thinking, but by feeling as they are biological in origin. And he is also mostly correct as the biological core needs socialization to actually work properly.
|
No state behaves well towards it's citizens. All states systematically loot and pillage their population. Now you make the claim that "Many non-state actors in history caused atrocities on the scale of states. Rebels, trade organizations, companies, you name it".
Well go on then.... I'm waiting. A few examples, por favor?
|
On December 23 2012 03:58 Jormundr wrote:
You would be better served by actually making your point instead of strawmanning me.
Try reading The Ethics of Identity by Appiah before making ridiculous claims about a universal, and yet by some fancy magic, purely individualist morality. [/QUOTE]
Morality is objective. Obviously it's not universal, since there are immoral and amoral people. But it's objective. Right and wrong exist regardless of what you, or all of society but me say.
|
On December 23 2012 04:01 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things. Not by thinking, but by feeling as they are biological in origin. And he is also mostly correct as the biological core needs socialization to actually work properly.
Socialization does not require government.
|
On December 23 2012 04:02 TerribleNoobling wrote:
No state behaves well towards it's citizens. All states systematically loot and pillage their population. Now you make the claim that "Many non-state actors in history caused atrocities on the scale of states. Rebels, trade organizations, companies, you name it".
Well go on then.... I'm waiting. A few examples, por favor?
Enron.
|
On December 23 2012 04:03 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:58 Jormundr wrote:On December 23 2012 ?? ? TerribleNoobling deleted this quote tag:You would be better served by actually making your point instead of strawmanning me. Try reading The Ethics of Identity by Appiah before making ridiculous claims about a universal, and yet by some fancy magic, purely individualist morality. Morality is objective. Obviously it's not universal, since there are immoral and amoral people. But it's objective. Right and wrong exist regardless of what you, or all of society but me say.
Would you say that stealing is wrong?
|
On December 23 2012 04:00 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:51 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Genetics, nutrition, access to a good library? Is your question germane to our discussion? Genetics and nutrition aid in the upkeep of and the capacity for an intellect, but they do not "start" the process of knowledge seeking. Who do you suppose writes the books in the library? Look at this way, if a man has genetics, nutrition, but no contact with a single iota of another aspect of humanity, what does his intellect look like? And don't use words, because he won't have them. How can someone be born and survive without being raised by another human?
Well that is precisely my point. The very nature of our birth itself depends on the actions of another human, and our survival follows accordingly, at least for the first 5 or so years. And in those 5 years, a young human picks up an enormous amount of information from observing their parent figures, from speaking patterns to eating habits to how to talk to and treat others. This process of reflective learning continues throughout life, with practically every facet of knowledge we have being intextricably linked to the thoughts, ideas, or actions of others. Sure, we have instincts, but morality is not one of them, at least not entirely. We may go off certain "feelings" of right and wrong, but those feelings are never created in a vacuum, and are instead brought about by a complex confluence of emotion, intellect, and memory. To suppose that any brand of "morality" exists in a vacuum, even a natural one. is to consider the story of the human who exists without others a true one.
|
Yes, stealing is wrong. And comparing a little... whatever it was, fraud probably, to the murder of hundreds of thousands of individuals is a little far fetched wouldn't you say?
|
On December 23 2012 04:00 Monsen wrote:
I find it hilarious that people actually think that owning guns enables them to stand up to an oppressive government.
If you assume that such an oppressive government doesn't get stopped by the safeguards in your constitution it would still have to be backed by the military. Now in that absurd scenario I'm sure that the US military would pee their pants when faced with the combined might of overweight, untrained citizens waving their pistols and guns about.
I've got news for you: it's the 21st century. When the government is coming for your rights/freedom/liberty whatever you want to call it, it doesn't send soldiers. All it needs is a tv station. See: patriot act.
The Patriot Act was passed and is, mostly, still in effect despite media controversy and even changing party control in Washington DC. President Barack Obama actually extended it a year or so ago.
|
Of course Obama extended it. He's really no different than George Bush. Policy wise they're the exact same. Pro war, pro state, anti-liberty. It just amazes me how all of a sudden because a democrat took office all of a sudden no one is concerned about civil liberties or the peace movement any more. I can't wait until a Republican takes office again so half the country can go back to pretending they are anti-war.
|
On December 23 2012 04:02 TerribleNoobling wrote:
No state behaves well towards it's citizens. All states systematically loot and pillage their population. Now you make the claim that "Many non-state actors in history caused atrocities on the scale of states. Rebels, trade organizations, companies, you name it".
Well go on then.... I'm waiting. A few examples, por favor?
Just look into any "rebel" organizations in Latin america. Colombia would be nice place to start. Narcomafias in Mexico are also good example. As for companies, lets say British East India Company would be nice example. But as I said it is proportional to the power wielded(and of course opportunity and pure chance). Thus Andorra caused less atrocities than rebels in Colombia. Switzerland probably less than East India Company.
And many states behave well towards their population. Those that represent the will of the society well, but are not easily influenced by majority to oppress minority. Contrary to what you think states are mostly just organizational structures that society uses to govern itself. It is not some magical entity that has its own will. It is sometimes easier to talk as if it is an actor with its own will, but that is to make communicating ideas easier.
|
On December 23 2012 04:08 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Yes, stealing is wrong. And comparing a little... whatever it was, fraud probably, to the murder of hundreds of thousands of individuals is a little far fetched wouldn't you say?
The invalidation of pensions equivalent to just a few hundred thousand years of human work is nothing, you're right. I guess that's why nobody who lost their pension in the scandal went on record to say that they would have rather been killed.
Oh wait.
As to your first point, from any utilitarian standpoint, stealing is not inherently wrong.
If theft is necessary to your survival, and the material stolen is not necessary to the survival of its original owner, then that transaction creates a net positive. (Positive+Neutral)
|
On December 23 2012 04:04 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 04:01 mcc wrote:On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things. Not by thinking, but by feeling as they are biological in origin. And he is also mostly correct as the biological core needs socialization to actually work properly. Socialization does not require government.
Did I say it does ?
|
On December 23 2012 04:08 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Yes, stealing is wrong. And comparing a little... whatever it was, fraud probably, to the murder of hundreds of thousands of individuals is a little far fetched wouldn't you say?
You are walking straight into a "But what if you were stealing as the ultimate last resort to avoid children from dying, would it still be wrong?"
Morals are neither universal, nor objective - philosophers have been struggling with the objective morals for years and I honestly doubt it will really ever be "solved".
|
Rebel groups, engaged in a struggle to control the state apparatus, are really just competing states. The key definition of a state is an organization with a monopoly on violence and arbitrage in a certain geographic region - this certainly fits with territory under rebel control. I don't dispute that there are private criminals, individuals that do bad things - but they don't hold a candle to the organized crime that is the state. Narcomafia's practice retail violence; the state is the wholesaler. You are naming organizations but not events. When were the atrocities, on the scale of Mao's murder of tens of millions during the great leap forward? of the tens of millions imprisoned and worked to death in Soviet Gulags, or simply murdered by the NKVD or KGB for criticizing or being accused of criticizing the state? When did the East India Company ever do anything that remotely compared to what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia?
All states systematically loot and pillage the society's they rule. They force people to buy things they don't want. They are disastrous to the economy, with their never ending rules and regulations and taxes. They enrich the politically powerful at the expense of those who are not powerful. The only good state is a dead state.
|
On December 23 2012 04:13 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 04:04 Vegetarian wrote:On December 23 2012 04:01 mcc wrote:On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things. Not by thinking, but by feeling as they are biological in origin. And he is also mostly correct as the biological core needs socialization to actually work properly. Socialization does not require government. Did I say it does ?
I guess you only said that he was mostly correct, but farvacola seemed to be under the delusion that absent a government people can not know what is right or wrong.
|
Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy is useless because you cannot predict the impact of an action, since effects are also causes and we're not omniscient. Since it cannot advise you on how to act - which is the point of morality - there is no point in considering this approach.
Stealing is always wrong. Property is owned by individuals. It is an act of aggression to take another's property without their consent. Simply because someone benefits more than another is harmed is no justification for aggression - and this line of reasoning implies that any and all acts of forced redistribution from rich to poor is justified (i.e. you have laid the moral groundwork for a hobbesian war of all against all). After all, there is generally a diminishing marginal utility to anything, money included (that is to say you would value the first $1 you have more than the 1001st dollar you have) and you can create a net positive any time you robbed anyone richer than yourself!
As to your first point, from any utilitarian standpoint, stealing is not inherently wrong.
If theft is necessary to your survival, and the material stolen is not necessary to the survival of its original owner, then that transaction creates a net positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
