Moral philosophy transplanted from Disney thread

[rkbabang]

2 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Previously you stated "When a large number of people think the same thing is correct than for that society it IS correct.  And when a large number of people think that some action is wrong, then for that society it IS wrong."

 

"Reason" can mean plenty of things. People believed slavery and eugenics was okay based on that, didn't they?

Why assume that your reason is more "correct" than college professors preaching the benefits of eugenics?

 

 

It's just my opinion vs. his.  The universe doesn't care.   A college professor can tell me what the benefit of eugenics would be, and even if he convinces me that he is correct I'll still value human freedom over utilitarianism.  But again, the universe doesn't care.

 

[Guest]

On 3/23/2023 at 8:21 PM, RichardGibbons said:

 

This one (and others that said variants and expanded on the idea. I just quote myself because....)

 

 

That said, if your actual argument is, "A morality derived from a God does not exist if a God does not exist"– which seems to be the direction in which you're now heading–then I'll agree with you, and I suspect almost everyone on this thread will be convinced.

 

I've never really understood the "morality is like math argument". For one, math is falsifiable. One can never "prove" that slavery is "wrong." If human rights are a social construct and we are just sacks of skin and bones, there is zero reason to believe slavery is "wrong"...especially considering it's been practiced around the world for centuries. 

 

Further, even if there is some rules of morality in the universe, why can we break it with ease? We cannot break the rules of math no matter how much someone wants to. Why think it "knows" more than we do?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

It's just my opinion vs. his.  The universe doesn't care.   A college professor can tell me what the benefit of eugenics would be, and even if he convinces me that he is correct I'll still value human freedom over utilitarianism.  But again, the universe doesn't care.

 

 

Would you grant that you've just been conditioned (or brain wired by chance) to value human freedom over utilitarianism? If you grew up in China, you may very well have a different value system. 

[rkbabang]

34 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Would you grant that you've just been conditioned (or brain wired by chance) to value human freedom over utilitarianism? If you grew up in China, you may very well have a different value system. 

 

Of course.   Although I have always been far more anti-authority than my surrounding culture, there is a chance I would have bucked the system and gotten myself killed.  I will never know.

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by rkbabang

[RichardGibbons]

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

 

I've never really understood the "morality is like math argument". For one, math is falsifiable. One can never "prove" that slavery is "wrong." If human rights are a social construct and we are just sacks of skin and bones, there is zero reason to believe slavery is "wrong"...especially considering it's been practiced around the world for centuries. 

 

Further, even if there is some rules of morality in the universe, why can we break it with ease? We cannot break the rules of math no matter how much someone wants to. Why think it "knows" more than we do?

 

Math isn't the absolute thing that you seem to suggest, because it includes statistics. It's unlikely you will flip a coin five times and have it always come up heads, but it's possible. And, if I give you another flip, you will not be able to predict the result of that flip more than 50% of the time, even though you probably have a pretty good understanding of the math behind the coin flip.

 

Morality is like that--if you break the rules of morality, you're increasing the probability that your society will die. The more you deviate from the rules of morality, the less likely it is that your society will continue.

In fact, there's a simple experiment you can run, that can help test these things.  Take your family, and try shoplifting. Maybe you'll be arrested. The probability of your family being destroyed by that is probably fairly low, though there is some small chance they'd take your kids away for doing this experiment.

 

Now take your family, and try having each one of you brutally torturing and murdering as many people as you can catch in your town square.  (Go ahead!  I'll wait here until you're done!)

 

From this simple experiment, I think you'll fine that the small society you've created--your family--is much less likely to survive because you've deviated from morality in a much more extreme way than simple shoplifting.

 

That said, I think most of your arguments still amount to "A morality derived from God can't exist with a God", which frankly, seems kind of pointless.

[ValueArb]

How is morality not as simple as treating others in the manner they would like to be treated, and expect them to treat you  in the manner you would like to be treated?

 

it’s hard to look to the Bible for morality when it explicitly endorses slavery and god killing babies as punishment for their parents sins. For all of the British abolitionists who were Christian, there were many more southern Christians holding up that Bible as clear justification for whipping their slaves.

Edited April 7, 2023 by ValueArb

[rkbabang]

1 minute ago, ValueArb said:

How is morality not as simple as treating others in the manner they would like to be treated, and expect them to treat you  in the manner you would like to be treated?

 

it’s hard to look to the Bible for morality when it explicitly endorses slavery and god kills babies as punishment for their parents sins. For all of the British abolitionists who were Christian, there were many more southern Christians holding up that Bible as clear justification for whipping their slaves.

 

Exactly.  And as far as I know god never said a word in support of either side.

 

[Guest]

On 3/28/2023 at 7:30 PM, RichardGibbons said:

 

Math isn't the absolute thing that you seem to suggest, because it includes statistics. It's unlikely you will flip a coin five times and have it always come up heads, but it's possible. And, if I give you another flip, you will not be able to predict the result of that flip more than 50% of the time, even though you probably have a pretty good understanding of the math behind the coin flip.

 

Morality is like that--if you break the rules of morality, you're increasing the probability that your society will die. The more you deviate from the rules of morality, the less likely it is that your society will continue.

In fact, there's a simple experiment you can run, that can help test these things.  Take your family, and try shoplifting. Maybe you'll be arrested. The probability of your family being destroyed by that is probably fairly low, though there is some small chance they'd take your kids away for doing this experiment.

 

Now take your family, and try having each one of you brutally torturing and murdering as many people as you can catch in your town square.  (Go ahead!  I'll wait here until you're done!)

 

From this simple experiment, I think you'll fine that the small society you've created--your family--is much less likely to survive because you've deviated from morality in a much more extreme way than simple shoplifting.

 

That said, I think most of your arguments still amount to "A morality derived from God can't exist with a God", which frankly, seems kind of pointless.

 

So basically your premise is that "society creates rules. if you don't play by those rules (or break them in serious ways), you'll eventually lose"? 

 

My premise goes something like that "if society creates rules, whatever (and I mean whatever) society deems as okay is okay is God doesn't exist." If society deems slavery okay, it is so. If society deems killing "x" group for the "betterment of the whole" that is okay. In other words, there is no such things are progress in a moral sense. Sure, for technology, healthcare, etc but not morally. There is no standard outside of that society on which to judge after all.

[Guest]

On 3/28/2023 at 6:07 PM, rkbabang said:

 

Of course.   Although I have always been far more anti-authority than my surrounding culture, there is a chance I would have bucked the system and gotten myself killed.  I will never know.

 

 

Yes but that's simply by chance. If your brain was wired differently, you may be more pro-authority than the surrounding culture. However, you still seems to believe your "reason" makes you correct in moral matters, right?

[rkbabang]

34 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Yes but that's simply by chance. If your brain was wired differently, you may be more pro-authority than the surrounding culture. However, you still seems to believe your "reason" makes you correct in moral matters, right?

 

I could have been 7 feet tall, I could have had red hair, I could have been gay or trans, I could have been born a lot of different ways, but I happened to have been born the way I was.   Yes, that is just random chance.  I exist and your god doesn't, so yes I think that I am more correct than your imaginary friend.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

I could have been 7 feet tall, I could have had red hair, I could have been gay or trans, I could have been born a lot of different ways, but I happened to have been born the way I was.   Yes, that is just random chance.  I exist and your god doesn't, so yes I think that I am more correct than your imaginary friend.

 

 

All I'm saying is that you "know" that slavery and taxation are "wrong" based on your "reason". I'm saying your reasoning is actually random if God doesn't exist.

 

Why trust it? There is no True Moral North, so everything is actually okay. Do you agree?

[RichardGibbons]

7 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

So basically your premise is that "society creates rules. if you don't play by those rules (or break them in serious ways), you'll eventually lose"? 

 

Nope, that isn't my premise and isn't at all close to what my premise is, though I think it's what you would like my premise to be, since you keep returning to that. You seem to really want my premise to be that people are inventing arbitrary rules.

 

My best guess at this point is that you want an argument that you can "beat" rather than actually understand the argument that the other people are making. But I feel like that's uncharacteristic of you, so maybe you just forgot the argument.

 

If you want to it be expressed as 'rules', my premise remains, "there are natural rules that exist that if your society repeatedly violates those those rules in major ways, your society will be eliminated or transformed until it once again abides by those rules." Those rules become what's known as morality.

 

Take a bowl full of plastic balls, marbles, and steel balls. Shake the bowl for a bit, and you'll find the steel balls shift to the bottom, below the glass, which is below the plastic.

 

Your argument is that the balls could only stack in layers like this because God's hand placed them there. My argument is that you just need different masses, gravity, and randomness imparted by the shaking, and the steel balls must fall to the bottom of the bowl and the plastic must rise to the top.

[Libs]

Stahleyp - taking on the atheist mob. Props for the effort (a lonely one for sure).....even though no one's gonna change their mind.

[rkbabang]

22 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

All I'm saying is that you "know" that slavery and taxation are "wrong" based on your "reason". I'm saying your reasoning is actually random if God doesn't exist.

 

Why trust it? There is no True Moral North, so everything is actually okay. Do you agree?

 

Reason isn't random.  Take a course in logic, there is nothing random about logic and reasoning.  I derive all of my moral and political beliefs from one 1st principle.  Sometimes called the Nonaggression Principle.  Basically: No one has a right to initiate force or fraud, and no one has the right to delegate the initiation of force or fraud to others.   That isn't something handed down to me by a god, I had no vision in a dark cave, I didn't find it on a golden tablet, no angel came to me with the good news.  It is just something humans made up and I think it would be a better world if everyone lived according to it.  Maybe the fact that I think like this is just some random wiring in my brain.  I could be like 99% of people and think that delegating the initiation of force to a government is just fine.   The wiring in my brain might be somewhat random, but certainly guided somewhat by genetics and evolution.  And I'm just fine with that.  I am who I am and I think the way I think.  I've changed my mind about stuff before and I may change my mind again.  There are no absolute truths.  I only like the nonaggression principle because if people obeyed it that would create a world more to my liking. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by rkbabang

[Guest]

On 4/25/2023 at 8:24 PM, RichardGibbons said:

 

Nope, that isn't my premise and isn't at all close to what my premise is, though I think it's what you would like my premise to be, since you keep returning to that. You seem to really want my premise to be that people are inventing arbitrary rules.

 

My best guess at this point is that you want an argument that you can "beat" rather than actually understand the argument that the other people are making. But I feel like that's uncharacteristic of you, so maybe you just forgot the argument.

 

If you want to it be expressed as 'rules', my premise remains, "there are natural rules that exist that if your society repeatedly violates those those rules in major ways, your society will be eliminated or transformed until it once again abides by those rules." Those rules become what's known as morality.

 

Take a bowl full of plastic balls, marbles, and steel balls. Shake the bowl for a bit, and you'll find the steel balls shift to the bottom, below the glass, which is below the plastic.

 

Your argument is that the balls could only stack in layers like this because God's hand placed them there. My argument is that you just need different masses, gravity, and randomness imparted by the shaking, and the steel balls must fall to the bottom of the bowl and the plastic must rise to the top.

 

Yeah man I don't think that's how reality actually is. I believe I understand your premise though. You believe there are certain factors that allows a society to survive and that when societies fail to follow them, they eventually fail.

 

 

Can there ever be a society that is successful without following the natural laws that exist? Is there ever a situation where a society can violate these natural laws/morality and still be successful? 

 

From an individual perspective, is it okay to break these natural laws/morality if one believe it is in their best interest to do so?

Edited May 3, 2023 by stahleyp

[Guest]

On 4/26/2023 at 1:31 PM, rkbabang said:

 

Reason isn't random.  Take a course in logic, there is nothing random about logic and reasoning.  I derive all of my moral and political beliefs from one 1st principle.  Sometimes called the Nonaggression Principle.  Basically: No one has a right to initiate force or fraud, and no one has the right to delegate the initiation of force or fraud to others.   That isn't something handed down to me by a god, I had no vision in a dark cave, I didn't find it on a golden tablet, no angel came to me with the good news.  It is just something humans made up and I think it would be a better world if everyone lived according to it.  Maybe the fact that I think like this is just some random wiring in my brain.  I could be like 99% of people and think that delegating the initiation of force to a government is just fine.   The wiring in my brain might be somewhat random, but certainly guided somewhat by genetics and evolution.  And I'm just fine with that.  I am who I am and I think the way I think.  I've changed my mind about stuff before and I may change my mind again.  There are no absolute truths.  I only like the nonaggression principle because if people obeyed it that would create a world more to my liking. 

 

Sure, reason is random. Your brain (randomly) likes the nonaggression principle. If you grew up in a non-Christianized part of the world, you may very well think that principle is nonsensical. 

 

I'll show you why reason is at least somewhat arbitrary/random. Why is slavery "wrong" to you?

[rkbabang]

25 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Sure, reason is random. Your brain (randomly) likes the nonaggression principle. If you grew up in a non-Christianized part of the world, you may very well think that principle is nonsensical. 

 

I'll show you why reason is at least somewhat arbitrary/random. Why is slavery "wrong" to you?

 

Slavery violates the nonagression principle.  Sure it would be possible for someone to choose to listen to everything I tell them to do and work for me endlessly without pay, but that person wouldn't be a slave, because they would be free to change their mind at any time and just get up and leave.   A slave is someone who will be aggressed against if they refuse to work or try to leave.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, rkbabang said:

 

Slavery violates the nonagression principle.  Sure it would be possible for someone to choose to listen to everything I tell them to do and work for me endlessly without pay, but that person wouldn't be a slave, because they would be free to change their mind at any time and just get up and leave.   A slave is someone who will be aggressed against if they refuse to work or try to leave.

 

 

Yes, it does violate it. But (and I think you agree with me here) you valuing that principle is at least partially random. You could have just an easily valued the "lazy principle"...which is "having someone do the work for you is better than doing it yourself."

 

Someone could just as likely use reason to say "it is better to buy a slave and have minimal costs than it is to work a day job." They could also say that "since there is no Creator, human rights are simply a social construct so having a slave is actually okay. Indeed, it might be morally good since my life would be better off. Perhaps if I can convince enough people in my country, we can have slaves again."

 

The slave owner could even reason it as to a far, far better idea than the nonaggression principle if the slave was a beautiful woman. You get free labor and other benefits that way. 

 

 

 

 

[rkbabang]

1 minute ago, stahleyp said:

 

Yes, it does violate it. But (and I think you agree with me here) you valuing that principle is at least partially random. You could have just an easily valued the "lazy principle"...which is "having someone do the work for you is better than doing it yourself."

 

Someone could just as likely use reason to say "it is better to buy a slave and have minimal costs than it is to work a day job." They could also say that "since there is no Creator, human rights are simply a social construct so having a slave is actually okay. Indeed, it might be morally good since my life would be better off. Perhaps if I can convince enough people in my country, we can have slaves again."

 

The slave owner could even reason it as to a far, far better idea than the nonaggression principle if the slave was a beautiful woman. You get free labor and other benefits that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure you are correct and many people DO have this morality.  You've basically just described the ruling class in a socialist society (sit back and have others do work for you).  But logic tells me that if everyone had that morality the world would be a place less to my liking.   It is physically possible for everyone to not aggress on everyone else, but it isn't possible for every human on earth to sit back and have other humans do all of their work for them.   Common sense says that if something isn't generalizable then it can't work as a general rule.  So if everyone can't be the rulers, there will be conflict.  A world of constant conflict would be less desirable to me.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, rkbabang said:

 

 

Sure you are correct and many people DO have this morality.  You've basically just described the ruling class in a socialist society (sit back and have others do work for you).  But logic tells me that if everyone had that morality the world would be a place less to my liking.   It is physically possible for everyone to not aggress on everyone else, but it isn't possible for every human on earth to sit back and have other humans do all of their work for them.   Common sense says that if something isn't generalizable then it can't work as a general rule.  So if everyone can't be the rulers, there will be conflict.  A world of constant conflict would be less desirable to me.

 

 

 

Why not be aggressive though if we evolved to be that way (at least for those of us who are so lucky)? Or to tie it back to the "beautiful slave" why should a stud not have as many sexual partners as he can instead of having one so that everyone else can have a partner too? We have finite resources. If you are powerful and aggressive, it only makes sense to take what you can (as long as you feel the constant conflict is worth it). Someone, say Trump, might actually enjoy the constant conflict - his brain is just randomly wired that way.

 

My point is that if there is no Moral North Star, it is silly to not be aggressive when you benefit from it - even at the expense of others. At the end of the day, there is no "right or wrong" anyway beyond our subjective opinions about it. 

[rkbabang]

12 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

Why not be aggressive though if we evolved to be that way (at least for those of us who are so lucky)? Or to tie it back to the "beautiful slave" why should a stud not have as many sexual partners as he can instead of having one so that everyone else can have a partner too? We have finite resources. If you are powerful and aggressive, it only makes sense to take what you can (as long as you feel the constant conflict is worth it). Someone, say Trump, might actually enjoy the constant conflict - his brain is just randomly wired that way.

 

My point is that if there is no Moral North Star, it is silly to not be aggressive when you benefit from it - even at the expense of others. At the end of the day, there is no "right or wrong" anyway beyond our subjective opinions about it. 

 

 

I don't get why you think it is silly to want to live in a world where those that are aggressive are shot by their intended victims.    That is the world I want to live in.  There is a reason the gun is called an equalizer.

 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

I don't get why you think it is silly to want to live in a world where those that are aggressive are shot by their intended victims.    That is the world I want to live in.  There is a reason the gun is called an equalizer.

 

 

 

I think it's silly to not optimize one's talent and innate ability. Don't you? This is especially if there is no "right or wrong" way to live beyond personal/societal opinion.

 

Again, look at Trump. If he lived by your values, he would be a nobody. Instead, he is a billionaire, married to a super model, became President of the most powerful country in the world, etc. He optimized his innate ability and talent to maximize his potential. It would be silly for him to be Mr Niceguy with a regular 40 hour a week job and a non super model wife. 

 

 

[rkbabang]

27 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

I think it's silly to not optimize one's talent and innate ability. Don't you? This is especially if there is no "right or wrong" way to live beyond personal/societal opinion.

 

Again, look at Trump. If he lived by your values, he would be a nobody. Instead, he is a billionaire, married to a super model, became President of the most powerful country in the world, etc. He optimized his innate ability and talent to maximize his potential. It would be silly for him to be Mr Niceguy with a regular 40 hour a week job and a non super model wife. 

 

 

 

In what way did he violate the non-aggression principle?  Did he kidnap his wife and hold her hostage?  Did he force people to buy or sell property to him at gunpoint?  I'm not getting you?   I think capitalism is fine.

 

 

(edit: obviously running for president is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but he had his wife and billions before he ran for office)

Edited May 3, 2023 by rkbabang

[Guest]

22 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

In what way did he violate the non-aggression principle?  Did he kidnap his wife and hold her hostage?  Did he force people to buy or sell property to him at gunpoint?  I'm not getting you?   I think capitalism is fine.

 

 

(edit: obviously running for president is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but he had his wife and billions before he ran for office)

 

 

You don't think he is an aggressive fellow?

 

He grabbed women's private areas (allegedly). He broke various laws (allegedly). He lied lots of times. He refused to pay contractors (allegedly), etc. Isn't that all aggression? 

[rkbabang]

25 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

 

You don't think he is an aggressive fellow?

 

He grabbed women's private areas (allegedly). He broke various laws (allegedly). He lied lots of times. He refused to pay contractors (allegedly), etc. Isn't that all aggression? 

 

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy."

--Donald Trump

 

If a woman let's you do it then it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to grab her by the pussy.  I have no problem with sexual contact between consenting adults.

 

If he broke any laws and was not punished that is a problem with our legal system not my values.