It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Call Me A Socialist And I Won't Get Mad

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   


According to which "objective" morality?


Why of course the only kind. Morality based on non contradiction and universal application.



I can think of many situations when initiation of force would be more moral than doing nothing.


And yet you offer none of these situations for us to scrutinize, and so youre kinda just talkin'.



So prove objecively (that is, using science and logic) that your deontological version of morality which always rejects it is universal and objective.


I would first have to know if you regard the equation that A = A to = true.



And first, you must show that my consequentialist utilitarian morality which allows it in some circumstances is actually not objective and universal, since there is a very good proof that it is -


Well I wont consult your link, as you seem to be quite certain of yourself, and instead try to understand what youre saying to me.

Youve demanded that I am to disprove what you are saying without really saying anything. Can you give me an example wherein one person is morally justified in attacking another, without reference to self defense?




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




The cant or wont understand that the 3:1 ratio of government payouts vs taxes simply drove every western democracy catastrophically into debt and inflation.


You said it yourself. 3:1 ratio of government payouts vs taxes is what causes economic problems. I can easily imagine Welfare Capitalism (seems like our property extremists never heard of that, thus they still advocate false dilemma of socialism vs. libertarian capitalism) where these problems dont exist.

All problems you speak of can be solved without returning to early capitalism social catastrophe.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   


You said it yourself. 3:1 ratio of government payouts vs taxes is what causes economic problems.


what would be, in your sage opinion, the optimal level of taxation to payout? Since anything over 1 is unsustainable, and anything under 1 is just an obvious ripoff, would you say that the optimal level of tax to service is 1:1?

This is actually impossible due to government overhead, but lets play and say that 1:1 is the only sustainable and reasonable course. If this is the case, why the hell dont I just keep my money and spend it as I see fit? After all, I think we would all want to spend $100 of our money on stuff we actually want instead of deferring to some distant anonymous and corrupt 3rd party.



I can easily imagine Welfare Capitalism (seems like our property extremists never heard of that, thus they still advocate


'Property extremists!' Thats a new one! Next youll be calling us 'welfare denialists'! Sure does lump everyone who wants to keep what is rightfully theirs into one easily dismissable category! How conveinient for you!

BTW dont bother spamming your links, Im not interested in what they say, and more so what *you* say. (which is waning)



All problems you speak of can be solved without returning to early capitalism social catastrophe.


My my my what are they teaching you guys in your re-education camps, err, universities these days? Marx 101, 102, ect...?

But just for fun Ill go ahead and point out that 'early capitalism' resulted in the computer you frantically type at at this moment. Enjoy!~



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




And yet you offer none of these situations for us to scrutinize, and so youre kinda just talkin'.


It is morally acceptable to steal some wealth in order to provide basic necessities like food shelter and healthcare from those who will not be harmed a lot by it (basic welfare, social security and healthcare payed from taxes) when there is no other realistic option how to do it.

It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health.

It is even morally acceptable to steal some wealth even when it is not so critical, but when it is clearly evident that the purpose will in the end lead to far higher increase in well-being of conscious creatures or decrease in suffering (the criterion for determining morality) than doing nothing (public education and science funding, some public projects etc..).



"The first principle is the well-being of conscious creatures, from which we can build a science-based system of moral values by quantifying whether or not X increases or decreases well-being".

Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care).

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




what would be, in your sage opinion, the optimal level of taxation to payout? Since anything over 1 is unsustainable, and anything under 1 is just an obvious ripoff, would you say that the optimal level of tax to service is 1:1?


Well, wait, what do you mean by "payout"? I thought its the amount the government spends.

There is nothing preventing government to spend less or at most only what it gets in taxes. Just make it a constitutional amendment that government borrowing money is illegal, and balanced budget mandatory. Problem of government debt solved.



If this is the case, why the hell dont I just keep my money and spend it as I see fit? After all, I think we would all want to spend $100 of our money on stuff we actually want instead of deferring to some distant anonymous and corrupt 3rd party.


Because then there would be zero redistribution of wealth. And that is undesirable, because as I have shown above, there are cases when stealing is the most moral alternative, compared to others (basic necessities unavailable to someone).



But just for fun Ill go ahead and point out that 'early capitalism' resulted in the computer you frantically type at at this moment. Enjoy!


Who invented the internet? Who contributed critical part of money to early computer research due to defense needs?
Initial costly bootstraping of advanced industries - thats where government excels.

Make no mistake, I am not advocating early capitalist societies should have welfare like we have now. They simply could not afford it, so it was simply not an option. But now it is, we can afford it, so why not do it?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   


And yet you offer none of these situations for us to scrutinize, and so youre kinda just talkin'.




It is morally acceptable to steal some wealth in order to provide basic necessities like food shelter and healthcare from those who will not be harmed a lot by it.


Let us put your proposition to the test of universality and see if this moral rule can be applied to all people at all times.

Firstly though, some definitions and your implied acceptance of some basic truths is necessary.

Since you did not respond to my very first question, but instead chose to engage me using reason, Im gonna assume that youre pretty much down with non contradiction. cool cool.

When you use the word 'steal' you imply a validation of property rights. The word 'steal' means to involuntary remove one persons property and declare it to be your own property.

This is your first and most obvious contradiction in that you both validate property rights for one person while simultaneously invalidating them for another based on a subjective and arbitrary distinction. (subjective need)

Since if you declare you may 'steal' (by your definition) my property based on arbitrary distinctions, I simply *universalize* your moral code and apply it to you. I simply declare that based on your code, I may 'steal' back from you in the amount of which you stole from me. Thus, if morality in this case it to be applied evenly and universally (and if it isnt universal, it isnt ethics, its instead just excuses for brutality.) we find ourselves in an endless contradiction, where you declare arbitrarily that I owe you $100, and I use your rule and raise you to $2, into infinity.

Thus theft cannot be said to be Universally Preferable Behavior as its universal application results in paradox.



It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health.


With of course no reference to the lives and health of those you would 'steal' from. Cant be universalized, thus = fail.



It is even morally acceptable to steal some wealth even when it is not so critical, but when it is clearly evident that the purpose will in the end lead to far higher increase in well-being of conscious creatures or decrease in suffering (the criterion for determining morality) than doing nothing (public education and science funding, some public projects etc..).

By whos judgment, and by what standard?



Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care).



...honestly dont give a s**t about this Harris character and his mad science fiction dystopias. You think I would consider this cut and paste job an adequate response?

Since youre so pro initiation of force, (and thus you propose violence against *me* personally) Im not sure any further discussion could be productive, as honestly, I see you as something of a monster. I have a special contempt in my heart for those monsters who hide behind the distraction of false virtue in order to distract their prey.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   


Well, wait, what do you mean by "payout"? I thought its the amount the government spends. There is nothing preventing government to spend less or at most only what it gets in taxes. Just make it a constitutional amendment that government borrowing money is illegal, and balanced budget mandatory. Problem of government debt solved.


Wow! You really are wise. Im taking notes. Here youve singlehandedly solved the fundamental error in our current system, right off the top of your head! You really must be the wisest.
Just wondering though, if I may beseech your god-like wisdom...if the problem that is so obviously catastrophic is so easily solved, simply with the stroke of some wise philosopher kings pen...why has this NOT OCCURRED?

If this concept is so simply and easily grasped even by a sophomore such as yourself, as brilliant as you may be, do you not think this idea may have indeed been around for, oh, say, at least the last century?

Sorry to dash your epiphany, but this idea is probably as old as democracy itself. And empirically it HAS NOT been implemented with any success anywhere, to my knowledge.

So clearly something is stopping this wonderful solution from occurring. That something is very simple if you replace 'democracy' with 'bribeocracy'

Simply put as I stated before, in a bribeocracy, politicians, who have transitional ownership of the state apperatus, can only be elected if they promise lots of goodies to the plebs. Thus the reason the 3:1 ratio exists is not out of clerical blunder but is instead out of necessity. Necessity to bribe voters and special interest groups in the moment at the expense of future debt. That debt accumulates and grows exponentially (especially when coupled with monopolized state issued fiat currency) until debt can no longer be rolled over into the future at which point the system collapses, and crushes its bribed underclass of dependents most brutally.



Because then there would be zero redistribution of wealth.


Ahhhh one can dream....

Sorry just to be clear, do you mean that without a violent monopoly to forcibly move money around in the economy, that no one would spend any money and no redistribution would occur? Everyone would just sit on their couch cushions stuffed with hundred dollar bills?



And that is undesirable, because as I have shown above, there are cases when stealing is the most moral alternative, compared to others (basic necessities unavailable to someone).


lulz you havent shown s**t besides your willingness to state random assertions as objective truth.



Who invented the internet? Who contributed critical part of money to early computer research due to defense needs?
Initial costly bootstraping of advanced industries - thats where government excels.


Where did the *wealth* that funded those RaD labs originiate??



Make no mistake, I am not advocating early capitalist societies should have welfare like we have now. They simply could not afford it, so it was simply not an option. But now it is, we can afford it, so why not do it


Did you skim over the whole 'catastrophically in debt' part, or just ignore it?

Even if we *could* afford it, it would *still* not be morally justified to steal.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




This is your first and most obvious contradiction in that you both validate property rights for one person while simultaneously invalidating them for another based on a subjective and arbitrary distinction. (subjective need)


The need is not subjective and arbitrary. It is objective. "Need", "Suffering" or "wellbeing" are products of objectively existing material neural networks located in brains of conscious creatures. Suffering and wellbeing can be objectively and universally compared (suffering of rich person which got part of their income stolen by taxes is objectivelly far less than suffering of a hungry person or person that is unable to pay for needed healthcare). Increase in wellbeing of a rich person that would be even richer is objectivelly less than increase of cured or feeded person. To deny this is to deny science (neurology, psychology..), thus to deny A = A. Are you claiming A =/= A ?



I simply declare that based on your code, I may 'steal' back from you in the amount of which you stole from me.


Only if you prove that it will result in increase of everall wellbeing of conscious creatures, also taking into account people who need help and probably dont get it without the stealing. Good luck with that.



Thus theft cannot be said to be Universally Preferable Behavior as its universal application results in paradox.


This is where you are mistaken - that there is universably preferable behaviour or act (deontological morality - acts are moral or immoral in themselves, based on an adherence to a rule). There is not. Even killing is not universally evil - killing Hitler or Stalin would be highly moral, and so is killing in self-defense.

Instead, morality of an act must be judged only by consequences of said act. The same act may in some circumstances lead to increase in positive utility (wellbeing, decrease in suffering), in other circumstances it may have the opposite effects. Or magnitude of an act may change outcome (stealing a little to pay for basics increases overall wellbeing, it is moral. Stealing everything will decrease wellbeing, probably cause civilisation breakdown which further decreases it, thus it is immoral).



With of course no reference to the lives and health of those you would 'steal' from.


Correction: It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health, if it does not endanger lives or health of those we steal from.



Cant be universalized, thus = fail


Consequentialist (utilitarian) morality does not demand that acts must be universally good or bad. Only outcomes matter.



By whos judgment, and by what standard?


?? By our best ability to determine it. By science.



Since youre so pro initiation of force, (and thus you propose violence against *me* personally) Im not sure any further discussion could be productive, as honestly, I see you as something of a monster.


So you are in effect claiming that someone poor dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment (or better, his chid
) cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure (thats what your moral philosophy says, isnt it?)...

But I am a monster.. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




why has this NOT OCCURRED?


Simply because there was not need to to date. Government debt was never a problem until the 2008 crisis. And if it really is a problem now, then believe me, it probably would be implemented (our current election winner seems pretty determined to pass government debt ceiling law).



That something is very simple if you replace 'democracy' with 'bribeocracy'


Where did I said I am pro-democracy? I Agree with your views on democracy. I prefer a combination of technocracy/meritocracy/geniocracy myself. Democracy is a system where ignorant majority overvotes wise and educated minority.

So now you say system fails due to debt, inflation, and democracy. I agree. Still nothing that cannot be solved without abolishing welfare state.



Sorry just to be clear, do you mean that without a violent monopoly to forcibly move money around in the economy, that no one would spend any money and no redistribution would occur? Everyone would just sit on their couch cushions stuffed with hundred dollar bills?


Would all poor and unemployed always have access to basic necessities like food and healthcare? I highly doubt it. There would be charity, but I doubt ir would be enough or as effective as good welfare system (like NIT based welfare. I recognise current system is not optimal).



Where did the *wealth* that funded those RaD labs originiate??


From taxes of course. Your point? Are you claiming internet would be here now if those labs were not there? Maybe, maybe not.



Did you skim over the whole 'catastrophically in debt' part, or just ignore it?


Not all states are in catastrophic debt. And if there was no recession (caused by central bank interest manipulation, NOT welfare), there would be no catastrophic debt.
And in theory it can be done without ANY debt, just pay on welfare only so much as you take from taxes.



Even if we *could* afford it, it would *still* not be morally justified to steal.


You have yet to show that mine utilitarian morality is not universal, and then justify universality of your deontological morality.


edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   


The need is not subjective and arbitrary. It is objective. "Need", "Suffering" or "wellbeing" are products of objectively existing material neural networks located in brains of conscious creatures.


Please define objectively my level of suffering when subjected to utilitarian arguments. Standard 1 - 100 scale will do.



Suffering and wellbeing can be objectively and universally compared


Whats your universal suffering and wellbeing meter picking up right now? Please objectively define you subjective conscious experience to me, I think it would be fascinating.



(suffering of rich person which got part of their income stolen by taxes is objectivelly far less than suffering of a hungry person or person that is unable to pay for needed healthcare).


Why must this be an either/or? Perhaps the rich person donated money, of their own free will, to not see that person starve? Heck Im no rich man but I wouldnt let a guy starve on my doorstep before offering him first a ham an cheese~

But I see youre locked in to a negative sum gain type thinking so ill leave ya to it.



Increase in wellbeing of a rich person that would be even richer is objectivelly less than increase of cured or feeded person. To deny this is to deny science (neurology, psychology..), thus to deny A = A. Are you claiming A =/= A ?


oOOOOoo niiice one....not. We already defined how the act of stealing, regardless of from whom, is contradictory and thus wrong, or immoral. Arbitrary distinctions such a 'rich' and 'poor' or 'needy' and 'non needy' have no place in universal ethics.

So ya, since A=A, theft = wrong.



Only if you prove that it will result in increase of everall wellbeing of conscious creatures, also taking into account people who need help and probably dont get it without the stealing. Good luck with that.


Are you freekin kidding me kid? Are you saying any aggression is justified if I can arbitrarily prove to some arbitrary authority that i *really needed* to kick some guys door down, tie up his kids, rape his wife (as i really *need* to get laid) and steal all his justly earned possessions?

Are you out of your G** D** mind?



This is where you are mistaken - that there is universably preferable behaviour or act (deontological morality - acts are moral or immoral in themselves, based on an adherence to a rule). There is not. Even killing is not universally evil - killing Hitler or Stalin would be highly moral.


Self defense is completely UPB compliant. Can I defend myself at the same time you do with no contradictions? Check. Yup. Passes universality.

Killing Hitler or Stalin *certainly* falls under the category of self defense.



Instead, morality of an act must be judged only by consequences of said act.


*By what standard shall the consequences be judged by, and who will judge them??!*



The same act may in some circumstances lead to increase in positive utility


Slugging you in the face, I assure you, would grant me immense short term positive utility. But that wouldnt be UPB compliant.

I wonder, again, who is to be the judge of positive utility in your mad little world?



(wellbeing, decrease in suffering), in other circumstances it may have the opposite effects. Or magnitude of an act may change outcome (stealing a little to pay for basics increases overall wellbeing, it is moral. Stealing everything will decrease wellbeing, probably cause civilisation breakdown which further decreases it, thus it is immoral).


You know what really causes some negative utility in society? Ramapant and uncheck theft backed by near infinite violence. Not so good utility wise.



Correction: It is morally acceptable to steal even more wealth to save lives or health, if it does not endanger lives or health of those we steal from.


Fool. You must *ALWAYS* endanger the life of those you *steal* from because if they dislike being *stolen* from it is within their right to *resist* with appropriate force, and the only response your kind can offer is UNLIMITED VIOLENCE.



Consequentialist (utilitarian) morality does not demand that acts must be universally good or bad. Only outcomes matter.


Transalation: contradictory and immoral ethical system is rendered false due to gross internal paradoxes and just a generally blatant evil.



?? By our best ability to determine it. By science.


Right. Guess you missed the memo on the falsity of the philosopher king thingy. Kinda doesnt work and tends towards massive collapse.

Lalalalalalalal~ I can steal from whomever I want whenever I want cuz my tenured burnout professor told me so! Good and Bad is what I say it is! Mwa mwa mwa!

^-------

what you sounds like. Creepy little bastard you are.

Come on over to my house and start declaring your right to my stuff based on your subjective and amorphously defined 'need'.

Your rampant addiction to violence is sickening to me and I barely see you as a human at this point. If you were infront of me right now Id have to practice some real self control not to slap you in the face, and instead I would have to settle for spitting at your feet. Enjoy your self loathing.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




Please define objectively my level of suffering when subjected to utilitarian arguments. Standard 1 - 100 scale will do.


99 dolors*, you seem pretty angered


*Link

Jokes aside, if you wanted it exactly we would have to determine the concentration of relevant hormones in your brain. In principle, it can be done.

In practice, we dont need to know absolute values. We dont deal with absolutes, but relative comparisons - even if we dont know for example the exact absolute value of suffering of someone rich who got part of his income stolen through taxes, and absolute value of suffering of someone dying of curable disease, we can safely say one is far higher than the other. And thats enough for our purpose (determining morality of public healthcare), since its always about comparing one outcome to the other.

Nice physical analogy would be for example quantum vacuum zero-point energy in Quantum field theory: We cannot determine its exact absolute value, we can only determine the differences between values at different points - manifesting as Casimir force.



Why must this be an either/or? Perhaps the rich person donated money, of their own free will, to not see that person starve? Heck Im no rich man but I wouldnt let a guy starve on my doorstep before offering him first a ham an cheese


Perhaps.. If you prove that voluntary charity will be enough to achieve what welfare has achieved, then I will agree that we dont need it. But I highly doubt it. Its not negative thinking, its realistic.



We already defined how the act of stealing, regardless of from whom, is contradictory and thus wrong, or immoral.


Exactly. You have defined it (assumed). You have not proved it.



Arbitrary distinctions such a 'rich' and 'poor' or 'needy' and 'non needy' have no place in universal ethics.


Ethics theory which does not take into account the consequence of an action at all is laughable.



So ya, since A=A, theft = wrong.


A = A implies only "theft = theft" and "wrong = wrong". Learn to logic.



Are you freekin kidding me kid? Are you saying any aggression is justified if I can arbitrarily prove to some arbitrary authority that i *really needed* to kick some guys door down, tie up his kids, rape his wife (as i really *need* to get laid) and steal all his justly earned possessions?


Strawman.



Self defense is completely UPB compliant. Can I defend myself at the same time you do with no contradictions?


No you cannot. You attack the attacker in selfdefense, the attacker has suddenly a right to attack in selfdefense against your attack, and so on, ad infinitum..

And UPB suffers from the same problem as Kants deontological morality - you can always find a self-consistent maxim (moral rule) that justifies your actions:

libertarian-left.blogspot.com...


This is fine, but as I've noted before, it does not prove that soldiers are wrong in killing people (murder is a bad word to use here, because the definition of the word "murder" is "wrongful killing," and therefore it is conceptually impossible for murder to be permissible). It only proves that soldiers' killing people cannot be justified by the maxim in question. It is logically possible that there is some other maxim which would justify soldiers' actions.

And indeed, such a maxim is not too difficult to come up with. One example would be the maxim, "Whenever I have declared myself to be a combatant of a particular group in a universally recognized manner, and I can kill a recognized combatant of another group who has not surrendered in a universally recognized manner, I will do so." That maxim could be adopted as a universal law without any contradiction that I can think of. But if this is the case, then how is the maxim-based approach supposed to serve as a moral guide? It might seem like any time we come across an action that cannot be justified by a particular maxim, the most we would be able to say is that we simply aren't sure if it's permissible or not. In order to effectively put Stefan's methodology to work, we need a way to determine what the right maxim is.

The implication here is that being located in Syria as opposed to San Francisco cannot represent an ethically significant difference between two scenarios; being Person A instead of Person B is not a morally relevant way to distinguish a circumstance; taking place today instead of tomorrow cannot matter to an ethical theory. For example, notice that the maxim, "Whenever it is May 6, 2008, and I am Danny Shahar, and I can steal a pen from the University Book Store without anyone ever noticing, I will do so," could be adopted as a universal law without coming into any sort of contradiction with anything. But surely that doesn't mean that it would be okay for me to steal the pen. The Principle of Formal Equality helps us explain why: the maxim I've offered is unacceptable because it only works because of distinctions that aren't morally relevant in any way.

However, as we have seen, maxims can coherently contain certain distinctions which allow them to apply only to actions which occur in specific circumstances. So, for example, I am justified in killing in self-defense when I'm being attacked, even though there are other scenarios in which I'm not justified in killing people. What is needed, then, is an account of what kinds of features of a set of circumstances are morally relevant. If we had such an account, we could conceivably come up with a proper description of the set of circumstances in which your action was taking place, and then determine whether the maxim based on that set of circumstances could be acceptably adopted as universal law.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Stefan doesn't provide any such account. And perhaps more unfortunately, no one else has either. Until someone does, it seems like any maxim-based approach to ethics is going to be hampered by the Maxim Description Problem. Annnnddd...that's part of the reason why I take a rights-based approach to ethics! [Added later: turns out rights-based approaches to ethics aren't that great either :-P]




*By what standard shall the consequences be judged by, and who will judge them??!*


The standard is whether they increase overall suffering (decrease wellbeing) of conscious creatures or the other way around (compared to doing nothing, or something else).

Who will judge them? I dont know, maybe the one who wants to determine morality of some act. How is that important? Quantum mechanics also provides only a set of rules to determine how particles will behave, it does not say who is allowed to use the equations to determine it, or on what computer they have to run. Does it make QM false?
In the society of course, it should probably be those with the best ability and apparates to determine it, or use the theory - physicists in case of QM, and educated and moral people in case of morality (technocracy, meritocracy, geniocracy).



You know what really causes some negative utility in society? Ramapant and uncheck theft backed by near infinite violence. Not so good utility wise.


I agree. I have never advocated such a thing. Theft should be controlled and used only when needed, and violence must be again used only when absolutely necessary.



Fool. You must *ALWAYS* endanger the life of those you *steal* from because if they dislike being *stolen* from it is within their right to *resist* with appropriate force, and the only response your kind can offer is UNLIMITED VIOLENCE.


Reality disagrees. There are billions of people currently paying taxes and not resisting, and not having their life or health endangered in any way.



Transalation: contradictory and immoral ethical system is rendered false due to gross internal paradoxes and just a generally blatant evil.


Does not follow from what I have written at all.

In what way exactly is taking consequences of an action or a rule into consideration when determining if it will be moral or not contradictory?



Right. Guess you missed the memo on the falsity of the philosopher king thingy. Kinda doesnt work and tends towards massive collapse.


No I didnt get the memo. Philosopher King was never falsified. In fact, the only few instances when we can say something like it was implemented (enlightened absolutism, some late aristocracies, Singapore benevolent dictatorship..) it lead to great progress.



Creepy little bastard you are.


So you are in effect claiming that someone poor dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment (or better, his chid ) cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure (thats what your moral philosophy says, isnt it?)...

But I am a bastard.. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
You are just angry because I pointed out how absurdly immoral conclusions can be derived from property extremist UPB moral theory, such as the one above.


edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


This reply is not directed to you only. I appreciate a good, civil argument, which most of you are conducting. I applaud the depth and scope of your posts.

I just want to slip in a few things that haven't been addressed yet:

1) Many of you appear to accept the premise that taxation of the rich is tantamount to theft. When the middle or working classes benefit in any way it is somehow illegitimate. Nobody in this thread has yet acknowledged that the middle and working classes also work, pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of society. My father used to say, "When a man steals a loaf of bread, he is called a thief and put in prison. When a man steals a whole railroad he is called a captain of industry."

2) The wealth in this country is supposedly being redistributed downward. In fact, the wealth of the middle and working classes is being redistributed upward. Wages for the middle classes have remained flat for the last 30 years. The wealth of the top 2% has increased many times over.

3) Virtually every society in history has had some form of currency and some system of barter and exchange. In medieval times this often took the form of taxes and/or other produce paid to the lord of the manor, who in turn paid tribute to the king. Even the Bible mentions taxes (e.g. the story of Jesus finding money for his taxes in a fish's mouth.) So this conversation has been going on for thousands of years now. The idea of taxes being used for the general welfare of the population is relatively new.

4) Am I to understand that some of us want to return to a feudal society?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





1) Many of you appear to accept the premise that taxation of the rich is tantamount to theft.


I think it is, lets not pretend that taxes are something they are not. A clever definition of taxes I saw somewhere, (altough quite minarchist) is "theft in self-defense".



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I tend to agree that Socialism is better than Capitalism and I call myself a Socialist.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I have tried but failed to find any society in the past 3,000 years that did not require taxes of some kind. I am including in this those whose currency was beads or boats or crops or other valued materials.

In most cases taxes were levied by a king or landowner or other powerful nobleman. Those who demanded such tribute had no intention of using these revenues for the general welfare. It just became their personal property, and served to increase their wealth and prestige.

The idea that taxpayers should receive something of value in return for their money is a relatively recent phenomenon. I personally can't imagine living in a society where there are no taxes at all. I think that would create a polarized country where there is a tiny ruling class and the rest live in horrible poverty. For example, the ruling class would build themselves state-of-the-art hospitals while the poor wouldn't have any access at all to quality care.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Fine. What the heck. You clearly spent a bit of time responding to me, and I was determined not to, as I try not to validate the evils in others by pretending their violent stances vs me are anything besides an excuse for immoral behavior. But Im bored so what the heck.



99 dolors*, you seem pretty angered



Id say more %99.95, but since my experience of such is subjective, and our ranking of my subjective experience is arbitrary, it seems we cannot come to an *objective* ranking in regards to my *subjective* experience.



Jokes aside, if you wanted it exactly we would have to determine the concentration of relevant hormones in your brain. In principle, it can be done.


In principle we can attach electrodes or whatever to a persons brain and watch the relevant neurons light up in response to being exposed, visually, to the colour 'red'. Thus we can objectively state that a subject is seeing the colour 'red'. What *cannot* be known or quantified is that subjects emotional response and experience in seeing and experiencing that colour. No objective or repeatable data can possibly be shown that could possibly determine objectively what a person sees and feels when they see the colour red.

Thus that someone can objectively and measurably be said to be seeing the colour red, this *does not* and *can not* objectively determine their experience of seeing and feeling the colour we call red. Red exists independently of our emotional experience of it; our emotional experience of 'redness' does not.



In practice, we dont need to know absolute values. We dont deal with absolutes, but relative comparisons -


'We dont deal with absolutes' *IS* and absolute statement. You are saying 'we absolutely dont deal with absolutes.'



even if we dont know for example the exact absolute value of suffering of someone rich who got part of his income stolen through taxes, and absolute value of suffering of someone dying of curable disease, we can safely say one is far higher than the other.


Can we safely say this? I know its very convenient for you, but can you 'safely say' that I owe every dying person a cut of my income? I wonder what your standard of 'safe' is?



And thats enough for our purpose (determining morality of public healthcare), since its always about comparing one outcome to the other.


Again, you fail to provide *who* will do the comparison, and by *what* standard.

My broke friends and I compare our relatively broke financial status to what it might be if we robbed you of all your worldly possessions. We have determined that the outcome of robbing you blind would provide us with great utility, and since you are rich by our own arbitrary standards, we feel morally justified in taking all that you own.



Nice physical analogy would be for example quantum vacuum zero-point energy in Quantum field theory: We cannot determine its exact absolute value, we can only determine the differences between values at different points - manifesting as Casimir force.


Quantum physics, while admittedly is super neat, has absolutely *nothing* to do with morality or what is good and virtuous in this world.



Perhaps.. If you prove that voluntary charity will be enough to achieve what welfare has achieved, then I will agree that we dont need it. But I highly doubt it. Its not negative thinking, its realistic.


Do you believe in Democracy? Democracy is predicated on the premise that 50%+ of the population approves of a certain policy. Since we live in these Democracies, we can safely assume that *at least* 50% of people want to help the poor, and we know this because they continually vote for people who claim to represent that aim. Thus we know * empirically* that more than half of people wish to help the poor.

Thus we can say with near certainty that most people want to help the poor, and thus most people do not need a gun to their head in order to do so.

And as a side note, that you actually believe the welfare state has done anything to help the poor besides creating a massive dependent class, I find to be laughable, and predictable. Giving a man a fish only creates more people who dont know how to fish.



Exactly. You have defined it (assumed). You have not proved it.


My position is that theft = universally wrong. You take the opposite stance. *shrug*



Ethics theory which does not take into account the consequence of an action at all is laughable.


How could any theory not take in to account the consequences of its application? A theory, by definition, is a prediction of consequences.



A = A implies only "theft = theft" and "wrong = wrong". Learn to logic.


More like theft = wrong. Learn to read.



No you cannot. You attack the attacker in selfdefense


What kind of sick doublespeak is this, that you expect me to accept? An attack *by its very definition* is not called defense, but instead is called an 'attack'.

I can see how it is crucial to your argument to blur the lines between aggressor and the aggressed.



And UPB suffers from the same problem as Kants deontological morality - you can always find a self-consistent maxim (moral rule) that justifies your actions:


Which youve again failed to provide a valid example of.



The standard is whether they increase overall suffering (decrease wellbeing) of conscious creatures or the other way around (compared to doing nothing, or something else).


And these arbitrary standards are to be determined by *whom*?



Who will judge them? I dont know, maybe the one who wants to determine morality of some act. How is that important?


How is it important who determines the morality of an act? Are you frigging SERIOUS?

So it is immaterial to you if Hitler or Stalin determines morality?

I this youve reached one of the central flaws in your belief - you believe the power can be wielded by the powerful without the inevitable corruption that always follows. And you believe the powerful should be given unlimited power as a solution to corruption.

Its just nonsense.



Quantum mechanics also provides only a set of rules to determine how particles will behave, it does not say who is allowed to use the equations to determine it, or on what computer they have to run. Does it make QM false? In the society of course, it should probably be those with the best ability and apparates to determine it, or use the theory - physicists in case of QM, and educated and moral people in case of morality (technocracy, meritocracy, geniocracy).


I would ignore this babble but I have to ask you - what the sh*t does the above have to do with anything were talking about? As far as I can tell, nothing.



I agree. I have never advocated such a thing. Theft should be controlled and used only when needed, and violence must be again used only when absolutely necessary.


Again you fail to accept that once the power of unlimited violence is granted, unlimited corruptions *must always* follow.

Necessary is a totally subjective term, to be determined by those that wield violence.



Reality disagrees. There are billions of people currently paying taxes and not resisting, and not having their life or health endangered in any way.


You know how we know people dont want to pay taxes? Because they are *forced* to do so under threat of violence in imprisonment, in the same way we know a woman doesnt want to be raped by the fact that she has a knife to her throat.

If she does not resist, it is not because she approves of being raped, but instead it is because she knows her f*cking throat will be slashed wide open if she does not obey.

In the same way, people do not want to pay taxes (otherwise tax collectors would be unnecessary.) That people do not wish to risk kidnapping and possible murder at the hands of the state does in no way prove that they voluntarily agreed to be taxed. (stolen from.)

That cattle do not continuously rush an electric fence does not mean that they wish to remain in their pens. All it means is they fear the consequences of leaving them.



No I didnt get the memo. Philosopher King was never falsified. In fact, the only few instances when we can say something like it was implemented (enlightened absolutism, some late aristocracies, Singapore benevolent dictatorship..) it lead to great progress.


So you wish to rule me. Gotcha. You could never achieve this with me personally, and thus you cry to the state to use to infinite violence to do so.



So you are in effect claiming that someone poor dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment (or better, his chid ) cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure (thats what your moral philosophy says, isnt it?)...


Im claiming whats mine is mine, and youre claiming that whats mine is possibly yours.



But I am a bastard.. Yeah, makes perfect sense.


You propose violence against me. That makes you more than just a bastard - that makes you evil.



You are just angry because I pointed out how absurdly immoral conclusions can be derived from property extremist UPB moral theory, such as the one above.


Yes, im *extremely* in favor of not being stolen from, just as im *extremely* in favor of not driving on the wrong side of the road. Call me an *extremist* for not wanting to be robbed or attacked by evil people like you.

Radical that someone might stand against you, i know.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   


This reply is not directed to you only. I appreciate a good, civil argument, which most of you are conducting. I applaud the depth and scope of your posts.


Thank you. I would start by saying that a civil argument is only possible absent the threat of force. No one would pretend to debate with a mugger on the virtues of mugging if the mugger brandished a pistol under his trench coat.



I just want to slip in a few things that haven't been addressed yet:


Fire away. Perhaps Im missing something.



1) Many of you appear to accept the premise that taxation of the rich is tantamount to theft. When the middle or working classes benefit in any way it is somehow illegitimate. Nobody in this thread has yet acknowledged that the middle and working classes also work, pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of society. My father used to say, "When a man steals a loaf of bread, he is called a thief and put in prison. When a man steals a whole railroad he is called a captain of industry."


I thought you were addressing me specifically? Ill respond as if you were.

Theft (involuntary removal of justly owned property) is universally wrong and thus is not mitigated in its evil by the financial status of the victim. Whether one has a billion dollars, or just one, *violence* must be initiated against the rightful owner of property (be it actual violence or implicit violence) in order to deprive the owner of it.

If we accept that we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions, (which we must if we are to put forth an argument, as our argument is a *consequence* of our actions) and we are to be punished if we command our fist to punch an old lady in the back of the head, (in which case we would *own* the consequences of this in the form of legal punishment) so to are we all the owners of the consequences of our *productive actions.*

Thus if I own the consequences of plunging a knife into your chest, so too do I own the consequences of plunging my hoe into the dirt and producing food. If I am to be held as the sole owner of negative and destructive actions, I *must* also be the sole owner of productive ones.

Thus what I make is mine, just as what you make is yours. If anyone wishes to deprive me of this, they must, *by necessity*, use force against me. The initiators of force own the consequences of their aggressive violence.

Thus 'rich' and 'poor' have nothing to do with the initiation of force being a universal evil.



2) The wealth in this country is supposedly being redistributed downward. In fact, the wealth of the middle and working classes is being redistributed upward. Wages for the middle classes have remained flat for the last 30 years. The wealth of the top 2% has increased many times over.


Right. And who is responsible for this immoral redistribution?



3) Virtually every society in history has had some form of currency and some system of barter and exchange. In medieval times this often took the form of taxes and/or other produce paid to the lord of the manor, who in turn paid tribute to the king. Even the Bible mentions taxes (e.g. the story of Jesus finding money for his taxes in a fish's mouth.) So this conversation has been going on for thousands of years now. The idea of taxes being used for the general welfare of the population is relatively new.


Trade (voluntary) and taxation (involuntary) are polar opposites and should not be confused.

It is useful to realize that slavery was considered a universal condition of humanity until a couple hundred years ago.



4) Am I to understand that some of us want to return to a feudal society?


Only a few misguided people who might project their childhood abuse at the hands of authority onto the rest of us as some sort of social norm. No sane person wishes to move from a more voluntary society to a less voluntary society, in the same way that no one wants to go back to their marriages or careers being arranged by the State.

I simply wish to extend voluntaryism to every and all aspects of the human experience. Utililitarianism proposes the opposite - that solutions should be arrived at, and enforced involuntarily, under the threat of infinite State violence.

This is pure evil, and thus my contempt, and outright hostility towards the poster who proposed that he should rule you and I, for our own good of course.











edit on 11-6-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 




No objective or repeatable data can possibly be shown that could possibly determine objectively what a person sees and feels when they see the colour red.


"Seeing" and "feeling" or "emotional experiences" or "consciousness" are again properties or products of the neural network (unless you believe in soul). In principle, it can also be quantified and compared, maybe not so easily as simply determining the color seen, but it can be done. Our brain is computable and has finite possible states.



'We dont deal with absolutes' *IS* and absolute statement. You are saying 'we absolutely dont deal with absolutes.'


What does this even have to do with the topic? I said we only need to know relative differences between levels of suffering/wellbeing for our purpose. I havent said everything is relative or some other solipsist philosophical statement, seems like you argue against a strawman. Yes, 'We dont deal with absolutes in this case" *IS* and absolute statement. Where exactly is the problem?



Can we safely say this?


Of course we can. Psychology and neurology has already quantified different levels of stress/suffering in some cases even in absolute values. And for the relative comparisons, which is all we need for our purpose, we dont even need science, its just common sense and basic empathy.





Again, you fail to provide *who* will do the comparison, and by *what* standard.


The same one who is intedned to use your moral theory to determine morality. Concerned person for example.



We have determined that the outcome of robbing you blind would provide us with great utility, and since you are rich by our own arbitrary standards, we feel morally justified in taking all that you own.


In objectively would not - taking *ALL* someone owns would cause far greater suffering than the summed increase in wellbeing of those who would take it. Its just common sense, not having basic needs is far greater increase in suffering than having a bit more luxuries is an increase in wellbeing, even if affecting multiple persons.

You seem to completely misunderstand utilitarianism. The basic tenet is to take ALL consequences of a moral rule into consideration, as opposed to the society without, or with different moral rule, and from that determine the effects on average utility. It is clear that both extremes (society where everyone can steal what he wants, and society where stealing is prohibited even in cases of basic needs etc.. ) are suboptimal in terms of utility to society where in cases when it leads to great increase in utility compared to caused decrease stealing is allowed, and in others it is not.



Quantum physics, while admittedly is super neat, has absolutely *nothing* to do with morality or what is good and virtuous in this world.


It was an analogy. Of course there is nothing in common in the physical principle.



Do you believe in Democracy? Democracy is predicated on the premise that 50%+ of the population approves of a certain policy. Since we live in these Democracies, we can safely assume that *at least* 50% of people want to help the poor, and we know this because they continually vote for people who claim to represent that aim. Thus we know * empirically* that more than half of people wish to help the poor.

Thus we can say with near certainty that most people want to help the poor, and thus most people do not need a gun to their head in order to do so.


Voting in democracy for welfare state is far more advantageous for the self than donating for charity - thus many voters voting for these candidates may do it for selfish reasons (either they need welfare, or they think they may need it in the future, so they vote for it as a precaution - both of these may not pay into voluntary charity in voluntary system). Another thing that makes state welfare more advanageous as charity for the individual is that it does not suffer from Free rider problem - when one pays into it, there is a certainty all other people pay (thus also lowering the price for an individual payer). This is not certain with voluntary charity, leading to sub-optimal Nash-equilibrium for all (when one does not pay, he will receive almost the same service than one that pays, but with zero loss - thus for a rational actor, it is more advanageous to not pay, and in the end noone from rational actors will pay). It is also far more predictable and thus more efficient than voluntary charity with variable income and not universal rules for applicants.

Thus your assumption that all those who vote for welfare state would pay into voluntary charity in the absence of it is unfounded.



And as a side note, that you actually believe the welfare state has done anything to help the poor besides creating a massive dependent class, I find to be laughable, and predictable. Giving a man a fish only creates more people who dont know how to fish.


This is not true. For some welfare systems (like the US or current our one), it may be partially true, but for others (like scandinavian, or negative income tax based ones, it is not. NIT based system was proposed by libertarian, actually).
You seem to ignore that man needs fishes in order to learn how to fish (ypu cannot learn hungry), and also needs fishing equipment. Its a vicious cycle, when you dont have it, you cannot learn how to fish. Good welfare system lifts far more people from poverty than it creates dependent. So your argument is partially valid only against the current instance of some welfare systems in some countries, not against the principle as a whole. Just as you cannot argue against nuclear power plants using nuclear bomb example, or against modern Gen IV. reactors using Chernobyl example.



How could any theory not take in to account the consequences of its application? A theory, by definition, is a prediction of consequences.


UPB does take into account consequences at all. It only says, just like Kant, that some things are universally wrong, no matter the consequences of an alternative.



More like theft = wrong. Learn to read.


A = theft
B = wrong

A = A is identity. You cannot imply A = B only from A = A.
en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics)



Which youve again failed to provide a valid example of.


Have you even read the quote?

For example we want to justify killing in war, so we will use maxim:

"Whenever I have declared myself to be a combatant of a particular group in a universally recognized manner, and I can kill a recognized combatant of another group who has not surrendered in a universally recognized manner, I will do so."


Maxim to justify killing in self defense:
"Whenever I am attacked by someone esle, I can kill the attacker if I have no other option to protect myself."

Maxim to justify arbitrary theft:
"Whenever it is May 6, 2008, and I am Danny Shahar, and I can steal a pen from the University Book Store without anyone ever noticing, I will do so,"

Its called maxim description problem, and all deontologic moral theories suffer from it.



However, as we have seen, maxims can coherently contain certain distinctions which allow them to apply only to actions which occur in specific circumstances. So, for example, I am justified in killing in self-defense when I'm being attacked, even though there are other scenarios in which I'm not justified in killing people. What is needed, then, is an account of what kinds of features of a set of circumstances are morally relevant. If we had such an account, we could conceivably come up with a proper description of the set of circumstances in which your action was taking place, and then determine whether the maxim based on that set of circumstances could be acceptably adopted as universal law.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Stefan doesn't provide any such account. And perhaps more unfortunately, no one else has either. Until someone does, it seems like any maxim-based approach to ethics is going to be hampered by the Maxim Description Problem. Annnnddd...that's part of the reason why I take a rights-based approach to ethics! [Added later: turns out rights-based approaches to ethics aren't that great either :-P]


Seriously, UPB moral theory is regarded as full of holes even among majority of libertarians, in fact the author of the criticizing article I quoted is libertarian philosopher himself.

libertarian-left.blogspot.com...



And these arbitrary standards are to be determined by *whom*?


By the same persons you want to use your moral theory to determine morality.



I this youve reached one of the central flaws in your belief - you believe the power can be wielded by the powerful without the inevitable corruption that always follows.


No, some corruption may always follow, of course how much depends on concrete laws or implementation of the state. If the increase in suffering created by the corruption is less than it would be due to alternative - anarchy, it is still a morally preferable solution.



I would ignore this babble but I have to ask you - what the sh*t does the above have to do with anything were talking about? As far as I can tell, nothing.


You claim that for a theory to be right it is required that it speaks about who will use it in practice. QM also does not speak who should use it to determine the behaviour of particles. Is it therefore wrong?

The whole premise of universal morality is that it exist independently of what Stalin or Hitler or anyone else personally considers to be right or wrong.



Again you fail to accept that once the power of unlimited violence is granted, unlimited corruptions *must always* follow.


How is possible to corrupt a direct democracy for example? There is noone to corrupt, save all the voters.
And what is "unlimited corruption"? Corruption will be limited by public and laws, and as I have said, if the increase in suffering created by the corrution is less than it would be due to anarchy, it is still a morally preferable solution, even when there is some corruption.



That cattle do not continuously rush an electric fence does not mean that they wish to remain in their pens. All it means is they fear the consequences of leaving them.


You said that it engangers their lives. I have shown you that it is not true. Whether they like it or not is completely different and irrelevant to the question you want answered (whether it endangers them or not).



So you wish to rule me.


Strawman.



Im claiming whats mine is mine, and youre claiming that whats mine is possibly yours.


Again, your are deflecting the direct answer to the problem, because you know it would show us the immorality of your stance:


So you are in effect claiming that someone poors child dying of easily curable disease who cannot afford the treatment cannot steal needed money from someone uber-rich to acquire the cure.


I will just paste it again if you ignore it. This absurdly immoral conclusion is fully allowed according to your moral theory, no matter how you obfuscate it with pretty meaningless words. Thus it disqualifies it.
edit on 11/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf


I am asserting that I am a socialist to some extent.


Since socialism relies upon the initiation of force, (as all governments do) and the initiation of force is universally and objectively evil, what you said is analogous to saying you are a rapist, to some extent. Kind of a mix between rapist and casual dater, really. Sometimes rape, sometimes dinner and a movie. Too much raping would be bad, of course, but none at all would be worse.


You choose such violent imagery. You tell us you're such a rational thinker but you reject all forms of government except a kind of benevolent dictator. Presumably decided by a handful of people like yourself.

I am actually advocating a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.



Again, so you advocate some trade and some theft. Forget was is morally right and just, its the middle way we must find between people keeping too much of their money and people like yourself stealing too much. What we need, I guess, is a happy middle ground between voluntary trade and coercive theft. Too much good = bad! Need some violent badness to even out all that good freedom.


Sicks and stones, , , ,

You know nothing about who I am, what my profession is, or how much money I have. Yet you make sweeping assumptions based on my political views. As far as my "gang" goes I tend to prefer the crips to the bloods.



I would encourage you to study more economics, especially what happened to bring down Wall Street and the Banks and caused a worldwide recession.

I have more to say but I'm too tired right now














:
edit on 12-6-2011 by Sestias because: proofrading



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   


"Seeing" and "feeling" or "emotional experiences" or "consciousness" are again properties or products of the neural network (unless you believe in soul). In principle, it can also be quantified and compared, maybe not so easily as simply determining the color seen, but it can be done. Our brain is computable and has finite possible states.


So in principle you can experience my emotions when I experience 'redness'? Im not saying this is impossible, but Im wondering if A) you could display this currently, and B) what useful information you could gleam from me in regards to utilitarianism if you could?

If you cannot objectively measure and quantify my emotional state, which you cannot, I wonder if you will drop the assertion that you can gauge my (or anyones) subjective experience objectively?



What does this even have to do with the topic? I said we only need to know relative differences between levels of suffering/wellbeing for our purpose.


Relative differences between your subjective classifications as determined by *who*? And more ominously, to what end?



Yes, 'We dont deal with absolutes in this case" *IS* and absolute statement.


Absolute values cannot be applied simply when they are convenient to our argument.



Of course we can. Psychology and neurology has already quantified different levels of stress/suffering in some cases even in absolute values.


Wow, subjective experiences like 'stress/suffering' can now be objectively measured and quantified via cutting edge psychology and neurology?

Are you stating that my current emotional state can be classified, cataloged and categorized by science, as of right now?

Is there an algorithm that could simulate love?



And for the relative comparisons, which is all we need for our purpose, we dont even need science, its just common sense and basic empathy.


So in your view of Utilitarianism, 'utility' itself need not even be objectively defined via some process, but instead the ultimate violent power of *your* State can be guided simply by 'common sense and basic empathy'?

You assume that those in power can, and will, posses both qualities.

Excuse me while I laugh until I vomit.



The same one who is intedned to use your moral theory to determine morality. Concerned person for example.


Sorry, no. Utilitarianism is predicated upon a ruling class who would determine utility. True morality requires no such authority, as it is a process, and not a dictate.



In objectively would not - taking *ALL* someone owns would cause far greater suffering than the summed increase in wellbeing of those who would take it.


Come attempt to 'redistribute' $1 from my pocket into yours on the basis of 'utility'. I assure you I would inflict far greater suffering upon you than the well being you might hope to gain by robbing me of my loonie.

So even your 'utility' is only justifiable if your victims dont defend themselves.



Its just common sense, not having basic needs is far greater increase in suffering than having a bit more luxuries is an increase in wellbeing, even if affecting multiple persons.


Again with the 'common sense'. Again with your relative declared standards of suffering and well being. Again I *demand* that you show me an objective formula that determines who deserves what. Again I insist that you show me how you have found that you can take from my possession my own justly created property.



You seem to completely misunderstand utilitarianism.


I hope so, because if my understanding is at all accurate, I see those who adhere to such nonsense as pretty close to no humans.



The basic tenet is to take ALL consequences of a moral rule into consideration,


Really, because I see the consequences of rape (either pro or con) to be basically inconsequential when I consider the absolute truth that condemns rape into the category of absolute and incontrovertible evil.

Can 'utility', in any realistic case, *condone* rape?



as opposed to the society without, or with different moral rule, and from that determine the effects on average utility.


Since 'society' is an abstract and imaginary concept, and you are claiming this concept that you label 'society' exists, and is capable of determining 'utility', (which is universally binding via near infinite force) Im kinda gonna *need* you to define who speaks universally for this 'society', and what powers they should posses in your ideal Utilitarian 'society'. Then youll have to show me how and why they are able to initiate force against me in order to execute their own vision of what is to be 'maximum utility in society.'



It is clear that both extremes (society where everyone can steal what he wants, and society where stealing is prohibited even in cases of basic needs etc.. ) are suboptimal in terms of utility to society where in cases when it leads to great increase in utility compared to caused decrease stealing is allowed, and in others it is not.


So its not robbing youre against in principle, but instead too much robbing. (and conversely, too little robbing)

So if I was to mug a guy at gunpoint because he clearly had more loot than I do, I should take his wallet, which contains $100. But in the interest of 'social utility' I should only take $50 from him?

If not $50, what would be the optimal level of theft, in your opinion?



Voting in democracy for welfare state is far more advantageous for the self than donating for charity


You *assert* that massive theft by the ruling class and bribes to its dependents is self evidently more advantageous than charity. Since the rest of what you say is based on this totally false premise, Im gonna have to take the rest of your paragraph, and post, with a huge shaking of salt.

Saying massive theft is good does not make it so.

Must log atm. May address more later.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join