[Ham]
I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or suggesting an alternative to
rational self-directed value. "Justice" is a perfectly good term for
Morality in the legal sense. So are "ethics" and "consideration for
others", I suppose. My point to Platt was that morality is society's
attempt to codify individual values as a guideline for collective behavior.
[Krimel]
Justice is not morality. It is a sense of balance. It is karma. It is the
basis for judgment of the quality of a morality. Codification of morality
only become necessary with the number of individuals in a society grows
larger than about 150.
[Ham]
I read about this theory from the link you provided, and it would seem to
support my view that group or collective behavior should (and does in free
choice) favor the individual's interest.
[Krimel]
The Prisoner's Dilemma is not about free choice it is about a forced choice
and variations in outcome based on the forced choices of others.
[Ham]
If that crude statement is meant to support the notion of morality as a
universal principle, it is no more moral than Darwin's principle of Natural
Selection, or, for the at matter, the law of the jungle. It overlooks the
fact that biological instincts and genetic propensities are offset by reason
and value sensibility in man. I don't think human behavior can be expressed
mathematically, and see no reason to do so.
[Krimel]
I was actually contrasting two ways of understanding the universality of the
Golden Rule. One view would be see it as the result of Darwinian selection
of genes. The second suggests that it results from the Darwinian selection
of the best adapted meme.
You don't believe human behavior can be expressed mathematically? Tell that
to insurance companies, advertising firms, pollsters, state lottery
commissioners, politicians and casino operators. Please say you aren't
serious.
[Ham]
Whatever is meant by "common cause" must defer to individual values. The
integrity of a chain is no greater than its weakest link. If the guidelines
for collective behavior are not systemized to favor the individual, it is
not a moral system, in my opinion.
[Krimel]
Common causes are causes held in common by individuals. As I said there are
many things that can bind individuals in common cause. I would agree with
Jesus that a people can be judged by how they treat the least among them.
Other maxims expressing this might be: To whom much is given much is
required. A moral system that favors some at the expense of others, or that
ignores some altogether is not a moral system in my opinion.
[Ham]
This is a strictly utilitarian position. We're discussing morality here,
not efficacy or "what works". The unpredicability of Human culture does not
lend itself to the rules of pragmatism.
[Krimel]
It is not utilitarian to observe that human societies have thrived in
different forms. I would say that we can measure the success of a society by
the amount of "force" needed to maintain it. The whole point is that there
is a fairly limited range of options in this regard. Human cultures have
remarkable similarity of function, expressed in remarkably diverse ways.
[Ham]
My whole thesis is predicated on man's innate autonomy and his
free choice of values. How could you possibly
conclude that I'm interested in "controlling" mankind?
[Krimel]
When you say, "...restriction of individual freedom is immoral." I don't
know what else to make of it. The fact is man's range of options is
extraordinarily limited to the point of irrelevance by time and place and
nature and nurture. If your thesis depends on freedom as you envision it,
then your thesis has problems.
[Ham]
I'm not advocating anarchy, and I agree that society needs just laws.
However, I would also argue that the "concessions" we make in order to live
in harmony with our neighbors are not "restrictions" on our individual
freedom, but the most reasonable way to optimize it. A moral society is one
that respects individual freedom and institutes laws that foster free
expression.
If there's some argument here, you haven't put it in focus.
[Krimel]
First you say that restriction of freedom is immoral and yet laws which
inherently proscribe and prescribe behavior are not "restrictions" on
individual freedom. How can that be?
A just society seeks to balance the freedoms of its individual members.
> [Krimel]
> "Thus it was that:when the Tao was lost,
> its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost,
> morality appeared; when morality was lost, laws appeared.
> Law is the shadow of good faith, and the commencement
> of disorder."
[Ham]
I don't understand "the commencement of disorder". If laws reflect the
morality of individual values ("attributes" of Essence), how does it cause
"disorder"? Up to that point, I think it's a valid metaphor for what
morality strives to do..
[Krimel]
Jesus spoke of this as the law written in the hearts of men. He criticized
those who looked to the written law and debated the fine points of the
meaning of words; those who tithe the herbs from their gardens and neglect
the poor for example.
If people have the meaning of the law written in their hearts, if they
listen to the still small voice within them; they do not need to write
morality down. They don't have to seek justice in morality or the law; it
flows from their interactions.
Rules and laws kick in as external loci of control, when the internal loci
of control cease to function.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
