Krimel [Platt mentioned]--
Studies of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that both Kant
and the Golden Rule are effective strategies ...
I think a good case can be made that that's just The Way
it shakes out when shit happens.
Collective behavior can be manipulated in many ways and
as you suggest force is one of them. ...
I might remind you that imperial decree was a very successful
social strategy on this planet for at least 3,000 years in Egypt,
longer in China. ... This has worked in many places for
hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. ...
These statements are troublesome for me for reasons mentioned previously.
In fairness, we should not be discussing morality under the heading
"Correctness and Usefulness". I'm only doing it because Platt brought it up
in this context. When you talk about morality in terms of "effective
strategies", "manipulation of collective behavior", and "social strategies
that work", you're running on a different track than I am.
A moral system that favors some at the expense of others,
or that ignores some altogether is not a moral system
in my opinion.
Sounds like a defnition of "affirmative action" to me, a decidedly "unjust"
system.
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.
Statistical surveys of public attitudes, life expectancies, and consumer
preferences neither define nor express human behavior. They only plot
numbers. I seem to recall that you are a systems analyst, and it shows
through in all your assertions. To wit ...
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.
Why this specificity about numbers? The Prisoner's Dilemma involved only
two suspects to illustrate a moral principle. What's the special
qualification for 150 people? It would appear that you have a systemic view
of morality as opposed to my "microcosmic" view, and we're talking at
cross-purposes. Your moral thrust is that of an efficient, smoothly running
system, whereas my concern is the freedom of the individual. Morality is
not law, and it is certainly not achieved by social engineering.
Since the confusion here relates to our respective ontologies, let me
clarify my position:
1. There is no Universal Moral Principle. At best, morality is an
intellectual scheme designed by humans to minimize social conflicts.
2. All human actions originate as a response to proprietary values. When
the perceived values are shared by others, there is no need for moral
guidelines. Such accord may be found in societies with a common cultural
heritage, and are least likely in "mixed" societies with strongly held but
disparate belief systems.
3. Since value is proprietary to the individual, the ideal solution to
social conflicts would be a "universal philosophy" based on fundamental
(innate, authentic) human values, including the sanctity of life, individual
freedom, and rational (responsible, ethical) conduct. This would be quite
simple to achieve, were it not for individuals obsessed with power or
xenophobia, indoctrinated to notions of sin or idolatry, or living in mortal
fear of failing to appease a deity. While some of these anomalies may
require psychiatric treatment, a valuistic philosophy adopted by the
community of mankind would go a long way toward resolving our social
inequities.
This is where I'm coming from, Krimel. Where are you?
Regards,
Ham
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/
