Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal
 

Has anyone on here argued that morality is all based on selfishness? I don't recall seeing that argument. So part of this whole thing could be that you really need to talk this out with someone who actually has the view you are ascribing to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I consider myself culturally to be a high-church Protestant, but am not religiously Christian. To the extent I could buy into a religion as a religion, it would probably be a form of neo-paganism or non-Gardnerian Wicca. I plead agnosticism on the God thing. I tend to be strongly skeptical of an afterlife, but never say never.

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal
 

When I made that assertion I had quoted dangerfiled who had just made such a claim (there was a reason for using the quotation). Before that many people have made the claim on the board.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This makes about as much sense as saying that a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of religion.

Evolution may be responsible for our ability to reason, or to have faith, but that does not diminish the quality of our reasoning or the power of our faith.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

What is the difference between a high church protestant and protestant?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

It makes sense if you think reason can not be the basis of morality.

Before I made the following query:

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

The point being that either you agree on a code (like the ten commandments) or you agree on selfishness. Absense that you can have no foundation for morality. You can't reason out morality. Like I said before - why is killing innocent wrong. Absense a selfish argument (ie - if we let innocent people get killed then I am next) you can not come up with a logical explanation of why killing is wrong. You must just agree that it is.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

They don't have to agree on anything, they just have to understand each others' positions on the relevant aspect of morality.

ETA and I will give you a buy on not knowing this because you apparently don't follow the FB, but you can't take anything Sebby says seriously, especially if it's a broad statement of philosophy on something. He loves making broad statements and then totally contradicting himself -- sometimes even in the same post, though more frequently in a subsequent one. He's totally full of shit.*

*I am actually saying this in a somewhat affectionate way. Either cervical battering has improved my disposition, or marriage has changed him. I think the latter.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't agree with this. If you have different moral rules you can't reach an agreement on a political position you just have to agree to disagree, and if you are in power, you simply need to fight it out. For example if you think Polygamy is wrong and someone else thinks it is OK. Then you really can't aruge, you just have a moral difference. It gets really acute if your holy book says Polygamy is OK and mine says it is a sin. How can we argue whether it is right or wrong at that point. What is the point of discussing it.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

You didn't specify that the people were having to reach an agreement on it. You said just that they were having a discussion. Christ. Of course if you need people to agree on a topic, and the people feel that opinions on the topic must be based on morality, then either you need at least one of them not to mind doing something "wrong" or you need them to agree that the thing is right or wrong. But with all those caveats, your (previously broad) statement that people need to agree is completely meaningless. There can be only one answer.

God you are an idiot. This wall is too hard for my head on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. Can't we talk about ass-fucking or something?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

It may "make sense," but it doesn't in any way explain why reason cannot be the basis of morality, something you have said over and over but have not been able to explain (perhaps because you see moral reasoning as futile?).

The problem you have with language -- what do words mean, and how do we communicate? -- is one that has occupied many smart people for a long time. I have no simple answer, but it's not a problem that worries me. And in the context of our conversation, it has nothing to do with the alternative bases for morality, for one can ask the same question about religion -- how do we understand God's wishes?

So the leap you make from your first paragraph here to your second is a huge one. I disagree that you either "agree on a code" or "agree on selfishness." I'm not even sure what it means. Did you look at that link I posted on partially theorized agreements? In the law, people often agree on specific (moral) outcomes even when they can't agree on broader principles. The converse is often true as well.

And I can come up with logical explanations of why (most) killing is wrong. You just see discussing it as futile, or something.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have tried to explain why reason cannot be the basis of morality. It seems really obvious to me but you clearly think I am wrong. To me the word moral is like the word legal. The word legal makes absolutely no sense without a legal code. You can't reason why something is illegal or illegal. It either violates the law or it does not (you can argue over the rational for the existence of the law but not if the law exist).

I guess another way to look at it is without a code morality needs a goal. If the goal of morality is selfishness then you reason it out. You can say the goal of morality is social cohesiveness. But in the end that is just selfishness because social cohesiveness is really promoted by an individual because it is in their self interest.

What do you think the goal of morality is?

I don't think you have come up for reasons that killing is wrong (beyond selfishness).

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

High-church is more focused on the ceremonial aspects of worship; low-church generally adheres to a less strict (or no) order of service and a general informality of worship. Commonly used to describe differences in anglican practice (high church = capes & drapes & smells & bells (but no pope), Cranmer's book of common prayer; low church = Puritans, Presbyterians, evangelicals), but more generally applicable.

Or: high church practices came out of the reformation having split with the RC on certain limited matters of doctrine but not liturgy, and so remains much closer to pre Vat II catholic practice than other proddy sects. You get good music, transubstantiation and sometimes even latin, but no pope.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

There is no problem with language here. I am just saying that communcating is impossible unless you agree on the common definition of the words you are using. That is just a given (is it not). We can not have a common definition of morality unless we use a code. Or agree that morality is based on selfishness. Otherwise we will have differing definitions. That is all I am saying.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If you are an agnostic what is the point of all the costumes and ceremony. Why do the play?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Parties no longer include the minuet, and people rarely dress up enough. She misses the structure and the pomp.

To me, it's like being in a really expensive sedan. I feel safe.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Because I find all forms of human expression interesting. I do not find religious sentiment particularly interesting in its own right. Therefore I find religious practices with a greater emphasis on ceremony and the careful explication of doctrine to be more interesting and compelling than those that focus on the affective, emotional aspects of religious practice.

And, to the extent that I am agnostic not atheist, I think that any supreme being is knowable only indirectly, and cannot be fully understood or explained by the human mind (or: God must be unknowable to the rational mind). I find ritual a particularly effective and interesting tool for approaching the inherently unknowable, relying as it does on symbolism and mystery rather than direct analysis. I'm rather partial to the idea of the intercession of saints for the same reason. "Personal relationships with Jesus" do not seem, to me, similarly helpful or interesting. But that's purely a matter of personal taste.

eta - I can't believe I'm still doing this. I'm going home. Good weekend all.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think it was Sebastian in Brideshead Revisted who said when asked why he was a Catholic "With its black and red costumes and decorated, churches - it is such a beautiful religion - don't you think?".

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

The problem that we are having is that I can say something like, I'm a utilitarian and I think the goal of morality is to maximize the number of utils in the world, to the make the most people the happiest, because I think that making people happy is good.

And then you say, "why?" And I could give you more reasons why making people happy is good -- because people want to be happy, and the goal of our actions on earth should be to help people do what they want, and so on. (Only I might put it better if I bothered to read people who think seriously about this stuff and take the time to write it well -- this post is kinda like having me tell you how I might build an outboard engine.)

And then you say, again, "why?" Because it appears that no matter what the explanation is, you are not going to be happy until someone says, "because God says so."

At that point, you are wiling to accept that explanation without more. Someone else might start the game going again by saying, "so?" And then you would have to start in with the explanations.

The fact that you dismiss all other forms of moral reasoning, but accept "because God says so" without further explanation proves only that you are uninterested in moral reasoning. For centuries, many people have spent a lot of time and effort thinking about ethics and morality. You dismiss all of this work. I think that reflects more on you than on their work on ethics and morality.

I think that I have, and that you are either not reading or not engaging with my posts. I think this in part because I never said anything about selfishness explaining why killing is wrong.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This never ending circle of asking why does not end because you have not defined morality. You don't really answer the question. If I ask you why do you build an outboard engine on your boat, you reply because I want to cross the lake faster. You answered the question. Asked and Answered. I can then ask you why you want to cross the lake, but that is a different question. But because you have not defined morality you can not answer the question about morality. You keep responding to the question, but you do not define morality, so therefore you do not really ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you say I am a utilitarian, and I think the goal of the world is to make most people the happiest. That explains what your utilitarian philosophy is but it does not explain WHY IT IS MORAL. If you believe there is no morality (or that the basis of morality is selfishness) then you can explain how your utilitarian philosophy benefits you. Otherwise you are just stuck with answering - that is what I believe. In other words - YOU CAN NOT RATIONALIZE MORALITY. Your answer cannot be a rational explanation.

Again - all these responses do not answer the question. Until you answer teh question "why is it moral?" you have not answered the question. A RESPONSE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN ANSWER. The only answer a utilitarian can really give to why it is good send the most utils to the most people is simply - that is just what I believe.

I am only happy if the response answers the question. Your two choices are either - because that is what I believe. Or that is what I believe the law laid down by the creator said. But no matter what your answer is, you are not giving a rational explanation of why something is moral. Because - LIKE I SAID BEFORE YOU CAN NOT.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop At that point, you are wiling to accept that explanation without more. Someone else might start the game going again by saying, "so?" And then you would have to start in with the explanations.[QUOTE]

Yes but there is a difference in answering the question and responding to the question. If you ask why is that or that not moral, and you say, because there is a list of what is moral and what is not moral - and I believe that list sets the parameters for (or defines) morality - that answers the question. That is just what I believe morality is. That answer answers the question but it is not a rational explanation. You keep coming up with rationalizations that do not answer the question. That is because there is no rational explanation because the term is not defined.

Again - I think that moral reasoning can not answer the question until you define morality. Just because I don't think the foundation from morality cannot be reason, does not mean that I am not interested in moral reasoning.


You think that I am reading your posts and not understanding them. I think you are reading mine and not understanding them. I think what you stated above just backs up what I said. You can not rationilize morality. Many other people that have put a lot of thought into this other than me agree with this. Many Atheists think that the word morality is meaningless.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Sure it does. Utilitarianism, in one form, posits that morality rests in maximizing everyone's well-being. And if you read John Stuart Mill, you will see that he explains this, or a variant of it.

You may not like his explanation, or find it convincing, but that's a different issue.

Where does this selfishness crap keep coming from? I do not understand why you are fixated on that word.

Several millenia of philosophers beg to differ. I would find you blanket dismissal of all of them more convincing if it appeared that you had bothered to learn what they say before you reject it.

That's not what I said above. I give you an off-the-cuff answer to why it's good to make people happy. I won't pretend it's good philosophy, but you should pretend that you are either answering or responding to what I've said.

No and no. (1) Even if you say, "that is what I believe the law laid down by the creator said," you still have to answer why you believe that. So that's no answer. (2) People explain their beliefs. The explanations have or do not have moral and logical force. The process of examining and applying these beliefs and explanations leads people to change their views over time. So the process of moral reasoning is a whole lot more complicated than you will admit.

You are like a man who won't open his eyes and keeps saying the room is dark. If you find moral reasoning/philosophy/ethics ultimately unconvincing, and find comfort only in the explanation that God says so, that's your perogative, but don't pretend it reflects a failing of some sort on anyone else's part.

If you follow the link I gave you to the Wikipedia entry on "morality", you will see that many people over time have defined the term differently, leading to different schools of thought.

It's not that you don't understand what I'm saying, it's that you are dismissing it out of hand, and then concluding that your dismissal means something.

Selfishness is not a basis for morality, IMHO. Morality is a way to think about the world and our role in it. You may be convinced by moral reasoning, or not. If your thinking leads you to certain truths, that's great. Others may not agree, for whatever reasons, but this need not undermine your belief in those truths. On some things (killing babies, e.g.), most people agree. On others (gay marriage, stem-cell research), not so. This does not stop us from continuing to think about our world and how we ought to act in it.

Arnold tackles California's tough problems.
 

I particularly like that someone paid San Jose city workers to make a pothold for the Governor to fill on camera.

• California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger dispatched a road crew to a residential street in San Jose to create a pothole, which he later turned up and filled, grinning for news-cameras and declaring his willingness to increase funding for transportation projects. The Potemkin pothole was later sealed by a roadcrew with a gigantic roller truck,
  
  Porrovecchio and his business partner, Joe Greco, said that at about 7 a.m. they became fascinated watching '10 city workers standing around for a few hours putting on new vests,' all in preparation for the big moment with Schwarzenegger. But their street, he noted, didn't even have a hole to pave over until Thursday morning. 'They just dug it out,' Porrovecchio said, shrugging. 'There was a crack. But they dug out the whole road this morning.' 'It's a lot of money spent on a staged event,' said Matt Vujevich, 74, a retiree whose home faced the crew-made trench that straddled nearly the whole street. 'We still have the same problems. Everything's a press conference.'

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have read John Stuart Mill, and he does not explain why.


Because many people believe that selfishness is really the only basis of all morality. Not only many philosohers throughout history have though this (specifically Nietza and his school) , but I believe most Atheisic organizations believe this. I know for sure that the Objectivits follow this position.


How do you know I have not learned what they have said. One who backs up what I am saying is Nietzha and many that followed him. Ayn Rand also holds this position (although many don't think of her as a real philospher). It is also a common perception among many existentialists. I don't agree a lot of what Nietzha said, but I do agree that in a Godless universe it all comes down to selfishness and in a Godless universe a rational man who is looking out for his own well being will ignore most of the common moral precepts presented today in the "burgeous world".



You don't define moral or good so the explanation is hollow.



Its not a rationalization but it is an answer. That is just what I believe is an answer. And you can't really explain why you believe something like that. How could you?

At some point to explain your definition of morality - you just have to say because it is. You can't explain it.

I see it as you are pointing to a room full of junk and saying there is gold in there. I am trying to tell you I have looked through all the Junk and I did not find any Gold. Instead of saying there is Gold in there, why don't you find the Gold and show it to me. I don't think you will find it.



They define the term differenty. But they don't come up with a rational explanation for those definitions. In the end everyones definition of morality is just a belief.



I read every word you have written. You just think you have given me a rational basis for morality and I don't think you have.

I agree. If all morality comes down to selfishness then the term is not really needed.

Morality is way of determining how people should act. It is stating that certain things are wrong (immoral) or right (moral). But without a source for such decisions these decisions are really arbitrary.

Why is selfishness a basis for morality? You haven't explained that.

Good and bad, in action
 

"'What I need most now is someone who can say this is a good guy and this is a bad guy,' said Marine Col. Stephen W. Davis, who commands all the troops in Regimental Combat Team 2 in the city."


"U.S. forces returned to Haditha less than two months after they thought they cleaned up the Euphrates River town. But insurgents assassinated the police chief and devastated his force more than a month ago, leaving Haditha without a security force.

. . .

"Insurgents have warned city residents against cooperating with the Americans. Earlier this month insurgents paid a bold visit to the local radio station and threatened the manager against broadcasting U.S. military messages. City leaders have also kept their distance. The local government denies insurgents are in the city and, as of Thursday, had not asked for a meeting with the military since operations began, Urquhart said. "


I don't think that there is a recognition of the same meanings of "good" and "bad." Or the application of "good" and "bad" to particular things. Where is God when you need God?

Many people believe - I am not one of them - that morality comes down to selfishness. That there really is no morality. When someone says that something is moral - what they are really saying is that something is in my self interest. Morality developed because it helps us survive. When people act morally they cooperate well with other people and they are able to dominate people (take their resources). So humans developed morality because it helps them survive (it is a mutation that helped us procreate and carry on our genetic line). In politics this translates to when someone tries to impose their will on someone else it is always for selfish reasons. Many Atheists, like my Caltech friends, think that all moral arguments really come down to selfishness. That if you propose that slavery should be ended in Sudan the only way to truly justify it is if you can demonstrate that ending slavery in Sudan will benefit the citizens of teh United States. If you send money to help starving children in Bangaladesh, they only way to support that idea is if you can show how it helps you personally. So really there is no such thing as morality. So when you are disussing US formal policy, the term the right thing to do is a stupid idea - you should just talk bout what is in the United States national interest.

Nietza took this a step further and said that our moral instincts are there because it helps the society we live in survive. But a truly rational man will understand that his moral instincts are really just instincts, and if one is smart, they can move beyond their instincts and find even better ways to survive. Like our instincts tell us not to stick needles in ourselves. But a smart man will stick in a needle, even if our instincts tell us that is bad, so we can innoculate ourselves. Similarly we have instincts that tell us not to take advantage of other people because that instinct makes societies more congenial. But if you understand that you can figure out ways of taking advantage of weaker people and not lose the benefits that your instincts. So this new "Superman" can move beyond Good and Evil and not be constrained by morality. The S.S. twisted this idea and used it as a rationalization to kill millions of people. The truly moral man will strive beyond his petty moral constraints and realize that killing innocent people is good for the Volk. So a true moral man will move beyond his irrational moral instincts.

I still don't see how you are explaining that selfishness is a basis for morality. I mean, are your friends basically saying that you would never tell someone "hey you dropped your wallet!"? That it is, in fact, immoral to tell someone "hey, you dropped your wallet!"? Or are they just recognizing that showing that something benefits a group of people is one way to talk that group into supporting whatever it is?

Would you please, please either learn to spell Nietzsche or settle on a consistent misspelling?

And, you keep referring to self-interest as selfishness. I think there is an actual distinction, and even if there isn't, "selfishness" has a connotation you would only want to be making use of here if you are not actually wanting to have a discussion. It's more appropriate if you are trying to force other people to your viewpoint in a sneaky, dishonest kind of way.

It seems to me that you are saying different things, some of which are nonsensical and some of which are tautological.

When you say, there really is no morality, that is nonsensical. Many people have strong moral beliefs. If you believe that the only end is your own self-interest, that is itself a moral viewpoint.

When you say that calling something moral really means you're saying that it's in your self-interest, that's either false or tautological. False, if you consider simple acts of charity; tautological, if you call those acts of charity self-interested.

If your athiest pals have no objection to slavery in the Sudan so long as it does not affect them, that -- in my book -- is a moral view that exalts their own individual self-interest above everything else. What seems odd to me, in the context of this ongoing conversation, is that you seem to think the moral value of this self-interest can be taking for granted -- i.e., that it needs not be explained -- even as you ask again and again for other people to explain why, e.g., killing people is bad.

So far, you've been making normative assertions, about what morality should be. Then you turn to a positive assertion, about where it came from -- that morality developed because it helps us survive. I think this vein of argument is potentially interesting, but I don't understand what it has to do with your normative arguments. You keep switching back and forth from positive and normative.

I might bother to engage with this view of the world if I thought that you actually share it.

Put this in the "Let me guess, the dems all take public transportation?" file
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/05/26/...udy/index.html

The blue states are where the smart people are, right? Does that include Rhode Island, Massachussetts and/or New Jersey?

The problem is that I am telling you what other people think and not what I think. I do think there is morality - and I don't think selfishness is a valid base for morality. I am just telling you what other people think. I will let them speak for themselves. Here is what Ayn Rand has to say on the subject

" The reason why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essense of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions... the Objectivist ethic holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his actions and that man must act for his own rational self interest."

Objectivists think that Altruism (or acts of charity) is immoral. Ayn Rand again:

"Nows there is one word - a single word - which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand - the word: Why?. Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that good? There is no earthly reason for it - and in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has every been given."

I have seen studies that suggest that thirty to forty percent of Atheists in America are Objectivists. I don't know if that is true, but I have met many people I consider intelligent to be Objectivits. That is why I feel the need to address their positions. If you review my posts, I focused a lot on critizising this viewpoint. My main argument with Objectivists is that saying selfishness is the basis of morality is a leap of faith. It is just like saying altruism is the basis of morality. You can ask the same question: Why? And the only answer is "just because". In other words morality based on selfishness is just as irrational as morality based on Altruism. Calling an Objectivist irrational is like calling their mother a whore. But I believe their position on morality is irrational.

My friend Ben (and I think LessinSF holds this position), and most of his Physicyst friends think that there really is no such thing as morals or morality. They are Atheists but not Objectivists. Unlike the Objectivists that think that morality is based on selfishness, they think there really is no such think as morality. They believe that moral arguments are inherintly illogical because you can not define morality and you can't rationalize it. Morality requires a leap of faith. They believe people should just drop the idea of morality and just act in their own self interest. Ben donates money to Amnesty International and he gave me a long tortured rationalization of why his donation to Amnesty International was really in his own self interest.

My gripe with them is that I agree with them that without a higher power Morality can't be defined or rationalized. But I argue with them that they actually have a moral code and it can't be defended based on selfishness. They would support the US pressuring Sudan to end slavery. But they stick to the position that they take that position out of selfishness. And if it was not in their interest they would not support ending slavery. I don't buy it. I think deep down they believe Slavery is wrong and should be stopped anywhere in the world it exists, regardless of the effect it has on them. In other words they have moral beliefs that they cannot really rationalize through selfishness. In other words they really believe in morality but don't admit it.

Caltech dudes response to my queries
 

Here are some responses to similar questions I have posed here from the Atheist Caltech Physicists:

If you do not believe in morality what is the purpose of life:

"As for me, my purpose is to maximize my pleasure, minimize my pain for as long as I can until my existence ends. Why do I this? Because I have this opportunity, and non-existence will come soon enough, so I might as well take advantage of what I have. Basically I'm playing out the hand I was dealt by this random universe."

On what the US should do to stop female circumcision:

“I don't believe the US nor I should try to change anyone else's behavior to meet our current view of what is right or wrong if these have no affect on us whatsoever. Especially in light of what we agree on being right or wrong seems to change, and we all can't agree on it either. One person's right is another man's wrong. Where's the universal order?

So female circumcision is not something I don't support, nor would I allow any females I know and care about to be subjected to it - but it really doesn't affect us here in the US.
So why should the US invest any effort to eradicate it?”

When proposed to Ben that if there is no morality and everything he does is out of self interest then there is nothing wrong with cheating on your taxes if you can get away with it:

“I don't feel guilt when I feel that I'm doing the rational thing, even if it means I'm taking advantage of the opportunity society has given me.

Cheating or committing a crime pose great risks, so one must weigh the costs vs. the benefits very carefully. But I imagine many of us do this daily, and many of us choose to commit crimes daily.

If you could be 100% certain of never being caught - ever, then you could do these things and rationally not face any consequences other than your own internal guilt.

Why should we feel guilty? Because we evolved in groups where our behavior was based upon being equitable to each other (because such behavior improved our genes odds of propagation).

Humans are not 100% rational from an economic or probalistic standpoint. But again our genes are not inclined to make us rational or irrational, they are just in it to reproduce. We're the ones who are along for the ride.”

Another Caltech Physicist about the Nietzsche problem. (Isn’t the ultimate rational behavior for an individual is to follow the Golden Rule up to a point where you convince other people in the society that you are following it but no further. In other words, if you want to maximize pleasure and propagate your genetic line the optimum strategy is to live in a society where people follow the Golden Rule but where you only follow it to the point where you do not get kicked out by that society. So if you can break the rule without anyone finding out then you should do it).

“What you are proposing is the 'free rider' concept. Yes, that indeed is rational, and that is why human's gossip, get embarrassed; nose into each other's business so that we can police each other. As we have graduated from villages and tribes, where such unstructured policing would keep free riders in check, we now must rely on government and institutions to police. This affords a greater opportunity to ‘free ride’.

But when you are not sure that you can get away with riding, your best bet - per game theory - is do unto others...When the others don't reciprocate, the next strategy is 'tit for tat'. This is a form of punishment. Many humans will forgo a reward to punish others because they feel the outcome is not fair. A classic example is an experiment where you have $100 and you must offer some money to a partner. You get to keep the money left over only if the partner accepts. Rationally you should only offer $1 to the partner and he should accept, because $1 is better than nothing. However, experiments have proven that such lopsided distributions are rejected by the partner as not fair. Generally around 30% or greater split is required to avoid rejection. Why is this so? Only because we evolved into groups where sharing equitably was programmed into our behaviors. Again this makes sense in small groups. All of these behaviors and more (like playing chicken, prisoner's dilemma, etc.) are common human behaviors that have game theory basis. And when you examine human evolutionary development you can understand how the strategy benefited our ancestors even though it may appear 'irrational' in our context.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Morality is the basic human precept that each being is bound to do that which is good and to do no harm to others.

There. If Ty hasn't answered your question, I have. Okay?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Again, that answer tells me what you think morality is but it does not answer why this precept is moral. This statement is a leap of faith. Just like John Stuart Mill's statement on morality is a leap of faith.


In addition, you have not defined good so the sentence really does not defined morality. In this sentence good and moral are really interchangeable so you are using the same term in its definition. That creates a nested loop. i.e. why is it good? Because it is moral. Whis it moral? Because it is good. Why is good. Because it is moral. etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Actually, good is that which is not evil and morality is choosing not to do evil, but instead, choosing to do good. So, you see, it isn't a tuatological argument: doing that which is good is moral, not because what is moral is good, but because what is not evil is good.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

when them mugs in Iraq chop off heads, they are being moral because they're doing good?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

You can't define evil by saying that it is something that is not good. Or visa versa. You need to define one of them. Good, evil or moral.

Over the weekend I read a book called "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Futre of Reason". By Sam Harris. I had read summaries of it before, seen interviews of the author but I actually careflly read it this weekend. The thesis of the book is that all Faith is bad, and unless we learn to question people's faith (with the advent of Weapons of Mass Destruction) we are all doomed. The author had clearly come across people with my world view before, so he addressed each one of the things I have proposed on the board and critisized it (rather well). There is a whole section were he argues that ethics and morals do not need to come from either faith or from selfishness. It is almost like entire sections of the book were written just to call B.S. on what I have been saying on this board. The author did a very good job of explaining what I was trying to say on this board, before he attacks it. If people want to read this book, and then start a new thread discussing it, I am totally open to that. I think it would be a perfect starting point for a discussion on morality. However, I think it is time to let this discussion end. I realize main cause of it getting out of hand and utterly tedious was me, but even I have realized that it has become pretty absurd.

Thoughts on the No Vote?
 

Thoughts anyone?

I'm not sure why, but for some reason this makes me happy.

Thoughts on the No Vote?
 

I think I should buy stock in Boeing.

It's not a big-picture surprise. I wasn't following the polling, but it has for years seemed incomprehensible to me that Europe, with all its separate histories, would be able to form a true union that goes beyond the merely economic. It's not like the US, which was able to form by the happenstance of growing out of the colonization by a single country, with a lot of common beliefs and fundamentally a shared history and culture.

Can you imagine trying to form the US today, though? Even if it weren't state by state, but say by region? I don't think it would happen. Instead it would be a loose confederation of economic territories sharing certain common interests. E.g., new england, mid atlantic, south, midwest, farm belt, rockies, california (actually, probably 2-3 separate states there), northwest. who knows exactly how it would work, but I don't think it could combine as it is.

Thoughts on the No Vote?
 

I had similar thoughts. Question is, where do they go from here? This seems to cement the survival of the pound.

Thoughts on the No Vote?
 

I think the idea of Europe ran away with itself, especially with the end of the Cold War and with the push for a form of diversity. The former resulted in Eastern Bloc countries pushing to join what had been a club of mostly wealthy countries -- bringing very different histories, economic needs, and political perspectives. The latter led to Turkey pushing to join, a development that France in particular opposes because of the enormous cultural, demographic, and economic issues that would pose.*

Ultimately I think Europe will be stronger if it keeps its focus on maintaining and promoting an economic union, one that in particular maximizes trade opportunities for the former Eastern Bloc countries.


*Which is interesting, because if you read this board you would think that France is dominated by radical Muslim clerics.

Thoughts on the No Vote?
 

I don't see why they have to go anywhere other than the same place. Is it necessary to have the constitution? It seems that the countries are ready for economic unification, but not necessarily social policy integration. Seems like a reasonable balance--perhaps not the best one, but who am I to say what's best for Europe or France?