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.