'Freedom' as a basis for a moral framework...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

In this thread here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=183067

...I stated that my basis of morals comes from the ideals of 'freedom' and 'agency'.
I further clarifed that to mean 'Agency, as long as one's actions do not impinge on the agency of others'.

This thread is mainly for the benifit of JamesBannon, being the main person responding to my approach to a moral framework.

..to continue the discussion from this post here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3894993&postcount=1191


I notice however that your emphasis has changed from your original statement of free agency so that now the agent is not so free after all, specifically, the freedom to act is now limited so that freedom of other agents is not impinged. This is fair enough I suppose.


You call it a 'change of emphasis'. But I consider it more a clarification. I always held the belief, but my mistake was assuming that was understood, and not clarifying it.
If I was promoting agency that allowed the limiting of the agency of others, then my priority really wasn't agency in the first place.

Saying 'agency as long as the agency of others isn't impeded' hasn't changed the basic premise of the moral - which of course is agency! I also haven't added any other 'basic items' - like promises etc.

In fact all I'm doing is blocking a basic contridiction between the 'agencys' of two theoretical parties.


You asked me what was the most basic of all the principles I hold and I have answered this.


Do you mean 'Egalitarian'?
If so, as I described earlier - I wouldn't be sure what the practical upshot of having that as the basis of my moral framework is. It's almost like saying 'My moral framework is based around being nice'. Admirable and all, but ambigous and lacking in detail. At least for my liking...
To perhaps help me out, could you detail the steps you take from Egalitarian, to 'You shouldn't break a promise' - along with the other stipulations you added...?

I also used some examples that - for me - question the basis of some of these rules you were describing. I'd be interested in your thinking on them...


There is no absolute principle that will cover all bases and it depends to some extent on situational dynamics. E.g., would it be immoral to disobey an order? The answer is both "yes" and "no", it depends.


I think this is what people like Rev would like to shout you down for. Don't worry, I'm not in his camp by any stretch of the imagination. And I find the approach detailed above far superior to the kind of 'black and white' thinking displayed in the thread we've just been involved in.
...but at the end of the day, to say something like 'depends to some extent on situational dynamics' is exactly what someone like Rev would jump on as 'making up your morals as you go along' I feel.

For me, if you are to construct an objective moral framework, it has to have - at it's heart - a simply explained (i.e. one simple sentance) basis that then makes it clear (in a rational, practical sense) how you go about constructing a course of action for any situation.

Rev has 'the word of God' as his basis. It's not just some kind of 'ideal'. It's also gives you clear practical guidelines. Want to know what you need to do in any given situation? Read the Bible...

Mine is 'agency that doesn't impinge on the agency of others'. What do you do in any given situation? Whatever allows most agency for all parties involved.

...how would yours be described? And I don't mean just stating the word 'Egalitarian'. I also mean the practical upshot...

[JamesBannon]

Do you mean 'Egalitarian'? Yes. We have no a priori reason to suppose anything other than that all humans are of equal worth.

'You shouldn't break a promise' - along with the other stipulations you added...? This is not precisely what I said. My remarks at that time were in response to your claim that adultery was not immoral, which I disputed on the grounds that it was betrayal of basic trust and an offence to the notion of "fair exchange" (by which I take to mean an exchange between equals). It does not necessarily mean that I would argue that it is always immoral to break a promise as, like lying, whether or not it is immoral is situation-dependent. I do not necessarily take a non-consequentialist view of morals as there are no rules we can make that would cover all the bases. The basic role I give to principles is, not necessarily as a rule-book for life, for that is far too rigid, but rather to force us to justify our actions.

More later as I have a headache at the moment and finding it difficult to concentrate.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yes. We have no a priori reason to suppose anything other than that all humans are of equal worth.


Agreed. But how does this lead to 'adultery is immoral'?


I do not necessarily take a non-consequentialist view of morals as there are no rules we can make that would cover all the bases. The basic role I give to principles is, not necessarily as a rule-book for life, for that is far too rigid, but rather to force us to justify our actions.


Well, perhaps here is the real source of any disagreement we may have.
From the point where this discussion started in the 'other' thread, I've been after an 'objective' moral framework. A framework that won't leave me in the position of 'making up my morals as I go along'...


More later as I have a headache at the moment and finding it difficult to concentrate.


Sorry to hear that man :/

[JamesBannon]

Agreed. But how does this lead to 'adultery is immoral'?
Because it is an unfair exchange. It does not give equal weight to the feelings of the offended partner. In short, it elevates the desires of the adulterous partner over and above the desires of the other.


Well, perhaps here is the real source of any disagreement we may have.
From the point where this discussion started in the 'other' thread, I've been after an 'objective' moral framework. A framework that won't leave me in the position of 'making up my morals as I go along'...
I don't make them up as I go along either but I do recognise that principles are not absolute. There are too many situations where we may be forced to make an evil choice in order to avoid the possibility of greater evil. This does not mean that the choice in such a situation is not evil, however. E.g. consider the principle "killing innocents is wrong". I think we can agree that this is a good principle but imagine yourself in a situation where you are forced to sacrifice innocent life to preserve other innocent lives - say terrorists who have hijacked an aircraft and are going to crash it into a nuclear facility causing incalculable damage. Your finger is on the button that will eliminate the aircraft and kill all innocent life on board. Do you press the button? I would, yet I would be guilty of committing an evil according to my own principles. This is something I would have to live with and justify to the people and take the consequences.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I think we can agree that this is a good principle but imagine yourself in a situation where you are forced to sacrifice innocent life to preserve other innocent lives - say terrorists who have hijacked an aircraft and are going to crash it into a nuclear facility causing incalculable damage. Your finger is on the button that will eliminate the aircraft and kill all innocent life on board. Do you press the button? I would, yet I would be guilty of committing an evil according to my own principles. This is something I would have to live with and justify to the people and take the consequences.


It's a decent enough example, but in the end this is basic 'contridiction' situation. Much like the 'agency of one being used to diminish the agency of another' situation I dealt with earlier.
I don't find it particular challenging to either of our moral outlooks.

It just becomes a numbers game.

Number of people who would die on the plane = X.
Number of people who would die if the plane crashes somewhere 'dangerous' = X + Y. (All the people on the plane would die in either senario)

Assuming Y is greater than 0, then the more 'moral' outcome is for the plane to be destroyed before it hits it's target.


Because it is an unfair exchange. It does not give equal weight to the feelings of the offended partner. In short, it elevates the desires of the adulterous partner over and above the desires of the other.


So morality is based around giving 'equal' weight to the feelings of 'others'? Or only to others with which we have entered into a 'partnership' with?
Are their people that I actively shouldn't give their feelings 'equal weight' to?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Heh - it's always nice when you find out that the system you've been working out in your head matches with an already established one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Also to point out that a link to 'Liberalism' is found at the bottom of the Egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian) page.
It would appear the philosophies are - at the very least - closely related...

Remember my objection to the practicalities of 'Material egalitarianism' in the previous thread? Near the bottom of the page, it states that:


Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as libertarian socialism, which does not advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution.



...another question. How does this senario:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=185249

...sit with your egalitarianistic standpoint?

[JamesBannon]

So morality is based around giving 'equal' weight to the feelings of 'others'? Or only to others with which we have entered into a 'partnership' with?
Are their people that I actively shouldn't give their feelings 'equal weight' to?
Not necessarily, it depends. In the case of adultery it the inequality of the exchange and the unjustified promotion of desire over another that are the problems. Effectively, adultery just says "I don't care, fuck you!".


Also to point out that a link to 'Liberalism' is found at the bottom of the Egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian) page.
It would appear the philosophies are - at the very least - closely related...
They are to some extent, yes. I'm a socialist in the French Revolutionary, as opposed to the Marxist, tradition. In my tradition equal weight is given to liberty, equality and fraternity.

...another question. How does this senario:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=185249

...sit with your egalitarianistic standpoint?
I would not promote death matches because equality cannot be guaranteed and because it is simply a barbarous practice anyway. In the history of my own celtic ancestors death matches were quite common, usually for religious reasons or misplaced notions of honour.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I would not promote death matches because equality cannot be guaranteed and because it is simply a barbarous practice anyway.


I had typed out a long set of counter-points here, but after re-reading, I've noticed you're use of the word 'promote'. On this we can agree, I would not promote them either.

So here's a follow-up question - would you approve of BANNING consentual death-matches?


I would not promote death matches because equality cannot be guaranteed...


I'm not sure this point has any merit at all. Equality cannot be 'guaranteed' in marriage either - only sought for and encouraged. And yet you seem to have no problem with marriage...

You've also been adding more and more words to your description of immoral acts.

Barbaric.
Caring.
Desire.

None of the above nessesarily have anything to do with 'equality'.


Effectively, adultery just says "I don't care, fuck you!".


Actually, no. It doesn't nessesarily say that. At all. That's an assumption on your part.


In the history of my own celtic ancestors death matches were quite common, usually for religious reasons or misplaced notions of honour.


I'm not saying I would want to participate in such an activity. Or 'advise' anybody else to do so. But I do think that it is actually the mark of a 'civilised' society to allow all to persue their own idea of 'happiness'. It doesn't matter if it's something that I disagree with. Who am I to tell others how they should persue happiness?
If someone's idea of happiness is 'honourable' (misplaced of otherwise) fighting, then so be it - as long as it's consensual.

[JamesBannon]

By telling two other people they are 'wrong' to engage in a death-match, you are promoting your ideas above their's.
This is not what I said. I said I would not promote them because in my view they are barbarous. If the opponents were of exactly equal strength, skill and ability so that both took precisely the same chance then I could have nothing against them. However, can you conceive such a situation ever occurring? I certainly cannot.
Equality cannot be 'ensured' in a marriage either -only sought after. And yet you seem to endorse them.
Sought after certainly and some of it can be guaranteed by law. Partners enter into an equal agreement when they enter a relationship of this kind and the partners make the same kind of promise, namely to protect each other's trust.

But I do think that it is actually the mark of a 'civilised' society to allow all to persue their own idea of 'happiness'. It doesn't matter if it's something that I disagree with. Who am I to tell others how they should presue happiness?
What happened to responsible agency?

What's next on your hit list? Boxing? Sky-diving? (Why does anybody need to throw themselves out of a plane for fun?!)
Who said I had anything on a hit list? This is your reading, not mine.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

JamesBannon,

Check my previous post. I apologise. I did misread and missed your use of the word 'promote'. And I altered my post accordingly.

As such, I will only respond to the points that are still revalent...


This is not what I said. I said I would not promote them because in my view they are barbarous. If the opponents were of exactly equal strength, skill and ability so that both took precisely the same chance then I could have nothing against them. However, can you conceive such a situation ever occurring? I certainly cannot.


Can you imagine a marriage where both partners are equally caring towards the other? Where both have exactly the same chance of staying faithful?

I certainly can't...


Sought after certainly and some of it can be guaranteed by law.


And yet much of your talk concerning marriage is about 'caring'. The law can ensure that both partners 'care' equally towards each-other?


Partners enter into an equal agreement when they enter a relationship of this kind and the partners make the same kind of promise, namely to protect each other's trust.


Such an agreement would only state the intention. It doesn't actually mean both partners will care equally for each-other. At all.


What happened to responsible agency?


I beleive in responsible agency. That's why I would talk about how 'barbaric' death-matches are, and discourage anybody to get involved in them. But I would still be in favour of allowing them to happen...
Maybe we have differing opinons on what 'morality' is. Morality - for me - is where I have the right to interfere. It's not about whether I find something 'praise-worthy'...

I don't find penis-piercings 'praise-worthy'. But I also don't find them 'immoral'...

[JamesBannon]

I don't find penis-piercings 'praise-worthy'. But I also don't find them 'immoral'...
Penis piercings are very unlikely to cause harm to third parties unless they are botched in which case the person doing the piercing is certainly responsible for the botch-up and the person harmed is due compensation.

Morality - for me - is where I have the right to interfere.
And if agents are being irresponsible so that third parties are likely to be harmed? Define "interfere" please. I would certainly not be in favour of allowing such scenarios.

Such an agreement would only state the intention. It doesn't actually mean both partners will care equally for each-other. At all.
It is the intention that is important here. The intent is to guard each other's trust and hold that equally to your own. Violation of that principle is breach of obligation and could hardly be said to be consensual can it?

Forgive me if this is a misrepresentation, but you seem to be wanting people to have the freedom to "do as they please" without let or hindrance and without due regard for consequence or to accept responsibility for their actions. That's not freedom as I understand the term.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Penis piercings are very unlikely to cause harm to third parties unless they are botched in which case the person doing the piercing is certainly responsible for the botch-up and the person harmed is due compensation.


Agreed with the above. But the example of 'penis piercings' wasn't meant to be an example that I thought we'd disagree on. It was just to emphasise the difference between 'disliking' something, and seeing it as 'immoral'.
But it's a trivial point, and a point that I'm sure we both understand. So in hindsight, probably not worth bringing up...


And if agents are being irresponsible so that third parties are likely to be harmed?


If third-parties are to be harmed against their will then of course I wouldn't allow it - as that goes against the very foundation of my morality.
It worries me that you might have even considered this a point of debate. At least my last point was a statement, and not a question that I thought needed answering...


Define "interfere" please. I would certainly not be in favour of allowing such scenarios.


Any senario that would harm or even affect third-parties against their will I would actively 'interfere' with.
But consensual death-matches? No. And it's not just because I wouldnt' consider them immoral. It's also that history has proven such interventions to be relatively fruitless. If some small minority of the population want to get involved in consensual death-matches, they will find a way to make them happen - regardless of what the 'law' says. They'll just be moved underground - where they can't be regulated or tracked.

Just incase there is some confusion, I'm not saying the law should be encouraging them. Or financing them. Or trying to include them in the school timetable!
...but 'criminalising' them would actually not achieve what you would want it to achieve. The continual 'war on drugs' is just one fine example of what this kind of thinking achieves. Wastes money. Criminalises many innocent citizens. And doesn't even come close to stopping drug use...

If some people want to mess their lives up (according to mine or your standards) - of their own violition - they have the right to. The fact that we have a McDonalds on every street corner testifies to that fact. And unfortunately - as much as you'd like to make sure everybody's lives live up to your standards of excellence, not only is it impossible to achieve, it's also not up to you what consitutes a 'quality life'. That's up to the person living said life.


It is the intention that is important here.


Just as is would be the 'intent' of the death-match senario to be as fair as possible. No, there is no such thing as a 'perfectly' even match, just as there is also no such thing as a 'perfectly' even marriage.

I'm trying to argue one thing here. And one thing only...
You say that 'equality' is at the heart of your moral reasoning. And yet I see very little equality in your desision to interfere with consensual death-matches:

* You won't accept even potentially the equality of the two 'fighters' involved in the hypothetical senario. You've talked a lot about how all humans should be considered 'equal' - but it seems that is until they want to get involved in an activity that you don't like and you don't approve of. Then - suddenly - their anything BUT equal. Wierd that...

* You are quite happy to consider yourself 'unequal' to the two fighters, in the sense that you consider YOUR opinion on what they should do with their time superior to what THEY should do with their time. If they are humans, just as you are, then why is your opinion suddenly superior to theirs?
In fact I find it very easy to argue that Libertarianism is a purer form of 'equality' than the form you have been putting forward so far. Because in my view of morality, I don't assume to know what the 'right' thing is for other people to do with their time. I let THEM decide that. Why? Because - as you say - they are humans. Equal to me. So why would I assume I know better then them? The only thing I would enforce is that their freedom cannot diminish the freedom of another - for the same reason. Because they are both humans and are EQUAL to each-other.
Both have equal rights to freedom. It doesn't matter one jot that some may want to use their freedom in ways that disgust James Bannon. Why? Because James Bannon is just another human. And that means - by his own admission - that James Bannon is equal to the human who wants to spend his life living a way that James disapproves of. But since James is human, and hence no better - and hence his opinion is no better - what right does he (or anybody else) have to dimish the rights of others, unless it is to maintain the equality of all men's freedom...?


The intent is to guard each other's trust and hold that equally to your own.


The intent of the death-match is to maintain an equal standing as possible between the two men who wish to fight.
The only difference is one activity you approve of, the other you don't. In truth, it's actually got nothing to do with equality...

Violation of that principle is breach of obligation and could hardly be said to be consensual can it?


I will agree that if one partner cheats on another, that the partner 'cheated' on didn't choose that outcome. But they DID choose to enter into the agreement in the first place, and therefore, knew that they were putting themselves at risk of being hurt.


Forgive me if this is a misrepresentation, but you seem to be wanting people to have the freedom to "do as they please" without let or hindrance and without due regard for consequence or to accept responsibility for their actions.


It is a clear mispresresentation, and that should be obvious. I've already stated several times the 'responsibility' that people have when choosing their actions. And that is that their actions do not affect the freedom of others.
If you're saying that the 'responsibility' should extend past that, I'm sure that's the advice fundemental Christians use as they vote to dimish the right's homosexuals to legally fair unions.
It's OK - because they 'care'. Right?

That's not freedom as I understand the term.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
Please point out how I have used the word incorrectly......

[JamesBannon]

I will agree that if one partner cheats on another, that the partner 'cheated' on didn't choose that outcome. But they DID choose to enter into the agreement in the first place, and therefore, knew that they were putting themselves at risk of being hurt.
What has this got to do with it? So it's OK that a person knowing that another could be hurt is justified in hurting another? I think not!
The intent of the death-match is to maintain an equal standing as possible between the two men who wish to fight.
The intent of a death match is for one person to kill another - period. The only rule that matters is to be alive at the end of the match. This just sanctions murder and has nothing at all to do with freedom.
I let THEM decide that. Why? Because - as you say - they are humans. Equal to me. So why would I assume I know better then them? The only thing I would enforce is that their freedom cannot diminish the freedom of another - for the same reason. Because they are both humans and are EQUAL to each-other.
That they certainly are but is it OK for people to cause harm? The obvious answer is "no" (as you seem to agree with), so why should we promote liberty above all other considerations?
And that is that their actions do not affect the freedom of others.
But every example you have given so far does affect the freedom of others. If I am free to kill just because someone else says it OK for me to do it to them I have maximally restricted their future freedom and we have a conflict of interest.
I'm sure that's the advice fundemental Christians use as they vote to dimish the right's homosexuals to legally fair unions.
It's OK - because they 'care'. Right?
This accusation is entirely unfounded and offensive. Please don't equate me with lunatics. Besides, the action of the fundamentalist in this case limits the freedom of the homosexual to conduct their affairs in the ways other humans do simply because they happen to be homosexual.

[untermensche]

I don't think 'freedom' and 'agency' are actually your framework.

Your framework is "harm reduction".

And freedom of action and of course agency of action are assumed when we deal with human beings.

[JamesBannon]

I don't think 'freedom' and 'agency' are actually your framework.

Your framework is "harm reduction".

And freedom of action and of course agency of action are assumed when we deal with human beings.
Which respondent are you addressing Untermensche, mine or Renegades? If you are addressing mine then I would agree, at least partially. In my framework it is not permitted to cause undue harm to another if it can be avoided, irrespective of freedom which, in any case, is always contingent, never absolute.

[untermensche]

Which respondent are you addressing Untermensche, mine or Renegades? If you are addressing mine then I would agree, at least partially. In my framework it is not permitted to cause undue harm to another if it can be avoided, irrespective of freedom which, in any case, is always contingent, never absolute.
I was addressing the original post.

Because it seemed the deeper the concepts were explored the more it became an issue of harm reduction, and not a question of freedom or agency, which must be assumed if the topic of morality is a real topic.

It must be assumed humans can act freely if there is any consideration given to those actions.

And of course it also must be assumed that the individual is the agency from which the action occurs.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

And freedom of action and of course agency of action are assumed when we deal with human beings.


If you are intending to turn this into a determinism / free will debate, I mean 'freedom' in the practical sense. Yes, I know arguably free will doesn't 'really' exist, but on a practical level, we all know humans can either be allowed to do 'what they want', or thay can be restricted by other entities. In this context, we are talking about other humans...

It cannot not be under debate that some humans can 'enslave' other humans, and dimish their freedom's. Not in a rational debate at least...


What has this got to do with it? So it's OK that a person knowing that another could be hurt is justified in hurting another?


So we're back to 'we can't upset other people'?
My only point here is that the 'hurt' person in this senario put themselves into a position where they could get hurt.

I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy, or that it isn't a negative consequence. I'm only saying that that detail of the circumstance affects the morality of the situation - at least imo. Your free to disagree if you like. I don't mind...


The intent of a death match is for one person to kill another - period.


In a fairly evened match. Yes - and?


The only rule that matters is to be alive at the end of the match.


Yes - and?


This just sanctions murder and has nothing at all to do with freedom.


Again, you abuse the word freedom. I notice you didn't address the dictionary definition I provided...


That they certainly are but is it OK for people to cause harm? The obvious answer is "no" (as you seem to agree with), so why should we promote liberty above all other considerations?

In my framework it is not permitted to cause undue harm to another if it can be avoided...


Ahh. So you are for banning boxing? And McDonalds?
Because neither are 'nessesary'...


But every example you have given so far does affect the freedom of others.


What? Consensual death-matches affects someone's freedom? Who's exactly?
Your wish to BAN such matches is actually the attitude that would restrict freedom. The only problem here is you appear to use a different definition of 'freedom' to everyone else in the English-speaking world...


If I am free to kill just because someone else says it OK for me to do it to them I have maximally restricted their future freedom and we have a conflict of interest.


Here I will agree. The state, and all other 'moral' parties should make every effort to 'counsel' those who consensually get involved in death-matches and make it clear to them what they are throwing away - i.e. any future freedom they may have.
...but their life (and their freedom is they so wish) is their own to throw away. It doesn't belong to you, me, nor the state...


This accusation is entirely unfounded and offensive.


It's not either. Although I'm sure you see it as such because you seem to have taken it personally. Many fundemental Christians do use the exuse of 'higher moral law' and the fact that 'they care about homosexuals' to attempt to limit the freedom of homsoexual couples.

This is fact. And is a possible side-effect of not making 'freedom' the absolute basis of a moral framework. If you don't, you give yourself the temptation of 'telling others what to do'.

Please don't equate me with lunatics.


The fact that you thought I was equating you with 'a lunatic' is telling. I was doing no such thing.
And it's a little trite for you to be acting offended. This conversion started because you said you considered my approach on morality 'nieve', if you rememeber.

I'm happy to continue this debate. It's interesting and stimulating. But not if you're going to start taking things personally... If so, I would have taken you're initial comment 'personally', and never have even agreed to engage in this discussion...


Besides, the action of the fundamentalist in this case limits the freedom of the homosexual to conduct their affairs in the ways other humans do simply because they happen to be homosexual.


Yes. And? Homosexuality is harmful. Christians know this perfectly well, and are only doing their moral duty by helping homo's save themselves from - themsevles.

[JamesBannon]

Yes. And? Homosexuality is harmful. Christians know this perfectly well, and are only doing their moral duty by helping homo's save themselves from - themsevles. This is bullshit as well you know. It is based on an entirely unfounded assertion that morality is based on the instructions of some invisible, non-existent entity. Homosexuality is harmful? Nonsense. It is about as harmful as any other sexual activity between consenting adults, which is to say that the risk of STDs is always present but can be avoided. If some person, homosexual or otherwise, knowingly indulges in sexual activity whilst suffering from an STD and doesn't take adequate precautions then that would be reckless endangerment and would be immoral but not otherwise.

My only point here is that the 'hurt' person in this senario put themselves into a position where they could get hurt. And this makes what difference in the situation where adultery occurs? There is a risk in any human activity. Are you saying that indulging in any human activity removes my responsibility towards another? I don't think so.

I'm only saying that that detail of the circumstance affects the morality of the situation - at least imo. Precisely! Why then is freedom an absolute so far as human morality is concerned?

Again, you abuse the word freedom. Nope. I simply recognise that it is contingent, not absolute. There are some situations where freedom of action must be restricted.

Ahh. So you are for banning boxing? And McDonalds?
Because neither are 'nessesary'... Nope. I would not ban them, but I disapprove of them even if I indulge in them myself. I smoke cigarettes for instance and this is a habit I would not approve of for health reasons. I would not, however, automatically ban it, nor would I withhold treatment from someone who smoked, though I would try and persuade them that it is a stupid thing to do.

This conversion started because you said you considered my approach on morality 'nieve', if you rememeber. Naive was not the word I used. I used the word mistaken because I believe it has a mistaken view of freedom of action - no-one is absolutely free to act therefore freedom of agency cannot be an absolute.

But not if you're going to start taking things personally... The reason I took it personally has to do with you introducing Christianity, especially fundamentalism. There is no need to do that here as I'm no Christian. However, it's not really a valid excuse for me to get upset.

[untermensche]

If you are intending to turn this into a determinism / free will debate, I mean 'freedom' in the practical sense. Yes, I know arguably free will doesn't 'really' exist, but on a practical level, we all know humans can either be allowed to do 'what they want', or thay can be restricted by other entities. In this context, we are talking about other humans...

It cannot not be under debate that some humans can 'enslave' other humans, and dimish their freedom's. Not in a rational debate at least...
Yes. We can examine the harm of one person enslaving another person.

As I said, the system is basically a system of harm reduction, and freedom and agency have nothing to do with it.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yes. We can examine the harm of one person enslaving another person.

As I said, the system is basically a system of harm reduction, and freedom and agency have nothing to do with it.


Incorrect. See the example of a consensual death-match, referenced from another thread. I would not make any move to ban such activities.
This directly contridicts you're apprasial of my position.


This is bullshit as well you know.


I was stating the truth as many Christians see it.
I knew full well you are not a Christian, and I'm surprised you would have thought I was aiming that comment directly at the kind of conclusion that you specifically would have come to...


It is based on an entirely unfounded assertion that morality is based on the instructions of some invisible, non-existent entity.


Firstly, some invisible non-entity according to you. Do you find you're beliefs so superior that they make the opinions of others null and void?!
this 'equality' phase really is taking a nose-dive now...

Secondly, whatever their sense of morality is based on, most fundementalist Christians at the very least claim to 'care' for those they try to restrict the rights of. And personally, I beleive that most of them really do 'care'. It's a misdirected and misguided form of caring, but it's 'caring' non-the-less.

...which is exactly what I stated.


Homosexuality is harmful? Nonsense. It is about as harmful as any other sexual activity between consenting adults, which is to say that the risk of STDs is always present but can be avoided.


Glad you think so. I agree.
Other's don't. And the opinion of those others are equal to our own, because we are all equal humans.
Just because you and I aren't 'enlightened' enough or 'educated' enough to understand this more ambigous type of 'harm', doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


If some person, homosexual or otherwise, knowingly indulges in sexual activity whilst suffering from an STD and doesn't take adequate precautions then that would be reckless endangerment and would be immoral but not otherwise.


Agreed. Unless any other sexual partners are fully aware of any conditions present, but still choose to go ahead... But that's where you and I differ I guess...


Precisely! Why then is freedom an absolute so far as human morality is concerned?


It's not an absolute. I already went over this in the other thread. I don't beleive in absolute morality. Only what we each personally think is the best way to approach morality.


Nope. I simply recognise that it is contingent, not absolute. There are some situations where freedom of action must be restricted.


Alright. You abuse the dictionary definition of the word 'freedom'. You're adding a whole load of stuff that isn't included in the definition, and trying to claim it's all to do with 'freedom'. It isn't.


Nope. I would not ban them


Then you are not following you're own rule as you stated it in a previous post.
You said:
...is it OK for people to cause harm? The obvious answer is "no"

However, in fact, we both agree that 'some' consensual harm is 'allowable'. You just draw a more ambigious line in the sand than I do.

...would it help if McDonalds bosses went around clubbing people on the head? Maybe that would make the harm they are causing more 'obvious'...


, but I disapprove of them even if I indulge in them myself.


Did I say I would 'approve' of death-matches?


I smoke cigarettes for instance and this is a habit I would not approve of for health reasons. I would not, however, automatically ban it, nor would I withhold treatment from someone who smoked, though I would try and persuade them that it is a stupid thing to do.


Again, we agree.


Naive was not the word I used. I used the word mistaken because I believe it has a mistaken view of freedom of action - no-one is absolutely free to act therefore freedom of agency cannot be an absolute.


I'll accept that I got your exact use of word wrong if you accept that:

a. It was you who judged my moral outlook first
b. I've never stated that freedom is 'an absolute'. In fact I made a very big deal in the previous thread of explaining that I do not belevie in 'absolute' morals. I do, however, beleive in an objective moral framework. I also beleive an objective moral framework cannot be constructed out of words like 'barbaric' and 'caring' because they are ambigious and subjective.


The reason I took it personally has to do with you introducing Christianity, especially fundamentalism. There is no need to do that here as I'm no Christian.


The point is, if your moral framework is not objective, then you cannot dismiss what others would do with the same framework. A framework based around what you believe is 'barbaric' is all well and good for you, but a law based around 'What James Bannon thinks is barbaric' wouldn't really work.
And I'm interested in moral principles that can shape 'laws of the land' in the long term as much as I am 'personal' morality.

Again, I'm looking for an 'objective' moral framework. Not something based on my own whims and opinions.
You were pushing the Egalitarianism angle for a while there I guess. But sometimes it didn't really fit with some of your more specific objectives...


However, it's not really a valid excuse for me to get upset.


Agreed.

AS far as the adultery point, it's actually forcing me to think quite a bit about my own position, and may be forcing me into a moment of clarity. (Which is always welcome, and for which I thank you :) )
I'll need a bit more time for my reply on this point...

In the meantime, there are many points that I have made in previous posts that have gone un-answered. I would appreciate it if you could spend the time attending to them if possible...

[JamesBannon]

Morality is non-objective by definition in that it is not independent of sentient minds capable of perceiving it and your role for freedom is as "subjective" as my role for equality and harm, unless you choose to make freedom absolute which you clearly do not. The point that I am trying to make is that principles play a role in forcing us to justify actions / inactions. When making such judgements, however, we must take account that morality is, at least to some extent, situational.

As to the definition of freedom you cited, there are a total of 17 different definitions in that reference. Which ones are you using? I rather doubt that it would be #17 since that maintains that individuals are entirely autonomous and without either internal or external restraint. Clearly this isn't the case as we've both agreed.

A framework based around what you believe is 'barbaric' is all well and good for you, but a law based around 'What James Bannon thinks is barbaric' wouldn't really work.
We are talking about morality here, not law. That aside, you are correct but I contend that most moral imperatives, such as "right to life" are pretty basic and that judgements are inter-subjective. A death match would I think be rejected by the majority of reasonable individuals excepted from some cultural or group dynamic effects on the expression of the basic imperatives (such as in the culture of my ancestors for religious reasons).

Firstly, some invisible non-entity according to you. Do you find you're beliefs so superior that they make the opinions of others null and void?!
this 'equality' phase really is taking a nose-dive now...
People are equally free to believe as they wish, however this in no way obligates me to respect or agree with those beliefs so long as I don't assault their right to believe and I do not. But, and it is a big but, a right to believe is not of necessity directly translatable into equal right to freedom of action for that would be absurd. Were this the case law or morality would not be possible at all and we would have a very bad kind of anarchy.

Lastly for this bit I am not attacking your notion as such. In fact I agree with it to some extent. Liberty is certainly an important part of enlightenment thinking (and humanist thinking generally) but this has to be IMHO tempered with a realisation that all humans are to some extent interconnected. It is not enough to emphasise liberty on its own, for this can lead to absurd conclusions as I think we have seen.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Morality is non-objective by definition in that it is not independent of sentient minds capable of perceiving it and your role for freedom is as "subjective" as my role for equality and harm, unless you choose to make freedom absolute which you clearly do not.


I get the point you are trying to make here, but a moral framework CAN be objective past the initial desision which constructs the framework.

i.e. I make one desision, which essentially is 'My moral framework is based on freedom that doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others'. After that, my moral framework is objective, until I change my mind and alter my moral framework...


The point that I am trying to make is that principles play a role in forcing us to justify actions / inactions. When making such judgements, however, we must take account that morality is, at least to some extent, situational.


To be more accurate, this is how you could choose to view it. I see 'situations' as helpful 'benchmarks' for testing your moral framework. But I don't accept the conclusion that it is fruitless to even attempt to construct an objective moral framework just because of some 'tricky' senarios.


As to the definition of freedom you cited, there are a total of 17 different definitions in that reference. Which ones are you using?


All of them other than the 17th one ;)
Notice that 16 of the 17 directly relate to my arguments. And that none of them mention notions such as 'barbarity' or 'caring'.


I rather doubt that it would be #17 since that maintains that individuals are entirely autonomous and without either internal or external restraint. Clearly this isn't the case as we've both agreed.


The main problem with #17 is that it is relating to philosophical issues concerning free-will. This isn't the point of this debate - that's a seperate issue...

But that's only to do with the 'internal' restraint. If you are using the 'external' restraint as a means to dismiss my correct use of the concept of 'freedom', all you have to do is take into account the contridictory and circular situation of the freedom of one dimishing the freedom of another.

In the end, there is little ambiguity. My use of the term freedom is proper and correct.


We are talking about morality here, not law.


Interesting. You don't beleive it is a 'moral' imperative to make every possible effort to ensure laws of the land are as moral as possible?

This said, this is at the heart of my 'moment of clarity' in regard to adultery. This clear distinction between morality in regards to 'law', and 'personal' morality is clearly important. I'm still working it though, but I will reply on this point further in due course.


That aside, you are correct but I contend that most moral imperatives, such as "right to life" are pretty basic and that judgements are inter-subjective. A death match would I think be rejected by the majority of reasonable individuals excepted from some cultural or group dynamic effects on the expression of the basic imperatives (such as in the culture of my ancestors for religious reasons).


I agree. Which kind of makes the fact that I would hypothetically allow them a little achedemic - don't you think? I mean, people hear me say 'I wouldn't ban consensual death-matches', and then what do people imagine? Brutal fights-to-the-death on every street corner?!
And even if we take into account some kind of cultural or religious imperative to engage in consensual death-matches, between the choices of 'forcing them to stop' and 'letting them work out it's a waste of time on their own', I go with the latter. Why? A couple of reasons (Again, this is assuming morality on a 'law of the land' level...)

1. By trying to restrict their freedom in an attempt to forcebly 'stop' the brutality, you potentially only inflame their sense of 'unholy dominion'. In a religious context, they might learn to see the goverment as an enemy of 'God', and potentially only inflame their fundementalism. (And cause a whole load of other problems along the way...)
I beleive the best way to breed civility and tolerance is to demonstrate it. Not force it on others.

2. It won't stop the consensual death-matches. They will only move underground, away from public view.

My contention isn't that freedom is some kind of 'absolute'. But I do contend that to try and 'fight' freedom is not only 'wrong', it is also - in the end - fruitless and counter-productive, and never constructs a practically viable outcome. Dictatorships are overthrown. Law's 'banning' certain activities just go underground...

As far as 'personal morality' goes, again - I'll post more on that shortly. You must understand that since freedom is the basis of my morality, that 'laws of the land' are - quite naturally - my biggest concern...


People are equally free to believe as they wish, however this in no way obligates me to respect or agree with those beliefs so long as I don't assault their right to believe and I do not.


Agreed.


But, and it is a big but, a right to believe is not of necessity directly translatable into equal right to freedom of action for that would be absurd. Were this the case law or morality would not be possible at all and we would have a very bad kind of anarchy.


Freedom that is only tamed by one condition - that you cannot impinge upon the freedom of others - would allow all viewpoints to be equal to yours, plus it would hardly equal 'anarchy'. I think you over-state the point, in the interest of making it seem more reasonable to 'repress' others you don't agree with.


Lastly for this bit I am not attacking your notion as such. In fact I agree with it to some extent. Liberty is certainly an important part of enlightenment thinking (and humanist thinking generally) but this has to be IMHO tempered with a realisation that all humans are to some extent interconnected. It is not enough to emphasise liberty on its own, for this can lead to absurd conclusions as I think we have seen.


Which are the 'absurd' conclusions you are refering to? Consensual death-matches? You are begging the quesion here...

[untermensche]

Incorrect. See the example of a consensual death-match, referenced from another thread. I would not make any move to ban such activities.
This directly contridicts you're apprasial of my position.
You won't ban it because you claim nobody is harmed. The people involved, whomever these strange very rare people may be, claim they are not being harmed by participating in some death match.

Again, it reduces to harm reduction.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

[JamesBannon]

Renegade,
For the present very briefly:
that you cannot impinge upon the freedom of others
It is this I'm having difficulty with here. I'm having difficulty defining just what this phrase actually means in general terms rather than when applied to specific situations.

And that none of them mention notions such as 'barbarity' or 'caring'.
And these in my view are mistaken because to my mind many of our moral judgements are based on empathy. To ignore this in my view does not preserve the basic phenomenon of Homo sapiens being a social species.

Law's 'banning' certain activities just go underground...
But we make such laws all the time. E.g. murder is a crime at common law (in Scotland at any rate) and this is a prohibition on a certain kind of behaviour. Of course murders still happen for a variety of reasons but they are still banned and if you get caught you go to gaol.

More later.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

untermensche,

Nothing that you say is making any sense to me. Why are you telling me the reason why I wouldn't ban consensual death-matches?! I know perfectly well why *I* wouldn't ban them. And I know the reason better than you - because I'm me. And you're not me!

Where do I make the claim 'nobody would be harmed'?! Where did I ever make such a dumb claim?! And who said the people involved in the death-matches also claim that they won't be harmed?! Their fighting each-other to the death! Where are you getting this stuff from?!

My only claim is that no-one would be harmed against their will. That's quite a different story.

You keep telling me that my reasoning has nothing to do with 'freedom'. And yet every post I make contridicts your apprasial. I can only conclude you insert, delete, re-arrange and plain make up my words as you see fit as you read them.

Fascinating. But a waste of time. And unless you start making sense, this will be my last reply to you in this thread...


It is this I'm having difficulty with here. I'm having difficulty defining just what this phrase actually means in general terms rather than when applied to specific situations.


Well, a more telling problem (imo) would be if you understood the 'general' rule, but couldn't work out how it applied to the specific situations - which is the trouble I was having when you were trying to push 'equality' as the basis of your morality, and yet not keeping 'equality' at the forefront of your reasoning when inspecting specific senarios.

I admit there are 'grey areas'. Any moral framework will have them.
I admit there will be some situations where the 'moral' answer is not immediately obvious. Again, all moral frameworks will have this problem too.

But this doesn't change the fact that some moral framework's are objective in nature. Other's aren't.
Anytime you are reduced to using such subjective words as 'barbaric' or 'caring', you know you haven't got an objective framework.

You may not care about your framework being 'objective'. You may even think it's not possible to have an objective framework. But I think it's possible, and I think it's important that it is objective -for various reasons that I've already gone over...


And these in my view are mistaken because to my mind many of our moral judgements are based on empathy.


This particular point of contention wasn't even about what your particular moral emphasis was.
You used the phrase 'that's not what freedom is about to me' - or something equivalent.
I then 'accused' you of 'abusing' the word 'freedom'. I then further clarified that as abusing the 'dictionary definition' of the word.

Instead of saying 'I don't give a damn what the dictionary says', you chose to then peruse my choice of definition. It was a dead end of reasoning.

I don't mind if you substitute the word 'freedom' for your own version of 'freedom' everytime you see the word. That's your deal. I would argue that it's not particulary helpful, if communication is of any importance to you.

But - moving on...


To ignore this in my view does not preserve the basic phenomenon of Homo sapiens being a social species.


Well, assuming you don't want everybody else in the English-speaking world to change their definition of the word 'freedom', then I can only assume you are continuing to critisise my choice to place 'freedom' at the centre of my moral reasoning.
I personally beleive my choice of moral basis has EVERYTHING to do with the 'basic phenomenon of Homo sapiens being a social species'. It's just looking at it from a different angle from you. That's all.

I understand your desire to build the concept of 'helping each-other'. The only trouble I have with making that the basis of morality is it doesn't specifically oppose the idea of helping others 'against their will'.

But I am all for helping others as long as they want that help. I'm guessing one problem with my moral basis is that you see no active incentive to help others. Which would be a fair point, and one I've also pondered.
Happenning to stumble upon that wiki page on Libertarianism has helped me a bit there. It appears that others within Libertarianism have pondered the same 'problem' -which is why some have constructed the idea of 'negative' and 'positive' rights.

Negative rights are the more obvious ones. Right to not be enslaved. Right to not be discriminated against. Right not to be harmed against your will. etc. etc.

But 'positive' rights are things like the right to eat, or the right to shelter. These rights aren't nessesarily enforced by stopping people taking away freedom's (unless someone was stealing food from you, for example). These kinds of 'rights' can only be 'ensured' though an organised society, that 'promises' to help those who cannot eat. Or who have no shelter.

I think this concept of 'negative' and 'positive' rights work well within the libertatianist framework. And the positive rights are probably more the things you are directly concerned about. Of course, I've only just come across the concept, so I'm still trying to digest it. This is why I would like a bit more time to make a fuller reply.

But of course, even adding the concept of 'positive' rights, the option of banning consensual death-mathces is (as far as I'm aware) is still not acceptable to a 'pure' liberatian.


But we make such laws all the time. E.g. murder is a crime at common law (in Scotland at any rate) and this is a prohibition on a certain kind of behaviour. Of course murders still happen for a variety of reasons but they are still banned and if you get caught you go to gaol.


This is a fair point. Any attempt to 'enforce' morality is not assured. So, yeah - fair enough...

This doesn't affect my main point though. And it does have bearing when commenting on things like the so-called 'War On Drugs'...

[JamesBannon]

And the positive rights are probably more the things you are directly concerned about.
What concerns me as an Egalitarian is that I see people living in misery, being brutalised, tortured and enslaved for no good reason. What makes me really, really mad is libertarians (not yourself so far) who argue that people who live under such conditions choose to live as such (this was one of the main reasons I became disgusted with economics at university). If I have to limit some freedoms to promote better wellbeing for all citizens then so be it. Of course, some limits have to be set as to how much enforcement is allowable (for example I would not advocate killing people or putting them in gaol simply because of their beliefs) - hence the requirement for limiting the state's power through human rights legislation to ensure rights are protected and justice properly served. This does not mean that I do not view freedom as important, it is, but I would be chary of attempts to elevate it beyond its due place.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

What makes me really, really mad is libertarians (not yourself so far) who argue that people who live under such conditions choose to live as such (this was one of the main reasons I became disgusted with economics at university).


I personally have never heard of the above theory. Is it really an established libertatian concept? Seems very irrational to me. I'd have thought it was very obvious that many many people live in circumstances that they do not 'choose'.
So I disagree with the above theory. Probably for the same reasons you do.

What I have heard, though, is the idea that - being a libertatian - you can't force someone who has plenty of 'X' ('X' being money, food, shelter etc.) to give aid / help to another who lacks 'X'. Because it is up to each person what they give or don't give - given the moral principle of 'freedom'.

Now, I will freely admit this as a 'grey' area for me. At least it has been for a while. But I belevie this conversation has helped clarify things for me. Again, I thank you for that :)
I'll try and talk you though my current reasoning on this issue. It's a little convoluted, so you might have to bear with me...
...anyway...

Firstly, we have to settle on the right to 'possessions' - whether humans have the right to 'own' other 'things' that they can have and do with as they please. Be it money, food, shelter etc. etc.
For the remainder of this post, I will assume the answer to this question is 'yes'. 'No' is a legetimate answer, but I believe history has proven that, regardless of any moral implications, it is simply impractical to implement.
...or in other words, Material Egalitarianism can only work 'so far'. Human nature at it's most basic level seems to rebel when attempts are made to enforce material egalitatianism at it's more extreme and pure level. (If this is something you want to talk though, you can bring it up in your next post if you so wish...)

A related, but different issue is the concept of 'society'. A group of humans living 'in harmony' for mutual benefit. Being a part of a society is a two-way process for each human involved in it. Each human is meant to benefit from society, but each human is also expected to contribute to said society. So, choosing to be involved in a society places certain obligations on each individual in it. And this isn't according to some abstract notion of 'fairness'. It is a purely practical consideration. If society consisted only to serve those who tried to benefit without contributibution, the society could not last, and would cease to function.
It's perhaps a side-note, but while you have the choice to be involved in a society, I believe you should also have the choice to NOT be part of any organised society. This has bearing on issues like gypsies etc.

With these two concepts in place (right to possession, and society), we can construct a 'moral' principle based around the idea of 'positive rights'. And we can state that moral society's should protect the positive rights of all it's citizens.
...which seems a fair enough thing to say. But then we have the following parameters to define:

* What is the full list of 'positive' rights that society should be obliged to protect?
* What constitutes 'contributing to society'?

So there are still blanks to fill in. And perhaps each society is free to decide themselves where the boundries lie. But I believe the above is a framework that doesn't conflict with libertatian principles, and yet insures the 'positive' rights of any humans in the given society...

I believe this also bears relation to our 'adultery' issue. I beleive this should be considered in a similar vein, seeing a 'marriage' as simply a smaller example of a 'society'. I'll post more on that later...

[JamesBannon]

Renegade,
I don't have the energy to respond in full right now as I have a headache again (I really should give up smoking) but this interested me.
I personally have never heard of the above theory. Is it really an established libertatian concept?
This argument has been around a very long time and is still popular today. We normally here it put as "people don't work hard enough", "people should help themselves" or "I got to where I am on my own merit and so should everyone else" or some other such rubbish. It is a standard extremist libertarian "war cry". Slightly more subtly it appears as "merit should be rewarded" (a favourite of the "New Labour" pundits). We used to get this all the time in our studies of neoclassical economic theory with very few dissenting voices: as if markets had anything to do with merit. Suffice to say that it is nonsense: no-one gets to where they are without the help of others, ever.

More later. At the moment I'm off to clear my head by watching a Bond film. I know, hardly intellectual but it is entertaining nonsense.

[Hooboy !!]

We have no a priori reason to suppose anything other than that all humans are of equal worth.
What is the justification for this priori? I am having a problem with the word "worth" and with the word "equal". Neither of which can be objectively defined.

For me, the only priori is that... Living things have a right to live.

Living things then are "free" to do whatever is necessary to achieve this single end.

The issue of morality rises when these individual freedoms interfere with each other... necessarily as an unavoidable consequence of scarcity.

Subjective concepts such as "equality" and "worth" then come into play as measures of priority. Which life is more deserving of living? The answer to this question is simple: The one most able.

Ableness invariable is a function of violence, but it can also be a function of cunning. Almost all living things exist at the expense of other living things. If the definition of "moral" is that a thing causes "no harm", then the only trully moral living things are those things that obtain their sustanance from inorganic sources. But, even these creatures consume resources at the exclusion of others and therefore cause harm.

It is my opinion then that a definition of "moral" cannot assume any sense of "equality", or "worth", or "harm caused". Morality becomes a function of negotiation where living things establish a balance of give and take to form a near symbiotic relationship. Mutually nourishing as well as parasitic.

[JamesBannon]

Which life is more deserving of living? The answer to this question is simple: The one most able.
And who the hell defines what "most able" means? You? Me? No thanks! Besides this is just crap social darwinism. Supposing someone in power decided you were not able and therefore ought to go to the gas chambers? There is a reason why I state my Egalitarian belief in the way I do: all measures of human worth are subjective.

[Hooboy !!]

And who the hell defines what "most able" means? You? Me? No thanks! Besides this is just crap social darwinism. Supposing someone in power decided you were not able and therefore ought to go to the gas chambers? There is a reason why I state my Egalitarian belief in the way I do: all measures of human worth are subjective.
Put whatever label you want to on it. The facts remain. Those most able are the ones that control the future. This is the way of things. Right, wrong, or indifferent is irrelevant. I'm sure the Jews in teh gas chambers groused mightily as they were slaghtered. I'm sure that most people would agree that the Nazis carried out a great injustice on the Jews. There is little question that Nazism was/is "immoral". It changes nothing. Those 6 million Jews are still dead.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hooboy,

Is your argument that there is really no such thing as 'morality'? Or are you really espousing a 'Darwinian'-type sense of morality, as James states?

Because - personally - I dont' see much of a distinction myself. Which is not to say you're wrong in your viewpoint. It's more a question to help me clarify you're position...

[JamesBannon]

Put whatever label you want to on it. The facts remain. Those most able are the ones that control the future. This is the way of things. Right, wrong, or indifferent is irrelevant. I'm sure the Jews in teh gas chambers groused mightily as they were slaghtered. I'm sure that most people would agree that the Nazis carried out a great injustice on the Jews. There is little question that Nazism was/is "immoral". It changes nothing. Those 6 million Jews are still dead.
So, just because we failed to stop the Nazis murdering the Jews means that we ought not to interfere in any other case? Again, what do you mean by "most able"? The ones with the biggest guns? Some society! Have we not learned anything from history? Have we not learned the kind of results of applying this kind of "might of right" argument? Surely we can learn from experience, can we not? Besides, I detect a naturalistic fallacy here. Just because it happens does not mean that it is "right".

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy,

Is your argument that there is really no such thing as 'morality'? Or are you really espousing a 'Darwinian'-type sense of morality, as James states?

Because - personally - I dont' see much a distinction myself. Which is not to say you're wrong in your viewpoint. It's more a question to help me clarify you're position...
I do not accept the notion of any form of an objective morality, be it theistic in nature or rational. JamesBannon seems to have taken issue with my point, but the most important thing he wrote was...

why I state my Egalitarian belief in the way I do: all measures of human worth are subjective.
...which is in essence agreement with me that the priori "all humans are of equal worth" does not exist, since "worth" is agreed to be subjective. The result of this? There is no objective morality.

The original assertion is that "'freedom' is a basis for a moral framework." I actually agree with this in some respect. From the perspective that "freedom" is nothing more than what we are able to secure for ourselves, since no living thing, as a consequence of self-preservation, takes into consideration any other living thing's "freedom". In fact, in many cases, the very act of survival necessarily denies other living things their freedom.

That is the way of things.

The problem as I see it, is that people tend to narrow the scope of the discussion to be pertaining to human beings only, as if we are the only living things on the planet, as if evolution has selected us to live exclusively, at the expense of all other living things. Of course, this is absurd, but that is the foundation from which all discussions of morality springs from.

This creates a bit of a conundrum, for how do we reconcile the beast that kills a human being? Is the beast "immoral"? Of course not. It is incapable of acting either morally or immorally. Only human beings then have this ability. Yet... we are quick to sentence to death any animal so foolish enough to take a human life. We rationalize this by asserting that they are "dangerous". Well DUH! There are great many creatures in the world that are dangerous that we are willing to allow to coexist with us. Just so long as they do not cross that magical boundary and murder a human being. Heaven forbid.

There is no question that human beings regard human life with more value than any other form of life. Exploring the "Why?" of this is interesting. For me... human life is not worth any more or any less than even the simplest form of life. Evolution and natural selection will decide who is and who is not "fit". Or in other words... worth anything. How else would you measure "worth", if not that the living thing has demonstrated some ability, some capability, some skill, some physical trait that justifies or facilitates its existence?

Look at it this way...

How would the universe be were there no more human beings? Answer: It would be as it is. And without a human being there to witness this, there could be no regret, remorse, or feelings of any kind. Fuck. The universe might be better off for all we know.

No, we seek to preserve human life, not out of any sense of justice or morality, but out of fear. Every death of a human being is a reminder of our own inevitability. It is an unpleasant thing to experience your own death over and over again. It is a violation of the very fiber of our being. The cognitive dissonance is so fierce that it compells us to fabricate concepts such as "morality", and rules, and social structures... civilization.

[Hooboy !!]

So, just because we failed to stop the Nazis murdering the Jews means that we ought not to interfere in any other case? Again, what do you mean by "most able"? The ones with the biggest guns? Some society! Have we not learned anything from history? Have we not learned the kind of results of applying this kind of "might of right" argument? Surely we can learn from experience, can we not? Besides, I detect a naturalistic fallacy here. Just because it happens does not mean that it is "right".
I just want to get out of the way any idea of an objective morality. Had the Nazis been successful, do think history would ahve judged them so harshly? Do Americans admit their own immorality at exerminating millions native Americans? Do we chastise ourselves today that Africans are dying by the millions from HIV?

Once we have established that morality is a function of subjectivity, then we can move on. And when we encounter a seeming contradiction, then we will know that it is no contradiction at all. Just opposing points of view and that engaging in moral equivalencies and rational debate is a waste of time. Because, there is not "right" answer.

In the end, we must decide if we are to survive or to cease to exist. Are we willing to risk extinction for the sake of principle?

The Nazis chose not to compromise their principles and they failed. The result? They largely ceased to exist. The imperial Japanese chose not to make the same mistake and the result was that their society adapted and then flourished in the new paradigm.

[JamesBannon]

I do not accept the notion of any form of an objective morality, be it theistic in nature or rational.
According to the strict definition of objectivity, morals cannot be objective because they are not independent of sentient minds capable of perceiving them. But who gives a shit about that? What does it matter? It's philosphical fiddle-faddle and not a productive area of discussion.

...which is in essence agreement with me that the priori "all humans are of equal worth" does not exist, since "worth" is agreed to be subjective.
Bullshit! I define it this way because I know that measures of human worth are subjective therefore we have no a priori reason to elevate any one measure over any other.

The problem as I see it, is that people tend to narrow the scope of the discussion to be pertaining to human beings only, as if we are the only living things on the planet, as if evolution has selected us to live exclusively, at the expense of all other living things. Of course, this is absurd, but that is the foundation from which all discussions of morality springs from.
Says who? Anyone who argues like this is being moronic. Of course there are other animals on the planet, so what? What difference does that make to a discussion of human morality? None.

else would you measure "worth", if not that the living thing has demonstrated some ability, some capability, some skill, some physical trait that justifies or facilitates its existence?
Nothing justifies existence, there is no "ultimate purpose" in the universe. But this doesn't change the fact that we do exist. What the hell has ability got to do with anything? We are "fit for our environment" - no more, no less.

How would the universe be were there no more human beings? Answer: It would be as it is. And without a human being there to witness this, there could be no regret, remorse, or feelings of any kind. Fuck. The universe might be better off for all we know.
Who gives a shit what it would be like? I don't. The fact is that we are here. This is about as meaningless a question as it's possible to get.

No, we seek to preserve human life, not out of any sense of justice or morality, but out of fear.
Bollocks! I'm not afraid of being dead. If your dead, your dead and beyond caring. But here's the thing, we are alive and wish to have a decent life. What the hell is wrong with that?

[Hooboy !!]

What difference does that make to a discussion of human morality?
Ahhhh. And the "human" qualifyer emerges, as if there is any other kind or "morality". Nicely done. This is progress.

Bollocks! I'm not afraid of being dead. If your dead, your dead and beyond caring.
Its the anticipation of death that occupies our attention. It is our ability to predict the future, our ability to imagine, that frightens us. Dying is easy. Living is the hard part.

[JamesBannon]

Ahhhh. And the "human" qualifyer emerges, as if there is any other kind or "morality". Nicely done. This is progress.
What else do you think I would suppose it to be? I'm an atheist so it is extremely unlikely that I would suppose it came from any other source. But here's the thing, all knowledge is human, at least so far as we are currently able to determine. So what difference does it make? Again, none.

[Hooboy !!]

What else do you think I would suppose it to be? I'm an atheist so it is extremely unlikely that I would suppose it came from any other source. But here's the thing, all knowledge is human, at least so far as we are currently able to determine. So what difference does it make? Again, none.
Not true. There is an objective reality and it is filled with objective knowlege.

[JamesBannon]

Not true. There is an objective reality and it is filled with objective knowlege.
Oh yeah? Prove it! (Rhetorical). Here's a piece of "objective" knowledge for you - when you hurt someone, it hurts them. I presume you wouldn't argue with that!

[Hooboy !!]

Here's a piece of "objective" knowledge for you - when you hurt someone, it hurts them. I presume you wouldn't argue with that!
No argument. I hope you are going to make a point here.

[JamesBannon]

Is it objective or not? If it is, then surely we can use the concept of harm to arrive at some kind of moral principles to prevent, or at least ameliorate, the worst excesses of human behaviour?

[Hooboy !!]

Is it objective or not?
Sure.

If it is, then surely we can use the concept of harm to arrive at some kind of moral principles to prevent, or at least ameliorate, the worst excesses of human behaviour?
Sure. But, this does not alter the fact that there is no objective morality.

The concept of "harm" is just a baseline for comparison. We happily cause "harm" in "just" causes for example. Also "harm" is also somewhat subjective. There are probably some absolutes, such as dying for example. But, not everyone experiences "harm" in exactly the same way. It is possible for us to generalise to a degree, because human beings do not deviate that much. This is what makes it possible for us to feel empathy. In the end though, it is just an assumption.

We must look to how the individual responds before we can know, and even then we may not know perfectly, how the individual feels or how they perceive "harm".

A good example is the game of basketball. If you have ever played, you will know that it you play "inside", the game is very physical. There is a lot of banging and contact. Players that like to play "inside" do not mind and when they get banged or bumped they are inclined to ignore a "foul" so that instead of having to shoot free throws (something that they may not be good at) they can just play through and score an easy lay up or dunk. An "outside" player though is not inclined to like the contact and feels that it interferes with their game and wants the "foul" called so that they can shoot their free throws (something that they are good at).

Harm is still somewhat subjective.

[JamesBannon]

As is just about anything if you look carefully - pain is a good example. Nevertheless the objective fact remains that people feel pain, misery etc and are capable of being harmed by the behaviour of other humans. Knowing perfectly is impossible anyway, so what's the use of arguing that, if we can't know something perfectly, then it is a meaningless concept? We might as well say we know nothing and have no basis for anything. Now, can we get off the objectivity bandwagon and have some sort of conversation?

[Hooboy !!]

As is just about anything if you look carefully - pain is a good example. Nevertheless the objective fact remains that people feel pain, misery etc and are capable of being harmed by the behaviour of other humans. Knowing perfectly is impossible anyway, so what's the use of arguing that, if we can't know something perfectly, then it is a meaningless concept? We might as well say we know nothing and have no basis for anything. Now, can we get off the objectivity bandwagon and have some sort of conversation?
The point is... morality is purely subjective. It is relevant only in human societies. It is a function of specific cultural perspectives. And it cannot be applied universally across all human societies.

I am willing to accept that it is possible to generalise to a degree, but it is not accurate enough to consider it reliable.

My original point remains... there is no priori that all human beings are of equal worth. And arguing the universality of "harm" does not support the existence of this priori. If any priori exists it is that "all living things have a right to exist." If this is true then it applies to all living things. The concept of "freedom" then is embodied by this right and morality applies to all living things, not just humanity. The concept of "worth" is a rationalization that allows to disregard all other living things as subservient to our own existence. In other words... we are exercising our "freedom" by rationalizing our efforts to preserve our own existence.

Why not just call it what it is?

Evolution chose us to sit atop the food chain. Using our wits and our brawn we have demonstrated our fitness to dominate and enforce our own standard of "worth", irrespective of any universal sense of morality. We just don't care, nor do we need to.

[JamesBannon]

OK I'll come around and shove a bomb up your ass! Like it? No! That's morality! I don't give a shit whether other animals have a right to survive or not (although it so happens that I agree that they do) that's not of any concern here. If you don't care about what other humans do then that's your perogative but don't go moaning to anyone when someone bites your ass and they say they don't care about you. If we're equal then we all have an equal right to survive. Can you at least agree with that and stop this stupid rhetorical fencing?

[Bomb#20]

We have no a priori reason to suppose anything other than that all humans are of equal worth.
What is the justification for this priori?
Great question! If worth is subjective then we have every a priori reason to suppose other than that humans are of equal worth. We have reason to suppose instead that the worths of humans are incommensurable. Saying "Human A is worth the same as human B" is every bit as much a category error as saying "Human A is worth more than human B."

There is a reason why I state my Egalitarian belief in the way I do: all measures of human worth are subjective.
...which is in essence agreement with me that the priori "all humans are of equal worth" does not exist, since "worth" is agreed to be subjective.
Exactly.

Bulls**t! I define it this way because I know that measures of human worth are subjective therefore we have no a priori reason to elevate any one measure over any other.
So JB knows we have no a priori reason to elevate any one measure over any other, and yet he does precisely that. By supposing a priori that humans have equal worth, he elevates his own measure of worth over every other measure. As you observed, he's inconsistent.

I just want to get out of the way any idea of an objective morality... Once we have established that morality is a function of subjectivity, then we can move on.
Not exactly.

For me, the only priori is that... Living things have a right to live...
Which life is more deserving of living? The answer to this question is simple: The one most able...
Evolution and natural selection will decide who is and who is not "fit". Or in other words... worth anything...
The universe might be better off for all we know...
If morality is subjective, then claiming anything has any a priori right, and claiming there's a "The answer" to a question about who is more deserving, and claiming evolution and natural selection decide who is and isn't worth anything, and claiming "better off" is a state the universe is capable of being in, are all category errors too. You're committing exactly the same inconsistency you noticed JB committing -- both of you imply that there's no right answer and that the right answer is such-and-such.

And when we encounter a seeming contradiction, then we will know that it is no contradiction at all.
I'm sure you will -- starting from a contradiction, everything can be deduced. So if a believer is so inclined, he can conclude from his inconsistent premises that his premises are all perfectly consistent with one another; but those of us outside his head can still see the beliefs are logically incompatible.

I just want to get out of the way any idea of an objective morality. Had the Nazis been successful, do think history would ahve judged them so harshly?
Had the flat-earth theory persuaded modern people, do you think history would have judged flat-earthers so harshly? Do you think this makes the shape of the earth subjective?

Do Americans admit their own immorality at exerminating millions native Americans?
So you're arguing that if morality were objective, then Americans would admit their own immorality for exterminating them? Which Americans are you saying would admit this? The ones who did the extermination? Are you saying in order to be objective, morality would have to have the magical power to make dead people talk? Or do you mean living Americans would admit this? Are you saying in order to be objective, morality would have to have the magical power to prompt feelings of guilt for having committed genocide in people who didn't commit genocide?

Do we chastise ourselves today that Africans are dying by the millions from HIV?
Why would we chastise ourselves? Are we the ones who gave them HIV? What makes you keep assuming objective morality means innocent people are guilty?

[Hooboy !!]

OK I'll come around and shove a bomb up your ass! Like it? No! That's morality!
No, that is not "morality".

If we're equal then we all have an equal right to survive. Can you at least agree with that and stop this stupid rhetorical fencing?
I have never denied this. Your criteria for supporting this assertion though is that we are of equal "worth". I disagree.

[Hooboy !!]

If morality is subjective, then claiming anything has any a priori right, and claiming there's a "The answer" to a question about who is more deserving, and claiming evolution and natural selection decide who is and isn't worth anything, and claiming "better off" is a state the universe is capable of being in, are all category errors too.
Interesting response, but you missed the point. The point is that evolution and natural selection are random (for lack of a better word) and that which individuals survive and which do not, is not a function of reason, but rather of chance and circumstance.

It is possible for individuals to influence the outcome to a degree. For example, had the Germans managed to defeat the Russians handily, as they had the rest of Europe, then they very likely would have won the war and been given the opportunity rewrite history in a light that favored them. Just as the Grreks did. Just as the Romans did. Just as all conquorers have throughout the history of mankind. These are the ones "most able". To survive and to be given the opportunity to establish social norms and define what is and what is not moral.

"Morality" then is a function of chance, circumstance, and the degree to which individuals can manipulate their environment in their favor.

[JamesBannon]

So JB knows we have no a priori reason to elevate any one measure over any other, and yet he does precisely that. By supposing a priori that humans have equal worth, he elevates his own measure of worth over every other measure. As you observed, he's inconsistent.
Not true. The reason I state it this way is precisely because we have no real reason to suppose otherwise.

In any event I see a lot of shillyshallying here. We start by saying that people have a right to survive but suddenly, just because someone is "stronger" then that "stronger" person has more right to survive that someone is "weaker". I call bullshit on that.

[Hooboy !!]

Not true. The reason I state it this way is precisely because we have no real reason to suppose otherwise.

In any event I see a lot of shillyshallying here. We start by saying that people have a right to survive but suddenly, just because someone is "stronger" then that "stronger" person has more right to survive that someone is "weaker". I call bullshit on that.
Call bullshit all day. It does not alter the realities that are played out every day all over the world, over and over again.

"Worth" can be qualitated and quantitated and sometimes... a mosquito is "worth" more than a human being when it is able to secure a new generation while murdering a human being. Interestingly, this very scenario is played out on a daily basis all over the world.

Kind of humbling when you think about it. The mosquito is virtually unchanged after millions of years of evolution and it is still one of the "fittest" species on the planet. Not that we haven't tried to prove otherwise. But, despite all of our technology, our cunning, and our brawn, we are defeated by a lowly insect... consistently.

Yet, we like to think of ourselves as "worth" more than a mosquito? I find the notion absurd.

[JamesBannon]

Yet, we like to think of ourselves as "worth" more than a mosquito? I find the notion absurd. Precisely where have I argued this? I am not at all concerned with mosquitos but with humans. Get that? Humans. I don't give a monkeys about mosquitos. You seem to want to derail this discussion with absurdities either that or argue that we shouldn't learn from human history at all. I'm outta here as this is going absolutely nowhere.

[Hooboy !!]

Precisely where have I argued this? I am not at all concerned with mosquitos but with humans. Get that? Humans. I don't give a monkeys about mosquitos. You seem to want to derail this discussion with absurdities either that or argue that we shouldn't learn from human history at all. I'm outta here as this is going absolutely nowhere.
lol

What we should learn from human history is that Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, the Romans, all were responsible for writing our history and it was done at the tip of a sword and from the back of a horse.

One man's "harm" is another man's control over his own destiny. He who best controls his own destiny gets to decide what is and what is not "moral".

[JamesBannon]

To imagine that you have the right to survive and prosper at the expense of others simply because you happen to be "stronger" is monument to the stupidity of humanity, or rather a monument to the stupidity of that section of humanity that argues this way. A quintessential example of the naturalistic fallacy.

[Bomb#20]

he's inconsistent.
Not true. The reason I state it this way is precisely because we have no real reason to suppose otherwise.
You're just restating your premise, without an argument, after I challenged it.

What you're claiming amounts to saying Bono has a worth, in units of Tonya Harding, of 1.0. And this is allegedly because we have no reason to suppose he doesn't have a worth of 1.0 Tonyas. Leaving aside the fact that your conclusion clearly doesn't follow from your premise, your premise isn't even true. If, as you say, worth is subjective, then ratios like that don't exist. And the non-existence of a ratio is a real reason to suppose otherwise than that the ratio equals 1.0. What you're doing is no different from claiming that the amount you like swimming is exactly equal to the amount George Bush hates broccoli. It doesn't make sense to compare such feelings quantitatively.

In any event I see a lot of shillyshallying here. We start by saying that people have a right to survive but suddenly, just because someone is "stronger" then that "stronger" person has more right to survive that someone is "weaker". I call bulls**t on that.
Who are you calling "we"? Are you suggesting that if Hooboy !! said something wrong then whatever you say must be right?

[Bomb#20]

The point is that evolution and natural selection are random (for lack of a better word)
Here's a better word: "nonrandom".

and that which individuals survive and which do not, is not a function of reason, but rather of chance and circumstance.
It's a function of all three. There are often reasons why one individual survives and another doesn't. See "The Beak of the Finch" for an empirical study of this. It's why natural selection is able to create sophisticated machinery and not just piles of junk.

It is possible for individuals to influence the outcome to a degree. For example, had the Germans managed to defeat the Russians handily, as they had the rest of Europe, then they very likely would have won the war and been given the opportunity rewrite history in a light that favored them.
No doubt. And two hundred years later, German accounts of Hitler would no doubt be just as glowing as modern American accounts of massacres of Indians are.

Just as the Grreks did. Just as the Romans did. Just as all conquorers have throughout the history of mankind.
People certainly repeat that notion a lot -- that history is written by the winners, to make themselves out as the good guys. What evidence is there for it? The most famous Greek historical work, the history of the Peloponnesian War, was written by an Athenian, i.e., by one of the losers; and he didn't try to make Athenians look any better than Spartans. He recounted the genocide of Melos by Athens with almost clinical honesty. And the barbarians who conquered the Roman Empire don't seem to have written as much about it as the Romans did. History is written by whichever side has a cultural inclination to write history. And by whichever side has an axe to grind about the result. Who's written more about the struggle for Scottish independence, the Scots or the English?

These are the ones "most able". To survive and to be given the opportunity to establish social norms and define what is and what is not moral.
How does establishing something as a social norm make it moral?

"Morality" then is a function of chance, circumstance
You mean because it's a result of evolution? So what? Antlers are a result of evolution. Does this mean that whoever survives and is in a position to define "antler" has antlers?

and the degree to which individuals can manipulate their environment in their favor.
Meaning of words is determined by use. President Mobuto was probably the world champion at manipulating his environment in his favor. Who the heck uses "moral" to describe him?

[Hooboy !!]

To imagine that you have the right to survive and prosper at the expense of others simply because you happen to be "stronger" is monument to the stupidity of humanity, or rather a monument to the stupidity of that section of humanity that argues this way. A quintessential example of the naturalistic fallacy.
Living things survive and prosper at the expense of others necessarily. It is the way of things.

And no, it is not a naturalistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy

[Hooboy !!]

It's a function of all three.
So, in other words, not "nonrandom" :rolleyes:

There are often reasons why one individual survives and another doesn't. See "The Beak of the Finch" for an empirical study of this. It's why natural selection is able to create sophisticated machinery and not just piles of junk.
You are confusing the randomness of natural selection with the post hoc explanation for why the mutation was selected.

People certainly repeat that notion a lot -- that history is written by the winners, to make themselves out as the good guys. What evidence is there for it?
You cited one example your self.

History is written by whichever side has a cultural inclination to write history. And by whichever side has an axe to grind about the result. Who's written more about the struggle for Scottish independence, the Scots or the English?
Agreed.

I am not going to split hairs with you on this subject. You have already agreed that perspectives are altered by how history is recorded. Sure, less than glowing accounts are written. Academia tends to try and remain objective, though I do not beleive that they ever are entirely. The mainstream though owns and reflects popular opinion, which is not inclined to write anything that is unpleasant in anyway.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this would be. Are you suggesting that it is possible to review the sum of human history and use the information to define a consistent and universal morality?

[Bomb#20]

So, in other words, not "nonrandom" :rolleyes:
Oh, I see. When you called natural selection random, you meant in the same sense that the orbit of Jupiter is random, because meteorites keep hitting it and changing its trajectory by a negligible amount?

You are confusing the randomness of natural selection with the post hoc explanation for why the mutation was selected.
What do you mean? Are you saying this because you've read the book and disagree with its conclusions, or you've read the book and think I was confused about what it was saying, or you haven't read the book and disagree with its conclusions, or you haven't read the book and think I was confused about what it was saying? If a biologist has a theory about the reasons for why mutations are selected, and observes conditions and applies the theory to them, and thereby predicts how anatomy will change over time, and sticks around and makes measurements, and confirms his predictions, this you call "post hoc explanation for why the mutation was selected"?

People certainly repeat that notion a lot -- that history is written by the winners, to make themselves out as the good guys. What evidence is there for it?
You cited one example your self.
You mean the example of what Nazi historians would have written in an alternate universe? One hypothetical example doesn't outweigh three real-world counterexamples. What evidence is there that this whole "History is just winners' propaganda" cliche is a general rule?

I am not going to split hairs with you on this subject. You have already agreed that perspectives are altered by how history is recorded.
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to have done that; but I guess that's splitting hairs since it's an uncontroversial observation. What is it you think this proves?

The mainstream though owns and reflects popular opinion, which is not inclined to write anything that is unpleasant in anyway.
Maybe so. How does this support either of your two conflicting contentions: that morality is subjective, and that whichever life is more able to live is more deserving of living?

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this would be. Are you suggesting that it is possible to review the sum of human history and use the information to define a consistent and universal morality?
That's an interesting hypothesis worth exploring; but it's not what I was suggesting. I was merely disputing your dubious premises and inferences. I'm only arguing about history because you were arguing that winners write the history and this "gets out of the way any idea of an objective morality". Show your work.

[Hooboy !!]

Oh, I see. When you called natural selection random, you meant in the same sense that the orbit of Jupiter is random, because meteorites keep hitting it and changing its trajectory by a negligible amount?
No, I meant it in the way that at the moment of the Big Bang, the nature of Jupiter's future existence, attributes, or orbit was not knowable.

this you call "post hoc explanation for why the mutation was selected"?
Yup. Any predictions and observed verifications are inconsequential. Make a prediction for a million years from now and prove that it came true, and I will be impressed then.

You mean the example of what Nazi historians would have written in an alternate universe?
Nope. You missed your own point. Funny.

Maybe so. How does this support either of your two conflicting contentions: that morality is subjective, and that whichever life is more able to live is more deserving of living?
How are they conflicting? They are not even related to eachother. The purpose of discussing natural selection was simply to point out the absurdity of the notion that rationalism can be applied to determine any objective moral standard.

I was merely disputing your dubious premises and inferences. I'm only arguing about history because you were arguing that winners write the history and this "gets out of the way any idea of an objective morality". Show your work.
You have already provided sufficient evidence to support my premise. There is more of course. For contemporary examples of how history is written from various perspective, all one has to do is visit Al Jazeera's and Fox News' websites to see the opposing world views at work. It is not reasonable to expect history to be recorded perfectly unbiased. Conversely, it is perfectly reasonable to expect those that are in power to wield that power to protect and preserve that power by, among other things, censorship. The Dark Ages is a pretty good example of this in action.

[JamesBannon]

If you want a good history of WW2, say, try the BBC series The World at War - the best audio-visual history of WW2 ever produced. During that war, 60 million people died and thousands still suffer from its effects today. I could give numerous other examples of what "might makes right" means.

This, of course, is an argument from consequence and so, technically, is not a good philosophical argument for the basis of a morality, but I really couldn't give a shit about that. I have given my reasons for my own stance and, philosphically defensible or not, what it comes down to is do we wish to repeat the same behaviour? I submit that we should not, irrespective of exactly what the nature of human morality is. Defence of absolute freedom is not possible either and for exactly the same reasons. This may not be philosophically satisfying to many but at least it avoids the worst excesses of human behaviour while maintaining the freedoms that we do actually want to maintain.

[Hooboy !!]

This may not be philosophically satisfying to many but at least it avoids the worst excesses of human behaviour while maintaining the freedoms that we do actually want to maintain.
That's all well and good... for you. Tell that to the folks living in Darfur right now. When "freedom" involves eating for the first time in days, what else you might "want" becomes 100% subservient to the singular objective of surviving. If that "freedom" involves shoving aside someone that is weaker to fill your bowl with rice, then be certain that is what will happen, regardless of any other sense of what is right or wrong.

[JamesBannon]

And why do the people of Darfur suffer such? Because someone else deems it OK to starve them!

[Bomb#20]

No, I meant it in the way that at the moment of the Big Bang, the nature of Jupiter's future existence, attributes, or orbit was not knowable.
So evolution is random because the Milky Way Galaxy wouldn't exist if some quantum fluctuation in the first three minutes had gone another way. True enough; but that doesn't really tell us anything specific to evolution.

this you call "post hoc explanation for why the mutation was selected"?
Yup. Any predictions and observed verifications are inconsequential. Make a prediction for a million years from now and prove that it came true, and I will be impressed then.
So you use "post" to mean "after, or before by less than a million years". Curious idiolect. How silly of Clinton to have spent his presidency so unfocused on terrorism post 9/11. You're defining "post hoc" so that every explanation is post hoc, since neither of us will be around in a million years to check our predictions.

What evidence is there for it?
You cited one example your self.
You mean the example of what Nazi historians would have written in an alternate universe?
Nope. You missed your own point. Funny.
Yeah, well, that's the curse of us who aren't smart enough to have ESP like you. I'm sorry I guessed wrong. What's the right answer? Since you're a superior being, can you educate me, please? Which example of this did I cite myself? I'm not smart enough to figure it out just from you telling me "Nope". And since I missed my own point, can you please use your ESP again and explain to me what my point was?

The mainstream though owns and reflects popular opinion, which is not inclined to write anything that is unpleasant in anyway.
Maybe so. How does this support either of your two conflicting contentions: that morality is subjective, and that whichever life is more able to live is more deserving of living?
How are they conflicting? They are not even related to eachother.
Sure they are. I already explained why they conflict. To the question, "Which life is more deserving of living?", the first contends that there's no right answer, and the second contends that there is a right answer: the one more able to live.

The purpose of discussing natural selection
Huh? That's your reply to my question about how your statement:"The mainstream though owns and reflects popular opinion, which is not inclined to write anything that is unpleasant in anyway."
supports your contentions. Why are you changing the subject back to evolution? Is this just part of your usual pattern of simply ignoring half the questions I ask you?

was simply to point out the absurdity of the notion that rationalism can be applied to determine any objective moral standard.
Pardon me for being ESP-less again, but I'm not seeing this thing you say you're "pointing out". How does the dependence of natural selection on randomness during the Big Bang make it absurd to determine objective moral standards from rationalism? You sound no different from a Christian telling me it's absurd for there to be objective moral standards without his God.

I was merely disputing your dubious premises and inferences. I'm only arguing about history because you were arguing that winners write the history and this "gets out of the way any idea of an objective morality". Show your work.
You have already provided sufficient evidence to support my premise.
You know, it doesn't actually take having evidence in order to claim you have evidence you won't show anyone. Would you care to tell us which evidence I provided is the evidence that allegedly supports your premise?

There is more of course. For contemporary examples of how history is written from various perspective, all one has to do is visit Al Jazeera's and Fox News' websites to see the opposing world views at work. It is not reasonable to expect history to be recorded perfectly unbiased. Conversely, it is perfectly reasonable to expect those that are in power to wield that power to protect and preserve that power by, among other things, censorship. The Dark Ages is a pretty good example of this in action.
Gotcha. I ask you to defend your two claims: "P", and "P implies Q". And all you reply with is evidence of "NOT P" -- whoever you think the "winners" are, Al Jazeera and Fox News aren't both presenting the winners' version of history. So evidently the losers write the history too. And you didn't even bother to address "Q". So actually, you have no evidence whatsoever that any of this "gets out of the way any idea of an objective morality", have you?

[Hooboy !!]

I'm sorry I guessed wrong. What's the right answer?
Oh, too bad. You exhausted all my patience. Thanks for playing.

[Bomb#20]

Oh, too bad. You exhausted all my patience. Thanks for playing.
You're welcome. Eleven thousand posts, and I exhausted your patience in four. You seem to have more patience for preaching than for arguing. Sayonara.

[JamesBannon]

Bomb#20
I agree with you, basically, that technically worth may be incommensurable. Indeed, this is at least partly my objection to any talk of "merit" or "deserving" especially when it comes to treating people. My first question is always "who defines it?".

[Bomb#20]

I agree with you, basically, that technically worth may be incommensurable. Indeed, this is at least partly my objection to any talk of "merit" or "deserving" especially when it comes to treating people. My first question is always "who defines it?".
If we don't know who defines worth, all the more reason not to base our ideas of how we should treat people on how much they're worth. Egalitarianism as well as competing theories need to be justified in some other way.

You say you're in the French Revolutionary tradition, but it's clear the French Revolution wasn't pro-equality, whatever the rhetoric. Its leaders had many people guillotined for no crime but being born into aristocratic families, and the mob in the street cheered on the executioners. The majority didn't care about equal rights even for commoners if they had dissenting opinions. Thomas Paine favored equality; he wanted Louis XVI to become a commoner like everyone else. "Kill the King but spare the man", he argued, and voted against the execution -- and he was sentenced to death for his vote. It was the barest fluke that Paine's execution wasn't carried out.

So assuming you don't favor that sort of liberty, equality and fraternity, you need a better tradition. When you say you're for egalitarianism, what does that mean to you? People have many characteristics that can be equal or unequal. There's no reason a priori that you can't have one reason for favoring or opposing equal rights and a completely different reason for favoring or opposing, say, equal taxes. So what is it about people you think should be equal? And why should it be equal?

[Hooboy !!]

You seem to have more patience for preaching than for arguing.
lol

I have no patience for sarcasm and mockery.

[JamesBannon]

If we don't know who defines worth, all the more reason not to base our ideas of how we should treat people on how much they're worth. Egalitarianism as well as competing theories need to be justified in some other way.

You say you're in the French Revolutionary tradition, but it's clear the French Revolution wasn't pro-equality, whatever the rhetoric. Its leaders had many people guillotined for no crime but being born into aristocratic families, and the mob in the street cheered on the executioners. The majority didn't care about equal rights even for commoners if they had dissenting opinions. Thomas Paine favored equality; he wanted Louis XVI to become a commoner like everyone else. "Kill the King but spare the man", he argued, and voted against the execution -- and he was sentenced to death for his vote. It was the barest fluke that Paine's execution wasn't carried out.

So assuming you don't favor that sort of liberty, equality and fraternity, you need a better tradition. When you say you're for egalitarianism, what does that mean to you? People have many characteristics that can be equal or unequal. There's no reason a priori that you can't have one reason for favoring or opposing equal rights and a completely different reason for favoring or opposing, say, equal taxes. So what is it about people you think should be equal? And why should it be equal?
I am well aware of the problems with the French revolution so you needn't remind me of them. Besides this they were a violation of the principles anyway.

[Bomb#20]

I have no patience for sarcasm and mockery.
Are you suggesting your decision to drop out of the debate is my fault, Mr. "Nope. You missed your own point. Funny."? Whatever you need to believe, dude...

[Bomb#20]

In my tradition equal weight is given to liberty, equality and fraternity.
Since what you were arguing about with RenegadeOfPhunk was the relative importance of liberty and equality, I take it by "egalitarianism" you aren't talking about equal rights or equal protection of the law, since those create no tension between libe