Moral Freedom: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Moral Freedom » Moral Freedom

Moral Freedom
Choosing your own sense of justice and fariness

Page: 1 2 3 4

Moral Freedom

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/11/08 - 11:44 AM: Subject: Moral Freedom	#1
Much is made of the injustice of the world. But what people mean by this is not always consistent because justice, the proper ordering of the world, depends entiely what we we deem proper. And on that point, there is considerable disagreement. But by almost any reasonable definition of justice, our very existence is unjust. What did you ever do to deserve being born? The fact is that there is nothing that you could possibly have done prior to your existence that would merit your coming into being. The simple fact is that you got something for nothing and every breath you draw is an act of unjust opportunism. Thank God the world is so unfair. Given that life is an opportunity to be exploited, the question arises as to how best to do that. The answer, certainly, is not in servitude to "society" out of some misplaced sense of debt for your existence. The first question any claim about moral principles has to answer is why one ought to embrace the particulr moral principles proposed. Why pursue the approval? Or, more simply, why be good? To say that we are all in pursuit of some good does not answer the question why we sould pursue a particular good. And yet, few people take the opportunity to choose their morals opting instead to simply embrace those of their parents or adopting those of their immediate community. Moral freedom is the proposition that our free will endows us with the ability (not the right, mind you) to choose our morals. We might choose from among those offered by religions, or by philosophers, or simply invent our own. It is no accident that social progress is driven not by those who meekly accept social norms but by those who put forward new moral ideas and force the world to adapt to them. Once you choose (or at least identify) your morality then, and only then, can you say how the world "ought to be" and thus what is just and unjust. I feel like I ought also to say something about the "might=right" matter that Litkey was so stuck on. Rejecting one concept of morality does not reject all, obviously, much less provide a justification of anything that happens.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/12/08 - 08:05 PM:	#2
Most people don't choose to make use of their moral freedom because they don't believe they have such freedom. They believe that moral facts exist, and they know what those moral facts are (through their intuition, which often they don't realize is conditioned by their family, culture, and religion). Why would you go about creating your own moral values or embracing new ones if you think yours are already correct, in some objective sense? To most people, creating your own moral values makes no more sense than pretending the sky is green. If you try to do it, you're just factually incorrect. It is true that people with new values (which aren't the predominant ones in a given society) can use those values to change the world. But often, they are in the same position as the people with values they oppose. They believe their moral views are objectively correct, even though they're usually just a result of living in a different environment. So they don't embrace their moral freedom either. In order for people to use their moral freedom, they have to believe they have such freedom. This would entail disillusioning people about the objectivity of morality. But is that really a good idea? Most people derive comfort from believing that the moral values they embrace are objective, and without that, they would be quite confused. Many would interpret it as the death of morality. It takes some philosophical sophistication to see that following the guidelines of some moral theory, rather than simply obeying whatever desires you have at the moment, is virtuous and hence desirable. I think it is a good course of action to only enlighten people about their moral freedom if there is evidence they can handle that truth and use it to better mankind.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 04/12/08 - 09:04 PM:	#3
cortes wrote: It is no accident that social progress is driven not by those who meekly accept social norms but by those who put forward new moral ideas and force the world to adapt to them. Try thinking of any time in history when driven individuals forced society to adapt to new morals. All the cases I can think of involved some groups of individuals with a cause building up support, and usually this involves focus on some charismatic individuals to be the voice of their cause, (for a social public which is simultaneously skeptical about the motivations of an individual and pack-mentality leader assignment). I think morality is always free, and relative, to individuals. People subconsciously choose the moral system that would be more of an advantage for themselves automatically. I can envision an ancient people, tired of the tyranny of a human leader who invent a virtual spirit-leader with a more transparent moral system, giving more power to a priest caste and convincing themselves that these morals are the absolute morals for their nation which their leader must also be subject to. Even in the most democratic societies of modern life, there is still a tendency to think in terms of leaderships and accountability -- when it should be the individuals of society themselves.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/14/08 - 06:35 AM:	#4
cortes wrote: Much is made of the injustice of the world. But what people mean by this is not always consistent because justice, the proper ordering of the world, depends entiely what we we deem proper. And on that point, there is considerable disagreement. There is already a 'proper ordering of the world.' Some call this the 'Law of Nature'; In any case, this is something different from the concept 'Justice.' - as normally accepted. Your very paragraph and language gives some insight into the hidden world of Justice, - "proper" ...what does it mean for something to be proper? What does it mean for something to be in "disagreement"? what does "order" mean? i- If there was such widespread subjectivity and grotesque forms of "justice"- there would be no such thing as 'law' as we understand it. ii- I know we have went over it, but you forget the history of Natural Law (reason) informs of a consensus on what is lawful (this would equate to acts being right or wrong). But by almost any reasonable definition of justice, our very existence is unjust. What did you ever do to deserve being born? The fact is that there is nothing that you could possibly have done prior to your existence that would merit your coming into being. The simple fact is that you got something for nothing and every breath you draw is an act of unjust opportunism. Thank God the world is so unfair. Opportunism is not for those that come into the world; it may just be because a person is brought up to think opportunism the right thing, or circumstances have dictated; if you look to all societies throughout History what you will see is that the "Big Men" (see 'Onka's Big Moka' -Papau New Guinne I think,also the Azande) were those that gave away, were those that benefitted their community - casting my mind back to my Anthropology Studies, it seems that "opportunism" would have ended in ostracization for any Individual. "opportunism" would only work where an Individual was not part of the society, or did not think society something of value. The first question any claim about moral principles has to answer is why one ought to embrace the particulr moral principles proposed. Why pursue the approval? Or, more simply, why be good? To say that we are all in pursuit of some good does not answer the question why we sould pursue a particular good. I would agree that there is no absolute good or Justice (or at least not one that we can express with language) however, going outside your neighbours view of justice will result in conflict; this conflict isn't something necessarily bad, as you may disagree with your neighbour, or there may be a fight over resources: however if you decide to go outside your particular societies values- then this would endanger yourself. Moral freedom is the proposition that our free will endows us with the ability (not the right, mind you) to choose our morals. We might choose from among those offered by religions, or by philosophers, or simply invent our own. This is a circular argument - wouldn't your choice of morals depend on what you think is right? Edited by litkey on 04/14/08 - 07:34 AM
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:43 AM:	#5
Mike H wrote: Most people don't choose to make use of their moral freedom because they don't believe they have such freedom. This is undoubtely true and it is not even clear to me that I have any reason for promoting the idea of moral freedom. Mike H wrote: They believe that moral facts exist, and they know what those moral facts are (through their intuition, which often they don't realize is conditioned by their family, culture, and religion). Why would you go about creating your own moral values or embracing new ones if you think yours are already correct, in some objective sense? To most people, creating your own moral values makes no more sense than pretending the sky is green. If you try to do it, you're just factually incorrect. There really are two issues here and I guarantee they will both recur in this thread. The first is whether morality can be objective, whether moral claims can be treated as facts determined to be true or false. Without answering that question, let me simply note that moral freedom is not inconsistent with that belief. Moral freedom in that context means freely seeking the truth with regards to morality (as opposed to assuming that the truth comes from within or from an authority). The second issues is how morality is discovered whether or not it is a fact. Those of a relativist persuasion often do rely on their intuition which, as you note, is shaped by family, culture, and religion. But it is a fact that people change their religions quite frequently, move from one culture to another to be with people they feel closer to. One influence you don't mention is genetics; people often gravitate toward moral beliefs that make them feel good about themselves or away from those who make them feel bad about themselves (e.g. gays rejecting Christianity or healthy, ambitious young men embracing a martial culture). Mike H wrote: It is true that people with new values (which aren't the predominant ones in a given society) can use those values to change the world. But often, they are in the same position as the people with values they oppose. They believe their moral views are objectively correct, even though they're usually just a result of living in a different environment. So they don't embrace their moral freedom either. Funny you should put it that way, I wrote an article on exactly that observation: http://www.conquistador.org/newsletterissue?newsl... Mike H wrote: In order for people to use their moral freedom, they have to believe they have such freedom. This would entail disillusioning people about the objectivity of morality. For the reasons cited above, I disagree. The two questions can be considered independently. Indeed, I have found that it is those who believe that morality consists of nothing more than following their moral intuitions who are the greatest slaves to their circumstances.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:47 AM:	#6
swstephe wrote: Try thinking of any time in history when driven individuals forced society to adapt to new morals. All the cases I can think of involved some groups of individuals with a cause building up support, and usually this involves focus on some charismatic individuals to be the voice of their cause, (for a social public which is simultaneously skeptical about the motivations of an individual and pack-mentality leader assignment). "In every revolution there is one man with a vision."--James T. Kirk swstephe wrote: I think morality is always free, and relative, to individuals. People subconsciously choose the moral system that would be more of an advantage for themselves automatically. I can envision an ancient people, tired of the tyranny of a human leader who invent a virtual spirit-leader with a more transparent moral system, giving more power to a priest caste and convincing themselves that these morals are the absolute morals for their nation which their leader must also be subject to. Even in the most democratic societies of modern life, there is still a tendency to think in terms of leaderships and accountability -- when it should be the individuals of society themselves. Most people are not philosohers. Most people do not think deeply about their own moral beliefs. Such people tend to take what is handed to them be it from their parents, their teacher, their priest, or their king.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 11:22 AM:	#7
litkey wrote: There is already a 'proper ordering of the world.' Some call this the 'Law of Nature' In any case, this is something different from the concept 'Justice.' - as normally accepted. You will have a hard time getting people to agree on what justice is but the common thread through all such beliefs is that it is the proper ordering of the world. Implicit in that, for virtually everyone, is that the world as it is is not properly ordered. Nature is flawed in one way or another. I think I saw you note somewhere the conflict between the will and reality and reality does not always win that conflict in the sense that people can will change. litkey wrote: Your very paragraph and language gives some insight into the hidden world of Justice, - "proper" ...what does it mean for something to be proper? What does it mean for something to be in "disagreement"? what does "order" mean? Loosly speaking, proper implies things as they should be ("proper behavior" or "proper reward") as opposed to things as they are. For something to be in disagreement means that different people hold different, contradictory views of the matter. Are we really lost on these words? litkey wrote: i- If there was such widespread subjectivity and grotesque forms of "justice"- there would be no such thing as 'law' as we understand it. Consider, for example, due process of Nazi law under which millions were legally exterminated. litkey wrote: ii- I know we have went over it, but you forget the history of Natural Law (reason) informs of a consensus on what is lawful (this would equate to acts being right or wrong). The problem here (among others) is that people conclude different things from their conscience. See the above discussion with Mike H. litkey wrote: Opportunism is not for those that come into the world; it may just be because a person is brought up to think opportunism the right thing, or circumstances have dictated;... This is a most peculiar claim. Although I am not putting forward a naturalistic argument for opportunism, it is probably the most natural way to view the world. Our most basic instinct is that of self preservation and when your life is in danger that is when you are thinking most clearly about opportunity (e.g. to find food or to strike a predator). It is only when your belly is full and the predators are at bay that you can sit back and dream about how you would order the world if you were God. litkey wrote: ...if you look to all societies throughout History what you will see is that the "Big Men" (see 'Onka's Big Moka' -Papau New Guinne I think,also the Azande) were those that gave away, were those that benefitted their community I wonder how many lifetimes you would have to live in order to "give away" what Bill Gates has? litkey wrote: ... - casting my mind back to my Anthropology Studies, it seems that "opportunism" would have ended in ostracization for any Individual. "opportunism" would only work where an Individual was not part of the society, or did not think society something of value. You are assuming that opportunism is anti-social, which it is not. This is because in large part, even the most ruthless and selfish opportunist cannot keep all the value of his creations to himself. Bill Gates created products that people valued and bought. Even if he had never given his billions away he would still hve earned his place in society. Indeed, if your goal were to avoid giving anything to away you would be better to do nothing at all. Interestingly, this points to the fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and society that occurs among many (e.g you and Glypt). While it is certainly true that we all benefit from our participation in "society" we also "give back" without ever trying. Everytime you engage in an economic transaction you give someone something that they value more than they gave you for it. Some people take this to extremes by offering products and services so cheaply that they drive all compeitors away. Ford succeeded in large part because he offered a product, the automobile, to working class folks who could not previously afford one. Microsoft crushed competitors by adding their features to Windows for free. litkey wrote: I would agree that there is no absolute good or Justice (or at least not one that we can express with language) however, going outside your neighbours view of justice will result in conflict; this conflict isn't something necessarily bad, as you may disagree with your neighbour, or there may be a fight over resources: however if you decide to go outside your particular societies values- then this would endanger yourself. One of the many problems with Glypts approch is that he lumps everything together into one mass of "society" across space and time. But if you look closer you will see that there are many societies of overlapping borders. I might participate in a local society, my town, up to a larger society, my country. I might also be a member of a religion as well as professional societies and charitable societies. Many of these will hold conflicting views. So conflict is inevitable. (Totalitarianism tried to eliminate such conflicts by organizing everything under the authority of the state but has mostly failed in large part because people won't tolerate it.) Now certainly one courts danger in any conflict but depending on the demands of a particular society and your values you may choose to risk the danger or even to fight back. Jews, for example, have maintained a unique culture in spite of pressure from their neighbors. Christians have at times faced similar pressures. Such is life. As I noted in another thread, there are some societies that regard self-defense as immoral. But can it really be said to be dangerous to disrespect such social norms? Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. litkey wrote: This is a circular argument - wouldn't your choice of morals depend on what you think is right? Let's just say that these issues are all intertwined. Wherever you start you can work toward the others.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 04/14/08 - 12:31 PM:	#8
cortes wrote: Much is made of the injustice of the world. But what people mean by this is not always consistent because justice, the proper ordering of the world, depends entiely what we we deem proper. And on that point, there is considerable disagreement. But by almost any reasonable definition of justice, our very existence is unjust. What did you ever do to deserve being born? The fact is that there is nothing that you could possibly have done prior to your existence that would merit your coming into being. The simple fact is that you got something for nothing and every breath you draw is an act of unjust opportunism. Thank God the world is so unfair. I'm not sure I agree our existence is unjust, doesn't that imply something unfairly suffers because of it, that there is justification for our not coming into existence that is over seen by some universal justification system? The words "life isn't fair" come to mind. cortes wrote: Given that life is an opportunity to be exploited, the question arises as to how best to do that. The answer, certainly, is not in servitude to "society" out of some misplaced sense of debt for your existence. I'm not sure how true this is, aren't supermarkets, airports, hospitals etc the reason for this. It may simply be a case of confidence but how many people really believe in a free for all they would come out on top. The system, and I imagine any system still allows for opportunism, on many levels. cortes wrote: The first question any claim about moral principles has to answer is why one ought to embrace the particulr moral principles proposed. Why pursue the approval? Or, more simply, why be good? To say that we are all in pursuit of some good does not answer the question why we sould pursue a particular good. And yet, few people take the opportunity to choose their morals opting instead to simply embrace those of their parents or adopting those of their immediate community. I imagine this comes from a sense of protecting our young, in reality is not our concern for mankind or our communities not just an extension of our concern for our families. We want what's good for them, we achieve this by placing them in a positive environment to do this we have to agree on moral principles a set of understood rules of what is good for our children. People generally do adopt moral principles because it makes sense to do so, but generally we have specific differences in our moral views. What's not common though is to go completely against 'the grain' as it were, because of obvious dangers. To be honest I can't think of a single person who agrees with me on all moral positions, or even any two people who agree.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 01:05 PM:	#9
Techeth wrote: I'm not sure I agree our existence is unjust, doesn't that imply something unfairly suffers because of it, that there is justification for our not coming into existence that is over seen by some universal justification system? Everything depends on what is meant by "justice" but if you mean people getting what they deserve then no harm is necessary for us to conclude that people have gotten life without having done anything to deserve it. This is precisely the sense that socialists profer, that some people are simply luckier than others and that therefore (sic) redistribution is justified to make the worls more just. But if our very existence is undeserved then what becomes of this argument? If a concept of justice implies that we ought not be here, what does that imply? Techeth wrote: The words "life isn't fair" come to mind. Thank God. Techeth wrote: I'm not sure how true this is, aren't supermarkets, airports, hospitals etc the reason for this. It may simply be a case of confidence but how many people really believe in a free for all they would come out on top. The system, and I imagine any system still allows for opportunism, on many levels. There is in economics a concept of comparative advantage that might help here. Many people fear that free trade will result in unskilled people getting nothing and skilled people getting it all. After all, if I can make twice as many widgets twice as good as you then why would anyone by widgets from you? If I am better than you at everything wouldn't that result in me getting all the business and you getting none? The reason that doesn't happen is comparative advantage. Simply put, even if you are less productive it may be more efficient for me to buy from you if that allows me to do something else that I'm even more productive than you. So you grow the food and I build the automobiles. A "free for all" does not mean that losers are kicked off the island. It means that people tend to do what they are comparatively best at doing. Techeth wrote: I imagine this comes from a sense of protecting our young, in reality is not our concern for mankind or our communities not just an extension of our concern for our families. We want what's good for them, we achieve this by placing them in a positive environment to do this we have to agree on moral principles a set of understood rules of what is good for our children. People generally do adopt moral principles because it makes sense to do so, but generally we have specific differences in our moral views. What's not common though is to go completely against 'the grain' as it were, because of obvious dangers. To be honest I can't think of a single person who agrees with me on all moral positions, or even any two people who agree. This raises an interesting point. To what extent ought a parent teach his children to serve society? It's one thing to say, "lay low, don't be the tall nail". It's another to encourage your children, as some do, to go sacrifice themselves to "society".
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/14/08 - 02:56 PM:	#10
cortes wrote: Mike H wrote: Most people don't choose to make use of their moral freedom because they don't believe they have such freedom. This is undoubtely true and it is not even clear to me that I have any reason for promoting the idea of moral freedom. I'm confused as to what exactly you're proposing in this thread. Is it not to promote moral freedom in order to discover how to make the best use of life? And how are we defining "best" anyway? If "best" is just relative to a certain moral point of view, then it doesn't matter whether people make use of their moral freedom or not - they are living the best life regardless of whether they just accept the prevailing morality or explore different ones. So I'm going to assume you mean "best" in a practical sense - that which fulfills the most and strongest of our desires. cortes wrote: There really are two issues here and I guarantee they will both recur in this thread. The first is whether morality can be objective, whether moral claims can be treated as facts determined to be true or false. Without answering that question, let me simply note that moral freedom is not inconsistent with that belief. Moral freedom in that context means freely seeking the truth with regards to morality (as opposed to assuming that the truth comes from within or from an authority). Okay, but lets assume there is such a thing as moral truth, and somehow, we discover it. Have we then discovered the best way to live? This moral truth would have to have normative authority regardless of what people's desires are. In other words, living life optimally according to this true morality could imply frustrating a great many of our desires, so that we live life suboptimally from our own points of view. But if there is no moral truth, then moral freedom could involve finding the best rules for satisfying our deepest and strongest desires, leading us to live better lives from our point of view. So I think the practical value of moral freedom depends on whether moral facts exist or not. cortes wrote: The second issues is how morality is discovered whether or not it is a fact. Those of a relativist persuasion often do rely on their intuition which, as you note, is shaped by family, culture, and religion. But it is a fact that people change their religions quite frequently, move from one culture to another to be with people they feel closer to. One influence you don't mention is genetics; people often gravitate toward moral beliefs that make them feel good about themselves or away from those who make them feel bad about themselves (e.g. gays rejecting Christianity or healthy, ambitious young men embracing a martial culture). Yes, people do often use their moral freedom to better their lives, but I bet many are trapped by what they take to be an objective morality that tells them their desires are wrong. Gay Christians who feel guilty about their sexual orientation, for example, or young men in a feminized culture who are told their masculine ambition is wrong, and we should cooperate rather than compete. They will not try to discover moral facts, or embrace new moral values, if they believe that the ones they already have are objectively correct. So we can't just promote moral freedom, it makes no sense to those who think morality is objective. So I don't think the two issues can be treated separately.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:17 PM:	#11
Mike H wrote: I'm confused as to what exactly you're proposing in this thread. Is it not to promote moral freedom in order to discover how to make the best use of life? And how are we defining "best" anyway? If "best" is just relative to a certain moral point of view, then it doesn't matter whether people make use of their moral freedom or not - they are living the best life regardless of whether they just accept the prevailing morality or explore different ones. So I'm going to assume you mean "best" in a practical sense - that which fulfills the most and strongest of our desires. I've thrown a whole bunch of subject together under this thread but for the purpose of this thread, let's you and I explore the questions of relativism and intuitionism. (I do tend to take a pragmatic bent (I am epistimelogoically pragmatic) . cortes wrote: Okay, but lets assume there is such a thing as moral truth, and somehow, we discover it. Have we then discovered the best way to live? That's a big assumption and a good question. What I like about Rand's philosophy is that she does indeed propose a morality that is (or at least purports to be) the best way to live. That cannot be said of all moral systems. If socialism is objectively true then we have a conflict between what is the best way to live (individually) and what is morally good (which socialists define in terms of equality). Many moral systems pit the individual against society and demand that the individual sacrifice himself in order to be moral. On the other hand, many demand sacrifice but offer compensation (e.g. most religions). Socialism, in its atheistic form, does not even offer that. cortes wrote: This moral truth would have to have normative authority regardless of what people's desires are. In other words, living life optimally according to this true morality could imply frustrating a great many of our desires, so that we live life suboptimally from our own points of view. If the two were aligned then accomodation of desires at some level. Now the first thing to keep in mind that desires, themselves, may be in conflict. For example, I desire sex with many women and I desire a good marriage with my wife. Even before considering moral demands, I will have to sacrifice one desire or the other. Optimality does not imply perfection. cortes wrote: But if there is no moral truth, then moral freedom could involve finding the best rules for satisfying our deepest and strongest desires, leading us to live better lives from our point of view. So I think the practical value of moral freedom depends on whether moral facts exist or not. Per above, I do not agree. cortes wrote: Yes, people do often use their moral freedom to better their lives, but I bet many are trapped by what they take to be an objective morality that tells them their desires are wrong. Gay Christians who feel guilty about their sexual orientation, for example, or young men in a feminized culture who are told their masculine ambition is wrong, and we should cooperate rather than compete. They will not try to discover moral facts, or embrace new moral values, if they believe that the ones they already have are objectively correct. So we can't just promote moral freedom, it makes no sense to those who think morality is objective. So I don't think the two issues can be treated separately. I think you could say it more simply that people who believe that they have the correct answer do not look to embrace new ideas. That is true whether they have embraced what they believe to be the correct objective true morality or whether they firmly believe that there is no such objective morality and that their intuition tells them all they need to know.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:52 PM:	#12
cortes wrote: Everything depends on what is meant by "justice" but if you mean people getting what they deserve then no harm is necessary for us to conclude that people have gotten life without having done anything to deserve it. This is precisely the sense that socialists profer, that some people are simply luckier than others and that therefore (sic) redistribution is justified to make the worls more just. But if our very existence is undeserved then what becomes of this argument? If a concept of justice implies that we ought not be here, what does that imply? But doesn't a concept of justice like that imply nothing should exist? So as you say the definition is important. cortes wrote: There is in economics a concept of comparative advantage that might help here. Many people fear that free trade will result in unskilled people getting nothing and skilled people getting it all. After all, if I can make twice as many widgets twice as good as you then why would anyone by widgets from you? If I am better than you at everything wouldn't that result in me getting all the business and you getting none? The reason that doesn't happen is comparative advantage. Simply put, even if you are less productive it may be more efficient for me to buy from you if that allows me to do something else that I'm even more productive than you. So you grow the food and I build the automobiles. A "free for all" does not mean that losers are kicked off the island. It means that people tend to do what they are comparatively best at doing. Yes but isn't that still a form of servitude to society, "you grow the food and I build the automobiles." My point is I contribute to society to maintain the opportunity of success for future generations. In a purely opportunistic environment there's no reason to believe the opportunity would exist for people to do what they're best at. cortes wrote: This raises an interesting point. To what extent ought a parent teach his children to serve society? It's one thing to say, "lay low, don't be the tall nail". It's another to encourage your children, as some do, to go sacrifice themselves to "society". I would imagine this is based on the moral code of the parent being imposed on the child when they "sacrifice them to society." That instead of seeking personal gain and wealth, that sacrifices need to be made for society to be maintained and they should be the ones to do it, that that is the 'right' thing to do. I mean there are few greater sacrifices to society then joining the military. I wouldn't say either way what a parent should do but I imagine moral freedoms are involved when deciding.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/14/08 - 06:24 PM:	#13
Techeth wrote: But doesn't a concept of justice like that imply nothing should exist? So as you say the definition is important. Perhaps but keep in mind that "should" in this case is a moral "should" not an empirical "should". Techeth wrote: Yes but isn't that still a form of servitude to society, "you grow the food and I build the automobiles." My point is I contribute to society to maintain the opportunity of success for future generations. In a purely opportunistic environment there's no reason to believe the opportunity would exist for people to do what they're best at. It is certainly true that you may not be paid most for what you are best at. Even if, for example, you blessed with superb skills at playing video games you will have a hard time finding gainful employment doing what you do best. Blame an opportunistic world if you like, but we have to look at the demand side of the equation here. There just isn't much demand for video game players in the job market today. Go figure. So it behooves you to develop skills that others find valuable. That is a very tricky business and far too complex a topic for this thread. Economic compartive advantage simply means that even someone who is inferior in skills in every way will find an occupation where even those who are better skilled will pay him to do something for them. To put it another way, disparity of skill does not cause unemployment. Forget about "contributing to society" for a moment. Just think in terms of economics and pursuing the best opportunity you have, the best paying (or most rewarding) job. Just by doing that you will almost certainly be adding more value to the economy than you take away in salary. Now add to this raising a family and investing in their future. Now add that you pass your estate to them when you drop dead. And for good measure, let's throw in some charity along the way. Techeth wrote: cortes wrote: Techeth wrote: I imagine this comes from a sense of protecting our young, in reality is not our concern for mankind or our communities not just an extension of our concern for our families. We want what's good for them, we achieve this by placing them in a positive environment to do this we have to agree on moral principles a set of understood rules of what is good for our children. People generally do adopt moral principles because it makes sense to do so, but generally we have specific differences in our moral views. What's not common though is to go completely against 'the grain' as it were, because of obvious dangers. To be honest I can't think of a single person who agrees with me on all moral positions, or even any two people who agree. This raises an interesting point. To what extent ought a parent teach his children to serve society? It's one thing to say, "lay low, don't be the tall nail". It's another to encourage your children, as some do, to go sacrifice themselves to "society". I would imagine this is based on the moral code of the parent being imposed on the child when they "sacrifice them to society." That instead of seeking personal gain and wealth, that sacrifices need to be made for society to be maintained and they should be the ones to do it, that that is the 'right' thing to do. I mean there are few greater sacrifices to society then joining the military. I wouldn't say either way what a parent should do but I imagine moral freedoms are involved when deciding. I added your original point back in to show the context of my comment. If you are giving your child instructions on how to minimize risk then simply telling him/her to do whatever society asks is not a safe choice. But since you bring up military service, let me offer my two cents on that. My own opinion is that modern soldiers are grossly underpaid. This is somwehat complicated by the fact that those who choose military service (in a volunteer army) often do so for more complicated reasons than financial gain. This was not always the case historically. And many modern societies have a problem giving proper honor to those who serve. My point here is that it is not necessary to advocate sacrifice in order to have a military culture. A combination of good pay (including injury and death benefits) and honor for service (during and after) seems to me a far better solution.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:54 PM:	#14
cortes wrote: That's a big assumption and a good question. What I like about Rand's philosophy is that she does indeed propose a morality that is (or at least purports to be) the best way to live. That cannot be said of all moral systems. If socialism is objectively true then we have a conflict between what is the best way to live (individually) and what is morally good (which socialists define in terms of equality). Many moral systems pit the individual against society and demand that the individual sacrifice himself in order to be moral. On the other hand, many demand sacrifice but offer compensation (e.g. most religions). Socialism, in its atheistic form, does not even offer that. Yes, I like that about Rand too, and I don't think philosophy in general focuses enough on the best way to live. I think its often assumed that moral values are the ultimate, highest possible values, so following the demands of morality is equated with the best life. But if the moral truth is socialism, or anything making it our duty to help others, the fact that there are so many others to help means that anyone able to help must work all day every day purely for the benefit of others. We tend to see moral values as the highest, as long as they don't demand too much from us. One qualification I would make to your post is that, with socialism, there is only a conflict between whats best for the individual and whats best for society when we're talking about especially productive individuals, or those able to make lots of money in a capitalist system. And with a morality of duty to others in general, there is only a conflict when we're talking about individuals who would be giving help, not receiving it. So when considering the morality most conducive to the best life, I think it depends on which individuals we're talking about. For the weak, sick, and poor, socialist morality is the better for their lives, as long as it is effective to some degree in convincing the strong and rich to help them, and as long as they have no hope of being the opposite in a capitalist system. cortes wrote: I think you could say it more simply that people who believe that they have the correct answer do not look to embrace new ideas. That is true whether they have embraced what they believe to be the correct objective true morality or whether they firmly believe that there is no such objective morality and that their intuition tells them all they need to know. But people who firmly believe there is no objective morality don't believe they have the correct answer. They don't believe their intuition leads them to the objectively correct answer. So we should expect that they are more open to experimentation, using their moral freedom to find whats really best for their lives.

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:54 PM:	#15
cortes wrote: That's a big assumption and a good question. What I like about Rand's philosophy is that she does indeed propose a morality that is (or at least purports to be) the best way to live. That cannot be said of all moral systems. If socialism is objectively true then we have a conflict between what is the best way to live (individually) and what is morally good (which socialists define in terms of equality). Many moral systems pit the individual against society and demand that the individual sacrifice himself in order to be moral. On the other hand, many demand sacrifice but offer compensation (e.g. most religions). Socialism, in its atheistic form, does not even offer that. Yes, I like that about Rand too, and I don't think philosophy in general focuses enough on the best way to live. I think its often assumed that moral values are the ultimate, highest possible values, so following the demands of morality is equated with the best life. But if the moral truth is socialism, or anything making it our duty to help others, the fact that there are so many others to help means that anyone able to help must work all day every day purely for the benefit of others. We tend to see moral values as the highest, as long as they don't demand too much from us. One qualification I would make to your post is that, with socialism, there is only a conflict between whats best for the individual and whats best for society when we're talking about especially productive individuals, or those able to make lots of money in a capitalist system. And with a morality of duty to others in general, there is only a conflict when we're talking about individuals who would be giving help, not receiving it. So when considering the morality most conducive to the best life, I think it depends on which individuals we're talking about. For the weak, sick, and poor, socialist morality is the better for their lives, as long as it is effective to some degree in convincing the strong and rich to help them, and as long as they have no hope of being the opposite in a capitalist system. cortes wrote: I think you could say it more simply that people who believe that they have the correct answer do not look to embrace new ideas. That is true whether they have embraced what they believe to be the correct objective true morality or whether they firmly believe that there is no such objective morality and that their intuition tells them all they need to know. But people who firmly believe there is no objective morality don't believe they have the correct answer. They don't believe their intuition leads them to the objectively correct answer. So we should expect that they are more open to experimentation, using their moral freedom to find whats really best for their lives.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/15/08 - 03:02 AM:	#16
cortes wrote: You will have a hard time getting people to agree on what justice is but the common thread through all such beliefs is that it is the proper ordering of the world. Implicit in that, for virtually everyone, is that the world as it is is not properly ordered. Nature is flawed in one way or another. I think I saw you note somewhere the conflict between the will and reality and reality does not always win that conflict in the sense that people can will change. We certainly have a feeling that we have the power over our choices, but these choices are by and large contingent on something else; in this sense, there is no such thing as a free will able to choice outside given XYZ circumstances/contingencies: for humans, this is reality. Loosly speaking, proper implies things as they should be ("proper behavior" or "proper reward") as opposed to things as they are. For something to be in disagreement means that different people hold different, contradictory views of the matter. Are we really lost on these words? You haven't made any progress on the above, and you missed the meaning I was trying and hoping to convey. You have merely repeated the words, in an effort to create a context to explain the meaning; we were on "justice" - right? My point was that there are certain CONCEPTS that indicate a meaning - outside what we may subjectively think and feel. Call in Kantian if you must, but you are wrapped up in this world, using terms such as Order, Proper, and Justice. Consider, for example, due process of Nazi law under which millions were legally exterminated. Exactly- you emphasize my point. What do we think of the extermination today? Forget about what an Individual may think (for the moment) - what is the general idea? ...think RAWLS. This is a most peculiar claim. Although I am not putting forward a naturalistic argument for opportunism, it is probably the most natural way to view the world. Our most basic instinct is that of self preservation and when your life is in danger that is when you are thinking most clearly about opportunity (e.g. to find food or to strike a predator). It is only when your belly is full and the predators are at bay that you can sit back and dream about how you would order the world if you were God. You have this back to front, and you will find that in most communities across time and space, have lived in a world of sharing, in a world governed by giving and taking - reciprocity: those that live outside reciprocity tend to get isolated from the clan, the tribe, the society. You need only pick up a single page from History to see this truism.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 04/15/08 - 07:47 AM:	#17
cortes wrote: Perhaps but keep in mind that "should" in this case is a moral "should" not an empirical "should". Yes but I still think it holds true with a moral "should". cortes wrote: It is certainly true that you may not be paid most for what you are best at. Even if, for example, you blessed with superb skills at playing video games you will have a hard time finding gainful employment doing what you do best. Blame an opportunistic world if you like, but we have to look at the demand side of the equation here. There just isn't much demand for video game players in the job market today. Go figure. So it behooves you to develop skills that others find valuable. That is a very tricky business and far too complex a topic for this thread. Economic compartive advantage simply means that even someone who is inferior in skills in every way will find an occupation where even those who are better skilled will pay him to do something for them. To put it another way, disparity of skill does not cause unemployment. Forget about "contributing to society" for a moment. Just think in terms of economics and pursuing the best opportunity you have, the best paying (or most rewarding) job. Just by doing that you will almost certainly be adding more value to the economy than you take away in salary. Now add to this raising a family and investing in their future. Now add that you pass your estate to them when you drop dead. And for good measure, let's throw in some charity along the way. Okay to me most of what you've written is how the world is, I have no argument with that. The current system allows for opportunism but I don't think it can be soley driven by it. I thought you were suggesting that was the best method, or the moral approach when exercising moral freedom. My point is that its morality that provides the charity workers for you to donate the money to, where's the opportunism of working for a charity? cortes wrote: This raises an interesting point. To what extent ought a parent teach his children to serve society? It's one thing to say, "lay low, don't be the tall nail". It's another to encourage your children, as some do, to go sacrifice themselves to "society". techeth wrote: I would imagine this is based on the moral code of the parent being imposed on the child when they "sacrifice them to society." That instead of seeking personal gain and wealth, that sacrifices need to be made for society to be maintained and they should be the ones to do it, that that is the 'right' thing to do. I mean there are few greater sacrifices to society then joining the military. I wouldn't say either way what a parent should do but I imagine moral freedoms are involved when deciding. I added your original point back in to show the context of my comment. If you are giving your child instructions on how to minimize risk then simply telling him/her to do whatever society asks is not a safe choice. I know what your saying but isn't the safety of the culture what they are protecting. When your way of life is threatened the risk is taken to protect their environment. Its a strange position to hold given natural instinct but understandable. cortes wrote: But since you bring up military service, let me offer my two cents on that. My own opinion is that modern soldiers are grossly underpaid. This is somwehat complicated by the fact that those who choose military service (in a volunteer army) often do so for more complicated reasons than financial gain. This was not always the case historically. And many modern societies have a problem giving proper honor to those who serve. My point here is that it is not necessary to advocate sacrifice in order to have a military culture. A combination of good pay (including injury and death benefits) and honor for service (during and after) seems to me a far better solution. I agree, it seems not so long ago that a teacher, doctor soldier, or even a lawyer were held in high esteem, I think this may be due to the fact that they were careers in service of the community and those communities paid them in reverance maybe subconsciously knowing needed them. I think even with higher pay you still need a sense of sacrifice to have highly skilled group within the military. I remember someone saying to me the reason the USA don't have the best football (soccer) team in the world is because the best sportsmen will always play the other sports because the opportunity and pay is better. The same would be true of the military I think. Unless of course you mean actually paying them relative to what they are being asked to do which would be massive sums of money.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:15 AM:	#18
Mike H wrote: One qualification I would make to your post is that, with socialism, there is only a conflict between whats best for the individual and whats best for society when we're talking about especially productive individuals, or those able to make lots of money in a capitalist system. And with a morality of duty to others in general, there is only a conflict when we're talking about individuals who would be giving help, not receiving it. So when considering the morality most conducive to the best life, I think it depends on which individuals we're talking about. For the weak, sick, and poor, socialist morality is the better for their lives, as long as it is effective to some degree in convincing the strong and rich to help them, and as long as they have no hope of being the opposite in a capitalist system. That is a fair point and I would be inclined toward agreeing with you. However, an orthodox Objectivists will tell you that socialism is bad for the poor as well as the rich and there is some merit to that view. Just compare poor Americans to the poor of the old Soviet Union. This is really an important question. Mike H wrote: But people who firmly believe there is no objective morality don't believe they have the correct answer. They don't believe their intuition leads them to the objectively correct answer. So we should expect that they are more open to experimentation, using their moral freedom to find whats really best for their lives. There are quite a number (I have done no formal study but I encounter them all the time) who regard their intution as the true source of their morality. I encounter them all the time. They render firm moral opinions from their gut. They cannot defend their views, they just insist that they are right and abhor even thinking moral question through logically. Usually they speak of following their "conscience" and refuse to believe that someone else might follow their conscience to a different conclusion.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:23 AM:	#19
litkey wrote: We certainly have a feeling that we have the power over our choices, but these choices are by and large contingent on something else; in this sense, there is no such thing as a free will able to choice outside given XYZ circumstances/contingencies: for humans, this is reality. Then you are back to determinism. Suffice it here to say that I disagree that circumstances/contingencies 100% determine choices. litkey wrote: My point was that there are certain CONCEPTS that indicate a meaning - outside what we may subjectively think and feel. Call in Kantian if you must, but you are wrapped up in this world, using terms such as Order, Proper, and Justice. There is reality and there is are languages we use to represent it. Are you referring to the language instinct here? litkey wrote: Exactly- you emphasize my point. What do we think of the extermination today? Forget about what an Individual may think (for the moment) - what is the general idea? ...think RAWLS. Go ask the people of Darfur. litkey wrote: You have this back to front, and you will find that in most communities across time and space, have lived in a world of sharing, in a world governed by giving and taking - reciprocity: those that live outside reciprocity tend to get isolated from the clan, the tribe, the society. You need only pick up a single page from History to see this truism. Even within a family, sharing is learned later and only within a particular context. Even reciprocity (trade) is built on opportunity.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:42 AM:	#20
Techeth wrote: Okay to me most of what you've written is how the world is, I have no argument with that. The current system allows for opportunism but I don't think it can be soley driven by it. I thought you were suggesting that was the best method, or the moral approach when exercising moral freedom. My point is that its morality that provides the charity workers for you to donate the money to, where's the opportunism of working for a charity? That's an easy one: personal satisfaction. I have gone out of my way everywhere to emphasize that I am not denigrating charity or other voluntary acts. And I totally agree that charity, love, and kindness adds value to society. However, I do think that many people tend to undervalue opportunism and overvalue charity. As Adam Smith observed, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Techeth wrote: I know what your saying but isn't the safety of the culture what they are protecting. When your way of life is threatened the risk is taken to protect their environment. Its a strange position to hold given natural instinct but understandable. This brings us back to the subject of moral freedom. If youre values are aligned with those dominant in society you are more likely to risk your life defending those values. If not, you might even be pleased by the threat. There are many Americans, for example, who were rooting for the Soviet Union to win the Cold War. Techeth wrote: I agree, it seems not so long ago that a teacher, doctor soldier, or even a lawyer were held in high esteem, I think this may be due to the fact that they were careers in service of the community and those communities paid them in reverance maybe subconsciously knowing needed them. That's the honor side. There have also been times when serving in the armed forces was a rational economic choice. Techeth wrote: I think even with higher pay you still need a sense of sacrifice to have highly skilled group within the military. I remember someone saying to me the reason the USA don't have the best football (soccer) team in the world is because the best sportsmen will always play the other sports because the opportunity and pay is better. The same would be true of the military I think. Unless of course you mean actually paying them relative to what they are being asked to do which would be massive sums of money. That need not be true, however. Now let's be honest first, one reason that serving in the military is not prestigious is that many people hate the military today and do no honor what they do. But imagine if generals were paid like CEOs. Imagine if Patreaus were treated like Steve Jobs and his solidiers like Apple employees. Be very suspicious of the call for sacrifice. You can't take the risk out of soldiering but through a combination of honor and pay you can make it an attractive career choice. If you want to look at the extreme form of this, read Starship Troopers. In that story, citizenship is earned through military service.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 04/15/08 - 09:33 AM:	#21
But by almost any reasonable definition of justice, our very existence is unjust. What did you ever do to deserve being born? I keep seeing this pop up. Existence has nothing to do with morality, it's just there. Saying our existence is unjust is non-sensical as it is an act of creation (if you will allow that metaphor) devoid of morality. Existence is a-moral as opposed to immoral as "unjust" seems to suggest. The question "what did you ever do to deserve being born?" is similarly non-sensical. Considering different posts of yours, I believe you mean to say that people do not have a specific entitlement to things just for the fact of being born (e.g. no natural rights, no right to food, etc. etc.) or that society has no particular claim on those people. Such entitlement issues become important once we move into any given association of people and are confronted with traditional norms. The ethical norm to care for our children is one inspired by compassion because we value life. But value is perhaps always relative and a result of comparison. So, in relationship to others the value of the individual becomes apparent and in recognition of such value comes recognition of entitlement to things. I agree with having to take a critical stance towards any moral or political theory, or traditional values, but do not share your ideas of farreaching individualism. That has more to do with my perception of human nature as recent scientific research suggests than anything else. It's not in our nature to be the "true" individuals as for instance Rand conjured up.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/15/08 - 10:23 AM:	#22
Benkei wrote: I keep seeing this pop up. Existence has nothing to do with morality, it's just there. Saying our existence is unjust is non-sensical as it is an act of creation (if you will allow that metaphor) devoid of morality. Existence is a-moral as opposed to immoral as "unjust" seems to suggest. The question "what did you ever do to deserve being born?" is similarly non-sensical. Let me suggest, in the same sense, that inequity is just there. Crime is just there. Genocide is just there. My point in bringing up the injustice of our existence is to illustrate that there are aspects to reality that are unjustifiable. And, further, that trying to eliminate injustice from the world would entail removing ourselves from it. Benkei wrote: Considering different posts of yours, I believe you mean to say that people do not have a specific entitlement to things just for the fact of being born (e.g. no natural rights, no right to food, etc. etc.) or that society has no particular claim on those people. Yes, I am very anti-entitlement for a number of reasons not least of which is that people who believe that they are entitled to things tend to be very unhappy. If you get what you are entitled to you are not happy because you have only gotten what you deserved. If you don't, then you are especially unhappy. Benkei wrote: Such entitlement issues become important once we move into any given association of people and are confronted with traditional norms. The ethical norm to care for our children is one inspired by compassion because we value life. But value is perhaps always relative and a result of comparison. So, in relationship to others the value of the individual becomes apparent and in recognition of such value comes recognition of entitlement to things. But there can be morality without entitlements. Just because I don't think you are entitled to anything doesn't mean I can't feel compassion for you and give you stuff. Indeed, if I give you stuff out of love and not because I owe it to you that, to me, would be a greater thing. I have no love of the debt collector or the tax collector. Benkei wrote: I agree with having to take a critical stance towards any moral or political theory, or traditional values, but do not share your ideas of farreaching individualism. That has more to do with my perception of human nature as recent scientific research suggests than anything else. It's not in our nature to be the "true" individuals as for instance Rand conjured up. One book I would like to recommend to you is "Adaptation to Life" by George Valliant. It's an amazing study of human nature based on a survey of people over the span of their lives. While I agree with you that Rand missed the boat on human nature, I think she is closer to the mark than her adversaries. It's a pity that no modern philosopher has taken up the task.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 04/16/08 - 03:01 AM:	#23
With the progress made in biology, psychology and neurobiology I really don't think the study of "human nature" has any philosophical bearing. But there can be morality without entitlements. Just because I don't think you are entitled to anything doesn't mean I can't feel compassion for you and give you stuff. I can play with the words in such a way as to construe that sense of compassion as a recognition of entitlement. For some reason you think I would be worth of your compassion. Of course, this rationalisation of why we do certain "moral" acts is always avant la lettre. I never give a beggar a coin thoughtfully, always whimsically and without reason but still from compassion. I doubt however I would be giving a coin if I did not recognise (perhaps on a subconscious level) some value in the person receiving it. In any case, whether it is reasoned, compassion or feeling or instinct or some mix is not what piqued my interest. What did, was that what you describe is not born out of self-interest. You seem to say that you would give me stuff because you feel compassion. There is no consideration beyond your self than accepting and acting on that feeling or not. Of course, perhaps it is simply in our self-interest to listen to our feelings? But I doubt that is what you would mean since you value logic too highly to be listening to erratic feelings.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 04/16/08 - 05:44 AM:	#24
cortes wrote: That's an easy one: personal satisfaction. I have gone out of my way everywhere to emphasize that I am not denigrating charity or other voluntary acts. And I totally agree that charity, love, and kindness adds value to society. However, I do think that many people tend to undervalue opportunism and overvalue charity. As Adam Smith observed, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Okay conceded. cortes wrote: This brings us back to the subject of moral freedom. If youre values are aligned with those dominant in society you are more likely to risk your life defending those values. If not, you might even be pleased by the threat. There are many Americans, for example, who were rooting for the Soviet Union to win the Cold War. I agree, I'm not sure what you're point is though. cortes wrote: That's the honor side. There have also been times when serving in the armed forces was a rational economic choice. That need not be true, however. Now let's be honest first, one reason that serving in the military is not prestigious is that many people hate the military today and do no honor what they do. But imagine if generals were paid like CEOs. Imagine if Patreaus were treated like Steve Jobs and his solidiers like Apple employees. Be very suspicious of the call for sacrifice. You can't take the risk out of soldiering but through a combination of honor and pay you can make it an attractive career choice. If you want to look at the extreme form of this, read Starship Troopers. In that story, citizenship is earned through military service. You're probably right but it's unlikely to happen while the government can trade on the currency of sacrifice and honor. I'd personally never join the army under normal circumstances but I thank God for those who would, I see no reason for treating them badly, but you're right it does happen, but I think the government would exhaust all means to change this first.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/16/08 - 08:58 AM:	#25
Benkei wrote: With the progress made in biology, psychology and neurobiology I really don't think the study of "human nature" has any philosophical bearing. That's absurd reductionism. History, for example, is full of lessons about human nature that psychology and neurobiology can never touch. Economics similarly. And even within psychology and neurobiology, while the term "human nature" is not generally used, the concept is still valid. Benkei wrote: I can play with the words in such a way as to construe that sense of compassion as a recognition of entitlement.... Entitlement creates havoc for charity. This is one reason why studies consistently show that people who believe in socialism are far less charitable than those who do not. If you believe in entitlement then you will be obsessed with making sure that your contribution is equitable across the entitled (and contributions are equitable across sources), hence the preference for welfare. There really is a fundamental difference between entitlement and charity. Benkei wrote: In any case, whether it is reasoned, compassion or feeling or instinct or some mix is not what piqued my interest. What did, was that what you describe is not born out of self-interest. You seem to say that you would give me stuff because you feel compassion. There is no consideration beyond your self than accepting and acting on that feeling or not. This is correct (loosely speaking). To put it more generally, I use my own judgement in exercising charity. If I give to you and not someone else I don't claim that you deserved it more. It may only be that I happened to know you and not that other poor fellow. If I give to a lung cancer charity and not to a breast cancer charity its not because I hate women. I get to choose where I exercise charity but as with the pursuit of opportunity, I can similarly pursue those charitable causes that interest me. Maybe my thing is lung cancer, there are others whose thing will be breast cancer. If some charitable need goes unfilled then that becomes an opportunity to make a big difference with a little bit; and conversely, when a charity becomes overpopular then there are diminishing returns for contributions. Sort of a charity free market. No, I don't need entitlement. Benkei wrote: Of course, perhaps it is simply in our self-interest to listen to our feelings? But I doubt that is what you would mean since you value logic too highly to be listening to erratic feelings. But I also am skeptical of relying entirely on logic. People who claim to rely entirely on logic are either lying or fooling themselves. (One of my other criticisms of Rand.)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.