|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: yes, but how much have you lost playing poker during your lifetime? | |||
| Less than 50k |
   
|
16 | 32.65% |
| 50 - 100k |
  
|
1 | 2.04% |
| 100 - 200k |
  
|
2 | 4.08% |
| 200 - 300k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 300 -500k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 500k - 1mm |
  
|
3 | 6.12% |
| 1mm-2mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 2mm-3mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 3mm-4mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 4mm+ |
|
27 | 55.10% |
| Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
08-23-2007, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people." How could a moral relativist have any preference? By definition, if you have a preference then you aren't a moral relativist. [/ QUOTE ] Ya I agree. OP is saying he thinks some moral systems are better than others. That sounds like absolutism to me. [/ QUOTE ] How does having a preference make one an objectivist? I prefer coke to pepsi, but I do not think that coke is absolutely better than pepsi. Coke *is* better than pepsi according to my personal subjective preferences. And if my personal subjective preference indicates that, for example, high fructose corn syrup is (subjectively) bad, then diet coke is (working from those preferences) *objectively* better than coke OR pepsi (at least, the US versions thereof). But someone else may have different preferences. 
|
|
#42
08-23-2007, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so. [/ QUOTE ] To be more specific... Town hall meeting topic: Jerry has 11x the assets of the average. According to our town charter, this is a violation. Let's vote and decide if we will act. Okay, votes are tallied, and there is a majority for action. Since we have no police forces in our town, who will step forward to participate? Okay, Larry, Dan, Bea, and Juan, anyone else? So be it. What's a good time? 8 o'clock on Saturday? So be it, we will notify Jerry that he must comply by then or the townspeople will enforce the town charter.
|
|
#43
08-23-2007, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
Moral absolutism is the law.
Moral relativism is cannon fodder.
|
|
#44
08-23-2007, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so. [/ QUOTE ] To be more specific... Town hall meeting topic: Jerry has 11x the assets of the average. According to our town charter, this is a violation. Let's vote and decide if we will act. Okay, votes are tallied, and there is a majority for action. Since we have no police forces in our town, who will step forward to participate? Okay, Larry, Dan, Bea, and Juan, anyone else? So be it. What's a good time? 8 o'clock on Saturday? So be it, we will notify Jerry that he must comply by then or the townspeople will enforce the town charter. [/ QUOTE ] Did jerry agree to this town charter? If not, then it seems that we basically have a "whatever me and this guy say can be imposed on some other guy" situation which is pretty obviously ripe for inconsistencies. If Jerry did agree, then I don't see any inherent inconsistency. Not that there is proven consistency, either, though.
|
|
#45
08-23-2007, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
Moral absolutism is the law. Moral relativism is cannon fodder. [/ QUOTE ] As a follow-up, I use moral absolutism to decide if I want to put you in jail and moral relativism to decide if I want to be your friend.
|
|
#46
08-23-2007, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so. [/ QUOTE ] To be more specific... Town hall meeting topic: Jerry has 11x the assets of the average. According to our town charter, this is a violation. Let's vote and decide if we will act. Okay, votes are tallied, and there is a majority for action. Since we have no police forces in our town, who will step forward to participate? Okay, Larry, Dan, Bea, and Juan, anyone else? So be it. What's a good time? 8 o'clock on Saturday? So be it, we will notify Jerry that he must comply by then or the townspeople will enforce the town charter. [/ QUOTE ] Did jerry agree to this town charter? If not, then it seems that we basically have a "whatever me and this guy say can be imposed on some other guy" situation which is pretty obviously ripe for inconsistencies. If Jerry did agree, then I don't see any inherent inconsistency. Not that there is proven consistency, either, though. [/ QUOTE ] What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency? Seems like you want to use consistency as your way of saying any moral system that does not allow individual choice doesn't meet your criteria, but you don't want to come out and say that.
|
|
#47
08-24-2007, 09:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
I am intrigued by the idea of moral relativism but I do not view the morals as a subjective choice. Instead I belief it is a cultural one taken from the current zeitgist of the society or culture in quuestion. SO on that note I would have to disagree.
|
|
#48
08-24-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
I am intrigued by the idea of moral relativism but I do not view the morals as a subjective choice. Instead I belief it is a cultural one taken from the current zeitgist of the society or culture in quuestion. SO on that note I would have to disagree. [/ QUOTE ] That would still be subjective! Plus, your way of thinking of this is dangerous. Society has no preferences. Individuals do.
|
|
#49
08-24-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency? Seems like you want to use consistency as your way of saying any moral system that does not allow individual choice doesn't meet your criteria, but you don't want to come out and say that. [/ QUOTE ] If rules *imposed* upon a participant can be changed at the whim of other participants, the system is almost certainly doomed to be inconsistent. EDIT: further, your phrasing indicates you think I went about this process in the opposite order that I actually did. I started with the preferences, then found systems that met those, rather than starting with a chosen system then trying to find preferences that would select it and select against others.
|
|
#50
08-24-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency? Seems like you want to use consistency as your way of saying any moral system that does not allow individual choice doesn't meet your criteria, but you don't want to come out and say that. [/ QUOTE ] If rules *imposed* upon a participant can be changed at the whim of other participants, the system is almost certainly doomed to be inconsistent. EDIT: further, your phrasing indicates you think I went about this process in the opposite order that I actually did. I started with the preferences, then found systems that met those, rather than starting with a chosen system then trying to find preferences that would select it and select against others. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody changed the rules in my scenario.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
