|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
|
|
#1
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. 
|
|
#2
08-24-2007, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] According to our town charter, this is a violation. [/ QUOTE ] Was the town charter chisled into the monolith?
|
|
#3
08-25-2007, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] According to our town charter, this is a violation. [/ QUOTE ] Was the town charter chisled into the monolith? [/ QUOTE ] The rules for deciding approving the town charter were (hypothetically). I find your posts in this thread to be evidence that you are not going to consider any other subjective moral system, contrary to your OP.
|
|
#4
08-25-2007, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] According to our town charter, this is a violation. [/ QUOTE ] Was the town charter chisled into the monolith? [/ QUOTE ] The rules for deciding approving the town charter were (hypothetically). [/ QUOTE ] So the rules allow situations where an individual is acceptably under the control of others without his consent? Mr. X is sitting at home one day under rule set A, then whammo, suddenly he is now subject to rule set B without any action on his part? I'm struggling to see how this can be consistent. Stating up front that "you will be subject to rules that can change arbitrarily at some point in time" doesn't *eliminate* inconsistency, it simply codifies it. [ QUOTE ] I find your posts in this thread to be evidence that you are not going to consider any other subjective moral system, contrary to your OP. [/ QUOTE ] consider = support? You may be right, perhaps there isn't any other system that meets my criteria. But I'm leaving the door open.
|
|
#5
08-25-2007, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] According to our town charter, this is a violation. [/ QUOTE ] Was the town charter chisled into the monolith? [/ QUOTE ] The rules for deciding approving the town charter were (hypothetically). [/ QUOTE ] So the rules allow situations where an individual is acceptably under the control of others without his consent? Mr. X is sitting at home one day under rule set A, then whammo, suddenly he is now subject to rule set B without any action on his part? I'm struggling to see how this can be consistent. [/ QUOTE ] You are being intentionally obtuse. Living in my hypothetical community with shared land ownership requires that you consent to living according to the town charter. The rules for how the town charter is decided are clear -- based on an open forum and town vote. I'll avoid the details here about what limits the charter imposes or what voting majorities are required as they are ancillary. So there is no "whammo", there is a clearly defined process that Mr X knows full well about, consents to as part of his voluntary participation in our shared use society, and has a right and even expectation that he will participate and be heard. You are proving that your biases make such a society unthinkable to you. I suggest you don't bother to engage in theoretical discussions on moral relativism if your mind is so closed as to only envision your one moral system as the only "good one" possible by your measures. Because it looks as if open discussion was never your real intent.
|
|
#6
08-25-2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
You are being intentionally obtuse. Living in my hypothetical community with shared land ownership requires that you consent to living according to the town charter. [/ QUOTE ] Stop right there. I already asked if the person in question consented to the charter. You dismissed my question thusly: [ QUOTE ] What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency? [/ QUOTE ] I've repeatedly mentioned that my characterization of this as inconsistent is dependent upon it being *imposed*. I've emphasized that word several times. If he consents, consistency is possible. Further, the moral system I have supported in the politics forum is entirely 100% compatible with what you're describing.
|
|
#7
08-25-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are being intentionally obtuse. Living in my hypothetical community with shared land ownership requires that you consent to living according to the town charter. [/ QUOTE ] Stop right there. I already asked if the person in question consented to the charter. You dismissed my question thusly: [ QUOTE ] What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency? [/ QUOTE ] I've repeatedly mentioned that my characterization of this as inconsistent is dependent upon it being *imposed*. I've emphasized that word several times. If he consents, consistency is possible. Further, the moral system I have supported in the politics forum is entirely 100% compatible with what you're describing. [/ QUOTE ] I said participation in this society was voluntary. Jerry knows about the charter as he is a member of this society. He may not agree with every provision, nor his agreement on every provision required for the society's "rules" to be consistently decided upon and applied. By making this the central issue, you are advocating only one moral system: one in which every member of the voluntary society is free from any action by the other members if he chooses. This is not an issue of "consistency". It's like: Hey my system is the only one consistent. Why? Because I define consistency as a moral system identical to mine.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
