David Sklansky is an ACist

[foal]

How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a true politician. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
But rules of thumb like "be nice to your family" or "be honest in your dealings" aren't social constructs, they are tried and true game theory solutions, developed over millions of years of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you explain that what is moral today is different than what was considered moral 50 years ago? Not to mention 100, 200, or 300 years ago. The more you go back through human history, the more you will find things that you would nowadays call an atrocity, to be everyday events that society didn't consider bad.

So clearly this process didn't take millions of years to evolve. It didn't evolve at all. It's been designed.

Sure, some bits and pieces probably have evolved, like a mother protecting her children, but most of today's society's average moral code is a social construct that changes radically from generation to generation.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is culture not a function of "evolution"? Why (referring to your note thingamajig) do you believe the actions that contribute to "culture" are not "included in our genes."

[/ QUOTE ]

I said in my footnote I'm using the term as it is used in evolutionary biology. If you don't like the term, choose another one.

There is a genetical basis for which you're able to create and absorb culture, but the culture itself, is not included in your genes, since by definition culture (again, in evolutionary biology) isn't genetical. You can take an american newborn and have it grow up in afghanistan, with an average family from there, and it's culture will be quite different than you'd expect from the son of american parents.

[ QUOTE ]
my point (stemming back to your first reply in this thread) is that regardless of how we arrive at "morals," we arrive there because the morals have a logically defensible foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true as long as you accept that in many cases the foundation will be logically flawed. Also do consider that, as I said earlier and will probably end up repeating several times, for any such logical conclusion to be drawn, you must input preference/purpose/desire into the equation. Otherwise it's meaningless to think of ethics/morality.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't bad to steal because "it just is" or because some dude wrote that it was on a stone. I could logically explain why the action of stealing is detrimental. So, getting back to your original disagreement, I think it's pretty clear that one can examine a person's logical applications of various situations as insight into their moral conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can definitely conceive a society where stealing isn't bad. For example, take away private property and stealing loses it's sense. So it cannot be said that stealing, or any other moral issue, is fundamentally wrong or right. It all depends on who's objectives are being considered to measure something as good or bad, and what those are. You never answered that question by the way. Check my second post in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you meant here, but if I got it right, you didn't get me right when I used the term "anybody" to refer only to the hosts, and not to the parasites/viruses/memes themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get why you'd look at it that way. Why is a virus concerned with doing things that its host interprets as "good" if it can survive anyways? All it is concerned is doing what's good *for it*, i.e. surviving.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I said. That the viruses/parasites/memes/etc don't necessarily have to do any good to the host to survive. You were arguing that moral codes are there because they're good for us and thus been selected for. I argued that to the extent that they've been selected for our benefit, they were mostly designed and not evolved, and to the extent that they did evolve, they did it mostly for their own capability of surviving, and not majorly because of being good for us.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you're walking right into my trap! Please don't make it that easy...

Are you aware that the same applies to your particular moral/ethical code? It too could be a burden that would eventually die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*, but the whole point is that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending. If it did turn out that my "ethical code" was in fact a burden, then nature would correct the mistake, and it wouldn't be contradictory to what I'm saying here in the least. All it would mean is I (being a human, and not an omniscient force) made a mistake. I don't see why this is a problem, or what point you think you're making.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the one part you're saying that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending, and on the other you say that "nature will correct the mistake". You can have both, but in most cases it's either one or the other. Or more accurately, one of the two plays a much more important part than the other.

When you argued about morality you spoke as if we were at the evolutionary finish line. That is my point. Your idea that whatever is considered moral is good for us, is wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

By thinking about what we want for ourselves and others, and communicating it to others, hearing them out, form new conclusions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, by logically examining which values are best? Are you willing to concede the point that morals do not exist without underlying logical justification?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you concede that this justification can be logically flawed, as it often is.

But the more important point I want to make you understand is that nothing is inherently good or bad, you need to consider the wishes of people (or, purposeful entities if you prefer) for anything to be good or bad. Thus morality is extremely subjective.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't understand what you meant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it. Why do you think it's a problem if people behave differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're at least 4.4 billion years into this thing, and nature has still to correct many incorrect or problematic actions. Your suggestion that we let nature follow it's course and do nothing ourselves is ludicrous.

Each individual is selfish, and whether they want to be that way or not, the fact that other individuals are selfish, is negative for him. Even if everyone wants to be selfish, this usually creates such a problem that everyone would be better off being altruists. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean it's good for all that everyone wants it. You're being ridiculous.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Hellooo? That is what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm... liiike, no you dinnnnnnn't, sistah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I did. Here I include the definition:


------------------------------------------
Bias:
N. Inclination towards something; predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, predilection
------------------------------------------

I meant everything, except prejudice. Prejudice is something else that does influence this process, but the main reason are the other definitions of bias. In this sense, ethics and morals cannot exist without bias. They don't make sense without it.



[ QUOTE ]

If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Without bias (in the way I meant by "bias"), there can be no ethic or morality.

[ QUOTE ]
And the differences between our ethical sets are based on our differing experiences and logical applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the differences are fundamentally based on preference. Bias.


[ QUOTE ]

So, you are basically agreeing with me that you can examine a person's logical application of various situations to get some insight into his ethical set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some insight, sure, I never said you couldn't get any insight in this manner. I was just saying you can't base a trustable prediction on this.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, some bits and pieces probably have evolved, like a mother protecting her children

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to add (and can't edit now), that in evolutionary biology (as in most other areas), those wouldn't count as culture, since they're imprinted into the genes, and even in everyday life are considered instinct as opposed to moral. (the fact that they're also moral is not a coincidence, but that's not relevant here)

Morality, by definition, is a cultural construct. If it was genetical, we'd call it instinct. We also have instincts that we consider immoral.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I can definitely conceive a society where stealing isn't bad. For example, take away private property and stealing loses it's sense. So it cannot be said that stealing, or any other moral issue, is fundamentally wrong or right. It all depends on who's objectives are being considered to measure something as good or bad, and what those are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That society would consist of animals that were not humans. But when we're dealing with *human* objectives, it is clear that based on the nature of our condition, one will always conclude stealing is bad.

I consider myself a moral relativist (though I've never actually looked much into what that term actually means, so maybe I'm not one). You shouldn't think that what I'm arguing here means that I believe in concrete morals. I'm not interested in trying to weigh your personal moral decision, because it will depend on a plethora of inputs that I, not being you, can't possibly understand. But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.


[ QUOTE ]
When you argued about morality you spoke as if we were at the evolutionary finish line. That is my point. Your idea that whatever is considered moral is good for us, is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you get that impression? It's a preposterous idea in the first place, and I think nothing of the sort. It really seems like you're jumping through hoops now to try to defend yourself.

I do not think that whatever is considered moral is *necessarily* good for us. I think it's simply the best we can do given the boundaries of our condition, and thus the *most likely* to be good for us. You might decide to call all your chips with aces. If only you were omniscient, you'd have known he was gonna flop his set. But still, given your condition and what you're bound by, calling with aces is always the best you can do.

Please, really stop and consider my arguments for a moment or two. It seems like you're rushing to try to defend yourself for the sake of the debate. I appreciate the discussion, but you really do have a losing hand. Morals are not separate from logic.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried responding to you, but I had computer trouble and lost the post. I can recreate the reply if you want, but I'm a bit busy now, so let me know if you're still interested before I do so and I'll reply later on.

[ALawPoker]

David,

How exactly do the "few animals" fit in with the young ladies, spare time, and free flowing money? My wild imagination demands an answer.

[David Sklansky]

Six cats. One African Grey. They only watch.