Ron Paul and the Singularity

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you believe that governments today are acting without regards to morals or are they under the impression that what they're doing is moral.

If it's the latter, then how do we decide who has the high ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking for responses from:

Dvault

[/ QUOTE ]

For my part, I think this question is bewildering and nonsensical.

Governments don't 'act'; people do. "Governments" can't think or consider morality.

I don't know what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people act, in this case as a collective, and we label it government. But if you disagree then break it down. Are governments (hereafter read: Those in power) acting with indifference to morals or with their own moral code.

Cody

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you believe that governments today are acting without regards to morals or are they under the impression that what they're doing is moral.

If it's the latter, then how do we decide who has the high ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking for responses from:

Dvault

[/ QUOTE ]

For my part, I think this question is bewildering and nonsensical.

Governments don't 'act'; people do. "Governments" can't think or consider morality.

I don't know what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people act, in this case as a collective, and we label it government. But if you disagree then break it down. Are governments (hereafter read: Those in power) acting with indifference to morals or with their own moral code.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

There are what, 200+ countries in the world? Countless local governments, too, right? Just in the US, we have a federal government, we have state governments, local municipalities, county governments, school boards.

I'm supposed to determine whether or not all of these people who make up "governments" are behaving with indifference to morality? I can't make that determination.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you believe that governments today are acting without regards to morals or are they under the impression that what they're doing is moral.

If it's the latter, then how do we decide who has the high ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking for responses from:

Dvault

[/ QUOTE ]

For my part, I think this question is bewildering and nonsensical.

Governments don't 'act'; people do. "Governments" can't think or consider morality.

I don't know what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people act, in this case as a collective, and we label it government. But if you disagree then break it down. Are governments (hereafter read: Those in power) acting with indifference to morals or with their own moral code.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

There are what, 200+ countries in the world? Countless local governments, too, right? Just in the US, we have a federal government, we have state governments, local municipalities, county governments, school boards.

I'm supposed to determine whether or not all of these people who make up what we call "governments" are behaving with indifference to morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being difficult intentionally? (As an aside, did I do/post something on here that has everyone on my case, it's possible I was sleep posting again, please point it out)

In any case, pick whichever one applies to you. I'll start. Indianapolis (sort of): I think that Mayor Peterson seems to believe that was he's doing and the policies his championing are moral in his eyes
Indiana: Gov. Daniels seems to believe that what he's doing with regards to gay marriage and other big issues is in keeping with his moral code, moreover that the people elected him largely in support of his morals.
US: Pres. Bush has said many times that he acts in accordence with what he believes is morally right.

I have no idea what the answers are for your region/state/province, but I'd be interested to hear them.

The point of all this is that it seems that everyone claims "the moral highground" so saying that your side has it is more a show of being stubborn then anything else. I'm trying to get other peoples (those involved in these discussions) opinions on this because it seems that "the moral highground" is being used as a justifiacation, when really it's more of a constant in everyones beliefs.

Cody

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand why you don't want to get involved in the fight.

But what I think Tom is saying is that the group of anarchists that are saying "finally a guy I can get behind and vote for, because he'll produce some of the outcomes I want!" should be troubling to the non-consequentialist camp, since it justifies everyone else who votes because voting might produce 'desirable' outcomes *they* want.

"Don't tax me because it's wrought by threat of force, and threatening people with force is immoral" loses alot of its meaning if all we're really concerned with, as moral actors, are the consequences that actions produce.

So I understand why you don't want to fight about it with your brethren, it sounds like something you might want to consider fighting about, given how important many of those moral imperatives are.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a member of the non-consequentialist camp and the pro-voting camp, I disagree that voting for Paul (or even voting for someone not nearly as non-aggressive as Paul) is equaivalent to supporting aggression (or actually aggressing).

As others have alluded to (and there is a beautiful Spooner quote in this thread), voting for Paul should be seen as an act of self-defense and little more. It is not supporting aggression anymore than using force to stop a guy from breaking into your house is supporting aggression. Paul seems clearly to support the least amount of aggression of all candidates, and voting for him (so that Clinton or Guliani or whatever doesn't win) doesn't mean that you support the system, anymore than you support government subsidies (or low wages, or whatever) when you shop at wal-mart.

Thus, I don't think anarchists voting for Paul can be used to justify someone voting for their favored candidate because it would produce outcomes that *they* desire; this would only be the case if "what X desired" and "what Y desired" were incommeasurable. But since we (non-consequentialist anarchists) beleive that aggression is inherently wrong, there is still room to say that me voting for, say, Guliani, is bad, even if his policies happened to match my desires.

So I don't think most n-c anarchists and libertarians are voting for Paul for consequentialist reasons (he supports stuff that I like, so now it's okay to foist my views on others!), but rather because if he is elected we will be defended from the further aggression that other candidates would certainly have wrought.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, pick whichever one applies to you. I'll start. Indianapolis (sort of): I think that Mayor Peterson seems to believe that was he's doing and the policies his championing are moral in his eyes
Indiana: Gov. Daniels seems to believe that what he's doing with regards to gay marriage and other big issues is in keeping with his moral code, moreover that the people elected him largely in support of his morals.
US: Pres. Bush has said many times that he acts in accordence with what he believes is morally right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure a lot of politicians act in accordance with what they find 'morally right'. And I bet there are many (Cheney comes to mind) that are complete sociopaths (I think our current political structure provides additional incentives for dishonesty and the like, so there may be a fair amount of these).

But I'm not really sure what difference it makes one way or the other--Plato argued that no one could willingly commit evil. Unfortunately, the problem is that what people think of as right/wrong is often mistaken. So in terms of what results we get, it makes very little difference whether or not our elected officials do what they think is morally right.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you being difficult intentionally?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was strange.

Are governments acting morally? I don't know. You might as well have asked me if my Xbox acts morally.

[ QUOTE ]
(As an aside, did I do/post something on here that has everyone on my case, it's possible I was sleep posting again, please point it out)

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking stupid questions, then getting indignant when you don't like the answer might rub people the wrong way. As it stands, I don't really know you and I'm not on your case or targeting you or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, pick whichever one applies to you. I'll start. Indianapolis (sort of): I think that Mayor Peterson seems to believe that was he's doing and the policies his championing are moral in his eyes
Indiana: Gov. Daniels seems to believe that what he's doing with regards to gay marriage and other big issues is in keeping with his moral code, moreover that the people elected him largely in support of his morals.
US: Pres. Bush has said many times that he acts in accordence with what he believes is morally right.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our paradigm is to let moral actors define their own moral standards while simultaneously letting them arbitrate whether or not they're living up to those standards, you're certainly right that hardly anyone will concede behaving immorally.

I think this is a rather strange way to determine whether or not someone is behaving immorally, though. It's patently circular. Saying "well, President Bush has made it clear he's acting in accordance with what he believes is morally right" is empirically true (President Bush really does say that) but is objectively meaningless.

Should we really care if President Bush, or Governor Daniels thinks their own actions are moral?

Let's put it more starkly: do we care if Nazis think they were right to try to exterminate Jews? Just because Nazis were confident their own behavior was appropriate isn't something I take into consideration when determining that Nazis were behaving immorally.

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that it seems that everyone claims "the moral highground" so saying that your side has it is more a show of being stubborn then anything else. I'm trying to get other peoples (those involved in these discussions) opinions on this because it seems that "the moral highground" is being used as a justifiacation, when really it's more of a constant in everyones beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree that claims about staking a position on the the moral high ground are a constant, but I don't think that means we just throw up our hands and say there's no such thing as a moral high ground merely because we can't come to a consensus on what it is.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Asking stupid questions

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You were able to give me a useful answer only using a slightly different interpretation of the question, doesn't seem so stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
It's patently circular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I'm getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
Should we really care if President Bush, or Governor Daniels thinks their own actions are moral?

Let's put it more starkly: do we care if Nazis think they were right to try to exterminate Jews?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well in order to make any judgement, we need criteria, and the validity of those criteria will determine how seriously our judgement is taken.

That said, "Should we really care...". Nope, not really. I mean sure we can make determinations as men about them (well guy A said "I think this is right" and guy B said "I'm gonna run this state into the ground" which was a better protector of the state) but in all reality, using their moral positions to make judgements is almost totally worthless.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree that claims about staking a position on the the moral high ground are a constant, but I don't think that means we just throw up our hands and say there's no such thing as a moral high ground merely because we can't come to a consensus on what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what we have to do though. I mean we may never agree, and that's fine, but saying "well we just can't, so we're gonna keep using a flawed and fluid idea of right and wrong to justify ourselves" seems kinda bad to me.

Cody

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You were able to give me a useful answer only using a slightly different interpretation of the question

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait; when did you ask a second question?

[ QUOTE ]
I mean we may never agree, and that's fine, but saying "well we just can't, so we're gonna keep using a flawed and fluid idea of right and wrong to justify ourselves" seems kinda bad to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow. Do people claim the bolded -- do people claim that their morality is flawed and fluid but they continue to live by those standards anyway? By definition, if something is "fluid", it isn't really a standard.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait; when did you ask a second question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really, I just clarified my first post.

[ QUOTE ]
do people claim that their morality is flawed and fluid but they continue to live by those standards anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no one claims this, and that's the point. Your morals say all people are free, mind might say that all people have the responsibility to help others. Neither of us can prove our morals, that's why they're morals and not "facts", yet everyone tries to cite "the moral highground" as a reason for belief. Seems odd to me, thus my post on the topic.

Cody

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your morals say all people are free, mind might say that all people have the responsibility to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to reword your morals as having the responsibility to help others doesn't justify taxation. The ends do not justify the means.