Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Someone just told me a story of a guy who offed himself in connection with restating plans for ERISA in the 70s (or 80s; who knows how long THAT took). It did not have a perkifying effect.

That's why I stick to the easy stuff like M&A, consolidated returns, and the partnership allocation regs.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's why I stick to the easy stuff like M&A, consolidated returns, and the partnership allocation regs.

I would already be dead if I had to do that crap.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think there's a problem for the simple reason that all of the bases asserted in support of universal human rights is an article of faith. Some of us put our faith in God and some put it in the human race. Either way, we all have acknowledged the existence of some force that collectively drives us (admittedly some segments of "us" are driven at different rates) to increased social cooperation in the interest of mutual survival and benefit.

Why not just accept it on faith that we collectively are inherently good and not worry that we don't know exactly why?

That is a possiblity but it is very weak foundation just like mine.

What I have said before I think there are three explanations for morality.

1) Morality is based on self interest

2) Morality is just a mutation that is there to help us survive (I think Tax Wonks current position)

3) Morality comes from some divine source.

From my point of view all three suck. All have their problems. However, the first two really don't support organizations like Amnesty International. If morality is based on self interest or a mutation, either of those is not really much of a support for what Amnesty International is doing. Either of them is also not a strong support for the US encouraging countrys from stopping female mutilation or throwing Widows on their dead husbands funeral Pyre. The first two also do not support the concept of international human rights.

My support for option number 3 is:

1) I reject number one because what it really says there is no morality. We live in an amoral world and it is every man (or woman) for himself. My only criticism of that is my instincts tell me there are morals. (I believe this is Bad Rich Chicks position). This position would also make board discussions like this an exercise in futility.

2) If morality is just based on a mutation then it would seem to me that morality would not be converging. I went into detail on this on other posts but in sum - people would have different mutations and in order for the morality to converge people would have to die who had different morality. But as Bad Rich Chic pointed out evolution has basically stopped in humans so why would our morality be converging (this is also my criticism of Tax Wonks most recent suggestion).

3) If all of mankind is converging on a universal code it has to come from somewhere (one evidence I pointed out on this convergence is that all religions seem to be reaching the same conclusions even though their books don't have these conclusions - ie slavery is wrong, even though the Koran and the Bible seem to state that slavery is OK). All humans seem to have a basic moral instinct. In addition, we all seem to think that everyone shares our moral instincts. Hence we use terms like moral and immoral, right and wrong even though those words are meaningless unless we have a universal code. And as posited before, universal moral code implies some supernatural origen. Obviously my position sucks because it requires a leap of faith. But I can't see another alternative.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It appears that I am what you call a moral relativist, but this doesn't mean I feel any less strongly that slavery in the Sudan is wrong.

You may not feel less strongly, but if you are a moral relativist doesn't that make your position critisizing slavery weak. If morality is relative, then your morality that says slavery is wrong is just your own opinion, and the Slavers position is just as valid. How can an organization like Amnesty Internationl go around the world supporting international human rights if all morals are relative and there really are no international human rights?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'd be careful if I were you. You are beginning to sound as moronic and arrogant as that moron Tax Wonk.

You got me there. I was getting tired, Lazy and sloppy. I should have spent more time refining that post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Someone just told me a story of a guy who offed himself in connection with restating plans for ERISA in the 70s (or 80s; who knows how long THAT took). It did not have a perkifying effect.

Go to your happy place.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You may not feel less strongly, but if you are a moral relativist doesn't that make your position critisizing slavery weak. If morality is relative, then your morality that says slavery is wrong is just your own opinion, and the Slavers position is just as valid. How can an organization like Amnesty Internationl go around the world supporting international human rights if all morals are relative and there really are no international human rights?

You may not feel less strong, but if your morality is based on your own religion, doesn't that make your position criticizing slavery weak? If morality is religious, then your morality that says slavery is wrong is just your own religion.

eta: Also, what Burger says next. And also this.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

1) Morality is based on self interest

2) Morality is just a mutation that is there to help us survive (I think Tax Wonks current position)

3) Morality comes from some divine source.

You're misdescribing 1, or setting up a strawman. Alternatively, 3 should be part of 1. And you're conflating problems and solutions.

Morality could be based on adherence to a non-divinely inspired code of conduct. See Mills or Rawls or secular humanism. Or it could be based on a divinely inspired code of conduct. See the Bible or the Koran.

Your basic argumentative flaw is that you're comparing the basis for a religious moral code to the problems of a non-religious moral code. That's not a sensible comparison.

What you ought to be doing is defining the problem, which is that in a state of nature humans would act self-interestedly. That's not a moral code--that's a premise. However, humans have realized that acting purely in self-interest leads to a suboptimal outcome, again a premise. To optimize the outcome, they need to develop a system of principled rules to govern conduct. Those rules, of course, need to be enforced, so that the self-interest of some does not prevent attainment of the collective interest. One means of enforcement is government. Another is divine punishment. That's almost an empirical question--how much to people fear hell versus jail or social ostracism? But it's tangential to the point.

The source of those rules is subject to debate. One could be some philosophical approach (Mills, Rawls, Marx) as to what behavior is tolerated and what is not, based on what the desired outcome is. Another approach is spiritual--god, or some deity--inspires those rules. A third source is, perhaps, natural selection or genetic preprogramming.

Three is easy to stop argument on, because it's the same debate on intelligent design, and there's really no principled way to say whether (a) god is determining everything.

So it comes down to 1 vs. 2, and I don't see why 1 is a much less satisfactory way of developing a moral code than 2 is. In fact, 2 probably is some religious philosophers claiming to have interpreted "the word" of god and setting out their own philosophy as divinely inspired. But either can get you to a place that's supposedly better than warring individual interests would, but there's no principled way to say categorically that one is better than the other.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I have said before I think there are three explanations for morality.

1) Morality is based on self interest

2) Morality is just a mutation that is there to help us survive (I think Tax Wonks current position)

3) Morality comes from some divine source.

My support for option number 3 is:

1) I reject number one because what it really says there is no morality. We live in an amoral world and it is every man (or woman) for himself. My only criticism of that is my instincts tell me there are morals. (I believe this is Bad Rich Chicks position). This position would also make board discussions like this an exercise in futility.

2) If morality is just based on a mutation then it would seem to me that morality would not be converging. I went into detail on this on other posts but in sum - people would have different mutations and in order for the morality to converge people would have to die who had different morality. But as Bad Rich Chic pointed out evolution has basically stopped in humans so why would our morality be converging (this is also my criticism of Tax Wonks most recent suggestion).

3) If all of mankind is converging on a universal code it has to come from somewhere (one evidence I pointed out on this convergence is that all religions seem to be reaching the same conclusions even though their books don't have these conclusions - ie slavery is wrong, even though the Koran and the Bible seem to state that slavery is OK). All humans seem to have a basic moral instinct. In addition, we all seem to think that everyone shares our moral instincts. Hence we use terms like moral and immoral, right and wrong even though those words are meaningless unless we have a universal code. And as posited before, universal moral code implies some supernatural origen. Obviously my position sucks because it requires a leap of faith. But I can't see another alternative.

Actually, I believe that there is an absolute moral code, derived from a divine source. Where we disagree is that I don't look to man's writings on that divine source as authority for anything other than historical, cultural, and political reference. The Bible, the Koran, the press conferences of Bill Frist, these are not the words of God. They are men perverting God to their purposes.

However, having said that I believe that morality is absolute and it comes from a divine source does not mean I reject moral relativism as a social and political construct. Moral relativism is clearly practiced by many people, and almost universally by states. States can act no other way. Being corporate entities, they have no will or conscience. States are dependent on the people who control them to act, and the interaction of those people results by definition in some sort of consensus.

The one thing I completely reject is any sort of instinctual basis for morality. Instinct leaves off where empathy and thought begin, and it is empathy and thought that control moral choices.

I take all of this on faith.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You may not feel less strong, but if your morality is based on your own religion, doesn't that make your position criticizing slavery weak? If morality is religious, then your morality that says slavery is wrong is just your own religion.

eta: Also, what Burger says next. And also this.

Yes that is true. But you are caught up in the idea that all religions are equal. Or the idea that a religion only favors those that are adherants to the faith. But when you pose your position as: my religion states that no matter what race, color,creed or what God you believe in, that all humans have certain rights. Your religions tells you that there are universal human rights and you need to support those rights. That was what Thomas Jefferson was doing in the Declaration of Independance. He was not saying that all Christian men are equal or that the Bible states that all men have rights - he said that we assume that there is a creator and that creator gives all men certain rights. I think that appeals to every persons sense of fairness and appeals to their instincts. Obviously I am biased because I believe we all have this universal code as our instincts. But when you put the idea above dogma and just state there are universal right given by a creator most people are swayed by that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes that is true. But you are caught up in the idea that all religions are equal. Or the idea that a religion only favors those that are adherants to the faith. But when you pose your position as: my religion states that no matter what race, color,creed or what God you believe in, that all humans have certain rights. Your religions tells you that there are universal human rights and you need to support those rights. That was what Thomas Jefferson was doing in the Declaration of Independance. He was not saying that all Christian men are equal or that the Bible states that all men have rights - he said that we assume that there is a creator and that creator gives all men certain rights. I think that appeals to every persons sense of fairness and appeals to their instincts. Obviously I am biased because I believe we all have this universal code as our instincts. But when you put the idea above dogma and just state there are universal right given by a creator most people are swayed by that.

But you are caught up in the idea that all reasoning is equal.

My reasoning says that all humans have certain rights, no matter what race, color, creed or God you believe in.

And you close with this notion that "most people are swayed by" the idea of universal rights given by a creator. But most people think slavery is wrong, regardless of their religious views.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're misdescribing 1, or setting up a strawman. Alternatively, 3 should be part of 1. And you're conflating problems and solutions.

Maybe but I don't really things so.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Morality could be based on adherence to a non-divinely inspired code of conduct. See Mills or Rawls or secular humanism. .

When been over this and I think you are wrong. A code of conduct if not divinely inspired has to come from selfishness. Mills and Rawls come up with these codes but they don't state where the morality comes from. They just assume morality. Morality has to have a source.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Or it could be based on a divinely inspired code of conduct. See the Bible or the Koran..

Although a lot of the morality these religions now espouse does not come form these bookis.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Your basic argumentative flaw is that you're comparing the basis for a religious moral code to the problems of a non-religious moral code. That's not a sensible comparison.

There is no such thing as a non religious code. Absense religion morality is either based on selfhishness or an instinct that we developed through evolution that helps us surive. These instincts will vary from society to society. Evolution to produce a concrete code that all of us share.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) What you ought to be doing is defining the problem, which is that in a state of nature humans would act self-interestedly. That's not a moral code--that's a premise. However, humans have realized that acting purely in self-interest leads to a suboptimal outcome, again a premise. To optimize the outcome, they need to develop a system of principled rules to govern conduct. Those rules, of course, need to be enforced, so that the self-interest of some does not prevent attainment of the collective interest. One means of enforcement is government. ..

Yes but this is the self interst doctrine and the mutation doctrine mixed. Humans that developed moral instincts survived better than people who did not. So societies with people in them with moral lived and the people outside of the societies died. So the source of our moral instincts is a mutation that helps us survive. The logic for following these instincts now, that you pose, is not some moral code, but the selfish conclusion that they help the invdividuals. Individuals join social compacts for selfish reasons.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Another is divine punishment. That's almost an empirical question--how much to people fear hell versus jail or social ostracism? But it's tangential to the point..

You are just talking about a way to enforce people to follow societal rules.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) The source of those rules is subject to debate. One could be some philosophical approach (Mills, Rawls, Marx) as to what behavior is tolerated and what is not, based on what the desired outcome is.

Yes I posed the three options for the source of moral 1) Genetic mutation 2) selfishness 3) Divinity.

Another approach is spiritual--god, or some deity--inspires those rules. A third source is, perhaps, natural selection or genetic preprogramming.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Three is easy to stop argument on, because it's the same debate on intelligent design, and there's really no principled way to say whether (a) god is determining everything.

yes

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) So it comes down to 1 vs. 2, and I don't see why 1 is a much less satisfactory way of developing a moral code than 2 is. In fact, 2 probably is some religious philosophers claiming to have interpreted "the word" of god and setting out their own philosophy as divinely inspired. But either can get you to a place that's supposedly better than warring individual interests would, but there's no principled way to say categorically that one is better than the other.

One and two come down to this. Man developed morality to help us survive. The current rational man, if he understands that, will follow certain morals because it is in his self interest to do so because it will help him survive. So basically one and two come down to selfishness. And I don't see one and two as strong arguments to support things like Amesty international.

[Hank Chinaski]

you are killing me here. Ty start a thread for morality and let them go at it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, I believe that there is an absolute moral code, derived from a divine source. Where we disagree is that I don't look to man's writings on that divine source as authority for anything other than historical, cultural, and political reference. The Bible, the Koran, the press conferences of Bill Frist, these are not the words of God. They are men perverting God to their purposes.

I agree with you here. I you look at my posts I never used those documents as support for my positions.

Originally posted by taxwonk However, having said that I believe that morality is absolute and it comes from a divine source does not mean I reject moral relativism as a social and political construct. Moral relativism is clearly practiced by many people, and almost universally by states. States can act no other way. Being corporate entities, they have no will or conscience. States are dependent on the people who control them to act, and the interaction of those people results by definition in some sort of consensus. .

Here you kind of lost me. I believe all sorts of people practice moral relativism. Sure they cloak arguments they use for personal gain in a moral framework. But if you believe in a universal moral code these people are acting immorally.

Originally posted by taxwonk The one thing I completely reject is any sort of instinctual basis for morality. Instinct leaves off where empathy and thought begin, and it is empathy and thought that control moral choices.

I take all of this on faith.

OK - When you say empahty and thought, I am assuming you mean reason. But I don't think you can reason out morality. However, It seems to me that when we all think about it, deep down we all have the same idea of morality. I think deep down everyone, even in ancient times, understood that slavery was really wrong. I think the universal moral code is imprinted in all of us, if we just look for it is there.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are killing me here. Ty start a thread for morality and let them go at it.

Better or worse than tax policy?