Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why are you addressing this to me? For the last time, I'm not Spanky.

Spankers, after a brief foray into some ickiness, we are back on sex on the FB. Just so you know.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Spanky
discuss . . . breast implants.

You rang?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Spankers, after a brief foray into some ickiness, we are back on sex on the FB. Just so you know.

I go to some work for a while and this thing explodes. To respond to Fringey and everyone else. I am not trying to defend religion or defend anything. I am also not trying to say that there is rational proof of the existence of God. What I am saying is:

1) No one has every explained to me a morality system that is based on reason or rational. All nonsupernatural morality systems are based on self interest.

2) Under a self interest morality system people are good because it helps them survive. Animals run in Packs because that gives them a greater chance of survival than if they ran alone. They have developed the instinct to run in packs because it helps them carry on their Genetic code. Under Darwinian theory, humans evolved a morality code because it helped them live together in societies and therefore helped them survive and carry on their genetic code. So morality is part of our makeup because it helps us survive.

3) Under a self interest morality system there is no reason to feed people in Bangaladesh. If you understand that morality is simply part of evolution to help you survive, then you should be able to rise above it. Just like your instincts tell you to eat candy, but you realize that instinct is really there to get you to eat fruit to avoid scurvey and not to get you to eat stuff with lots of sugar. In the same vein, if you understand that you have morals just to help you survive, you then realize you survival chances are better if you live among people that are moral but you do not act morally. In other words, if you can steal from your neighbor is it OK if you can get away with it, as long as you are not caught and get kicked out of the society (where your survival chances will be reduced). Following the same logic, you desire to feed kids in bangaladesh is just from an instinct that helps you survie, but helping kids in Bangaladesh is just a by product of that instinct (like eating chocolate) and therefore you, if you really understand your self interest, you should ignore it.

4) Without a universal moral code, all morality is relative. Your arguments should be based on self interest.

5) If people on this board did not believe in a universal moral code their only political argument would be that something does or does not serve their self interest. They would not care about the morality. So all arguments of right and wrong are irrelevant.

6) If you believe in a universal moral code then you have to believe that someone or some things concocted it. So there had to be a higher power. So there may not be rational proof of God, but just by arguing what is right and wrong you are assuming such a God.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
5) If people on this board did not believe in a universal moral code their only political argument would be that something does or does not serve their self interest. They would not care about the morality. So all arguments of right and wrong are irrelevant.

Why can't it be that they think it benefits society in general?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) No one has every explained to me a morality system that is based on reason or rational. All nonsupernatural morality systems are based on self interest.

I think someone else suggested that you could check out John Rawls, who is not to be confused with his brother Lou.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why can't it be that they think it benefits society in general?

If benefits society in general, but not them, then why would they care. If you position is also improved when society is improved, then yes you should support it. But you should only support stuff that either helps your survive or helps make your survival "better".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think someone else suggested that you could check out John Rawls, who is not to be confused with his brother Lou.

I have read John Rawls, and he still does not explain why someone should not cheat on their taxes if they can get away with it. In his assumption that no one knows where they will be is ridiculous becasuse we all know where we are. And when you know your position, it is in your self interest to abuse your situation. In other words, take the Nietzian superman view and hope that every one else takes the John Rawls position so you can take advantage of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have read John Rawls, and he still does not explain why someone should not cheat on their taxes if they can get away with it. In his assumption that no one knows where they will be is ridiculous becasuse we all know where we are. And when you know your position, it is in your self interest to abuse your situation. In other words, take the Nietzian superman view and hope that every one else takes the John Rawls position so you can take advantage of them.

Isn't religious morality based on self-interest -- i.e., the desire to avoid burning in hell?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
If benefits society in general, but not them, then why would they care. If you position is also improved when society is improved, then yes you should support it. But you should only support stuff that either helps your survive or helps make your survival "better".

You are so tied up in black and white logical absurdity that you make no sense.

Where does altruism fit in? Or the whole Kantian thing? Where I can see that a particular rule may benefit me, but when applied to everyone it has a net negative effect -- so I don't want it to be the rule for everyone, even though I might lose a personal advantage.

do you even agree with the convoluted crap you are spewing?

you are impossible to talk to. I sure hope you are good with body language.

[Spanky]

To further explain the starving Children in Bangaladesh. Under Darwins theory people develop morals to help them survive. If people have an instinct to feed the poor, or assist the weak, then that will help society because when people fall on hard luck they will be helped out. This increases the chance of society for the whole collective. Therefore that instinct is bred into us. However, if one realizes that one's personal chance of survial is better if one lives in that society, so if they fall sick or become poor, the will get get help. But while living in that society if they realize their instincts are there to build such a society, they will realize for them personally that feeding the poor reduces their chance of survival by taking resources away from themselves. So the key is to stay in the society but try and get away from reducing your own resources (this is know as the free rider problem). If one does not believe in universal moral code, how can you tell someone that they should not cheat on their taxes if they get away with it?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have read John Rawls, and he still does not explain why someone should not cheat on their taxes if they can get away with it. In his assumption that no one knows where they will be is ridiculous becasuse we all know where we are. And when you know your position, it is in your self interest to abuse your situation. In other words, take the Nietzian superman view and hope that every one else takes the John Rawls position so you can take advantage of them.

But we all know that once it gets out that a couple people are being superman-y (what a fucking stupid term), more people will start doing it, and soon pretty much everyone is doing it, and then the whole system is fucked and everyone, including the original superman, is worse off.

Do we have to go into the repeat-encounter prisoner's dilemma experiments? Christ.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
To further explain the starving Children in Bangaladesh. Under Darwins theory people develop morals to help them survive. If people have an instinct to feed the poor, or assist the weak, then that will help society because when people fall on hard luck they will be helped out. This increases the chance of society for the whole collective. Therefore that instinct is bred into us. However, if one realizes that one's personal chance of survial is better if one lives in that society, so if they fall sick or become poor, the will get get help. But while living in that society if they realize their instincts are there to build such a society, they will realize for them personally that feeding the poor reduces their chance of survival by taking resources away from themselves. So the key is to stay in the society but try and get away from reducing your own resources (this is know as the free rider problem). If one does not believe in universal moral code, how can you tell someone that they should not cheat on their taxes if they get away with it?

Because if everyone cheats on their taxes, even if they get away with it, there is not enough tax revenue.

The instinct to help I think decreases as whatever is in need seems more "other." A mom might starve for her kid, but probably not anyone else's. If food is relatively plentiful, though, or at least sufficient, she will feed a hungry abandoned kid.

I am fucking never having kids. If you people are examples of what's ruling the country, I don't want to think about what they would end up with. It's too fucking depressing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But we all know that once it gets out that a couple people are being superman-y (what a fucking stupid term), more people will start doing it, and soon pretty much everyone is doing it, and then the whole system is fucked and everyone, including the original superman, is worse off.

Do we have to go into the repeat-encounter prisoner's dilemma experiments? Christ.

What makes you so hostile?

What you say is true in theory, but in todays world, if someone does not pay their taxes is everyone else going to stop. No. So without a universal moral code, you can not tell someone they should not pay their taxes if they can get away with it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you so hostile?

What you say is true in theory, but in todays world, if someone does not pay their taxes is everyone else going to stop. No. So without a universal moral code, you can not tell someone they should not pay their taxes if they can get away with it.

You are smarter than this. And I think your post is missing some words. Or punctuation.

I think knowing that people get away with cheating on their taxes makes people who would normally be meticulous more likely to fudge things like "home office" and "business expenses." Slippery slope.

Of course, I intermittently get a lot of exposure to the whole "social norms" universe of stuff, and am no doubt influenced by that. I find it pretty compelling, though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Isn't religious morality based on self-interest -- i.e., the desire to avoid burning in hell?

Yes - that kind of religious philosophy.

I used to be an Atheist/Agnostic for years. The problem was that my instincts told me that female circumscission in North Africa is wrong. My instincts also told me that as long as there are starving people in the world something is not right and needs to be fixed. My instincts also told me that it is wrong to kill innocent people. My instincts also told me that these truths are universal. Killing is wrong in every society and all the time. In addition, I have no problem that tons of antelopes are being killed every year by Lions. My instincts tell me there is right and wrong and it aplies to everyone everywhere.

The problem is if my instincts are just there as a survival mechanism than how do you argue with someone and tell them slavery is wrong. But if it just an instinctual feeling that helps me survive how do I tell a Northern Sudanese what they are doing is wrong when the enslave a black Sudanese. Like Jefferson, I think certain morality is self evident, and the only way it can be self evident if is it comes from somewhere.

Where is the lapse in my logic?