Amaranth

Morality seems completely rational to me, depending on where you draw it from. It's just a social contract, at its base:

"I will not <present tense verb> you because I do not want to be <past tense verb>. If I were to <present tense verb> you, then I would be promoting such an action, making it slightly more likely that someone could <present tense verb> me."


I don't kill, maim, steal, et cetera, not because I inherently think these things are "wrong" - To the contrary, my selfish mind would very much think these things are all well and good. I don't do them because I don't want them done to me, and expereince has taught that wronging another very often leads others to see it as acceptable to wrong you. By this same method I would try to stop these things if I saw another doing them, as I would very much like to see these concepts remain "wrong", so they don't happen to me.

Amaranth

dk

Hi Amaranth,

I think your premise is objectively wrong. Lets start with the premise I'm an adult male of superior status. By your critierion its ok for me to rape women and brutilize children because only them am I safe from the brutality of women and children. In fact how else can women and children possibly learn of my superior status if I don't rape and brutize them. Its men that protect, love and honor women, and men that tolerate children that causes me to suffer. Read the statistics women love it, and children learn not to become moral slaves. You're wrong because treating people nice only teaches them its ok to kick you. If you want to be moral, be like me.

Its a hypothetical, if you don't steal then people learn stealing makes them superior to you. If you don't lie, the people use the truth against you. If you don't exercise the full measure of power at your disposal, then you become a moral coward.

AdamWho

This criticism might hold in a primitive setting but in an organized society the government holds a monopoly on power (the police).
So the argument still stands.
People act to maximize their benefits (values) in a society where the government has a monopoly on power, we have to balance our desires to steal, kill ect... with the MUCH higher value of our personal freedom (not jail).
I think the objectivist moral avoids the problems of social contract but other may disagree.

dk

In a social contract the liberty the nation-state takes from me, and everyone else, doesn’t just evaporate, but is exercised by police dogs , watch dogs, civil dogs, bureaucrat dogs, on behalf of the people. Being a superior person of status I like the idea. If the government holds the power, then I can multiply my power a thousand fold by obtaining a suitable position with the government. It would be true justice to break the backs of people with the liberty moral morons gave away, and what better weapon than the law.

Amaranth

Hiya DK,


The problem with this is that you would not, in fact, be following the objective model for morality. You would not want to be raped or brutalized, and by doing so you bring the ire of others who would not wish to have such things done to them either. By the social contract, they should be raising up to drag you back in line. Even supposing you the model so being brutalized is desired by you, you are still putting others in your control, which is something you, as a "superiour" male, would not want.

Now, any generalization will break down when put to all circumstances. The social contract allows for this, and keeps these elements in check. Perhaps that is unfair for the odd-ball who enjoys raping and being raped, but society as a whole is better for it.

The social contract covers this as well - Be kind to others until they are unkind to you, at which point all bets are off. If I am nice to a person and they walk on me, I am quite capable of being unpleasant right back. To continue to be nice is to break the contract.

Purely opinion, and not really in really in context to a discussion about objective morality. However, in the spirit of trading opinion, I would say the person who believes they have to establish dominance and show off any power they have is in fact suffering from vast feelings of inferiourity and is already a coward. A good dose of self-confidence would do such a person well.

Amaranth

dk

dk: I applaud any delusion that gives inferior people comfortable. Were I to treat them as anything but servile they would suffer anxiety, confusion and needless pain. It would be objectively wrong to treat them otherwise.

Originally posted by Amaranth
Now, any generalization will break down when put to all circumstances. The social contract allows for this, and keeps these elements in check. Perhaps that is unfair for the odd-ball who enjoys raping and being raped, but society as a whole is better for it.
dk: Superior people are perfected by struggle, not emotional appeals, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Rape like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. As I’ve already said the social contract preserves the mediocre in a propositional state of moral servitude. People that are meek, humble and compassionate have no use for power, so it is cruel to burden them with power. As a practical matter the Social Contract supports the mediocre masses with the backbone of superior leadership. There’s no incongruity, superior people need power for exercise, and servile people need to cover themselves in truisms, rationalizations, and ritual.

Originally posted by Amaranth
The social contract covers this as well - Be kind to others until they are unkind to you, at which point all bets are off. If I am nice to a person and they walk on me, I am quite capable of being unpleasant right back. To continue to be nice is to break the contract.
dk: The Social Contract covers the masses with cloths woven with the appearance of equality, liberty and freedom. Women given equality choose to destroy their own children with abortion, blacks given liberty bargain for a government stipend, and kids absent direction find happiness in drug addiction, promiscuous sex, and violence. These people don’t need equality, liberty or freedom, they need to be controlled. The social contract is a charade to make inferior people feel comfortable taking orders, nothing more.

Originally posted by Amaranth
Purely opinion, and not really in really in context to a discussion about objective morality. However, in the spirit of trading opinion, I would say the person who believes they have to establish dominance and show off any power they have is in fact suffering from vast feelings of inferiourity and is already a coward. A good dose of self-confidence would do such a person well.
dk: The objective moral order flows from superior individuals perfected by the struggles inferiors shirk. The servile masses are comforted by truisms, rationalizations and ritual because they are made to be mediocre.

Amaranth

Before we continue....

1) Define a "superiour" individual, and by extension, and "inferiour" and "mediocre" one.

2) Define the point. I'm still stuck on defining an objective, rational morality, and we seem to have switched gears.

Pyrrho

A very amusing post! I congratulate you on it! You may be interested in the kinds of things you will find if you do a search for my name on the internet.

There are, however, a couple of specific points that you may wish to alter in the future, if you really are interested in reason, and not imaginary things. First, racism. For my own convenience, I will quote a post from another thread (leaving everything in the post, even what is not immediately relevant here):

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=49336

You may wish to re-examine your notions of what "science points to" regarding "race". A relevant book (not that most people here really like to read) is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, which can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...09745-2159057?

Naturally, the book can be obtained elsewhere (as if anyone will actually buy it—and read it!!!—based upon such a recommendation).

While I am recommending books, you may as well pick up a copy of Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men by Anne Fausto-Sterling:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...09745-2159057?

There is vastly more bogus "science" regarding "race" and gender than anything real on these subjects.


Let me also observe, that when people claim that everyone is entitled to equal rights, this generally is not intended to indicate that the people are otherwise the same. People may be "equal" in one aspect, without otherwise being equal. All men who weigh 180 pounds are equal in weight, but that does not imply any other form of equality or sameness. Your apparent failure to understand this point in your original post does not serve you very well.


The second thing to observe is your claim:

Upon what do you base your claim that ethics and morals are religious prejudices? Do you have any reasons for this, or is it merely a prejudice of your own?

dk

I'll take the lack of response to my summation of the "Social Contract" to be an admission that its silly. That brings us back to premise 1, "My liberty ends where the freedom of others begins".


I) a right to life.
2) a right to liberty and freedom.
3) a right to property
4) ....

From a moral pespective I don't think anyone can read my previous post, and still believe that a person so disposed to power can become anything other than a psychopath, and a threat. The aquisition of power under the premise, "Right makes Might" is therefore psychopathic. I read somewhere that "truth sets a person free". Upon reflection I find the premise reliable, and if not true approaches truth with determination. I submit the basis of objective morality serves all determined people that aspire to freedom, so that liberty can prevail. This is what determes good, beyond consequences.

Amaranth

Odd. Look up a bit. I asked you to define terms, before we fell into a "No true Scotsman" battle over what superiour, mediocre and inferior people are. Secondly, I'm still wondering exactly what you're getting at - On one hand, it looks like you're attempting to debunk the idea. On the other hand, you seem to be describing the world how it is based on the very concept I presented. So are you fighting for false, or true but non-functioning in practice?

So - Off the horse, back on the ground, and don't presume you've won so easily.

Amaranth