From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 14:34:52 MDT
> Paul Grant <shade999@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > <brett> There are some classes of pre-emptive
> > action made on the basis of genuinely held, earnestly
> > reasoned (note I am not touching *belief* here) views
> > that would require action in my view.
>
> > <me> trying to justify a pre-emptive measure on the
> > notion that is "genuinely held" or "earnestly reasoned"
> > is a rationalization in my opinion, generally to excuse
> > the type of behavior you are engaging in...
>
> <brett>By including the word 'generally' above aren't you in
> fact conceding my point? I.E. in *some* specific
> circumstances pre-emptive action *is* morally justified?
>
> <me> reread what i wrote; I clearly state it is a rationalization,
> and then apply generally by way of a cause. I am simply stating
> that there may be other reasons to rationalize other than seeking
> an excuse for preemptive action...
Your right. I stand corrected (I moved the comma in reading).
>
> > the limit on this line of reasoning though, is in the
> > duration of the act
> > .... for instance, say you were prescient, and saw a man
> > who was going to mug you (with a knife) 10 minutes
> > from now, and hit him over a head; then you would be
> > acting morally (given ur prescience). Lets say you are
> > not prescient, and you hit him over the head on the
> > possibility that he might mug you; than you are acting
> > immorally.
>
> <brett> In the real world, where our moral judgement is supposed
> to assist us, (or at least that is my contention) we are
> *never* fully prescient and so there is always *some*
> chance the suspected or likely mugger may not in fact
> mug us.
>
> <me> perhaps; in real life, I generally prepare for the attack,
> rather than instigate a pre-emptive attack.
There a couple of ramifications to this. First you leave your
opponent with more degrees of freedom and more power
than if you take the initiative. So you take on more risk.
Second would you not agree that the circumstances
change when one has others under ones authority or
control like a leader, a military commander, or a president
who has to be able to think in terms of minimising loss
of life sometimes when the other is clearly intending on
taking life.
>
> <brett> Assuming one values oneself, how can we do
> otherwise than weigh up the chances as best we can?
> My answer - we can't. Therefore the point becomes
> how best we can.
>
> <me> learn to recognize (and avoid) abuse and abusive
> behaviors.. that includes learning not to abuse others
> in an attempt to prevent said abuse.
Where this works and it often would its laudable. Sometimes
though the abusive behavior cannot be avoided. Such is
the human condition. Some folks will go out of their way
to remove the option of avoiding them. The irony of
being free is that others are two and the person who
decides to compete or predate on one immediately
reduces ones degrees of freedom. The reactor has
less practical choices than the actor. The actor can
compete, cooperate or ignore. The reactor can be
forced to compete (or be defeated), cooperate or
not, but hardly ignore a person determined to compete.
> <brett> At this point I think its worth distinguishing between
> a moral code, which may be a preconsidered
> framework that one uses to help reach a particular
> moral judgement and moral judgements per se.
>
> <brett> There are *no* moral codes that provide definitive
> answers to all the moral dilemmas that arise just as
> there are no maps on a scale of 1:1, therefore whenever
> a particular moral judgement is required there is no
> dodging that the subjective individual must make it
> which or without the benefit of a more or less
> sophisticated moral code.
>
> <me> I see things in black and white; I don't have
> a particularly sophisticated moral code; just a
> sophisticated world-view. The rules themselves are
> quite easy. I might add that you can generate a complex
> world view from an array of black/white values... and
> if it is a matter of black and white values, then my moral
> code does have a 1-to-1 correspondence.
Then if you've codified to 1-to-1 (ie. predecided what you
will do in all possible moral dilemnas) then can the future
not throw you a curly one at all that will require you to
make a new judgement?
For instance say that IVF technology was improved to
the point that a given embryo was more likely to go
through to a health birth than the more than 70% from
memory that naturally abort.
What would be your moral position if you were a
superior court judge and a state governement wanted
to pass a law that all reproduction should be via IVF
as that wasted less embryos than reproduction by the
natural method. Would your moral code cover that
- with the consequence that all sex for pleasure must
involve careful steps to avoid reckless and risky
procreation or would you have to think anew guided
by your moral code perhaps but not being able to do
a one to one look up to say point 356 of your specific
code?
>
> > Lets say you are not prescient, and he is mugging
> > someone else (as it is apparent to you from your
> > vantage point), and you intervene by hitting him
> > over the head... Then you're actions may or may
> > not be immoral, on the basis that he may not be
> > the one doing the mugging, but rather, may be the
> > muggee.
>
> <brett> Actually I'd say in the circumstances you describe
> the person *has* acted morally, but with poor
> judgement, so poor in fact that they may be found
> to have acted illegally.
>
> <me> you would; I would not; the reason being that the
> proper action is to act to separate them, without harming
> one party or the another precisely because you are
> ill-informed.
Hmm. I'm around 6 foot, weight around 90 kilo and
am a former state karate champion. Yet there are some
males that are so much stronger than me that I would not
be able to separate them as you say. Yet as a third
party coming onto the scene with them grappling with
other I would in all likelihood be able to render on or
the other unconscious having the advantage of the
element of surprise (as indeed could my youngest
sister, who is much lighter and has no special training
in any martial arts, if she kept her wits about her).
Your scenario contains details for you that I didn't
see. Those details change the context. One must
act in real time within the context with the options
that one has. If the two protagonists were school
boys then separating them might be relatively easy
and involve only words. It depends.
> You should have a duty (under your moral code)
> to negotiate in good faith, and having said that,
> you have an obligation to do due diligence in an
> attempt to (as completely as possible) understand
> the situation. Properly exercised restraint is a
> remarkeably under-appreciated quality.
Agreed. But "due" diligence depends on the
circumstances. Too much diligence, too much
forebearance is also a risk. The weighting of the
risks is a moral judgement that the individual
cannot get away from as no code can fully
anticipate all contingencies.
>
> > The point being that you have to consider the
> > granularity of the event, the knowledge
> > you had as an autonomous agent, the environment
> > you're in, and the action chosen, and the outcome of
> > that action...
>
> <brett> Sure. But the "you" in this case is a subjective
> individual using their own judgement, when such
> judgement may or may not be particularly good. So it
> also behooves us to consider the granularity of the
> *moral code* that is taken by many of us into
> situations where it can guide particular moral
> judgements.
>
> <me> judgement and morality are entertwined, no?
I certainly think so.
> you can't have a good moral code if you're judgement
> is consistently unable to judge according to that moral
> code..
I think I see your point. A better code, one that endorses
reasoning rather than believing as a means to making
decisions, is a better guide to moral behavior, but we
can never have a code so good that the need for moral
judgments disappear altogether unless there are no
new challenges thrown at us, like the challenges that
technologies might throw up.
> As to granularity of a moral code, I think it is sufficient
> to establish a clearly understood (objective) test is in order
> to determine that level of granularity by which any particular
> moral code can be applied to...
Most people in society are probably not operating on say level
5 of Kohlbergs levels or moral reasoning. But the brighter
more abstract thinkers that are likely to rise to positions of
power are more likely to be better abstract thinkers and
reasoners. (They may also be better rationalizers on occassion
but a rationalization is a deceit one practices on oneself).
Your rationalisation won't convince me and vice versa.
You or I can have a moral discussion and seek to change
each others views using reason and a common language but
if either of us held that we were absolutely right to believe
what we believe then there would be little possibility of
communication and cooperation between us.
>
> <brett>If one is running around in 2003 holding that the 10
> commandments are all the moral code that is needed
> one is going to come up against some particularly
> curly challenges in interpreting how to operationalise
> the directive that though shalt not kill.
>
> <brett>Even this simple edict is subject to interpretation. Life in
> 2003 is known to take place on more than the organismic level.
> Cells are alive. And human cancer cells are human life.
>
> <me> sure if you don't consider that human cancer cells replicate
> through meisos rather than fertilization. of course (and this would
> be VERY interesting); what would happen if a cancer colony was
> able to generate say sperm.... would it be considered life...
> intriguing thought.
>
> <brett>Clearly it is absurb to argue that a cancer cell or a
> multiples of them are of moral weight with a person
> dying of cancer. Yet this is not much of an exaggeration
> beyond the proposition that say all embryos are a form of
> human life when by human life what is obviously meant
> is personhood.
>
> <me> I say tear it out of the womb and see if it survives
> unaided. if it does, boom, human being. if it doesn't,
> well then, at best it was an incomplete human being who
> died. There is no inherent reason to relegate women
> to the equivalent of biological life carriers.
>
> <brett>
> Before laws can be set that codify legally what may and
> may not be done it is prudent to have a moral disucssion
> where the words we use do not obfuscate the reals
> issues at hand. Issues such as how does a civil society
> weight the rights or potential persons (embryos, fetus etc
> at different stages). When we do not decide or address
> these questions public policy continues to be made on
> the basis of outdated moral and legal codes. And persons
> suffer needlessly.
>
> <me> Oh I would agree :) regarding a code of laws being
> unduly influenced by any one particular moral code.
> Personally, I don't think laws should attempt to legislate
> morality. It is up to people to do that.
Yes. And if we consider that each of us is a person
we get to "to thine ownself be true".
>
> <snipped stuff on legal code >
>
> > Of course you could always say (arbitrarily) that I was reacting to
> > the best of my abilities to the best of my knowledge ergo my action
> > was moral by my system of morals/ethics.... But I tend to think of
> > that as a cop-out.
>
> <brett> Really? I think the key word here is 'tend'. How could you
> put a moral obligation on someone to act better than the
> best of their abilities and knowledge?
>
> <me> I don't in real life; I hold everybody to the same standard
> that I hold myself to.
>
> <brett> Do you think there is a moral sphere separate from the
> legal sphere? Some apparently don't. I think the legal sphere
> is smaller than the morals sphere.
>
> <me> I think the two are completely seperate systems; that is not
> to say a legal code cannot borrow from an established moral code
> (or vice versa in cases where moral codes are not derived from
> an unchangeable word of god).
Agreed. Interestingly though legal systems do seem to put a higher
or more formal emphasis on reasoning and the processes by which
conclusions are reached. Juries work to beyond "reasonable" doubt
standards not to mere "belief".
>
> >
> > > In relation to your secondary point (stated in this letter); I
> > > really don't think morality has anything necessarily to do with
> > > self-delusion, or the acknowledgement thereof. Or rather, there is
> > > no truth that states necessarily you have to be honest, ergo an act
>
> > > of dishonesty (as it relates to self-delusion) does not violate any
> > > particularly great truth.
> >
> > <brett> First the status of morality and the rationality of
> > ethics is pretty widely regarded at least so far as I am
> > aware in philosophical circles as being almost a matter
> > of opinion.
> > (eg. Bertrand Russell. History of Western Philosophy).
> >
> > <me> I'm sure it is; until you run into an event that requires faith
> > or belief outside of rationality.
>
> <brett> Actually I think BR would hold the line even in the face of your
> example.
> But BR overlooked a few things as Godel pointed out. Maybe he abandoned
> the search for a rational ethics too early.
>
> <me> I never read BR so I can't really comment on his particular
> philosophical bent.
> my circuit on philosophy keeps getting delayed; I can't stand wading
> through stuff
> thats no relevant (given my stripped down operating assumptions). I
> think someday
> I'll get bored enough to get to the juicy parts [probably in some
> condensed
> version of all the philosophies].
Its been argued that all academic disciplines are descendants of
philosophy. I am interested in philosophy not because it it esoteric
though it can be but because it can suggest solutions to problems.
My interest in morality and ethics for instance pretty much goes
back to a desire to build stronger societies and more effective
cooperatives because in this way I can do more, be more and
enjoy doing it better.
>
> > Ergo if I'm marooned on a desert island for 60 years,
> > does it really make a damned difference if I hallucinate marilyn
> > monroe on the island with me in order to remain sane?
>
> <brett> Legally no. Morally? Depends. By the code I've been
> arguing it *would* make a difference if there was some net
> difference in utility to you. ie. If you really *could* make the
> decision to hallucinate to preserve your sanity (or not) then
> I'd argue the moral choice is the one that you *think* will
> result in the best outcome for you.
>
> <me> ergo my confusion since I thought you stated that
> self-delusion was immoral.
I should confess, I do think on my feet and in dialogs like
this which I greatly enjoy my arguments at the end are likely
to be sharper clearer and more nuanced becuase I've
integrated (I hope) the valid criticisms and viewpoints that
you bring up. Another positive to reasoning versers
believing. Both sides can win.
On the specific point I would say that my code would
say that self delusion is immoral. Thats what I'd endeavor
to teach children but I'd also point out that its nature
and in some circumstances moral judgements that take
in the fuller context and detail than any moral code
(that is codified) are going to be refinements.
> and yes, you can make a decision to hallucinate...
> same as you can wake up (out of the equivalent
> of a dream) when you are rescued.
Perhaps we have different concepts of what
constitutes an hallucination. I don't think
fantasy = hallucination. I think hallucination is likely to
have a medical/physiological cause and not be
volitional.
>
> <brett>
> Whether it would in fact yeild the best outcome for
> you is not the point as the facts of the outcome are
> not knowable to you at the time you decide.
>
> <me> I would say that they are; I would say that the
> only reason to willing self-delude yourself via fantasy
> or whatever is specifically because you have examined
> the outcomes and decided that reality sucked and you could
> do better.
I see. You are interchanging fantasy and self-delusion. I
tend to think of fantasy as suspension of disbelief. One
knows one is doing it and one is doing it for fun.
Self-delusion on the other hand - one probably suspects
one is doing it at some level unless ones rational aspects
are completely shut down - but delusons I think of as
things we don't have for fun, but for other perhaps
more serious pyschological basis.
> I would say that you would end up having to constantly
> (subconsciously)
> moniter reality to decide when you would come out of ur protective
> insanity.
>
> <brett> Now thats the moral code. The reason for the moral code is
> that usually judgements will be required in real life which one
> cannot anticipate and the better, the more sophisticated your
> moral code the better, (the more enlightened) your judgement
> of your own best interests will be.
>
> <me> again I balk at the requirement for a sophisticated moral code;
> you can have an incredibly simple moral code; but apply it through
> the use of a sophisticated world view (ergo ur judgement).
A person who is reasoning at level 1 on Kohlburgs scale (the
simplest) may not do something that is good for society in general
but for far more basic reasons, than a person who is reasoning
at level 5.
But the higher up in the levels one goes the more levels or
abstraction and nuance are likely to influence your code.
I would think that a person would have a hard time having
a complex moral code without having the ability to use language
for instance.
Our leaders must make judgements that will have impacts
on lives other than their own. The more of us that are reasoners
and critical thinkers and the fewer of us that are mere believers
the better (the healthier) we will be as a society in my opinion.
>
> <brett> In this particular case I don't think there is much
> latitude for immoral action as you really would be alone on
> the desert island in the situation you stipulate. Of course
> the situation you stipulate could not arise. One would
> never know one was going to be marooned for sixty
> years AND CHOOSE to hallucinate. Hallucinations for
> the most part are going to be dysfunctional even on the
> island.
>
> <me> .. for the most part?
Fair catch that does look like a slippery phrase doesn't it?
> and I do dispute ur choosing
> to hallucinate;
> ever hear
> of self-hypnosis?
No. I am an open minded sceptic when it comes to
conventional hypnosis. I have never experienced it
and those that I have seen ostensibly hypnotised on
stage seemed to me to be substantially "hamming"
or playing it up for the attention. I think some of
us sometimes like not having to be analytical all
the time and to have others tell us what to do
and just follow alone can be pleasant.
> If you can get urself into a deep enough trance, you
> can suggest
> post-hypnotic suggestions that trigger when you wake... including the
> post hypnotic
> suggestion to renew itself until you are rescued. And you can cause
> hallucinations
> in a deep enough trance btw. And thats not even calling upon the
> experience
> of mystics, or people who have sufficiently advanced manipulation
> techniques...
I don't know if I can get into a trance as you put it. I guess I
can its just not something I am very familiar with.
I suppose when it comes to my mind I am a bit of a control
freak, I don't like it when the captain is not on the bridge.
>
> > I tend towards a function and dysfunctional definition of sanity; if
> > its dysfunctional, then you are not being ethical.
>
> <brett> This seems to be confounding sanity with ethics.
>
> Not really :)
>
> <brett> Which is problematic if the insane cannot make
> sound judgements in their own interests by virtue of being insane.
>
> <me> ergo my distinction between function and dysfunctional
> insanity.
Is there a functional form of insanity? As I understand it insanity
is usually diagnosed on the basis of behavior. If is inferred rather
than experimentally verified. Insanity is apparently easy to fake.
Sanity on the other hand - now theres a challlenge :-)
>
> > if its functional, you are being ethical.
> > and since functionality is related to the environment you are
> > operating in, ergo my comment about self-delusion not really having
> > anything to do with morality.
> >
> > I definately think everyone is engaged in it to some degree
> > (self-delusion), and to the extent that it helps you, its ethical
>
> <brett> So do I. The human condition is mortal. It would hardly
> behoove us to dwell on it excessively and abandon hope
> when there was none. Perhaps the illusion of a life after
> death only becomes dysfunctional when it gets in the way
> of the realisation of longer life in practice.
>
> <brett> In the vast majority of cases self-delusion *is* going to be
> harmful. In those circumstances where it is not harmful to
> anyone including the person who is self-deluded then I'd
> agree it not immoral.
>
> <me> ok well then we've settled that line of logic :)
Hooray :-)
>
> > <brett> I find this conclusion (Bertrand Russell's)
> > powerful, dangerous and deeply unsatisfying so I am
> > keen to have at it.
> >
> > <me> I was just telling my little sister yesterday about one of the
> > classical issues in my life (at one point during my younger years); at
>
> > what point does being too intelligent start to harm you (the classic
> > form being, if you could trade intelligence for gauranteed happiness,
> > would you do it)... most intelligent people say no; I think the really
>
> > intelligent people though, when they consider it, say yes.
>
> <brett> I think this is pure speculation. Would a less intelligent
> you be you?
>
> <me> does it make a difference if you are gauranteed to be happy?
>
> <brett> If you think so there may be possibilites for you
> to chart a life for yourself that involves more happiness
> and less intellect. But personally I don't think so. How do
> you aim at happiness without identifying something that
> will make you happy. Happiness is not itself a thing that
> can be persued.
>
> <me> ergo my point :) if you can't gaurantee happiness by
> method of intelligence, and some mythical blue genie (whom
> to the best of your abilities to discern is capable of granting)
> is willing to gaurantee ur happiness at the cost of your
> intelligence than any sane, rational person of sufficient
> intellect would not think twice. This assumes that everyone
> wants to be happy[maiximized utility table]... which I don't
> think is an unreasonable...
I must be failing to follow what you mean by maximizing your
utility table of something because it still seems to me that
happiness cannot really be a target that one aims at it is
a consequence that arise as a desired and hoped for side
effect of something else one aims at.
There is a saying "man is the only animal that laughs
and weeps, because he is the only animal that sees
what is, and what might have been".
> > This is of
> > course, assumes that people intuitively seek to maximize
> > their utilities, and said maximization of utility defines a
> > state of happiness [which is, I think, reasonable]...
>
> <brett> I don't I think its premature at best and problematic at
> worst. One cannot be happy without a cause. Happiness
> per se is not persuable. Pleasure is. Lesser levels of
> sentience are. But I doubt these are what appeal to you
> as an alternative.
>
> <me> take a look at a little kid sometime :)
Hey I grew up in a catholic family - I've seen the old
kid of two :-)
I reckon they are very active little hypothesis testers
and experimenters. Just because we may look in from
the outside an think they are "playing" doesn't change
that they are playing at something. If they are happy
playing they probably declared they were going out
to play (something specific) rather than going out to
be happy.
>
> <snip happiness is a sideeffect>
>
> > Any moral system you build on that
> > premise is doomed to fail because it does not take into account
> > actions by that subpopulation of people (antisocial individuals who
> > are operating on a different ethical system). I would state that ur
> > assumption that there is a propensity to reason is a reasonable one in
>
> > that it is necessary for the ability to recognize other autonomous
> > agents actions for what they are; expressions of their own
> > moral/ethical systems..
>
> <brett> Ah I think you missed my point. The potential to persuade
> using the sociability aspect *is* far stronger when individuals are
> powerless
> and my point is that the all those who are mortal are now becoming
> *aware*
> that they possess a poor form of wealth and power if it can't extend
> their life
> and health.
>
> <me> ... and these are the only people you're interested in approaching?
Yeah only all those who are *mortal* and have a self-interest ;-)
>
> <brett> There is an opportunity there to get them to revisit the social
> compact.
> But these cagey old survivers will not fall for bs. When arguments are
> put to them
> that are not in their interest they will not buy into them.
>
> <me> its been my experience that people who are very wealthy
> generally don't give a shit about social compact. They got (and
> preserve) their wealth at the cost of other individuals... I would
> agree that you need to put it in terms that involve greed.
Well self interest will do.
>
> <brett> So in my view a moral argument cannot be put to a rich or
> powerful individual
> unless it is couched in terms of offering *something* for them. We live
> in an
> historic period. In this period it might be possible to promote a
> policy of more
> life for all or more life for none.
>
> <me> good luck getting the rich to give a shit about the poor
> (past the ones making off with their valuables)....
No I'd aim to get the rich to care more effectively for the rich
by recognizing their relationship with the poor. My emphasis
is not be charitable to the poor my emphasis is on how would
you life be better if the poor were not so poor? If they had
more to loose. If they were able to cooperate with you to make
both you and them wealthier in absolute terms rather than
relative terms.
Would you rather be healthy and active at 130 or have a
very expensive funeral and a prestigiously looking burinal
plot at 80?
>
> <brett> The alternative may be cabals of the powerful working to
> 'immortalise' themselves. Such a scenario may restart
> "history" whose demise was greatly exaggerated.
>
> <me> probably :) I hope to be part of a successful cabal :)
> but only if quality of life is high...
Beware the dark side Luke :-)
>
> > <brett> Further those
> > who do not know endeavour to understand themselves,
> > what manner of creature they are, are not going to be
> > in a position to know what the most optimal compromises
> > for them are when compromises need to be made.
> >
> > <me> I've met several people who are extremely intuitively, but unable
>
> > to verbalize (form coherent sentences) expressing their
> > viewpoints...they just know what is right for them, and what is not...
>
> > how does your system encompass them?
>
> <brett> They learn to reason and they learn to use language to persuade.
>
> They learn to understand what they want. This gives them the
> best chance to make their way and improve their situation as they go.
> It does not guarantee them success.
>
> <omd> and if the overall performance of this new system ends up being
> worse than their intuitive model? what then?
I have no magic. If my moral code is adopted by others it will because
they see merit in it. If they see merit in it and I see merit in it I'm
prepared
to work on the assumption that their is merit in it. - That a bit simplistic
but this thread is very long.
>
> <brett> The universe in which hard work gurantees success is not this
> one in my view.
>
> <omd> work smarter, not harder has always been my motto...
Makes sense. But leveraging your efforts with others can be a
particularly effective way of working smart.
>
> > <brett> A person
> > that deludes themselves that they are a different sort of
> > creature with different sets of drivers and needs than
> > they actually have is precluded from sitting down at table
> > to negotiate for their own best interests because they do not
> > know their own best interests. A person that deludes
> > themselves willingly can hardly be a person that others
> > would want to engage in a moral compacts with.
> >
> > <me> according to you :) to me its fine :) In fact, i rather like
> > space cadets :)
>
> > It not the space cadets that you have to worry about.
> > Its the wizened old cynics and manipulators that figure
> > that life is a bitch and that they are not going to join the
> > ideological idiocy of submission. These guys have the
> > power to fuck up all your plans and irronically shortchange
> > themselves in their cynicism too. They are not greedy
> > enough for life (according to this theory). There is a fatal
> > foolishness in their cynicism. They may be happy to have
> > ten more years of power in the forms that they have
> > become accustomed too. They may rate their progress
> > not against what it possible but against how big a differenc
> > there is between them and the common man.
>
> <me> that is common btw; in people from all walks of life
> (competition versus a neighbor) versus global competition...
> it seems (given the broadness) that it is inherent to peoples
> point of views... besides the trick to manipulations is to learn
> how to do it urself.
I think your right it comes to us naturally. But what also
comes naturally to us homo-saps is reasoning. We can
see that win wins are possible, that it is possible through
cooperation to do what we cannot do alone. We can
choose to measure ourselves against what is possible
rather than against each other.
>
> > The logical consequence of this line of thinking unchecked
> > is the formation of power cabals and starker separations between the
> > haves and the have nots (in which ironically even the haves will have
> > less than they may have had).
>
> <me> that assumes there is no such thing as a steady accretion of
> knowledge
> in the hands of a few. there is no reason to limit it to the life of
> any one
> person (or collection); you can consider your lineage for instance.
The few will be aware of the condition of the many, and some
of the few will be uneasy in their relationships with others of
the few if those others are too harsh or cruel in the treatment
of the many. We know well enough how easy it is to go from
in-group to out-group.
>
> <snip of antisocial/sociopathic stuff>
>
> > > [Brett]
> > > This is where I think it becomes important
> > > to acknowledge to oneself that one can be rational and
> > > that one is by nature social. If one does not acknowledge
> > > that one is social one is not (by my reckoning) being true
> > > to oneself and one does not have the sort of maturity
> > > that will enable one to be on good terms with oneself
> > > and to form real compacts that have a chance of being
> > > honored with others.
> > >
> > > <me>
> > > Ooooh I don't know about that :) You seem to take
> > > that people are by nature, social creatures. I don't
> > > necessarily think thats the case. Or to qualify, people
> > > are social by a matter of degree.
> >
> > <brett> Sure but there is a baseline.
> >
> > <me> go tell that to the unibomber.
>
> <brett> I would have been happy to point out to the unibomber that
> he was born social, so much so that he couldn't raise his head to feed.
>
> <me> granted :) but that doesn't really nullify the fact that he did
> become
> extremely antisocial afterwards...
Granted. But there is value in knowing why and how. The value
is in the power to identify route causes that can be changed.
Lets go for the disease not the symptom.
>
> <brett> Then I'd ask him where his sociability ended. It could be an
> insightful conversation.
>
> <me> probably when he realized it was a losing game for his utility
> tables...
Or he may discover that he's been shortchanging his own self interest
with a suboptimal utility table.
>
> >
> > > Some are quite capable
> > > of going it alone while others would die if seperated
> > > from the herd.
>
> <brett> None are capable of going it alone yet. But here is the point in
> the future we may re-engineer ourselves to such an extent that some may
> indeed feel capable of going it alone. And these indivduals will not
> necessarily be able to be reasoned with with the same starting premises.
> These individuals may become meglomanical persuing as the culmination of
> their individuality dominance over all else. Because, if you have no
> empathy - why the hell not?
>
> <me> why not indeed?
And therein lies the danger of the future. Rugged immortal individualists
fighting for supreme godhood in the universe.
By why not? Seriously. I dunno but I figure god would be bored
(and lonely) well perhaps not lonely.
>
> > <brett> Only after some initial basic social assistance has
> > been rendered.
> >
> > <me> We're dealing with [dynamic] adults here, no?
> > You don't intend to limit your morality to only those who
> > are currently social?
>
> > Nor do I intend to convert the bad eggs
> > to altruism. I see it as far more useful to persuade the good
> > eggs that if they do not want war with the bad eggs they had
> > better acknowledge that principle 101 for the bad egg is
> > likely to be what is in this for me. If there is not an answer to
> > that question then conflict will come about.
> >
> > <brett> Many infants get suboptimal social assistance and the
> > outcomes are often dysfunctional people. But they are not
> > dysfunctional by choice.
> >
> > <me> but they're still dysfunctional, at least, according to what
> > currently passes for a majority of society.
> >
> > Yeah. And society pays the price. A more enlightened society might see
>
> > better economies in avoiding the dysfunctional early socialisation.
> >
> > > So i question ur assumption that everyone
> > > is social.... Its obviously a core belief in ur system, and certes,
> > > generally speaking, it is the case that most people are social.
> >
>
> <brett> Everyone is social to a degree. Am I really saying that everyone
>
> is reachable through their residual sociability. I doubt it.
> I think nature throws up dysfunctional types of all forms and
> some genuine sociopaths can probably only be dealt with as amoral
> threats.
>
> <me> watch some interviews with a sociopath :) they're really quite
> fascinating... anyways, there's no reason to render a sociopath a
> threat;
> in fact, I'ld say they can be harnassed to detect flaws in current
> modes.
Perhaps I'm saying sociopath when I mean pyschopath.
> > > But not all.
> >
> > <brett> Not all to the same degree. But there is no person alive at
> > present (to the best of my knowledge) with the power to stay alive
> > without cooperating with others.
> >
> > <me> but you acknowledge that it is a possibility?
>
> <brett> Yes. Imo that is a possibility. For me the interest in morality
> is linked
> to an interest in politics and in the means by which the possibility may
>
> more become a probability in my life time. Hey I am social, but I am
> also rational, and I am in this for me :-)
>
> <me> I suggest you pick up a microscope and a centrifuge then :)
These works better if you leave them stably sitting on the bench. :-)
>
> > <brett> It is not necessary that social be about niceness
> > it is better, more funcitonal, if it is about an enlightened
> > understanding of frailty and the benefits of cooperation.
> > I would argue that tyrants that aim for the short glorious
> > life of Archilles in 2003 are short changing themselves.
> > They are sub-optimally selfish. With a tweak of their
> > value systems they may be able to satisfy more of their
> > needs and desires by cooperating. But many of them
> > would have to re-learn and I'd expect few of them to
> > change what has worked for them if they could not be
> > presented with a compelling argument. If there is no
> > compelling argument that can be made to their self
> > interest then I would say that no real moral argument
> > is being put to them at all.
> >
> > <me> ....except to say that they have presumeably
> > successfuly satisfied their own utility tables....
>
> <brett> No they optimised. But I'd argue they have sold themselves
> short.
> They could and may in may cases yet achieve more.
>
> <me> perhaps, but they certainly won't be listening... if they're
> satisfied,
> why change the status quo?
Because they won't stay satisfied. How can you keep up
with or look down on the Jones if they've gone and
immortalised themselves?
> ----------------------------------- SNIP, wait for part 2 :) damn this
> is long :) --------------
Bail at any time or edit with more extreme prejudice. The offer was
there in the last post.
Quite seriously, long rambly dialogs are probably
better offlist. I think it was worth having the discussion
but maybe not on list.
Any illuson I had that others might read much of this
have long past. But the upside is that the dialectic
process does help sort out thoughts. In this thread
somewhere are a few gems. They may be distilled
at a later date maybe.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 14:42:51 MDT