From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:02:18 MDT
Paul Grant writes
> Brett Paatsch writes:
> Kevin Freels writes:
> [Paul]
> ..when acting on knowledge of probabilities in a
> premptive fashion), you can't really consider ur reaction
> moral or immoral....
[brett] I was not meaning to say, as you seem to be here, that
acting or anticipating the actions of others (especially
when the actions of others are likely to be serious even
lethal) that one is necessarily operating outside of a
moral sphere. Quite to the contrary I was trying, perhaps,
not very effectively, to make the point that as subjective indivduals
*all* of our judgements must necessarily be finally self-centric,
including our *moral* judgements.
[brett] Therefore, it follows to me, almost as day must follow night,
that whatever else one's moral system might incorporate, it *cannot*,
(if it is to be consistent and to have utility in guiding our actions
and
serving as a basis from which we might seek to form compacts with each
other) not incorporate the recognition that we must be honest with
ourselves. I'm arguing that moral action is precluded, that one cannot
be
acting morally if one is not acting on one's own best comprehension of
the situation.
<me> I think we're discussing two seperate points (again!); I was merely
stating that in my opinion, anybody who says the statement that they are
acting morally in a pre-emptive fashion that harms others, regardless of
the effect, is immoral; insofar as no event has occurred to justify said
"response". 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.
<me>Or to put it more bluntly, sometimes self-delusion is the ticket :)
Ever wonder why (evolutionary-speaking) we have emotions?
[brett]Now against this point it might be argued that there
are no circumstances where dishonesty with oneself is
a moral matter. I conceed that this is the traditional view
but my contention is that that traditional view is wrong, flawed, and
lacking in utility.
<me> fair enough, I'll bite :)
[brett]I am arguing that only those that can commit themselves
to hold themselves to a rational moral code are in a
position to have the sort of maturity that is required to
forge the sort of compacts that will best serve the
strongest forms of cooperatives and the most extropic societies.
<me> substitute "ethics" in for "morality" and I'ld agree;
morality to be is something generally provided for people
by external sources (rather than derived by said people);
it also deals heavily with intention. Now, I *really* don't
care what people's intentions are, just their actions. Intention
are more of a heuristic to decide whether or not someone's
future actions will be favorable. This discussion could all
be simplified by people adopting a non-intention based
system, where people are judged by their actions, and statements
made by said people are evaluated in that context (as actions).
[brett]I do not imagine that any of us ultimately succeeds in
avoiding self delusion. But if the charge of hyper-rationality
is ever a valid criticism I do not think it can be so on
matters of morality where the individuals concerned
acknowledge that their take on the universe is inherently
subjective and inherently selfish.
<me> I think there are degrees of self-delusion; I think
more important than self-delusion is the end effect that
self-delusion has on the person as a total system.
[brett]It is my contention that
if we cannot find a harmony of selfish interests we will
not find anything but the illusion of harmony at all.
<me> in other words, someplace where everyones needs
are met...
[brett]And in order for their to be a harmony of selfish interests
their must be real recognition of the nature of oneself
and ones needs.
<me> or a mapping of sensory input to available physical stimulus.
thats another possibility, sans recognition of one's own selfish
interests. Same goes for empaths (people with highly developed
abilities to sense what others are feeling off of physical [body,
speech] cues). They intuitively understand people and respond
sans a specific rational understanding of those people. There's
no reason (any empaths out there?) to think that emotion-intuition
is not being applied to themselves (the equivalent of reflection).
[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. Some are quite capable
of going it alone while others would die if seperated
from the herd. 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.
But not all.
[brett]If there was a creature that by nature was not social in
any sense I would grant by my notion of morality that
that creature would have no duties to others and that
that creature would not be acting immorally in anything
it did to others. If one is sure that one is being
threatened by a genuine sociopath by my moral reckoning
one would not only be permitted to act in ones defence
one would be morally obliged.
<me> see now I wouldn't go that far; just because ur being
threatened by a sociopath does not necessarily mean they
will carry out that act; there's a whole subset of sociopaths
that lead "normal" lives without going through the murder
sprees that characterize their (by our definitions)
less-successful brethern. I think thats more of a policy issue
(to be decided upon by each individual)....
[brett]In practise I would have some residual doubts about
the completeness of the sociopathy of even a creature
such as Hitler so I would not feel completely free to
exterminate him with extreme prejudice unless I had
made a good faith reckoning as to the nature of him
as a threat to what I value. Then having made a
best a rational determination of the nature of the threat
as I could given the time and context I would feel free
to exterminate him with exteme prejudice and I
would expect to feel no guilt but only some misgivings
that had I more time I might have judged better. ie.
My concept of morality is I think in that sense
practical. And it is extensible. If others share it,
if they act rationally and in accordance with their selfish
best interests as they perceive it I can (in the context)
of this moral system have not fault them morally.
<me> now don't u see a contradiction therein? What if
the sociopath, or even loony person (to broaden the set),
is merely acting to fulfill his own utility (ergo munching
on ur spleen or the like)? I mean, just because someone
else is "selfishly" (is their any other way?!) pursuing
there own interests, doesn't necessarily mean ur own
moral code should approve their own...
[Paul]
> Pretty much the only time u can consider something
> moral or immoral is after the event has occurred, and
> then, only for urself. Morality has absolutely no import
> in a pre-emptive doctrine.
[brett]I don't agree. By my reckoning of morality, when
individuals agree to cooperate with each other for their
mutual advantage (perhaps at some cost to them on
other dimensions were they reckoning their best
interests separately) there is a moral bond between
them.
<me> according to ur definition of morality :)
[Paul]
> Anyone that believes to the contrary has not
> rationally examined the situation.
[brett]To be frank, I am doubtful that the word belief can
be validly coupled (except as crude linguistic
shorthand for "this is my operating hypothesis") with
a rational examination of any situation. Belief is often
used by fairly rational people in just this short hand
manner.
<me> belief => a statement a rational agent holds true.
[Brett] By the code of morality I have tried to
describe, belief qua belief is immoral. This is because
when one is believing one is not reasoning and when
one is not reasoning to the route of ones selfish best
interest one is groping with a less than optimal method.
<me> depends on how u define it :) And certes, just because
you believe something doesn't necessarily make it false
(or ill-advised); classic example, I believe the sun will
rise tomorrow morning... Of course the veracity of that
statement will require observation tomorrow morning; but
the belief is both advisable and statistically speaking,
fairly certain... In other words, belief and logic
are not necessarily at odds; it depends on how you define
it.
[brett]My contention is that as soon as one becomes
a "believer" one has ceased to hold to the principle
of to thine own self be true - unless one is incapable
of reasoning - (or one must reach a tenatative
conclusion based on the imperative to live and
act in real time).
<me> hahahaha :) re - ur last qualification :)
well since we're all stuck in this current universe... :)
> Generally speaking, I have no use for morality;
> just ethics [standard api, consistently adhered to,
> logically derived, based on reality]....
[brett]I'm reading api as 'application programming interface'.
<me> yuppers.
[brett]"Generally speaking" I suspect you are unlikely to
enjoy discussing morality and/or ethics much further
with me ;-)
<me> it doesn't really bother me, if thats what u're asking :)
but I've pretty much made up my ethical system, at least
in terms of the larger ruleset (meta-rules)...
some of the smaller "behaviors" are data-driven
(tit-for-tat, etc) :)
[brett]I may make a real balls up of communicating what
I am saying in an interesting way but I have given
the issue of morality some thought. I think it is an
important topic.
<me> certes, I'll completely agree with that; morality
(or ethics as I prefer) is a very important topic...
omard-out
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:10:40 MDT