Author	Message
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2007 02:05 pm    Post subject: amoral should Mike elsewhere we were talking about morality and you made a generalization it seems that shoulds equate to morality. There would be broad exceptions to that it would seem. A parent telling a child that he or she should brush their teeth. This type of should implies I think, that by doing the should item probably will yield a positive result such as fewer cavities as opposed to necessarily resulting in an elevated state of morality. And the person employing the should might be just as moticvated, if not more, of not having to pay dentist bills or not having to look at children with rotten teeth. Workers should take over the means of production to me has little to do with morality, and I hope that I would not employ a morally based argument to support that proposition.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Sep 2007 06:03 pm    Post subject: Having rotten teeth that cause suffering and fall out is one of the options available to us. How do we know it's not the recommended course? We make a judgement based on preference. Having class rule and fascism are available options. Destroying the world with H-bombs an option. These are not the outcome that we prefer. I don't see how such choices are any different from moral rules of any kind. What were you intending by the word "morality" if you didn't mean that word to refer to a preference for one result over another? I don't have any other connnotations for the word. I will go further still: I don't think they are different from simple tastes either, except in the intensity of the preferences, something purely quantitative. If someone were to murder my family, that would be the result that I don't prefer. I prefer that the reality be such that no one murders my family. If it were only a weak preference, like anchovy pizza being better than pepperoni, I would call it "liking" or "a matter of taste." But it's my very strong preference that we have a world in which no one murders my family. The strength of the preference is what I mean by referring to right and wrong: my family has a "right" to live, and it would be "wrong" to murder them. In saying this, I'm describing the kind of universe I would prefer to live in. I'm not making a statement about the universe, but i'm making a statement about my likes and dislikes related to. Someone's judgements about what the world should be like is a description of the psychological processes in their brains. My brain operates such that I wish there were no fascism, no H- bomb, no murderers coming after my family, and any time I want one I could have an anchovy pizza. Some of these wishes are stronger than others, and that scale of psychological intensity determines whether I call certain things basic rights, provisional rights, minor privileges, minor tastes and likes/dislikes. If "I could do without it", I call it a matter of taste, but if I absolutely insist on it, with such intensity that I would like to see other people coerced to obey my preference, I call it a matter of right and wrong. I wouldn't like to see other coerced to either try anchovy pizza or to bake some for me, but I would like to see others coerced into following the rule that prohibits committing murder. So one is merely a matter of taste, while the other is a matter of right. When I say that, what I'm describing is nothing other than my state of mind. In any source that compares the various theories of morality, mine position is called the psychological theory of morality. A common error is to confuse the psychological theory of morality with cultural relativism. These are entirely different things. Cultural relativism says that right and wrong for one society can't be judged by the rules of another society, so maybe it was "okay" for the Aztecs to cut someone's heart out, okay "for them", okay "back then". But that's not what the psy. theory asserts. The psy. theory says that it was wrong "for them" and wrong "back then" also, because the thing I'm describing when I say this is my own psychological state. The main reason I defend the psy. th. is because I don't see any other way for value judgements to arise and have meaning in a physical process, in the numerous large piles of atoms that we call the society of human beings. Try to back up "workers should take over the means of production" without reference to our personal preferences about what kind of reality we would like to see human beings existing in, that is, without references to our own states of mind . I don't think it's possible. We may, however, hide the references to our states of mind by using words that seem to project the significance outward, making them seem external.
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2007 06:50 pm    Post subject: [quote]Having rotten teeth that cause suffering and fall out is one of the options available to us. How do we know it's not the recommended course? We make a judgement based on preference. [/quote] I do not follow. You being a parent with some experience undestand that if your child does not brush regularly and properly know that it will resukt in increased dentst/doctor bills. Moreover you don't want to look at a kid with rotten teeth so you tell the child he or should brush (or else I will make it tough for you kid, is the implication) Are you saying that this a a moral judgment on the part of the parent? Even if its a blind "preference" - "I had to when I was a kid so now you have to" I don't see this as a moral judgement. The 2nd is more ethically suspect than the first I will admit. Is that what you are getting at?
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2007 10:00 pm    Post subject: Vince wrote: [quote] regarding "should" -- my preliminary thought is, everything in life and society comes from "should," its inverse "should not," or its emphatic form "must." ...before I'd announce my view, above, as definite, I'd have to spend some time thinking this through. Which I shall not do now. [/quote] dave writes: Then you must agree with me that there is an amoral should.
mikelepore	Posted: 03 Sep 2007 02:04 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Are you saying that this a a moral judgment on the part of the parent? No, because I only use the word "moral" when it's a rule about not doing something that infringes on the rights of other people, so don't somehow make someone else's teeth fall out, that's a moral rule, but don't make your own teeth fall out, that's just good advice. But your original point was about society. We have a social system that infringes on people's rights, so when I urge getting a new system that's a moral imperative. If the only benefits of socialism were efficiency, ocnvenience, etc., it wouldn't be a moral issue, but I believe that capitalism assaults people, so I also believe it's a moral issue.
mikelepore	Posted: 03 Sep 2007 02:06 am    Post subject: Anyway, "moral imperative" or "good advice", either way, it's what the philosophers like Hume called an "ought." You ought to. An ought can never be established from facts. Its opposite is always equally feasible from the facts. By the way, that there is no direct way to get from "is" to "ought", it's commonly said in philosophy that Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature" did the most to promote this idea.
davesearles	Posted: 03 Sep 2007 09:28 am    Post subject: Mike: We have a social system that infringes on people's rights, so when I urge getting a new system that's a moral imperative. If the only benefits of socialism were efficiency, ocnvenience, etc., it wouldn't be a moral issue, but I believe that capitalism assaults people, so I also believe it's a moral issue. dave: But if a person not yourself says that capitalism should be gotten rid of, that doesn't have to be a moral judgment - just someone saying - that the current system is heading for a breakup - and that if we value the benefits of an society organized around fulfilling the needs of the many as opposed to profits for the few then we ought to have socialsm. With the "if" clause in there, it doesn't make it a matter of morals ISTM. Mike: there is no direct way to get from "is" to "ought", it's commonly said in philosophy that Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature" did the most to promote this idea. dave: no comprende
mikelepore	Posted: 03 Sep 2007 10:11 pm    Post subject: Whether or not "moral" is the right word, you said there are benefits, and that makes it a subjective statement, an expression of personal preference. How do you know there are benefits to anything? Someone else could have a different preference and say, "It's unwarranted to change the system just because of the trivial reason that people are starving. The only really important thing is that the billionaires should get more money." We would consider their statement to be completely nuts, but we couldn't communicate why to them. Either someone feels it or they don't. You said the sstem is headed for a breakup. How do you know? Someone else can say, "I don't see any signs of the breakup of society, which would be if a CEO gave an order and the staff disobeyed it, or a general gave an order to march and the troops disobeyed it." How can we be right and they be wrong without reference to our subjective judgements? There is no way move in rigorously logical steps from "this is what is happening" to "this is what we should do". Try to flowchart a computer program to do that. You will have insert at least one judgement that goes beyond observation, perhaps "pain is to be avoided", "don't shorten anyone's life needlessly", or somehting like that.
davesearles	Posted: 04 Sep 2007 02:09 am    Post subject: then if I had written it: If we recognize thatthere are benefits worth changing the basic structure of society for... then we should... that would be more amoral? (more amoral sounds like the Dean Martin song - when the moon hitsa youa eye lika bigga pizza pie)
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Sep 2007 02:58 pm    Post subject: Only you can answer that, according to what you consider to be moral, immoral, amoral. Whose definitions? John Locke: something is moral if it's consistent with natural rights. John Stuart Mill - something is moral if it promotes the greatest amount of happness for the greatest number of people. Immanuel Kant - something is moral if would be reasonable for everyone to be doing it all of the time. Moses - something is moral if God commanded that it be moral. No one else can assign various instances into your own categories. I'm not sure what you're getting at ultimately. Are you trying to show that a social plan is objectively necessary, regardless of the other person's attitudes, like the laws of chemistry? If so, that's an interesting exercise. Several 19th century French scholars worked on that, like Condorcet and Turgot. Marx showed that he was influenced by the trend when he claimed scientific status for his work.
davesearles	Posted: 04 Sep 2007 07:27 pm    Post subject: I will have to sort this out at a later date. Right now I am functioning on just a couple of hours of sleep per day. I took a part time midnight shift job but the training for it is full time midnight shift. Marx claimed his work was scientific? Do you have a cite?
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Sep 2007 08:17 pm    Post subject: For example, where the Communist Manifesto says: "The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes." -- They're claiming that they don't merely support change. Suposedly laws that govern history are seeng to it that change will occur, and the authors only comment on it. But it was Engels more than Marx who used phrases like "socialism became a science" and "to make a science of socialism...." (these phrases are Anti-Duhring, then repeated in Soc: Utopian and Scientific.)
davesearles	Posted: 04 Sep 2007 09:53 pm    Post subject: Mike quotes the manifesto: The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes." -- dave writes: It was a time of tremendous upheaal. I'm sure that there was a certain air of inevitiabity about it. Mike writes: it was Engels more than Marx who used phrases like "socialism became a science" and "to make a science of socialism...." (these phrases are Anti-Duhring, then repeated in Soc: Utopian and Scientific.) dave writes: I didn't see that he made such a good showing drawing thr line between utopian socialism and "scientific" Maybe the word "scientific" should be looked as more of a relative modifier as opposed to implying that the whole body of knowledge is scientifically demonstrable.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Sep 2007 03:05 pm    Post subject: So getting back to your first point: "Workers should take over the means of production to me has little to do with morality, and I hope that I would not employ a morally based argument to support that proposition." You seem to be hinting that you want to write a socialist statement in a new format. Did you follow my argument yet? If a socialist statement says something like it's unacceptable that children are starving, the homeless are freezing, etc., then it IS a moral statement. If it says anything like that, its basis is really the same as Vince's brotherly love approach even if greatly different words are chosen for it. I can't think of any human motivations that are free from that kind of use of values. When NASA explains why we "should" or "must" send probes to the planets, it's full of judgements about right and wrong. Even the most dry and sober analysis of why we need to build a bridge to replace the ferry boat, it's all about judging outcomes to be right or wrong. I don't think humans ever stop doing it. I don't see any other reason to make a public decision.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Sep 2007 03:45 pm    Post subject: It just amazes me as to the number of things that we totally disagree upon. Judgment can be morally sterile and much of highway engineering and other civil engineering is just that. Regardless of my personal feelings ISTM the stringest arguments are in the form "if you choose such and such course of action (or inaction) then this seems to be a likely result - changing your action in such a way will likely alter the result thusley. Do what you want. I am falling asleep here. if there is any inteligible communication here it is purely coincidental.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Sep 2007 07:50 pm    Post subject: Civil engineering has to use moral values. It proceeds from the assumption that it would be a bad thing if a structure collapsed on people. Newton's laws didn't provide that rule. Newton's laws only provided the information that plan A will collapse on top of people while plan B won't. It still takes a judgement to choose between A or B. Highway design uses morality. Banked curves are intended to prevent cars from sliding off the road. I could write the force equations for that. But the equations can't indicate whether it would be fortunate or unfortunate for cars to slide off the road. Some sentient being has to consciously say: choose the plan that won't systematically injure people. But banking the curve will use more cement. Well, do it anyway, because it's worth it. Isn't the moral content there evident? If you don't call that morality, then I can't know how else you use the word unless you tell me.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Sep 2007 09:50 pm    Post subject: Mike writes: Civil engineering has to use moral values. It proceeds from the assumption that it would be a bad thing if a structure collapsed on people. dave writes: I do not agree. Arguably if you asked civil engineers they would agree with you BUT if a scholl wanted them to build the cheapest school wall possible and have it come JUST within the saftey standards regarding wind, the wall would be built just to that standard and not a MPH over if possible. Remember the Coldingham school in Orange County? A fucking "freestanding" wall built to withstand winds of 89 mph as I recall. In fact the wall was underdesigned that except for some connectors for the windows the wall was under code but adding in the window connectors put the design just a mile or tow per hour above the standard. If they told the whores to buld a wall to a 50 mph that's what they would do. I believe that it's based upon the probability of a "50 year wind" measured at 33 feet above the ground. Civil engineering is based upon how little we can build a structure for and still make money. There is not a drop of morality in it.
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 06:03 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Civil engineering is based upon how little we can build a structure for and still make money. There is not a drop of morality in it. And should it be considerd okay with the people when that tendency is observed (not having a drop of morality in it is morally acceptable to the people) or is it not okay to run things that way (not having a drop of morality in it is morally unacceptable)? You see, morality is even made necessary by its opposite. Truth is like that also. For example, if the jury's verdict is totally wrong, it can only be wrong in that it doesn't correspond to the truth, so still there is a truth.
PowerKord	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 07:48 am    Post subject: Can't Touch This Hi, I really love this thread because whatever your position, it all leads inexorably to support the PCS fundamental that morality (in Marxist terms, the "ideal"), exists, and is a relevant force; it's not all materialist historical processes. And if morality exists and is a force, commandeering this force to our revolutionary advantage, as we would likewise want to control every relevant revolutionary element in service of maximizing the chance of the full success of the revolution, follows logically, and is a desideratum. Thus, the desirability and logic of inclusion of the love ethic in the PCS socialist program (or any well-crafted, fully-thought-out socialist program). I love it! Regards, vince de benedeto PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY www.Cooperative-Society.org
The Greenman	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 11:57 am    Post subject: Could we not say that it boils down to making a choice. Those choices are based on a person's morals. The school made a collective choice to have the cheapest wall built but the contractor may have a moral concern over the construction (the wall falling on the children during a windstorm) and use metal rods to strengthen the wall and tell the school board that construction went over the expected budget.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 03:52 pm    Post subject: Mike: And should it be considered okay with the people when that tendency is observed (not having a drop of morality in it is morally acceptable to the people) or is it not okay to run things that way (not having a drop of morality in it is morally unacceptable)? dave: Apparently it is OK. Should it be considered OK.? Myself I do not consider OK but that is not what stands out is it? Pu me in charge of things and certain things within my ken or morality will be done and some will like it and some will hate it, and other things no one will like, and not a person on the face of the earth will agree with a half of what I decide. So no I don't think that I or any other gets to decide for others based upon a "moral" should. Vince: it all leads inexorably to support the PCS fundamental that morality (in Marxist terms, the "ideal"), exists, and is a relevant force Dave: What system of logic supports or could support that? No matter what position that one takes that it supports a proposition that morality exists and is a relevant force? John: Could we not say that it boils down to making a choice. Those choices are based on a person's morals. The school made a collective choice to have the cheapest wall built but the contractor may have a moral concern over the construction (the wall falling on the children during a windstorm) and use metal rods to strengthen the wall and tell the school board that construction went over the expected budget. Dave: Or based upon a person's lack of morals, or made by a person who "has" morals but has a hard time remembering in what part of his or her body these inconvenient little devils are kept.
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 04:58 pm    Post subject: Dave, you do it every day. You're in line to get into the movie theater. When you're on an errand, you don't waste time without a reason, so why didn't you kill the person in front of you so that you could get your own movie ticket a little bit faster? You're at a buffet restaurant. The person in front of you is just about to take the last shrimp. Why didn't you kill that person in case you decide later that you want the shrimp? If you found a dollar on the sidewalk you'd pick it up, so why not grab an old lady's purse to see if there's a dollar in it? We act out of morality every minute of the day. I just walked around the cat to get over to the table so I could type this. Since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, why didn't I just step on the cat's neck? These decisions that we make constantly are inexplicable without reference to the conscience that guides us.
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 05:12 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: So no I don't think that I or any other gets to decide for others based upon a "moral" should. So what would have been the best reason to abolish slavery? Because the metal used for the chains could be put to more efficient use to make pots, and the leather used for the whips could be put to better use to make wallets? Was the principal reason to fight the Nazi holocaust that the poison gas was an inefficient use of a chemical plant, which could be put to better use making house paint? I think you have entirely moral reasons, and you're just queasy about the use of the word "moral". The word makes you think of certain pop-culture connotations. That's true for a lot of people. Say the word "moral" and a lot of people will immediately picture Jerry Falwall suing Larry Flynt, or the picket line outside a Robert Mapplethorp art exhibit. Don't be quick to surrender a concept that has been around for thousands of years just because the modern mass media have hijacked it.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2007 06:09 pm    Post subject: If everyone does something becuase god say it, or refrains becuase god says refrain, does that prove the existence of god? Whther or not I step on the cats or walk around them, whther I don't steal the lady's pcketbook, whther I don't kill the person in front of me at the movie theatre. No, absolutly no morality there at all. The Germans gassed the jews becuase they were less moral? No I do not think so at all. Not one bit. Why get rid of slavery? I don't see that we ever did. I know this, in this country a thousand people die every week in automobile accidents. I drive down any two lane highway at the speed limit and within 2 miles I have 5 people riding my ass. Any morality there whatsoever? There are certain things that I do becuase I do them. Are they moral or not. Geez I'm the most moral guy that I know. Yet I have done things when looked at a distance are not so moral, pretty damned immoral. It is all perception IMHO and whose ox is getting gored and yes, what we can get away with. An analogy: morals exist as the ether exists. Michelson Morely where are you?
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 02:25 am    Post subject: Your examples deny my definition of the word, but still you didn't offer a different one. How can you deny that a zebra is a horse unless you can specify your definition of "horse"?
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 12:18 pm    Post subject: That is absolutly correct I can't . I cannot with sound proof deny but I can defy you to prove that morals do exist. Anyway, what is the difference between a moral and a more' I think that's how it's spelled, pronounced "mor ray"
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 06:04 pm    Post subject: As for proving that morals exist. If you mean whether they exists objectively, the way the planet Jupiter is "out there" - I don't know if morals are obectively out there. If they are out there, they are apparently unknowable, because people disagree about them. But the psychological state certainly exists. I have this particular state of mind that three are some things that I will consider doing later today, like making a sandwich, and some things that I won't consider doing later today, like kidnapping somebody.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 06:15 pm    Post subject: or lighting a match to look into a gasoline tank to see if there is gas.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 06:23 pm    Post subject: One difference between mores and morals is that mores are the ones that are recognized as a particular society's typical pattern, like the mores of American parents, Japanese parents, Mennonite farmers, etc. The word morals may refer either to a cultural average or to the beliefs of one individual, or a few individuals, depending on the sentence. Another difference is that mores are sometimes imposed, or simply suggested, or self-imposed, because they are customary, without presenting an actual argument that violating them would be immoral. Japanese families don't actually present a case that removing your shoes in the house is the same category of requirement as refraining from assaulting someone.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2007 06:31 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: or lighting a match to look into a gasoline tank to see if there is gas. That not a moral choice. Self-preservation is an animal instinct. Sometimes the two very strong factor point in entirely different directions, which is why the observer has so much fascination with heroes and martyrs.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Sep 2007 08:48 pm    Post subject: Where is everybody? Don't give up on me now. I want to argue some more. This is my perverted idea of having good time.
The Greenman	Posted: 12 Sep 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: Or based upon a person's lack of morals, or made by a person who "has" morals but has a hard time remembering in what part of his or her body these inconvenient little devils are kept. Don't you know there is an Angel on one shoulder and a little demon on the other? The evil one will whisper to do something bad to someone while the Angel whispers to do good. I love it when I ignore both and do nothing and then they both go outside and have an all out brawl in the drive way. It takes them hours and after they are done and nursing their wounds we have all forgotten what the fight was about. :P Seriously though, morals are learned and they are reflected in society's mores. Animals have no morals but have instincts. Domesticated animals can be taught to exhibit certain acts but cannot decide if those acts are good or bad. Morals are based on social norms and we decide how to interpret those morals and act upon them. We think and have "free will" which animals do not. Promoting the right for the people to own the means of production has a moral basis because we see exploitation from the capitalist as wrong. Morals are an obligation we have towards other human beings and how we treat them, how we treat animals and the earth. We all want "rights" and "liberties" but we have an obligation to respect and uphold the rights and liberties of others.
davesearles	Posted: 16 Sep 2007 01:56 pm    Post subject: John I can understand where a person truly may belive just what you are saying, about the moal basis of socialsm. However, I never want to go there. Anyone else's morals are always equal to my own. And they my be morally disposed in the other direction. SUPER ANALOGY ALERT: Just as the polar bears don't have to argue global warming, we don't have to argue to know that private ownership odf the means of production is not a viable system materaially and that we must push on in the direction that seems the most logical to ensure our survival as well as happiness.
mikelepore	Posted: 16 Sep 2007 11:54 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Anyone else's morals are always equal to my own. I can't reconcile that with the way you yell at people when you believe their language may offend some people. You recently told someone off for using the word "filth" is a message about sexual orientation. On yahoo, you recently told someone off for an overly broad use of the word "they" in a discussion about Jews. On revleft, you recently told someone off because they replied to an idea that they disagreed with by saying "that's retarded". Even me, although I'm virtually perfect and also a saint, my modesty being my ownly fault, you said you didn't like it when I commented that the workers should throw their bosses out the door so that their faces collide with the pavement -- you replied that it's not a matter to joke about, the mere mention of people being injured. I get the picture -- you urge everyone to practice some self-control in their choice of words to avoid hurting someone's feelings. And yet you don't recognize that a moral position is a big part of your activity. Me, I don't mind politically incorrect comments that may offend some people. I also laugh at ethnic jokes. If anyone gets offended by what someone else says, I don't think they shouldn't have said it. Instead, I suggest that the person who was offended should start on prozac. So, everyone, say all the things here that the revleft forum would immediately ban you for! Do you know why Jesus wasn't born in Italy? God checked there first, but couldn't find three wise men and a virgin. Did you hear about the Polish space program? They going to send an astronaut to the sun. Did you hear about the blonde who stared for twenty minutes at the orange juice carton because it said "concentrate?" Did you hear about the blonde who got stranded because the escalator was out of order? Dead baby jokes are good too. How do you tell the difference between a truck load of egg shells and a truck load of dead babies? You walk on them, and the egg shells go crunch-crunch, while the dead babies go squish-squish. Those jokes a hilarious, right? Or you can voice an objection to my jokes by assuming a position that is obviously a moral position.
PowerKord	Posted: 17 Sep 2007 02:15 am    Post subject: And Another Thing Not to mention the fact that Dave routinely argues against the PCS program on the basis that love, or any other notion of morality, has no role in the socialist project, in means or end. vince
davesearles	Posted: 17 Sep 2007 02:39 pm    Post subject: As surprising as this may be, I will stick to my statement. Everyone else's morals are as good as mine. That doesn't mean that I can't challenge people on seeming contradictions. Who knows, maybe their morality actually does allow for things that I find reprehensible. It's all a matter of behavior modification at that point. And maybe I am a just a hypocrtical creep. But as the great Archie Bunker once said: Love me, love my dog.
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Sep 2007 12:18 pm    Post subject: Re: And Another Thing PowerKord wrote: Not to mention the fact that Dave routinely argues against the PCS program on the basis that love, or any other notion of morality, has no role in the socialist project, in means or end. That's right, social change is all about love and morality, even when this is hidden by the various terminology selected by different writers . When we are revolted by the news of babies going hungry somewhere in the world, even though our own babies aren't going hungry, and then we draw the conclusion that capitalism is a poor system for doing things, adding urgency to finding a better system, what have we done? We must gotten out of our own self-concern to some extent, being concerned with their walfare of people whom we have never met. That is a moral position. No algorithmic formula derived by a robot could lead to the conclusion that the effect makes the system unacceptable. It requires feelings to know that.
davesearles	Posted: 18 Sep 2007 03:52 pm    Post subject: Mike the only thing that you have demostarted is that anyone can any thing. Love must exist because my Grandma Hazel put a lot of love ito her baking. I have eaten Grandma Hazel's baking therefore there must be love. Heavy duty.
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Sep 2007 08:37 pm    Post subject: It's not just that anyone can say anything, but that words have social meanings. If you don't think there's a "moral" element to the fact that you want to get rid of war, poverty and bigotry, then you must be using a personal meaning for the word "moral", and not the conventional meaning. I believe in lingustics it's called having an idiosyncratic definition -- that's what my "secondary education methods" professor used to call it.
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Sep 2007 08:45 pm    Post subject: What do you mean by the "must exist" question for something that is a sentiment? How could a self-described state of mind *not* exist? If I think that I prefer anchovies, then I really do prefer anchovies, because it's already a subjective subject. If some people perceive that they love the human race, then how could the attributed condition not exist? We could be wrong, however, about objective facts. I might think that the Prohibition Party is the social program that's most consistent with loving the human race, in which case I'm either right or wrong, and I can never really know which.
davesearles	Posted: 18 Sep 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: using a personal meaning for the word "moral", and not the conventional meaning. I believe in lingustics it's called having an idiosyncratic definition -- that's what my "secondary education methods" professor used to call it. Dave writes: It seems that one can only ever employ an idiosycratic meaning of the word. I defy you to show that when you I or Vince or John use the word that we can be capable of knowing whether the other person or persons are utilizing the same meaning in the communication? In the end it is always a person dealing with their own morals, if they have any, if a person is even capable of doing that. Moralilty approprately is always a divisive question. You want to try to use it as a basis for discourse for resolving the class struggle in favor of the workers? Good luck. I for one am going to morally resist any such effort.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2007 02:17 am    Post subject: If I made it sound as though everyone had the same moral code, I misspoke. Sure, people have different of rules. But there is some amount of uniformity, like universal agreement with the statement that an economic arrangement that lets babies starve is in need of improvement. The whole spectrum of political opinions agrees on the minimal statement. Hopefully the wedge will open up a bigger crack. It may produce a cognitive dissonance in the other person, the first step toward changing one's views.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2007 02:34 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: I defy you to show that when you I or Vince or John use the word that we can be capable of knowing whether the other person or persons are utilizing the same meaning in the communication? We find out by later tests that we have meant different things, but some discrepancies are bigger than others. I tell everyone to bring the perfect waterfowl, so Moe brings a duck, and Larry brings a goose, but Curly brings a skunk. Then Moe and Larry now know that they have had slightly different ideas of what a perfect waterfowl is, but Curly's understanding of it is the one with the greatest distance from the average.
PowerKord	Posted: 19 Sep 2007 04:34 am    Post subject: Common Morality Mike wrote: Quote: If I made it sound as though everyone had the same moral code, I misspoke. Sure, people have different of rules. But there is some amount of uniformity, like universal agreement with the statement that an economic arrangement that lets babies starve is in need of improvement. Yes, I made the same point recently in this forum. There's a basic morality that every human subscribes to, and this can provide the basis for fashioning a common theory of love, that can then form the ethical basis for the new society. BTW, if Mike's critique above is accurate, that Dave does, in fact, often argue for a moral view of things--that's good, in my view, and speaks well of Dave. Regards, vince, PCS
davesearles	Posted: 19 Sep 2007 08:11 pm    Post subject: Mike writes: But there is some amount of uniformity dave writes: There is not uniformity even in one person. vince wrote: There's a basic morality that every human subscribes to dave writes: truth through mere assertion. no thanks I gave up drugs long ago.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Sep 2007 12:58 am    Post subject: Okay, then, try writing any five hundred word socialist leaflet or an educational essay, all your way. Not about tactics, like whether to propose a constitutional amendment, but the case in favor of socialism, the case for making the choice, the reason why people might even bother. I believe that we will see you relying on moral arguments very quickly. Right now you don't think so. We shall see.
davesearles	Posted: 20 Sep 2007 08:12 am    Post subject: My leaflet: Listen People, waztsup? Dis here leaflet don't appeal to any latent moraity that any of you think that you have. I know all you guys. Let's face it. You ain't got none, and because I hangs out which chews I must not got any eider. Yous know dat I don't give two shits about any of ya - but I got a plan see. This is like organized theft big time only they can't bust us cause we'll change the laws around. Fuck them up good. Take over the whole means of production. And so on and so forth.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Sep 2007 01:40 pm    Post subject: Oops, you used the word "theft." That's a moral judgement, because it conflicts with the capitalist's claim that "I am the rightful owner of this whole empire because my great-great-grandparents worked hard and took a risk, resulting in the stock certificate now being located in my vault. It's all mine, end of conversation." That's what the capitalist says, and it's plausible. So is there available some other case for socialism, one that contains no moral judgements? In the preceding I said the word "plausible." To enlarge on that, I have to tell a little story about a viewpoint that I disagree with completely and yet it's plausible. I think this story is enlightening about some people's view of property rights, and also a bit funny. It has to do with the concept of theft. In the 1990s, while using one of the old computer bulletin board networks, I got to know a lot of the "Libertarians" pretty well. One day, to give us something to argue about, I posed to them a hypothetical situation. What if a person was literally starving, going to die of malnutrition in a few minutes, and came across an apple tree owned by a billionaire. In order to survive, the person takes one of the rich person's apples without permission. This was their analysis: The apple thief is entirely in the wrong and shouldn't have done it. The theft deprived the billionaire of the unconditional and absolute right to keep that apple. It is no excuse that it saved someone's life. The starving person didn't necessarily have a right to survive because "the world doesn't owe you a living." If the starving person were to die, no one's rights would have been infringed, because people have the right to eat their own food, but not someone else's. However, if so much as a penny is stolen from a the richest person in the world, the evil done is immense, someone's rights are clearly infringed. That's what was explained to me. And, you know what? It's plausible! You and I reject what they said completely, but their position doesn't contain any logical self-contradictions or any claims that can be dismissed by a purely objective procedure such as a mathematical proof or scientific experiment. Their totally ridiculous and absurd position is logically plausible. It's only by resorting to a moral judgement that we can dispute what they said. Without moral judgements, there's no reason to end capitalism (or even fascism or chattel slavery) at all, because there's no way to determine that there's anything wrong with it.
davesearles	Posted: 20 Sep 2007 03:52 pm    Post subject: Mike: Oops, you used the word "theft." That's a moral judgement Dave: get out of here. Theft is a perfectly valid amoral crime. Did you know that I was charge with petty larceny once in Poughkeepsie. This guy drove right upon a concrete divider to pass a school bus that I was driving. When I caught up to him where he was stopped at a red light I grabbed the guys keys out of his car and chucked them into the Wappingers Creek where we were on the bride over it. I stole the guys keys.