Author Topic: The stateless society, ownership and rights? Can they co-exist?  (Read 9471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
If it appeals to most people, it is of little use.  A moral code is an ideal to be strived for, and few are interested in setting the bar very high.  :)

Quote
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 
-- John Adams, second U.S. President

I believe the same might be said for a stateless society.  The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative.  I believe that the way forward is to provide better alternatives to government, things that make government irrelevant, things that restrict its abuses, but not the elimination of all that is barely keeping a finger in the dike of untamed human nature.

Quote
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.   
-- American Declaration of Independence

I simultaneously hold the (apparently) conflicting views that men ought to be free and that a situation where everyone does what is right in his own eyes is a recipe for disaster.   I am not concerned about contradicting myself, because such conflicts present an opportunity to learn a Greater Truth that resolves them.  Light is both a wave and a particle... hmmm... and opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding!

Quote
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Let the great be great, that we may learn from them.  But encouraging moral relativism as a great cancer that ought to be resisted.  I hereby resist it.

There is an absolute standard of right and wrong burned into our firmware along with an implaccible determination to ignore it.  It has taken all of recorded history for great men to decode and document that firmware.  We ought to teach our children that wisdom of the ages and deviate only where it is obvious that that wisdom has failed.  Refinement and distillation obviously continues, but If everybody is encouraged to start over, most will have no idea where to start and the few who are able to think it through will only repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.  We are fools if we do not stand on the shoulders of those giants.

You will say, "How can we decide what should be taught?  Whose Shoulders should we use?"

I believe that those who are interested in finding that answer will find it.  Those who are not, will not.

Absolutely we should stand on the shoulders of giants. I never suggested a clean slate on wisdom, merely adaptation. The last word on morality has not been said, and never will.

A thousand years from now, what will our descendants say of our current morality? That we freely experiment upon our kindred life forms on the planet? That we subject them to slavery for the consumption of their flesh, when the need for that has long vanished? Is this justified because they lack the intelligence and power to defend against us? When we meet our more advanced superiors in the reaches of space, would we accept their treating us in like manner?

What will they say of our judgments of those who are different, as we genetically engineer our physical forms and merge with our technological creations? Does it make sense to judge the myriad of relationship structures that might form between these diverse sentient beings? Why are we so judgmental today?

What will they say of our perceived moral right to judge and punish? To hunt and kill enemies as vengeance for attacks by others? Or to uphold conceptual ideals like democracy, transparency, free trade, borders, and bibles?

And for those that might argue their own moral codes would never condone these things, what would they say of our willingness to stand by and be silent?

This evolution of ourselves and our ideals is inevitable. If morality does have an objective basis, I believe we are a long way from finding it.

It is impossible to prove that there is any single objective source of all right and wrong. We are each entitled to our opinions. Were society's greatest thinkers to construct an authoritative moral code, built on past great thinkers, but which contradicted your personal views in certain respects, would you abdicate your sense of moral justness completely and wholeheartedly to the code? If the situation called for a choice, which would you choose? And what would you expect of others in the same situation?

Do not fear that the recognition of these differences will lead to a breakdown of society. These differences have always been present, but society has managed them in different ways. To participate in society, each individual needs to recognise its cultural norms and bear the consequences of conflicting behaviour. Power blocs establish to enforce rules. Laws are established by governments.

In the absence of state, other mechanisms need to be brought to bear, and with imagination we will build them. Recognition of differences in moral code does not require tolerance of harmful expressions of those. It is not a free-for-all because defences will be built consistent with people's different moral standards, as they have been in the past. But in the absence of state, there is an opportunity to accomplish this in better ways.

There is no practical value in hoping that everyone in society will suddenly agree on and live by some perfected moral code. It is better to be honest as a society and recognise it is something we need to keep working on together over time.



Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative.

Unless everybody drinks Utopian Koolaid and subordinates their own self interest, then the alternative to governments is organized crime. For evidence, look to any part of the world that lacks a functional government. I'd rather have someone I can vote for, who answers to me in some small measure, even if such a system has limitations and could be improved.



Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
If it appeals to most people, it is of little use.  A moral code is an ideal to be strived for, and few are interested in setting the bar very high.  :)

Quote
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 
-- John Adams, second U.S. President

I believe the same might be said for a stateless society.  The only reason we have governments is because no one can stand the alternative.  I believe that the way forward is to provide better alternatives to government, things that make government irrelevant, things that restrict its abuses, but not the elimination of all that is barely keeping a finger in the dike of untamed human nature.

Quote
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.   
-- American Declaration of Independence

I simultaneously hold the (apparently) conflicting views that men ought to be free and that a situation where everyone does what is right in his own eyes is a recipe for disaster.   I am not concerned about contradicting myself, because such conflicts present an opportunity to learn a Greater Truth that resolves them.  Light is both a wave and a particle... hmmm... and opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding!

Quote
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Let the great be great, that we may learn from them.  But encouraging moral relativism as a great cancer that ought to be resisted.  I hereby resist it.

There is an absolute standard of right and wrong burned into our firmware along with an implaccible determination to ignore it.  It has taken all of recorded history for great men to decode and document that firmware.  We ought to teach our children that wisdom of the ages and deviate only where it is obvious that that wisdom has failed.  Refinement and distillation obviously continues, but If everybody is encouraged to start over, most will have no idea where to start and the few who are able to think it through will only repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.  We are fools if we do not stand on the shoulders of those giants.

You will say, "How can we decide what should be taught?  Whose Shoulders should we use?"

I believe that those who are interested in finding that answer will find it.  Those who are not, will not.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Do you think its possible for society to design and continuously adapt a moral philosophy that appeals to most people, and yet reflects the modern path that humanity is on? A thousand years (plus) ago the Earth was the centre of everything, it was flat, there was no science, nature was unconquerable, there were all-powerful overbearing gods etc. Many old religious texts and other philosophies for example offer wisdoms that perhaps need to be re-interpreted or re-stated in the modern age.

One can still not impose a moral code on people, as they always have choice, and the freedom to adopt their own stance on right and wrong. But common understandings can be fruitful, if only so that people can anticipate how others might respond to their behaviours if they act inconsistent with the moral code. This might be particularly important in a state-less society without enforceable law.


Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
...
3.  Adopt a carefully reasoned logical framework - not gonna happen or we'd do #1.
...
Those are your choices.  Which do you (realistically) hope your neighbors will pick?

I say #3. Number 3 sounds good. Let's have a higher standard for what we expect out of our neighbors. But I will reiterate that I believe the moral philosophy derived from this method is not universal and always ends up depending on some subjective axioms that cannot be reduced logically any further. It's not a problem, it is just something to be aware of.

4.  Adopt a religiously-derived set of teachings distilled over the ages by people desiring to please a generally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being. - Regardless of whether you personally believe they had divine origins, people worked hard on those codes and documented them for you pretty thoroughly.  They can't all be right, though, because they disagree diametrically.  But one of them might be.  Choose carefully.

I'm not saying all of the moral philosophy in religious texts is a load of crap that should be ignored, just some of them. :) Choose carefully indeed. And preferably aim for some consistency in whatever moral philosophy you adopt; religious texts often have huge inconsistencies and contradictions in them that are hard to resolve even when you stretch your interpretations of the text to the limits of natural language. Also, my view is that these texts are (potentially) only good for guiding your decision on the moral philosophy to adopt (along with all kinds of other non-religious texts too written by brilliant philosophers and thinkers), but not for any positive statements about the nature of the physical universe. Leave that to science.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 03:42:17 am by arhag »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:

1.  Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2.  Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3.  There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4.  Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5.  Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.

Here is what I think:

#2 is not mutually exclusive with #1. The reason #2 is done is because humans depend on each other for survival. ... humans decide to compromise on their ideal code in order to reach a consensus code within a particular society/community/civilization....


I think this (#2) nails it. The fear of many is that without a common moral code society will fall into chaos. ...

But essentially I think you are saying it is important for everyone, whatever moral code they choose, for it to be self-consistent. ...

...I think what will drive people is what "they feel is right" in the circumstance, which will be a product of their experience, wisdom and past thinking on the matter, but also unfortunately the external and public pressures of the choice to be made. Rationalization is refined afterward to provide the comfort of consistency around the choice.

"Not mutually exclusive" is the answer I was fishing for.

Fact is many don't think about moral implications, they just do "what they feel is right" (meaning act to achieve immediate gratification).  "Ooooh, there's a jelly donut!"  Gone.

Of the rest that presumably want to abide by some consistent code of morality, everybody does #1. Except, since we are not all deep thinkers, most use their free choice to just pick from one of the other categories.  Thus, for all but those deep thinkers, the choices are:

1.  Learn to think, then do that instead of watching TV - meh, not gonna happen.
2.  Adopt the prevailing consensus on morality - self-consistent holocausts happen this way.
3.  Adopt a carefully reasoned logical framework - not gonna happen or we'd do #1.
4.  Adopt a religiously-derived set of teachings distilled over the ages by people desiring to please a generally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being. - Regardless of whether you personally believe they had divine origins, people worked hard on those codes and documented them for you pretty thoroughly.  They can't all be right, though, because they disagree diametrically.  But one of them might be.  Choose carefully.
5.  Adopt a code selected by people with the most guns, mostly for their own benefit.

Those are your choices.  Which do you (realistically) hope your neighbors will pick?

Personally I think "Love your neighbor" is a pretty good Prime Directive to derive everything else from.  We can all agree that our neighbors should do that, can't we?  :)







Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
To begin, I glazed over your mathematical expressions, sorry. But essentially I think you are saying it is important for everyone, whatever moral code they choose, for it to be self-consistent. I agree in principle, though doubt this can be done in practice. Basically I think the ambiguity of morality will just not bend itself to the precise logic of mathematical systems, and so consistency and completeness always arguable.

On Completeness - any set of axioms contains a finite amount of information. There will always arise situations where certain of the axioms are in conflict, and the rationale for the preference established at that point needs to be encoded as a new axiom.

For example, suppose you believe (i) do no harm and (ii) never steal, which I have chosen arbitrarily. Now you have a predicament arise where to not steal may harm another. At this point the preference expressed in the resolution of this conflict adds information to the schema that was not present in the axioms. The infinite variety of such moral dilemmas that are conceivable means that this information cannot be captured in a finite set of axioms. In fact it will refine itself over a person's lifetime, as I'm sure everyone experiences.

On Consistency -  any two moral axioms that appear in conflict to an outsider can be rationalised as consistent by the owner. Suppose somebody believed (i) do no harm and (ii) attack is an appropriate form of self-defence. Conflict? Not necessarily - they merely rationalise that somebody initiating an attack is bringing that harm upon themselves, while the defender that has no recourse is simply a conduit of that harm.

I think what will drive people is what "they feel is right" in the circumstance, which will be a product of their experience, wisdom and past thinking on the matter, but also unfortunately the external and public pressures of the choice to be made. Rationalization is refined afterward to provide the comfort of consistency around the choice.

I think of the logical consistency I discussed as a process which is not ever fully obtainable in practice. As you say, these axioms will constantly be refined as the person encounters new scenarios and reflects on how they feel about it. But your examples show what I mean by this process. Say you thought two of the axioms in the set were "do no harm" and "never steal". Now you encounter scenarios where these axioms come into conflict. In an attempt to aim for better logical consistency, you would refine these axioms. You would have to adjust what you mean by "harm" and "steal" which would inevitably lead you to defining "pain" and "property rights". You would have to put different weights on different types of harm in the cost/utility functions so that you can logically conclude an action that would need to be done in that new scenario that you were comfortable with. This new choice might inform you through further logical deductions that perhaps you should have done something differently in another scenario to be more true to your morals. You may now feel bad that you were unaware of the immorality (by your own new refined moral philosophy) of your past actions and promise yourself to follow the new appropriate actions in any future similar scenarios that may arise. So the hope is that the rationalizations that come after experiencing new scenarios and reflecting on them actually lead to change in overall behavior rather than being limited to just that one particular experience (so the person feels okay about what they did) and not translating over to how one feels about past experiences or how one reacts in future scenarios.

I should also mention that I am using the phrase "logically conclude" very loosely. I recognize this isn't a precise process. All these conclusions and deductions deal with relative weights, which are seemingly arbitrarily chosen (in reality are chosen in such a way that lead to conclusions that one finds compatible with how they subconsciously feel), and probability estimates of the truth of various conditionals ("if you value this then it is in your best interest to do this") derived from empiricism.

Regarding your comments on consistency. I realize that the axioms as one agent understands them may not be viewed as conflicting while another agent would think they are conflicting. But this all has to do with vagueness of language (well that and human irrationality of course, but I think most of the time the problem is the vagueness of language). What one understands from "do no harm" and "attack is an appropriate form of self-defense" can be very different than what another understands of those terms. I would say those two are in conflict because of the certainty of the statements as they are written. I would argue that to make it non-conflicting (or rather "less conflicting" since nothing will ever be perfect in this space), the axiom "do no harm" has to be abandoned. Perhaps it could be replaced instead by "do not intentionally harm another sapient being unless it is immediately necessary for one's own survival". Again, it requires particular understandings of what each of these words mean for this to not be conflicting with "attack is an appropriate form of self-defense" for a given agent (actually I would argue that the second axiom would no longer be necessary given the revision of the first axiom). Another agent's understandings of those phrases can lead them to conclude that these axioms are still in conflict. Future experiences by the agent may lead them to encounter scenarios where further additions or refinements are necessary to the axioms (What do I consider sapient? What counts as a survival need and what counts as a luxury?) So it is not perfect, and it will never be. But this process of refining ones understanding of words and changing the axioms appropriately to avoid conflicts leads one closer to what I call logical consistency and leads one to axioms that can derive a closer-to-complete moral philosophy. And I think these are good things.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 01:43:32 am by arhag »

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:

1.  Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2.  Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3.  There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4.  Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5.  Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.

Here is what I think:

#1 is a little vague because of the word "free". What does freedom mean in this case? They certainly have the capability of deciding their own code within their own minds. Whether they can enforce the real world consequences of that moral code is a different story.

#2 is not mutually exclusive with #1. The reason #2 is done is because humans depend on each other for survival. They would die if they were to try to survive on their own. Because it is difficult to work together if you act according to your ideal code that can conflict with other people's ideal codes, humans decide to compromise on their ideal code in order to reach a consensus code within a particular society/community/civilization. This allows the society to maintain order and work together in a way that is net beneficial (from each of their own perspectives) to each of the parties (despite the slight compromise to their ideal code). For individuals whose compromise moral code would deviate too far from their ideal code to be acceptable, they separate into different communities. These separate communities, each with their own compromised moral code that is very different from one another, will likely come into conflict with one another often (usually violently).


I think this (#2) nails it. The fear of many is that without a common moral code society will fall into chaos. Historically a consensus moral code is therefore established with the coercive power of the law to back it, a compromise position that individuals in the community will accept as long as the perceived benefits of order outweigh any conflicts with their personal moral code, otherwise they are urged to disassociate from the community. But automatically there is inconsistency, because the use or threat of force will be considered immoral by most, yet exclusion from the community (or "shunning") is too heavy a price to pay to express this. And yet, if there were no law, and no price for stepping outside the moral code of others, those with more flexible moral schema will usurp the wealth and power in that society.

So the practical question is not whether objective morality exists. This will forever be debated. The question is what are the best mechanisms on which society should function given that there are, in every place and time, differences in peoples' preferences and moral judgments?


I don't believe #3 is possible purely through logic. However, I think it is important for one's moral code to be logically consistent (although even logical consistency is not absolute/objective; someone may not think it is important for their moral philosophy to be logically consistent). I think you can reduce the moral code through logic, rationality, and empiricism down to the minimal set of axioms that derives the rest of the moral philosophy. But I do not believe that set of axioms is the empty set (i.e. morality is subjective). I can define the set of all possible minimal set of moral axioms as A. I define the logically derived metric by which to judge the utility of any minimal set of axioms as M_a(b) where a, b ∈ A are particular choices of minimal set of axioms. b is the minimal set of axioms that is being judged and a is the minimal set of axioms that logically derives the metric that does the judging (notice the metric is dependent on the minimal set of axioms chosen, hence it is subjective). For the choice of a minimal set of axioms a to be logically consistent, I think the following proposition P(a) also needs to be true: ∀ b ∈ A M_a(b) ≤ M_a(a) and ∀ b ∈ {x | x ∈ A ∧ x ≠ a ∧ M_a(x) = M_a(a)} M_b(b) ≤ M_b(a). I believe the set L = {x | x ∈ A ∧ P(x)} is not only non-empty but also has more than one member. So, how should one choose one particular minimal set of axioms (which logically derives the remaining moral philosophy through conditionals derived through empiricism and the scientific method) from the set L? I think any choice is as good as any. In reality, it won't be a choice for any given human being. The choice will be made for them (based on their experience growing up as well as partly from their biology) and they will find it very difficult to change their moral philosophy to one derived from a different member in the set L.


To begin, I glazed over your mathematical expressions, sorry. But essentially I think you are saying it is important for everyone, whatever moral code they choose, for it to be self-consistent. I agree this should be sought in principle, though doubt this can be ever be accomplished in practice. Basically I think the ambiguity of morality will just not bend itself to the precise logic of mathematical systems, and so consistency and completeness always arguable.

On Completeness - any set of axioms contains a finite amount of information. There will always arise situations where certain of the axioms are in conflict, and the rationale for the preference established at that point needs to be encoded as a new axiom.

For example, suppose you believe (i) do no harm and (ii) never steal, which I have chosen arbitrarily. Now you have a predicament arise where to not steal may harm another. At this point the preference expressed in the resolution of this conflict adds information to the schema that was not present in the axioms. The infinite variety of such moral dilemmas that are conceivable means that this information cannot be captured in a finite set of axioms. In fact it will refine itself over a person's lifetime, as I'm sure everyone experiences.

On Consistency -  any two moral axioms that appear in conflict to an outsider can be rationalised as consistent by the owner. Suppose somebody believed (i) do no harm and (ii) attack is an appropriate form of self-defence. Conflict? Not necessarily - they merely rationalise that somebody initiating an attack is bringing that harm upon themselves, while the defender that has no recourse is simply a conduit of that harm.

I think what will drive people is what "they feel is right" in the circumstance, which will be a product of their experience, wisdom and past thinking on the matter, but also unfortunately the external and public pressures of the choice to be made. Rationalization is refined afterward to provide the comfort of consistency around the choice.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 01:05:42 am by starspirit »

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
1. If there is no god there is no "good and evil" as duty.

2. We need to ground morality in feelings like pain.

3. Feelings like pain are as real within the Matrix as outside it.

If you start by saying pain is subjective you are lost.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:

1.  Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2.  Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3.  There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4.  Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5.  Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.

Here is what I think:

#1 is a little vague because of the word "free". What does freedom mean in this case? They certainly have the capability of deciding their own code within their own minds. Whether they can enforce the real world consequences of that moral code is a different story.

#2 is not mutually exclusive with #1. The reason #2 is done is because humans depend on each other for survival. They would die if they were to try to survive on their own. Because it is difficult to work together if you act according to your ideal code that can conflict with other people's ideal codes, humans decide to compromise on their ideal code in order to reach a consensus code within a particular society/community/civilization. This allows the society to maintain order and work together in a way that is net beneficial (from each of their own perspectives) to each of the parties (despite the slight compromise to their ideal code). For individuals whose compromise moral code would deviate too far from their ideal code to be acceptable, they separate into different communities. These separate communities, each with their own compromised moral code that is very different from one another, will likely come into conflict with one another often (usually violently).

I don't believe #3 is possible purely through logic. However, I think it is important for one's moral code to be logically consistent (although even logical consistency is not absolute/objective; someone may not think it is important for their moral philosophy to be logically consistent). I think you can reduce the moral code through logic, rationality, and empiricism down to the minimal set of axioms that derives the rest of the moral philosophy. But I do not believe that set of axioms is the empty set (i.e. morality is subjective). I can define the set of all possible minimal set of moral axioms as A. I define the logically derived metric by which to judge the utility of any minimal set of axioms as M_a(b) where a, b ∈ A are particular choices of minimal set of axioms. b is the minimal set of axioms that is being judged and a is the minimal set of axioms that logically derives the metric that does the judging (notice the metric is dependent on the minimal set of axioms chosen, hence it is subjective). For the choice of a minimal set of axioms a to be logically consistent, I think the following proposition P(a) also needs to be true: ∀ b ∈ A M_a(b) ≤ M_a(a) and ∀ b ∈ {x | x ∈ A ∧ x ≠ a ∧ M_a(x) = M_a(a)} M_b(b) ≤ M_b(a). I believe the set L = {x | x ∈ A ∧ P(x)} is not only non-empty but also has more than one member. So, how should one choose one particular minimal set of axioms (which logically derives the remaining moral philosophy through conditionals derived through empiricism and the scientific method) from the set L? I think any choice is as good as any. In reality, it won't be a choice for any given human being. The choice will be made for them (based on their experience growing up as well as partly from their biology) and they will find it very difficult to change their moral philosophy to one derived from a different member in the set L.

I actually think #4 can partly fit into #3 if empirical evidence was able to convince someone that such a being who has a set of morals that it wants humanity to follow actually existed (and also was able to know with reasonable certainty what those set of morals was). However, I still think it requires a minimal set of axioms a. In this case one of the axioms in a would be "one should follow the morals dictated by this Higher Being". Although it is possible that the same result can be achieved without that axiom. If one were to truly believe a hell (eternal torture) existed, that their consciousness could be sent there by this Higher Being, and that this Higher Being would send their consciousness there after death if they did not follow the being's moral codes, then the only axiom they would need in a is "one should try to avoid pain (especially extreme pain that lasts forever)".

I think #5 is a different conversation entirely. It has more to do with #2 actually. I think everyone has their ideal moral code (which I talked about with #1 and explained how I think it should be logically consistent with #3), but the reality of living and depending on other people requires them to accept compromise moral codes that communities can reach a consensus on (which I discussed with #2). Of course, the compromises one needs to accept depends on their relative leverage. If one party significantly overpowers the other party, the compromise will be in the favor of the party with more power. Certainly having guns and being willing to use them gives one more leverage in the compromise. But there is a limit to how much one can skew the compromise before the other party gets fed up and becomes willing to get their own guns and use it to defend their position. This brings balance back to the compromise. Anyway, my guess is that what you mean by #5 is the government dictating moral code to its citizens. But government is just a collection of people (a subset of its citizens). More importantly, it depends on compliance by a significant portion of its citizens or else it would fail. So, typically (though not always), the moral philosophy dictated by governments is close to the compromise moral codes reached by consensus by its citizens. If it deviates too far from the consensus code, it inevitably results in revolution.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 07:12:38 am by arhag »

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Rights are granted by your ability to enforce it. Law enforcement capability alone is what determines the rights that exist. If it cannot be enforced then it's imaginary (like moral rights).

I think all rights have to be enforced whether by mathematics or physical force.

People consent to the use of physical force as a valid way to preserve their rights. Last I heard half of the people in the USA thought torture was justified to prevent terrorism... http://www.ibtimes.com/cia-torture-report-poll-half-americans-say-enhanced-interrogation-was-justified-1758576

To me that's a truly terrifying statistic. However, people used to consent to their taxes being used to catch slaves also... Times have changed and morality with it.

The key word is consent, consensus on morality is required for rights to be enforced, whether it be by physical force or mathematics.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Something I've been questioning recently, inspired by a number of the recent debates and blog posts. Perhaps others may like to join the musings...

Can "rights" exist in a stateless society? If not ultimately by coercion supported by consensus, how can any rights be enforced?

Ownership is where property is accepted by the community as belonging to somebody, for their control. But without a means to identify this (looking through the block-chain to individuals) and to enforce this (ultimately via co-ordinated threats of some nature), does ownership really exist, or just the ability to control, for as long as that ability is maintained? For example, sometimes we use the language that block-chains enforce property rights. But is this the most accurate language? Block-chains seem only to enforce control of property, to whoever holds the keys. Should the keys be lost or stolen, there is no way to enforce the attribution of the property back to the individual.

In a future state-less world, should a location-based community be attacked by drones for its geographic resources, what international law would prevail to uphold any rights of the "owners"? Are they left to coordinate and mount their own defence?Does everything come down to control, and the ability to attack and defend that control? Wouldn't this naturally lead to centralised and decentralised communities forming co-ordinated defensive mechanisms?

Rights are not granted by governments, they are inalienable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, block chains are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the owners, That whenever any form of block chain becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Owners to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new block chains, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Your actual mileage may vary.

Rights are granted by your ability to enforce it. Law enforcement capability alone is what determines the rights that exist. If it cannot be enforced then it's imaginary (like moral rights).

I think all rights have to be enforced whether by mathematics or physical force.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I empathise with the view that evidence gives one greater confidence in one's deductions. However Von Mises says (p69, Human Action) that "it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena". If it were possible to isolate all other variables as one might in a scientific experiment, then empiricism stands a shot. But it is impossible to do this with historic statistics on complex dynamic systems. [Edit: There is also no ability to repeat and verify]. Thus Mises' emphasis on deductive reasoning, despite its openness to challenge and review. Of course he could be wrong like anybody else, and maybe your resolve might lead to a better approach.

I do certainly see your point, We can't reliably repeat and verify the effects of preferential behaviours on society based off historic examples, so we can't rely on that as evidence to support objective morality or the effects of universally preferential behaviour on complex systems. Well we could try but it would never be accepted as objective fact by rational people.

I think what Mises is trying to get across here in a somewhat roundabout way is that Correlation is not Causation(I could be missing the point here so please correct me if i've misunderstood).

However, having a basis of principle in deductive reasoning is a valid way to abstract reason from evidence, this is what Austrian economics is built on. I think we can derive the principles of morality in the same way... If we can, the results can be objectively verified by the evidence.

Stan, I certainly hope its about #3... Otherwise I may have missed the point. :)

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
This is a very wide-ranging thread.
Not sure where its going.
Not sure it needs to be going anywhere, since such discussions are generally fun.

So let me ask a question about the portions of this thread that seem to be aimed at deriving some sort of moral code, that presumably we want to identify and then (non-violently) get everyone to adopt.

There seem to be only five possible sources of moral code:

1.  Each individual is free to pick their own code.
2.  Individuals collectively pick a code by consensus.
3.  There is somehow a Universal Code that can be derived by logic.
4.  Our Creator or some intermediate Higher Being (convincingly) specifies it for us.
5.  Men with guns pick a code and (nonviolently) get us to abide by it.

I reject #2 because the majority is always wrong about such things (Stan's Axiom #1).
If the answer is #1 or #4 or #5, then this discussion is obviously moot.

So, (I finally get to my question) is this discussion about #3?




 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 04:04:02 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.

Are the requirements for Economics that much different? Would we be Austrians if the fall of the Roman empire could be clearly demonstrated to be linked to a lack of debasement of their currency?

Of course not! Both internal consistency of principle as well as supporting evidence are required for any given hypothesis to be accepted as accurate by rational individuals. This is why an internally consistent principle is required to validate actions as moral or immoral as well as the evidence supporting it.

I empathise with the view that evidence gives one greater confidence in one's deductions. However Von Mises says (p69, Human Action) that "it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena". If it were possible to isolate all other variables as one might in a scientific experiment, then empiricism stands a shot. But it is impossible to do this with historic statistics on complex dynamic systems. [Edit: There is also no ability to repeat and verify]. Thus Mises' emphasis on deductive reasoning, despite its openness to challenge and review. Of course he could be wrong like anybody else, and maybe your resolve might lead to a better approach.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 02:18:15 am by starspirit »