And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[tomclarke]

Okay, you are of course free to assert that: the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its ability to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it. But realise that it is an unprovable assertion (one that few if any moral philosophers would agree with).

It is an assumption we have some evidence against. Consider, most human societies through most of hstory have been (by our standards of morality) highly immoral. By definition moral systems obeying diogenes's rule will tend to predominate.

Of course diogenes may have different standards, and reckon slavery is moral, etc. So perhaps he is consistent?

I think what Diogenes(an others) is saying that the ability of a given set of practices/beliefs to propagate themselves successfully at the expense of others is a more important measure of success than any abstract "proof" of superiortiy which is probably unobtainable anyway. If the Nazi had won WWII, exterminated the Jews (and all non-whites probably eventually including my ancestors) they have won the argument by any practical definition. I would be dead my family dead etc...whatever argument I would make from the great beyond not withstanding I have lost by any practical definition. The fact that I acknowledge that in no measure is a reflection of my desire to be exterminated, in fact I assure you I have no such desire. If a 100 or so years from now your great grandaughter has to wear a Burka in public in Britain and profess(at least publically) muslim beliefs to avoid being assaulted/raped (women without burkas are whores almost by definition). If various/numerous other indignities like muslim judges who take the word of a muslim over non-muslims being 2nd class citizens in your own country etc. If that comes to past and I very much hope it does not (for reasons practical and emotional) then you have lost the argument about whose belief system is better in a practical if not neccessarily morale/theoretical sense.

I think this is confusing morality with power.

there is a single moral system consistent with this view: "might is right".

Our literature (especially the classicsl literatire) is full of examples where a moral idea does not win in any material sense but is remembered and held up as admirable, even though it may have no practical influence on the society in which it is embedded.

Take, for example, Jesus, who historically taught that material possessions, worldly power, and family ties were a hindrance to finding the Kindom of God and should be abjured. A powerful idea which is admirable but has since been distorted into the many Christian religions. It does not propagate!

[CKay]

I think what Diogenes(an others) is saying that the ability of a given set of practices/beliefs to propagate themselves successfully at the expense of others is a more important measure of success than any abstract "proof" of superiortiy which is probably unobtainable anyway.

Note that this all came about when Diogenes claimed that he could derive a moral system from scientific principles which would indeed prove - in an absolute and objective sense - that the destruction of a human zygote is morally wrong.

To that end he has made various unprovable, conflicting assertions:

• A human zygote possesses essential human personage and should thus be accorded the same rights as for any person (an essentialist argument).
• The purpose of a moral system is in ensuring that the genes of its adherents are passed on (so the morality of an action is down to whether it aids the transfer of genetic material - this a special case of utilitarian argument).
• A moral system derives its moral validity solely from its existence (presumably all existent moral systems are valid - an unusual ontological/existentialist argument?).

And he's failed to demonstrate how any of his assertions account for the is-ought problem (I rather suspect that he doesn't understand it).

[tomclarke]

To that end he has made various unprovable, conflicting assertions:

• The purpose of a moral system is in ensuring that the genes of its adherents are passed on (so the morality of an action is down to whether it aids the transfer of genetic material - this a special case of utilitarian argument).

And he's failed to demonstrate how any of his assertions account for the is-ought problem (I rather suspect that he doesn't understand it).

And even as a utilitarian argument it is pretty gross. Greatest happiness for greatest number is suspect, as nicely illustrated by Huxley's Brave New World, where a drugged-up population is enslaved but happy. But this is merely "greatest fertility for greatest number!"

Well I guess it is a novel way to justify the Roman Catholic anti-abortion stance...

[tomclarke]

Based on diogenes' principles...

A truly moral person will:

(1) if male (females are biologically incapable of higher levels of morality) impregnate as many females as possible.

(2) rape as many females as possible, forcibly preventing any post-coital contraception (since not all will consent).

(3) the societies which support this type of morality are of course found in endemic vicious civil war, where rape is officially sanctioned.

(4) More palatable. establish an sperm bank and (illegally) become the sole sperm donor. This was done in the early days of sperm banks...

[CKay]

The purpose of a moral system is in ensuring that the genes of its adherents are passed on (so the morality of an action is down to whether it aids the transfer of genetic material - this a special case of utilitarian argument).

And even as a utilitarian argument it is pretty gross.

Ultimately an expression of human experience as subordinate to (rather than emergent from) the cold, mechanical transfer of genes.

Greatest happiness for greatest number is suspect, as nicely illustrated by Huxley's Brave New World, where a drugged-up population is enslaved but happy.

Indeed - who'd have though the future would in fact turn out to be so Huxwellian?

[CKay]

Missed one of Diogenes' axioms.

• Interfering with a natural process so as to alter the outcome is morally wrong.

How one distinguishes between natural processes and unnatural interference is anyone's guess - see the naturalistic fallacy.

[tomclarke]

Actually, I think diogenes's moral stance is less confusing than he makes it seem.

He wants the balance between individual freedom and security to be 100% on the freedom side, so that individual rights of action must be unfettered by anything except an absolute prohibition on individual killing (since death is the ultimate lack of freedom).

He then interprets "individual" in the broadest possible species-specific way.

The complexity comes from the fact that this is clearly a variant of "might is right" but diogenes can't quite bring himself to say this and tries to find some nobler justification.

This version of "might is right" is still inconsistent. Killing is OK by omission (e.g. denying health services, or food) but not be comission.

[CKay]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

[tomclarke]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

In that case I just find it confusing.

[CKay]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

In that case I just find it confusing.

He is.

[Diogenes]

When it first came out, there was some hype, but the reality was it was just an idea at that point. Some folks thought he had actually built a test device. All he had at the time was a theory based mock up.

I distinctly recall reading that he HAD created an actual engine, and that tests on this engine confirmed that it was hyper efficient. I would not have taken this thing seriously if it had been reported that it was only a bunch of theory.

Mueller was seeking funding to be able to build a test device. Well he got ARPA-E signed up, and then went dark. It makes me wonder about the time it took him to build his test articale, as well as what it is showing him.

My gut predicts another round of funding, then a possible fail. I can not explain why I lean this way. That said, my brain remains open, and we shall see what he has got. Maybe all the Rossiworld silliness is clouding my ability to be neutrally critical in this lane.

I haven't even bothered to look at Rossi seriously. I've been hearing the Cold Fusion this or that for so long my only response is "show me the money."

As for the WaveDisk engine, again I was pretty sure I had read that he had built a working prototype and tested it, and that all his claims of efficiency were based on actual experimental tests, not thermodynamic theory.

I had always viewed this design as a sort of rotary pulse detonation engine, and given that both Boeing and Pratt and Whitney were working on and claim success with their pulse detonation engine designs, I didn't see why it wouldn't produce the same results in a rotary form.

Either way, I do think Mueller has much better ground to stand on with what he is doing, where he is doing it, and how he has proceeded. Maybe somebody here with a buddy in ME at UoM can pull a string.

Yes, I would very much like to know if we have been misled. If not, what is taking so long to move this thing to production?

This thing is so simple that to not have built and tested a prototype strikes me as intentionally misleading.

[Diogenes]

One that cannot exist cannot exert any influence. It is effectively a Zero.
A system which exists is superior to a system that doesn't exist because IT has an ability to assert influence.

Existence vs. NonExistence is a pretty objective standard in my opinion.

Existence doesn't make something morally right (or wrong).

To the contrary. It is the absolute essence of morality. What do you think is the PURPOSE of morality other than existence?

Furthermore, that the notion of morality may be conceived by human intellect does not mean that morality has an existence that is independent of the realm of human thought, ie, that is not subjective, any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God.

If God serves a similar function to an artificial guide star, (my argument) then yes it is.

[CKay]

What do you think is the PURPOSE of morality other than existence?

I don't think that morality necessarily has a purpose any more than, say, the universe has a purpose.

[CKay]

Furthermore, that the notion of morality may be conceived by human intellect does not mean that morality has an existence that is independent of the realm of human thought, ie, that is not subjective, any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God.

If God serves a similar function to an artificial guide star, (my argument) then yes it is.

What is?

Some nice pics there - not sure how they help whatever confused argument you're attempting to communicate.

[Diogenes]

If you happen to believe that the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its tendency to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it, that's fine. But it is only your belief - an unprovable assertion (and one that will surely lead to all sorts of strange conclusions).

It's certainly not a belief that I would accept as self evident or a priori knowledge. Far from it...

It's not a function of it's tendency to promote itself, it's a function of it's ABILITY to promote itself.

Okay, you are of course free to assert that: the essential truth of a moral system is a function of its ability to promote itself and the genes of those that adhere to it. But realise that it is an unprovable assertion (one that few if any moral philosophers would agree with).

If that is so, more's the pity for them. It is my argument that morality serves no purpose other than to promote existence.

Don't you understand that the moral codes handed down by religion were created for the practical purpose of preventing death and sickness?