And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[CKay]

Don't you understand

Don't you understand that all of your various assertions are just unprovable assertions?

[Diogenes]

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).

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.

Exactly what has happened.Those societies which adopted Judeo-Christian morality and Capitalism (Burke and Smith) have flourished, and those that continued believing in a pantheon of gods with doctrines of revenge, violence, and selfishness have not.

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

Slavery is not moral. I am vehemently against it. That is why I object to being made a slave by the decrees of various governments operating outside of their proper mandates. They have a legitimate claim on a percentage of the value of my work, but they exceed their proper claim by a large margin, and to that degree they make me a slave that works for them against my will.


But slavery is also a sort of misnomer. All of us are required to do things that we may not want to do, so in that respect we are all under a compulsion to work for others.

It can be argued that this compulsion is a necessary component of a functional society, and the distinction between a free man and a slave is really one of compensation and degree.

I acknowledge that it is my duty to support the necessary functions of my government(s) (Federal, State, County, and City) but I point out there is a legitimate threshold where my duty is fulfilled and therefore any compulsory work beyond that tends to more and more resemble slavery.

[Diogenes]

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.

So: a federal government which exists is preferable to no government?

Absolutely. A federal government serves a necessary function.

I would agree, just surprised to find you morally extolling the virtues of the current US Federal government.

There you go too far. A Federal government is necessary for a sufficiently large population, however it certainly doesn't need to be as large or as intrusive as it currently exists.

We NEED a Federal government, but we also need it to stay within the boundaries of it's proper mandate. It ought to concern itself only with issues of FEDERALISM, and it should not be permitted to involve itself in social engineering or other excesses beyond it's legitimate role.

It is currently too big, and too intrusive. The illegitimate portion of it has grown from the necessary portion, and now exists like a bloated cancer, with the same likely consequences for any patient with a cancer.

[williatw]

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!

Of course excluding divine intervention, the success of christianity in an earthly sense is because of its ability to survive and propagate. Surviving the hostility of the Roman Empire that used to put them in an arena to be ripped to shreds by lions. Centuries later becoming the dominate religion of said Roman Empire and eventually all of Europe. If the bibles had been burned the adherents persecuted to extinction, then short of divine intervention no one would know who Christ was or his teachings. Your ancestors (and mines) answer to the Nazis wasn't to abstract argue them into submission it was to take up arms against them and defend your right to your beliefs(and life). The correct translation of "thou shall not kill" is thou shall not murder. Recognizing your right to bear arms to defend your self from those who do you harm is not the same as taking up arms to enslave/murder your neighbors to satisfy your lust for material goods/power. And of course the old testament also said "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" or words to that effect.

[tomclarke]

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!

Of course excluding devine intervention, the success of christianity in an earthly sense is because of its ability to survive and propagate. Surviving the hostility of the Roman Empire that used to put them in an arena to be ripped to shreds by lions. Centuries later becoming the dominate religion of said Roman Empire and eventually all of Europe. If the bibles had been burned the adherents persecuted to extinction, then short of divine intervention no one would know who Christ was or his teachings. Your ancestors (and mines) answer to the Nazis wasn't to abstract argue them into submission it was to take up arms against them and defend your right to your beliefs(and life). The correct translation of "thou shall not kill" is thou shall not murder. Recognizing your right to bear arms to defend your self from those who do you harm is not the same as taking up arms to enslave/murder your neighbors to satisfy your lust for material goods/power. And of course the old testament also said "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" or words to that effect.

We clearly agree about what Christianity is. We must I think disagree about how much this differs from the moral message of Jesus himself and his immediate followers.

[tomclarke]

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.

So: a federal government which exists is preferable to no government?

Absolutely. A federal government serves a necessary function.

I would agree, just surprised to find you morally extolling the virtues of the current US Federal government.

There you go too far. A Federal government is necessary for a sufficiently large population, however it certainly doesn't need to be as large or as intrusive as it currently exists.

We NEED a Federal government, but we also need it to stay within the boundaries of it's proper mandate. It ought to concern itself only with issues of FEDERALISM, and it should not be permitted to involve itself in social engineering or other excesses beyond it's legitimate role.

It is currently too big, and too intrusive. The illegitimate portion of it has grown from the necessary portion, and now exists like a bloated cancer, with the same likely consequences for any patient with a cancer.

Glad you agree it is better than no government. It is always very easy to see the faults in governments - much less easy to implement something better. When this ha been done, historically, what replaces the original usually has worse or as bad faults.

[Betruger]

Culture trumps government

[williatw]

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!

Of course excluding devine intervention, the success of christianity in an earthly sense is because of its ability to survive and propagate. Surviving the hostility of the Roman Empire that used to put them in an arena to be ripped to shreds by lions. Centuries later becoming the dominate religion of said Roman Empire and eventually all of Europe. If the bibles had been burned the adherents persecuted to extinction, then short of divine intervention no one would know who Christ was or his teachings. Your ancestors (and mines) answer to the Nazis wasn't to abstract argue them into submission it was to take up arms against them and defend your right to your beliefs(and life). The correct translation of "thou shall not kill" is thou shall not murder. Recognizing your right to bear arms to defend your self from those who do you harm is not the same as taking up arms to enslave/murder your neighbors to satisfy your lust for material goods/power. And of course the old testament also said "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" or words to that effect.

We clearly agree about what Christianity is. We must I think disagree about how much this differs from the moral message of Jesus himself and his immediate followers.

Not a biblical scholar by any means but the message of "turn the other cheek" is something like: I verbally insult or strike you or transgress against you. You don't draw your sword and slay me in vengeance. Does not mean if I and a party of men show up at your house at night with the intention of robbing and or killing you after having our way with your wife and daughters that you are supposed to "turn the other cheek" and stand there and meekly allow me to do so. You are allowed to (and I think under the Jewish Torah the christian old testament) required to defend yourself & family with deadly force if necessary, and come to the aid of your neighbor. Clearly the biblical intent is we should survive propagate ourselves in this world, subordinate to God and his laws to be sure not necessarily to the will of other men or govs.

[Diogenes]

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.

Exactly right.

It is a very pragmatic analysis. If one system allows itself to be subjugated by another, it simply wasn't reacting well to the circumstances it was confronted by, especially if it began with an equal or superior position in resources and/or ability.

One thing you have to say for the Islamists is that they are very much on the offensive about defending their meme. I personally think if the Christian types would cut off a few heads of the people who mock them (Hello Bill Maher) then they would probably have a lot more respect among the intelligentsia types. (Or fear, which is pretty much the same thing.)

I really wish those militant Atheist types would put a few signs on buses mocking Allah, but they don't have the guts for that I suspect.

In any case, morality is entirely about survival. Any system that does not protect itself and does not secure the basic requirement of survival for it's adherents, is a faulty system.

[Diogenes]

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!

The basic principles pretty much survive in each denomination. The differences between them is pretty much dogmatic stuff of comparatively trivial importance.

It matters not if Catholics pray to Mary, and Baptists pray to Jesus, and Jews pray to Yahweh. What matters is the adherence to "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery", "Love thy neighbor" etc.

The parts of the religion that matter always get conveyed from one generation to the next, but the rituals, the dogmas, and the abstract theoretical stuff doesn't really matter, so it really hurts nothing if a new denomination pops up, as long as it doesn't change the part of the religion that works to the benefit of the community.

An airplane will fly just fine with a different paint job, but it still has to have functional wings and a motor.

[Diogenes]

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:

That they have yet to be demonstrated proven does not mean that they are unprovable. Can you prove Fermat's last theorem?

And as to conflicting, how are they conflicting? They seem rather harmonious to me. Those that pleasure themselves by creating children and then abjure their responsibility by killing their own offspring will eventually cull themselves from the gene pool in favor of those who do not.

The trait will become less likely to be passed on, unless it has some undiscerned offsetting propagational benefit that comes with it.

• A human zygote possesses essential human personage and should thus be accorded the same rights as for any person (an essentialist argument).

Classifying it does not refute it, unless you can demonstrate that the class of which it is a part has been refuted. The thread of a human life begins at conception. It starts nowhere else. A Human fetus does not require the same rights as a born person. For that matter, a child does not require the same rights as an adult. A basic human only requires a basic right; The right to live.

[*]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).

Not just transfer, but to provide the intermediate protection of it as well. It does no good to transfer material that does not in turn transfer material. Raising children to die without offspring is pointless. It serves no purpose in species survival.

Morality serves no purpose to inanimate objects. Of course it is utilitarian. Only living creatures can exert will. Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

[*]A moral system derives its moral validity solely from its existence (presumably all existent moral systems are valid - an unusual ontological/existentialist argument?). [/list]

A wave can be said to be the sum of some quantity of harmonics. All extant moral systems posses components of a system that works, though they may not precisely describe the fundamental.

Consider a grand unified theory of physics. Consider further that Aristotle's, Newton's, and Einstein's contributions were stepping stones toward it, but none completely described it accurately. Each was an improvement over his best predecessor, yet all fell short of getting to the final solution. Each of their efforts can be regarded as having described a subsection of the final theory.

Now consider the extant moral systems in a like manner. All may describe pieces of a unified theory of morality with greater or lesser accuracy. One would not say they are exactly wrong, more like incomplete, as was Newton's equations when compared to Einstein's.

That they exist indicates they are partially right.

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).

I think that last one is something they call "projection."

As I mentioned in the very beginning of my response, not having demonstrated something is not proof that it is not demonstrable.

It appears that Ayn Rand's thinking preceded my own on this subject. I think she does perhaps a more effective job of communicating the same concept.


As one who favor's empiricism, I would suggest that the moral system of creatures who keep living is objectively superior to that of creatures who do not.

(I was not aware of her thinking on this subject until I ran across it today. I have conceived of these ideas on my own without any knowledge of her opinion on the matter. I find it reassuring she had already thought along the same lines.)

[Diogenes]

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.

"Gross" is a subjective term expressive of a values system. Even in your criticism you unwittingly provide support for my argument. Why is something "gross"? Because it is unpleasant. What do all unpleasant things have in common? They are connected with death, specifically with the possibility of death.

Feces, decomposition, disease, insanity, age, etc. All are threats (to greater or lesser degrees) to mortality.

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!"

Happiness is not a purpose, but a condition of functionality. Survival is the purpose. Also, in the example you provided, the happiness only exists as an illusion, and is the consequence of artificial tampering. It isn't actual happiness.

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

Morality is life, and the pursuit thereof. It is about species survival and nothing else. Moral codes were created for the sole purpose of assisting survival. They were attached to religion because that methodology worked to improve compliance.

[Diogenes]

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.

Only if such activity will assist in the survival of the species. In real world cases, few examples of such behavior actually work out well in practice. If nothing more is done than impregnation, the offspring have little chance of survival. This practice was generally possible for very wealthy men, but not actually workable for the vast majority of just ordinary men.

That it was viable for Wealthy men is actually consistent. Usually in human history, wealthy men had traits that resulted in them being wealthy, and often these traits were highly valuable to offspring. I suspect it is one reason that even women of today regard wealth as an automatic aphrodisiac.

Today in America (and Britain) we have artificially distorted the social market to allow unworthy men to engage in this behavior successfully. I know several men who would be regarded by society as poor choices to have multiple children, (Repeat Felony prison convictions for such things as theft and violence.) yet one man I know has eight children with 6 different women, and another I know has thirteen children from eight different women. I know various others with multiple children from fewer numbers of women, such as five and four and three, etc.

It is quite apparent to me that enabling irresponsible men and women to create unwanted bastard children who grow up with a "Lord of the flies" code of morality is very much destructive to society, and such a system cannot long endure because nature/reality will eventually assert itself.

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

An even more difficult solution than the one you proposed above. Children of rape are far less likely to survive than children of consent, but I appreciate the asinine quality of your attempted mockery.

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

And how is the survival of those societies working out? Trending upward or downward?

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

And there are several men with more than one hundred children as a result. Here is one of them. I would also point out that Genghis Kahn's has 16 million descendantswho posses his DNA.

Apparently this is a rather successful system for those who have been able to implement it.

These examples are of course outliers, and do not represent a viable methodology for the vast majority of humanity. Indeed, the viability of such a method is only possible due to the vast numbers of people created normally who can support this special case for the few.

I will point out though, in the Animal Kingdom, the Alpha Male system of reproduction is quite viable. Lots of critters use it.



And that is all the time I am going to spend fooling with you two today.

[tomclarke]

Today in America (and Britain) we have artificially distorted the social market to allow unworthy men to engage in this behavior successfully. I know several men who would be regarded by society as poor choices to have multiple children, (Repeat Felony prison convictions for such things as theft and violence.) yet one man I know has eight children with 6 different women, and another I know has thirteen children from eight different women. I know various others with multiple children from fewer numbers of women, such as five and four and three, etc.

Your revealing post above provokes many comments. I'll restrict myself to just one. You view men convicted of theft and violence as unworthy, and perversely rewarded by our society. However through history theft and violence has been individually a good way to maintain power and propogate genes. Your hero, Genghis Khan, was of course a violent thief. So why are these people, according to your morality, unworthy?

We need to add yet another diogenes moral principle:
"only worthy men should be allowed to reproduce".

Which raises more questions than it answers, and is totally inconsistent with the others.

[tomclarke]

Not just transfer, but to provide the intermediate protection of it as well. It does no good to transfer material that does not in turn transfer material. Raising children to die without offspring is pointless. It serves no purpose in species survival.

For somone so concerned with survival you are not following the science of population evolution properly. Genes can be selected at individual, kinship group, or population level. The interplay between these different types of selection is very complex.

It means, for example, that raising children who have no offspring but particular talents useful to kinship group or population survival could well be evolutionarily selected, and indeed serve a purpose in species survival.

I do not have an example for the animal kindom readily to hand, but I bet there is one.

Human examples would be heroic acts of self-sacrifice in wars, or celibate but skilled medicine men.