And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[KitemanSA]

I don't know what you guys are complaining about, I feel like I have been drafted into teaching a class full of autistic children.

Ditto, welcome to the class, D.

[williatw]

Of course the Spartans were conquered eventually and our extinct

As far as my point goes - that moral standards across different cultures and points in history are not consistent, so Diogenes' theory of universal morality is problematic - it matters not that their moral system died out.

It matters in the real world whether they die out. Memes(morals) that lead to their practioners surviving and propagating will increase at the expense of memes that don't. If there had been a strong selective advantage genetically for pederasty we would all be pederasts by now.

If you're trying to argue that there's a tendency for moral systems to evolve towards and converge upon one perfection, well the evidence just doesn't support your case. Right now there are moral systems that exist in different parts of the world - or even amongst different segments of the same society - that contradict one another.

The perception of something as "perfection" is an illusion, natural selection doesn't work that way though people can of course believe what they wish. It just that some sets of memes will propagate across cultures and times better than others because the people who practice them survive better genetically than the ones who don't, not the same thing.

Consider the (bat-shit insane) followers of Diogenes' favourite new philosopher, Ayn Rand, who believe selfishness to be the highest virtue and altruism a moral evil. Many people would consider that the absolute antithesis of their own strongly held moral beliefs.

Not that familar with Ayn Rand alot of what Diogenes says reminds me of Robert Heinlein's views.

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick.

So Ayn Rand is a hypocrite...okay, doesn't change the fact that the welfare/SS/Medicare are rapidly going bankrupt. The plebiscites have discovered they can votes themselves loot from the public treasury without worrying about how to pay for it.

[CKay]

Morality has one and only one purpose, and that is to maximize the probabilities of life and health for it's constituency.

Another unprovable assertion...

[Diogenes]

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.

Communication is a serious problem with which I deal frequently. No matter how clear I attempt to make a concept, I seldom get it through to the mind toward which I am trying to convey it. (Help me Karl Popper! You're my only hope!)


I assume you are an Atheist or at least an Agnostic. If not, then I assume that you at least understand those perspectives. Atheists believe they have no need for a god. Many of them go out of their way to demonstrate that a belief in a "god" is unnecessary, and that people who believe in one (or more) are foolish and superstitious.

What many Atheists don't seem to understand is that many people cannot conceive or a moral system in the absence of a divine judge who decrees some behaviors "correct" while other behaviors are "evil." Many, from the time they are born, are told and led to believe that there exists an ultimate Alpha Male who lives on another plane of existence, but who watches over and judges the behavior of us, his children, and will reward the good and punish the bad when they transition to the next world. (And some are taught that he exerts influence in the current world as well.)

Each individual is led to believe that there is an objective spiritual being watching them at all time, so they must be on their best behavior or he will be angry with them, and may punish them someday. This whole notion is a bit of trickery that creates the condition whereby the individual is obligated to watch himself, and to insure compliance with the rules of his society as they have been taught to him.

This imaginary deity which actually exists only in his head, GUIDES his behavior, and corrects it for error. A laser GUIDE star creates an artificial star (one that does not actually exist) for the purpose of correcting the error induced by atmospheric distortion.

So if you look up to the top for your original comment regarding this sub-thread topic, you will notice how my answer makes sense.

Imaginary "gods" and Imaginary "stars" can still serve a REAL purpose. I refer to a society's reliance on an artificial god(s) to insure compliance with accepted behavior as "the Santa Claus effect."

[Diogenes]

Don't you understand

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

And how do you know they are unprovable? That sounds like an excessive reliance on faith if you ask me.

[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!

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.

Not only that, but the Nations which adopted the Christian doctrine became the most powerful and most prosperous nations in the world! (Up till recently. )

I keep pointing out that the Atheist Soviets and the Atheist followers of Mao never seemed to have done very well.

Christianity and Capitalism were seemingly very powerful memes. They were downright synergistic together! (Note tag line. )

[Diogenes]

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.

I have been witnessing the replacement of the original government with something worse for a very long time. It is slowly transforming from something that was decent and good into something hateful and evil. This transition is the result of adopting various ideas which were not well thought out, and which will have continuing dire consequences until they are expunged.

[CKay]

Hmm.. I wrote:

'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'

You answered:

'yes it is' (I presume you meant 'yes it does'.)

You then went on to talk about the notion of God being used as a moral guide:

'This imaginary deity which actually exists only in his head, GUIDES his behavior, and corrects it for error'

Note that an imaginary deity, being imaginary, is most certainly not independent of the realm of human thought. My original point still stands.

[Diogenes]

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.

I believe I said "I know several men who would be regarded by society as poor choices to have multiple children,". I think I clarified that this is the general consensus of society, and not specifically my opinion.

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.

Why are you claiming he is my "hero"? Yes, violence, theft and rape can be quite profitable for an individual, but are not usually so beneficial to a society. You seemingly have not thought this through very well. Sure, Genghis ended up doing quite well for himself, but has his personal success translated to much success for his subsequent descendants and their society? Is Mongolia the leading light of the modern world, or is it some other society that has accomplished this? If so, what doctrine have they followed for the last thousand years or so?

So why are these people, according to your morality, unworthy?

Again, to correct you, I mentioned that it would be the general consensus of society, (unless it is a society made up of Democrats, in which case they might regard these characteristics as positive attributes.) that these men would be poor choices for children to have as fathers.


The men in question are not thieves on a Genghis Khan scale, they are petty thieves. They cannot make their living at thievery, they only engage in that to get enough money to buy drugs. What makes them "unworthy" (your word) is that there is no viable means for them to support the children they create. But for the intervention of the Wrong Headed governmental programs, these children would starve to death and die.
(I shall not be surprised if you give me an "ah Ha!" comment over this. Go ahead, i've got an answer.)

These men do not serve as role models for their children either, and the children grow up without a Male role model to correct their bad behavior. This leaves them excessively self centered, and potentially violent, making them a possible threat to the rest of society which will deal with them brutally if it must. Getting killed because you weren't raised right is certainly not in the best interest of the children or of society.

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

It is amusing how you attempt to force my comments into the rut of your thinking, but again you are, in the immortal words of I.I. Rabi, "not even wrong."

You are equating forceable prevention of reproduction (eugenics) as being the same thing as an objection to having to pay for it! This is of course the same false equivalency you cited regarding "denial of health care."

You may regard paying for 13 bastard children from one individual to be your ultimate joy in life, but normal people would be rightfully angry at having been compelled to foot the bill for this bit of irresponsible behavior. I certainly don't have any objection to a man having 13 children, I object to him creating them and throwing them into our lap to feed and clothe. In all likelihood they will be another 13 pieces of cannon fodder for the unforgiving and violent streets.

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

Reading the things you write makes it more comprehensible to me how such things as this could be even now occurring in not so merry old England.

Yes, it's the Mail. Obviously you would prefer a less uppity source. Reporting on Idiotic Governmental policy is probably just too declasse for the "Times."

[Diogenes]

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.

Yes, i'm very well aware of this. "Meme's" are also a sort of "virtual gene" that aid in selection as well.

I keep telling people that it is often a mistake to visualize a boundary between one thing and another. Boundaries are often cases of human perception, not actual distinctions between one thing and another thing.

What you are referring to as "kinship group, or population level" are often the consequence of the meme that society exists under.


Another page. Enough for today.

[tomclarke]

Just a few comments:
(1) yes, we live in different societies, you and I
(2)
"sink or swim" social care with the idea that those who are unworthy will sink and good riddance is attractive.

It is perverse when those who are poorest tend to have larger families than those who are not, it happens when female education is not universal and good, so the solution is there.

But always: "quis custodiet ipsos custodies?". How can you decide that somone is unworthy. There are any number of reasons for lack of material success which are absolutely not unworthiness. I don't want to be living in a society with the children of worthy people dying for lack of food. In fact I don't want the children of unworthy people to die for lack of food: "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation" is OT and not to be encouraged in a successful society.

But this is one small argument for abortion - it reduces the number of children born in these difficult circumstances.

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.

I believe I said "I know several men who would be regarded by society as poor choices to have multiple children,". I think I clarified that this is the general consensus of society, and not specifically my opinion.

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.

Why are you claiming he is my "hero"? Yes, violence, theft and rape can be quite profitable for an individual, but are not usually so beneficial to a society. You seemingly have not thought this through very well. Sure, Genghis ended up doing quite well for himself, but has his personal success translated to much success for his subsequent descendants and their society? Is Mongolia the leading light of the modern world, or is it some other society that has accomplished this? If so, what doctrine have they followed for the last thousand years or so?

So why are these people, according to your morality, unworthy?

Again, to correct you, I mentioned that it would be the general consensus of society, (unless it is a society made up of Democrats, in which case they might regard these characteristics as positive attributes.) that these men would be poor choices for children to have as fathers.


The men in question are not thieves on a Genghis Khan scale, they are petty thieves. They cannot make their living at thievery, they only engage in that to get enough money to buy drugs. What makes them "unworthy" (your word) is that there is no viable means for them to support the children they create. But for the intervention of the Wrong Headed governmental programs, these children would starve to death and die.
(I shall not be surprised if you give me an "ah Ha!" comment over this. Go ahead, i've got an answer.)

These men do not serve as role models for their children either, and the children grow up without a Male role model to correct their bad behavior. This leaves them excessively self centered, and potentially violent, making them a possible threat to the rest of society which will deal with them brutally if it must. Getting killed because you weren't raised right is certainly not in the best interest of the children or of society.

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

It is amusing how you attempt to force my comments into the rut of your thinking, but again you are, in the immortal words of I.I. Rabi, "not even wrong."

You are equating forceable prevention of reproduction (eugenics) as being the same thing as an objection to having to pay for it! This is of course the same false equivalency you cited regarding "denial of health care."

You may regard paying for 13 bastard children from one individual to be your ultimate joy in life, but normal people would be rightfully angry at having been compelled to foot the bill for this bit of irresponsible behavior. I certainly don't have any objection to a man having 13 children, I object to him creating them and throwing them into our lap to feed and clothe. In all likelihood they will be another 13 pieces of cannon fodder for the unforgiving and violent streets.

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

Reading the things you write makes it more comprehensible to me how such things as this could be even now occurring in not so merry old England.

Yes, it's the Mail. Obviously you would prefer a less uppity source. Reporting on Idiotic Governmental policy is probably just too declasse for the "Times."

[CKay]

it is often a mistake to visualize a boundary between one thing and another. Boundaries are often cases of human perception, not actual distinctions between one thing and another thing.

Like the boundary that some people perceive between acts that are morally wrong and those that are morally right?

[CKay]

the Nations which adopted the Christian doctrine became the most powerful and most prosperous nations in the world!

correlation != causation

most powerful != most moral

[tomclarke]

the Nations which adopted the Christian doctrine became the most powerful and most prosperous nations in the world!

correlation != causation

most powerful != most moral

And anyway this statement is true only for one period of post-Christian time, not in middle ages, and probably will not be in 21C.

[CKay]

the Nations which adopted the Christian doctrine became the most powerful and most prosperous nations in the world!

correlation != causation

most powerful != most moral

And anyway this statement is true only for one period of post-Christian time, not in middle ages, and probably will not be in 21C.

Yep, all of three centuries out of the several thousand years of recorded human history.