And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Betruger]

Went thru this exact same argument with him possibly over a year ago. He does not learn.

It is surprisingly easy to find contradictions in everything you say.

How do you define chemically-induced happiness?
[...]
You tamper with your body when you eat chocolate (which also causes chemical-induced happiness). Whether this causes a crash or not depends on many things.

This of course is unnecessary argument - there is no absolute distinction between natural and artificial as has been pointed out above....

[Diogenes]

It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined... Some aspects are obvious... "Though shalt not steal"

Well the Spartans didn't think it was obvious. They encouraged their children to steal because it demonstrated cunning. Those who were caught were severely punished - but the punishment was for getting caught, not for stealing.

People get into trouble when they try to equate one zeitgeist with another. You are equating the modern day understanding of the word "Stealing" to being the equivalent of the game that the Spartan children played with each other.

I very much doubt that when the "stealing" regarded something of great importance such as their livestock, they would tolerate it much. More like it was a childish game, just as you have indicated.

And this nicely illustrates the fundamental flaw in the notion that we can discern objective rules for morality from observation. Moral beliefs change quite radically from culture to culture, or at different times through recorded history, to such an extent that the morals of one society may flatly contradict those of another. Thus the evidence seems to suggest that morality is inherently subjective rather than objective.

You only have a point if your "evidence" holds up. I am not an expert on Sparta, but I doubt any culture would routinely tolerate the theft of valuable objects from one full grown citizen to another. It sounds like a way to insure that someone is going to get killed.

A quick poke about the internet reveals no references to Spartans stealing from each other as adults. As a matter of fact, I found this under
"the Works of Nathan Emmons D.D. " Published in 1842.

This leads me to observe, in the second place, that no nation ever did deny the distinction between virtue and vice. Though the Spartans allowed their children to take things from others without their knowledge and consent, yet they did not mean to allow them to steal , in order to increase their wealth, and gratify a sordid avaricious spirit. They meant to distinguish between taking and stealing. The former they considered as a mere art, which was suited to teach their children skill and dexterity in their lawful pursuits; but the latter they detested and punished as an infamous crime.

Hmm... looks like once again you've attempted to challenge one of my points, and once again you seem to have managed an epic fail. Well, at least we both learned a bit more about Sparta.

[Diogenes]

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.

I don't know about you, but i'm pretty sure i've got some version of high functioning Asperger's syndrome going on.


It's not all bad. It helps me focus.

[Diogenes]

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.

Exactly. Particles can exist for a period of time and then spontaneously break apart. Stable particles do not do this. (to put it into physics terms)

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.

YES! EXCELLENT! Especially the part about perfection being an illusion. It is incredibly difficult to get people to stop seeing boundaries where none in fact exist. Often answers are a range of values that fit into the category of "good enough."

Even the concept of "good enough" is the perception of a biased viewer, meaning one that has a preference.

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..

I have a great deal of agreement with many of Heinlein's views. He was a bit libertarian for me, but other than that, there is much wisdom in his thinking. I am especially fond of this comment of his.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."

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.

And therein lies the rub. It was NEVER a viable system. It is contrary to human nature. People feel an urge to support those closely related to them, especially their offspring. Others? not so much. The further away they are (both physically and genetically) the less interest people normally have in their well being. It is the Christian influence that created the meme to love all men as brothers. (As though they were closely related.) It cleverly argues that all men are related, and takes advantage of reciprocity and the innate instinct of fairness owed to one judged as more or less an equal, and uses it to overcome the natural wariness and/or hostility that people have for others not closely related or associated with them. Them biblical people were clever bastards!


Here is another good Heinlein quote.

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying.

[Diogenes]

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...

So you keep telling me.

[Diogenes]

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'.)

Judging by what your posted, I was pretty confused. I went back and looked at the message and it now makes sense. Here is what you said:

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.

You seemingly mistook my reply to the last part of your comment to be a reply to the first part of your comment. Let me clarify.

any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God.

To which I responded: "If God serves a similar function to an artificial guide star, (my argument) then yes it is. "


My point is, that proof of the existence of God may very well be the consequence of the ability to conceive of the idea, especially if the purpose of God is to serve as an artificial guide star. (Which is a pretty good way of looking at it in my opinion.)

Cogito ergo deus est.

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.

If I were replying to the first half of your statement, you would have a point. As I was replying to the second half of it, you do not. A "God" which is created by the thinking of and the believing in, serves a REAL function in human society.

[Diogenes]

This is that "Ah HA!" Comment I was waiting for.

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.

You must think me heartless. Oddly enough, I gave $200.00 just today to a fellow I have known for some years. He is one of these people to whom I have referred earlier. He is about to get evicted, and his girlfriend is pregnant. He is a former convicted felon, and has simply not been able to manage his affairs. He is one of those victims of Lyndon Johnsons' "Great Society."

I do not want people to sink. I want them to THINK they are going to sink. How else to induce them to swim?

I fully believe in a social safety net. I have written extensively on that subject on this very website. Perhaps you missed it.

I believe in a safety net that is nothing more than I would ask for myself were I destitute. A place to sleep. A way to get fed. Clothes/shoes if I need them, and an opportunity to better myself.

The problem with our existing safety net is not it's purpose, but how it is instantiated. It induces all the wrong responses in the people it purports to help. It makes them lazy and helpless and far too comfortable relying on taxpayers to be their slaves. There is no incentive to get out of it. It encourages corruption and indulgence. It turns people into helpless nothings who have little prospects of ever being independent.

It is, in fact, a vote farming program for Democrats. That is it's actual purpose. The recipients of the government largess can be reliably counted on to pull the Democrat lever because these are the people always promising them more government money.

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.

The problem is not that they have children, its that they have no self control, and feel no need to be responsible. Indeed, when more children equals more money for you to spend, the wrong sort of behavior is being reinforced.

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.

Lack of food is not a problem in this country. An overabundance of food, especially the excessively calorie ridden teeth-rotting food, is the more common problem here. I have no objections to giving them food, but why must we allow THEM to pick the food that WE are paying for? Why can't we just tell them "We" will agree to buy you this, but not that? (I actually know the answer as to why we let them buy whatever they want, but I am making a point here.)

I assume you've seen this? (It was a viral meme last year.)

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.

How about "Go and sin no more?" Allowing children to witness their parent's slothful mooching off the government does not impart any useful wisdom or skills that might allow them to break free of this cycle of poverty.

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

It is an argument for killing live ones as well. Obviously, if reducing the number of children in difficult circumstances is the goal, why draw the line at birth?

[CKay]

proof of the existence of God may very well be the consequence of the ability to conceive of the idea, especially if the purpose of God is to serve as an artificial guide star.

Proof - for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being? Perhaps in your head proof means something like 'ooh, that's such a nice idea it would be good if it were true... in fact I'm going to say it is true'. For most sensible people it has a slightly stronger meaning.

And I guess you didn't get the reference to a famous philosophical argument?

[CKay]

People get into trouble when they try to equate one zeitgeist with another.

Which spells trouble for your universal moral law.

[CKay]

I gave $200.00 just today to a fellow I have known for some years. He is one of these people to whom I have referred earlier. He is about to get evicted, and his girlfriend is pregnant.

Ayn Rand would not approve.

[tomclarke]

I do not want people to sink. I want them to THINK they are going to sink. How else to induce them to swim?

LOL. Hope you are not a swimming teacher.

[Diogenes]

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?

No, in those cases, there ARE actual boundaries. Turning something from life to non-life is a boundary. It is a quantum state change.

[Diogenes]

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

correlation != causation

most powerful != most moral

I have already presented the background argument to support my conclusion. I am not relying on correlation. Correlation is the byproduct of one thing being caused by another.

[Diogenes]

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.

In 21C the dominant religion will be the "Religion of Peace."

[Diogenes]

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.

Can you spell L-U-T-H-E-R?