Anyway, the relevant point is that ethics is not a matter of majority vote.

[James R]

So who decides what is ethical and what is not, if not the people?

The people decide, but it's not a simple majority vote.

Ethical philosophers agree that the appropriate way to decide on ethical principles is to use the human capacity for reason.

And I'm now firmly believing that it's determined by the ones with the most power, which usually means the most/biggest guns!

If that were true, then nobody with a big gun could ever be judged as acting unethically.

Clearly, your view is unsustainable.

Yes, but it's not so simple as you make it. The "best" civilizations were those that were able to convince the people that they were the ones who decided .....even tho' they were somewhat "coerced" into believing the same as the generals with the power. See?

So, you're claiming that the concept of ethics is essentially a sham by the powerful to keep the mob in line. Are you?

Is it possible for a general to do something that is morally wrong or evil, in your opinion?

 

[Baron Max]

Ethical philosophers agree that the appropriate way to decide on ethical principles is to use the human capacity for reason.

So a few old farts in dinner jackets decide for all humans what is or is not "ethical and moral"? Isn't that the same as a few powerful people making that decision, James? You just don't like idea of people with power maing such decision, huh, James??!

And how do we know that they're "ethical philosophers" if ethics hadn't been determined yet? And are we all so obedient as to accept the words of few "ethical philosophers"? Why would we? Unless, of course, we were forced to do so ...by people with guns and power.

And as you can see, James, those few psycho-babblists sure as hell had a lot of power, didn't they. But it wasn't just with words, James!

Without the power to enforce ethics and morality, those are nothing but empty words for "philosophers" to argue about over dinner and wine. And, James, as hard as it is for you to admit it, enforcement of such rules and laws is ONLY with power. And power usually comes from the muzzle of a gun.

If that were true, then nobody with a big gun could ever be judged as acting unethically.

Geez, James, I told you about this before. Don't you listen? You're assuming that all people with guns and power are all bad guys. Nope, that ain't true, James. Some of those guys with guns work to assist in the conformance to ethical principles ...just depends on whose ethical standards.

In WW II, Hitler and his boys had guns and he set the ethics and morality in Germany. The USA had some guns, and didn't like Hitler, so we used our guns and power to beat the shit outta' Hitler and to set up new ethics and morality for the Germans. See? The good guys won, right?

See? There's good guys with guns and they wear white hats. Then there are the bad guys with guns and they wear black hats. Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes the bad guys win. But it ain't got nothin' to do with their ethics!

So, you're claiming that the concept of ethics is essentially a sham by the powerful to keep the mob in line. Are you?

Yeah, essentially. But remember, it's always nice to have the ignorant, unwashed masses in some basic agreement to those principles of ethics. In other words, one of the ethics couldn't condemn all the ignorant, unwashed citizens! See? One in power must play little games with the ignorant, unwashed so as not to rock the boat too much.

Keeping the mob in line? Yeah, and we have cops with the power (and sometimes with guns) to do that, don't we?

James, ask yourself ...how would our ethics and morality survive without the power to enforce those standards? If there were no cops, do you think everyone would simply conform to the ethics and morality? Or would they each create their own standards ...and to hell with everyone else?

Is it possible for a general to do something that is morally wrong or evil, in your opinion?

In MY opinion or in the general's opinion? Big fuckin' difference, wouldn't you say? Generals? Think about George Washington versus "General" Attila; both great generals, weren't they? Which one do you like, James?

But see how quick you are to judge others, James? ...based on YOUR ethics and morality? You want me to say that the general could or couldn't do something morally wrong or evil. But it just ain't like that.

Ethics is a game that rulers play with their subjects ...plain and simple. And as in America or in other free societies/nations, the game must be very subtle. The rulers can't let the ignorant, unwashed be overly discontent, so they fudge on some rules and ethics and morality so as to calm the ignorant, unwashed masses. Can't have the cops running around shooting all the ignorant, unwashed subjects. Pretty soon there wouldn't be any subjects left! So rulers let little issues slide when they can or when necessary to calm the ignorant, unwashed masses.

Look at the gay rights issues in America, for example. Us old farts still have the old ethical and moral standards that were beat into us from birth. Many of our rulers are old farts, and don't want to let go of those standards. But the ignorant, unwashed masses are beginning to feel frisky, protesting and shit like that, causing problems in the communities. So, one day, most of the old farts will die off, and the new old farts will decide that it's time to calm the ignorant, unwashed masses by giving gays special rights. And thus the ethics and standards will change once again to keep the ignorant, unwashed masses more or less content.

And the cops (some with guns) will enforce those new ethics and morals ...just like they did in the old days ...just different ethics and morals, that's all. And they're all determined by power, which is usually evidenced by the guns in the hands of those who enforce the rules and laws.

In America, we have ethics and morals that forbid stealing. Yet when Osama becomes presient, he's going to steal money from those who have it in order to give to those who don't. President Osama will change our ethics to make it ethical to steal ...and he'll do it by sugar-coating it and calling it "redistribution". See? See how power works to change ethics and morals?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

In America, we have ethics and morals that forbid stealing.

Not really. Ever heard of "structural adjustment policies"? Its what Americans call redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Mostly how to get the wealth of the world into their pockets.

And then there is

collateral damages

which is what the victims of those policies are.

 

[Baron Max]

Not really. Ever heard of "structural adjustment policies"? Its what Americans call redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Mostly how to get the wealth of the world into their pockets.

Exactly! See ...we don't call it "stealing" because that's against our ethics and morality. So we just sugar-coat it and call it "redistribution".

And this thread is about ethics, SAM, not another "Hate America" thread that you so love!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

So President Osama, sorry, Obama should just sugar coat it for you? Maybe he could call it a bail out?

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

You keep missing the point, I'm afraid.

Ethical philosophers agree that the appropriate way to decide on ethical principles is to use the human capacity for reason.

So a few old farts in dinner jackets decide for all humans what is or is not "ethical and moral"?

No. The idea is that all people should use their brains to determine what is good for themselves and their society.

You're hung up on notions of power, I know, but they really don't have anything to do with ethics, on most descriptions.

And how do we know that they're "ethical philosophers" if ethics hadn't been determined yet? And are we all so obedient as to accept the words of few "ethical philosophers"? Why would we? Unless, of course, we were forced to do so ...by people with guns and power.

And as you can see, James, those few psycho-babblists sure as hell had a lot of power, didn't they. But it wasn't just with words, James!

Without the power to enforce ethics and morality, those are nothing but empty words for "philosophers" to argue about over dinner and wine. And, James, as hard as it is for you to admit it, enforcement of such rules and laws is ONLY with power. And power usually comes from the muzzle of a gun.

Your ignorance of the history of human thought is showing, Max.

Whilst you may imagine that philosophers are unimportant old farts in dinner jackets, in actual fact these guys have largely determined your current cultural background. Your Christianity was greatly influenced by Thomas Aquinas, even if you don't know who he was. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle, even if you don't know who he was. Ideas of the free market owe a legacy to 18th century enlightenment philosophy, whether you know it or not. The US Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document that would not have existed but for philosophers.

Power doesn't operate in a vacuum, Max.

If that were true, then nobody with a big gun could ever be judged as acting unethically.

Geez, James, I told you about this before. Don't you listen? You're assuming that all people with guns and power are all bad guys. Nope, that ain't true, James. Some of those guys with guns work to assist in the conformance to ethical principles ...just depends on whose ethical standards.

It's you who isn't listening - or at least not understanding.

You have sought to define ethics as who has the biggest gun. If that was a workable definition, then by definition nobody with a big gun could ever do anything unethical. Might makes right, literally.

In actual fact, though, people criticise the powerful regarding their unethical actions all the time. This simple observation disproves your entire contention, because there is obviously a set of ethical standards that people are applying to judge the powerful that have nothing to do with power at all.

In WW II, Hitler and his boys had guns and he set the ethics and morality in Germany.

Not at all. He ruled with an iron fist. Books were burned. Freedom of speech was quashed. Why? Because Hitler knew that he could not survive ethical scrutiny by his people.

Why were the concentration camps kept secret from the German people? Answer: because the Nazis knew that they were wrong, and were ashamed.

So, you're claiming that the concept of ethics is essentially a sham by the powerful to keep the mob in line. Are you?

Yeah, essentially. But remember, it's always nice to have the ignorant, unwashed masses in some basic agreement to those principles of ethics. In other words, one of the ethics couldn't condemn all the ignorant, unwashed citizens! See? One in power must play little games with the ignorant, unwashed so as not to rock the boat too much.

Please read the following article, which I wrote:

[enc]Hobbesian contractualism[/enc]

How much of this do you agree with?

James, ask yourself ...how would our ethics and morality survive without the power to enforce those standards?

Nobody can take away a person's fundamental beliefs. They can only hurt or torture or kill.

The historical fact is that ethics and morality survive even in the direst of circumstances. Were the Jews in Auschwitz ethical, or did they lose their sense of morality due to Nazi power? Read Primo Levi and let me know what you discover. There's a whole world out there that you seem to be completely ignorant of.

If there were no cops, do you think everyone would simply conform to the ethics and morality?

Not everyone, of course. Not everybody acts ethically; if they did there would be no crime. You don't have to act stupid, Max.

But, I ask you: which is better? To act morally because it is the right thing to do, or to act morally because somebody is holding a gun to your head?

I know what most people would say. And I know what you'll say, in your obtuseness.

Is it possible for a general to do something that is morally wrong or evil, in your opinion?

In MY opinion or in the general's opinion?

Objectively. To mean anything, morals have to at least be agreed to among a community, wouldn't you say?

But see how quick you are to judge others, James? ...based on YOUR ethics and morality?

Of course. People make moral judgments all the time. You might think you'd like morals to disappear if they are inconvenient, but that won't happen any time soon.

Ethics is a game that rulers play with their subjects ...plain and simple.

You're confusing ethics with politics.

Look at the gay rights issues in America, for example. Us old farts still have the old ethical and moral standards that were beat into us from birth.

So, when you act ethically, you only do so because of a threat, or at least a memory, of punishment. Is that right?

If there were no police, would you rape and steal and murder, Max?

In America, we have ethics and morals that forbid stealing. Yet when Osama becomes presient, he's going to steal money from those who have it in order to give to those who don't.

Nonsense. Obama was voted in by a majority of the US population, according to an agreed democratic process. He represents the people, by agreement of the people. Haven't you read your own Constitution?

 

[Tiassa]

Dysfunctional: Ethics as an arbitrary assertion

I haven't seen a more incorrect thread title for a while!

So who decides what is ethical and what is not, if not the people?

The majority, fucking DUH!

[shaking head]

Would you agree, then, with an assertion that ethics are arbitrary?

• • •​

A majority vote does not need to rely on any sense of consistency or integrity. Indeed, given the diversity of human beings, it might seem a bit much to ask that any large mass of people show consistency in their actions as a body politic.

However, to consider a hot-button American political issue, in 2004 Oregon passed a law defining marriage according to heterosupremacist standards. I pick out Oregon in specific because, at the time, we heard much about how gay marriage undermined democracy. The idea was this: In Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland and environs), a clerk was presented with an application for marriage in which two men wished to join into a family. The clerk considered the situation and, unable to find any law prohibiting him from filing the application, went ahead and processed it. In other words, hetrosupremacists complained that a clerk obeying the law superseded democracy.

And the argument carried the day. Oregonians went to the polls and said, "Nobody has any rights except those that we specifically approve."

Which is counterconstitutional at the very least.

And, indeed, in Connecticut and Iowa, heterosupremacist activists complained that courts had undermined democracy when ruling against het-only marriage standards. In other words, these people argue that the constitutional hierarchy in their state should be ignored when it is inconvenient to their aesthetics. In California, the same thing happened, so the people went to the polls and amended their constitution. "Equal protection should only be equal for some," they said.

The masses, as such, often seem averse to logical consistency or conceptual integrity. Two pieces need not fit together in any way except that the majority wants them to, and they have a hammer. In this way, there is no jigsaw puzzle on the face of the Earth that cannot be completed: does it matter if the final product matches the picture on the box? Absolutely not. There is no definitive connection between the two, except for weak conformists who won't stand up valiantly against the oppressive structure of right and wrong.

Two plus two equals five. If enough people say it, it's true. Right?

Now, the flip-side can be illustrated by a principle given voice in our Declaration of Independence:

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.

(UShistory.org)​

This is no arbitrary feel-good assertion. It is, in fact, by some outlooks—including those of the founding fathers—the inescapable product that comes from throwing out as many presuppositions of society as possible and examining the arrangement anew. Unless we discard another seemingly self-evident point—that human beings gather into societies—the basic outlook at the starting point is inevitable: any claim to supremacy or privilege must necessarily be justified.

Now, admittedly, it took a while to get the hang of what that actually meant, and that's just the basics. Progress is slower now, and comes incrementally: after the Civil War, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ought to have been enough, but still, people were having trouble coping with the notion that women were people too. And then we got the Nineteenth. And so on.

Right now, what is under consideration in terms of Americans and rights is often a matter of definitions. With the gay-rights issue, for instance, the supremacist argument only makes sense if we presume that marriage is only what they claim it to be. However, it is more than that; I don't think the supremacists—at the very least, their female portion—would be happy to find marriage limited to their argumentative definition. For instance, some would say that gays and straights alike have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. However, it goes beyond that. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love. If it was just about the sex of the spouse, then people would have legal recourse to prevent their kids from marrying someone the parents didn't like. Barring extraordinary circumstances, though, I won't be able to stop my daughter from marrying an idiot if it's what she really wants.

If it was just about the sex of the spouse, there would be a lot more "arranged" marriages in this country.

Ethical consistency can be applied to diverse relationships between people. Business, law, love, food, health care ... take business for instance. Why bother with such a hindrance as good faith representation? Because without it, the quickest road to success is deception and force. Hell, bait and switch is illegal in the States. But why? There's a sucker born every minute, after all. Why shouldn't they be fleeced and exploited?

And, of course, the answer is observable. Most people find it more comfortable and productive to live in an environment where they don't have to sleep with one eye open and a hand on the gun tucked under their pillow.

There are, at the base of ethical propriety, assertions of function, purpose, and relevance.

These can be argued endlessly in their merits and implications, but without them, the whole point of ethical structures falls away.
____________________

Notes:

The Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: You keep missing the point, I'm afraid.

No, I think you keep missing the point, James!! None of your bullshit ethics and philosophy would even be fuckin' possible without the hard, rough men protecting all those "high thinkers". Surely you don't think that a burglar or thief or murderer would be stopped by a couple of old fools spewing ethics and morality at them, do you? Surely not!

No. The idea is that all people should use their brains to determine what is good for themselves and their society.

You mean people like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler? Or do you mean "all people" like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc? Or perhaps you mean to throw them all together in a society and see who wins?

You're hung up on notions of power, I know, but they really don't have anything to do with ethics, on most descriptions.

Without the power of weapons/guns, those old fart philosophers could NEVER have plied their "trade". And more to the point, none of their ethics and morals could even be possible without the power of enforcement.

What would society do, James, if we got rid of all the men who protect society and enforce those cute little words of ethics and morality?

Your ignorance of the history of human thought is showing, Max.

Don't need no stinkin' history, James! Without hard, rough men keeping order in the towns and villages, no philosophers would not have lived long enough to have spewed forth their silly little rules. What would happen to those silly little rules if no one enforced them, James?

Whilst you may imagine that philosophers are unimportant old farts in dinner jackets, in actual fact these guys have largely determined your current cultural background.

Ahh, but ONLY because hard, rough men were there to enforce those rules and standards. And in fact, without those hard, rough men standing guard over those old farts, the old farts wouldn't have lasted minutes!

Your Christianity was greatly influenced by Thomas Aquinas, even if you don't know who he was.

And Thomas Aquinas was guarded and protected by hard, rough men from being harmed or killed by other hard, rough men. And sadly, James, you don't seem to recognize that. You think mere words will stop men in their tracks. I have news for you, James!

Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle, even if you don't know who he was.

There would have been no Aristotle had it not been for hard, rough men standing guard and protecting his little village in Greece. So you see, James, you owe a great deal of respect for those hard, rough men who protected ol' Ari. And yet you refuse to acknowledge any of that debt.

Ideas of the free market owe a legacy to 18th century enlightenment philosophy, whether you know it or not.

And none of it would have been possible except for the protection from hard, rough men guarding those "enlightened" philosophers.

The US Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document that would not have existed but for philosophers.

And philosophy wouldn't have existed had it not been for the protection of hard, rough men who stood guard while other, nasty hard, rough men tried to do them all harm.

Power doesn't operate in a vacuum, Max.

No, perhaps not. But if it did, then it would need hard, rough men to guard it!

You have sought to define ethics as who has the biggest gun. If that was a workable definition, then by definition nobody with a big gun could ever do anything unethical. Might makes right, literally.

That's correct, James. Might makes right. As it turns out, over history, your ethics which you so love, just happens to have been won by hard, rough men who guarded the right men, that's all. Had it been otherwise, I don't doubt that you and I would be having this very same argument, but your ethics would be entirely different.

Just for fun, James, what would have happened in history if all those philosophers that you so love had been killed by murderers or robbers before they could have spewed forth their words of ethics?

In actual fact, though, people criticise the powerful regarding their unethical actions all the time.

Criticism is not a big deal, James, almost anyone can do it. But ONLY because there are hard, rough men who stand ready to protect those rights of speech and freedoms. Without those hard, rough men, none of society would be possible, including having time to criticize others.

This simple observation disproves your entire contention, because there is obviously a set of ethical standards that people are applying to judge the powerful that have nothing to do with power at all.

How odd of you to say that. Had ol' Ari and Aquinas had Hitler's ethics, you'd be here arguing how great those ethics were!

Not at all. He ruled with an iron fist. Books were burned. Freedom of speech was quashed. Why? Because Hitler knew that he could not survive ethical scrutiny by his people.

I think we both know that had Hitler not attacked Britian, most of Europe would be under his control ...including his ethics and morality. Would it have lasted? I don't know ...but I can tell you this, it would have lasted until harder, rougher men than the Nazis had to take it all away by force of arms.

Why were the concentration camps kept secret from the German people? Answer: because the Nazis knew that they were wrong, and were ashamed.

Perhaps. But that was only because hard, rough men in the past had protected men like Aristotle and Aquinas and few other old farts! Had there been a few "hitlers" back then, you might be arguing from a whole different perspective.

Please read the following article, which I wrote:
"Hobbesian contractualism" How much of this do you agree with?

I guess I agree with it all ...it was a blank page!!

Nobody can take away a person's fundamental beliefs. They can only hurt or torture or kill.

Ask some of those people in Darfur or in the Congo if they'd give up those high-falutin' ideals for couple of cups of rice.

See, James, from the comforts of your home, with plenty to eat, you can spout those high ideals ...but remember this, you have those comforts ONLY because hard, rough men have protected your rights and freedoms to have earned those things.

The historical fact is that ethics and morality survive even in the direst of circumstances.

But those high-falutin' ideals ain't worth spit if hard, rough men don't protect those ideals from those who would take them away. See? You think those words are the key to it all, and that's simply false. Without the hard, rough men standing guard over those rights, they'd be nothing but mere words ...perhaps less than mere words.

But, I ask you: which is better? To act morally because it is the right thing to do, or to act morally because somebody is holding a gun to your head?

It's better to be given that choice! And, James, you're given that choice because hard, rough men protect your rights and freedoms ...and, yes, your high-falutin' ideals!

So, when you act ethically, you only do so because of a threat, or at least a memory, of punishment. Is that right?

If there were no police, would you rape and steal and murder, Max?

What I'd do, James, is not at issue. I was taught the Golden Rule before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. But what's important is what SOME people would do ...and they would murder, rape and steal. And it's only because of hard, rough men standing guard that society is able to survive at all .....and your high-falutin' ethics should thank those men profusely and often.

As to rresident-elect Osama, when he comes to office, he's going to steal from the rich and give to the poor. He's said that umpty-eleven times! Do you, James, think it's ethical to steal from one group to give to another?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Baron has written a longer post than tiassa! Baron!!!!!

 

[Baron Max]

Baron has written a longer post than tiassa! Baron!!!!!

Yeah, and after I saw that, I've given serious thought to slitting my wrists, hanging myself, then shooting my brains out just to be sure that one of the methods works!!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

I had an anomaly in your argument stuck in my head all day and it just clicked into place

Look at the gay rights issues in America, for example. Us old farts still have the old ethical and moral standards that were beat into us from birth. Many of our rulers are old farts, and don't want to let go of those standards. But the ignorant, unwashed masses are beginning to feel frisky, protesting and shit like that, causing problems in the communities. So, one day, most of the old farts will die off, and the new old farts will decide that it's time to calm the ignorant, unwashed masses by giving gays special rights. And thus the ethics and standards will change once again to keep the ignorant, unwashed masses more or less content.

What if the ignorant , unwashed masses did not get frisky?

 

[Tiassa]

A couple of questions

As to rresident-elect Osama, when he comes to office, he's going to steal from the rich and give to the poor. He's said that umpty-eleven times!

Your disdainful editorial characterizations aside—

• Do you have a problem with taking from the poor in order to give to the rich?

• Do you consider yourself a capitalist? To what degree? Do you disagree with Adam Smith, who saw societal value in progressive taxation?​

 

[James R]

Max:

Surely you don't think that a burglar or thief or murderer would be stopped by a couple of old fools spewing ethics and morality at them, do you? Surely not!

You keep confusing enforcement and power with ethics.

I have at no time disputed that some people act unethically. In fact, it is your argument that anybody who has a big gun or stick cannot, by definition, act unethically.

I've explained twice to you why that notion is silly. There's little point in repeating myself for a third time.

...all people should use their brains to determine what is good for themselves and their society.

You mean people like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler? Or do you mean "all people" like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc? Or perhaps you mean to throw them all together in a society and see who wins?

Max, it is you who wants to throw everybody together, throw some big guns over the wall, and see who is the last one standing. Remember?

I want people to reach a consensus on morality, based on reason.

Without the power of weapons/guns, those old fart philosophers could NEVER have plied their "trade". And more to the point, none of their ethics and morals could even be possible without the power of enforcement.

Nonsense. Socrates was forced to commit suicide, but that didn't stop the propagation of his ideas. Galileo was forced to recant geocentrism, but that didn't stop the idea taking hold.

What would society do, James, if we got rid of all the men who protect society and enforce those cute little words of ethics and morality?

What you don't realise is that, ultimately, the pen really is mightier than the sword. When it comes down to it, it is not the big, muscular brutes with guns who determine the course of history, Max. It is the thinkers.

Don't need no stinkin' history, James! Without hard, rough men keeping order in the towns and villages, no philosophers would not have lived long enough to have spewed forth their silly little rules. What would happen to those silly little rules if no one enforced them, James?

Moral philosophy is hardly a bunch of "silly little rules". Really, I don't know why you bother participating in discussions of things you don't know anything about. It makes you look like an idiot.

Fundamentally, though, you have things the wrong way around. Ethics is prior to enforcement, not a consequence of it.

You think mere words will stop men in their tracks. I have news for you, James!

But "mere words" do stop men in their tracks. They continually change hearts and minds, and people act on them. Your society is built on a massive edifice of words - like it or not.

The only reason why your beloved police or army men are allowed to run around with guns in a structured society is because carefully structured words define the limits of what they are and are not allowed to do. It's called "law". And law, Max, is based in ethics.

You have sought to define ethics as who has the biggest gun. If that was a workable definition, then by definition nobody with a big gun could ever do anything unethical. Might makes right, literally.

That's correct, James. Might makes right.

But clearly it does not, or there could be not moral criticism of people in power. Like I said.

You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you have no meaningful response to this simple objection to your argument.

Just for fun, James, what would have happened in history if all those philosophers that you so love had been killed by murderers or robbers before they could have spewed forth their words of ethics?

Then sooner or later somebody else would have come up with the same idea. The development of Ethics has been a process of building knowledge. You can't really stop an idea whose time has come.

In actual fact, though, people criticise the powerful regarding their unethical actions all the time.

Criticism is not a big deal, James, almost anyone can do it.

Not if might makes right. Then, if you have a gun you're beyond criticism. This is your argument. And it patently fails to account for what we see in the world.

How odd of you to say that. Had ol' Ari and Aquinas had Hitler's ethics, you'd be here arguing how great those ethics were!

No, because ethics is a process of reasoning. Hitler was a mad anti-semite. He wasn't reasoning when he ordered the extermination of the Jews.

I think we both know that had Hitler not attacked Britian, most of Europe would be under his control ...including his ethics and morality.

No. At best it would be under his military power.

Please read the following article, which I wrote:
"Hobbesian contractualism" How much of this do you agree with?

I guess I agree with it all ...it was a blank page!!

Sorry. Let's try again: [enc]Hobbesian contractarianism[/enc].

Nobody can take away a person's fundamental beliefs. They can only hurt or torture or kill.

Ask some of those people in Darfur or in the Congo if they'd give up those high-falutin' ideals for couple of cups of rice.

You can bully or cajole or torture or bribe people into saying or doing all kinds of things. But in doing so, you might well be acting unethically.

See how the ethical judgment once again logically precedes the application of force or power?

See, James, from the comforts of your home, with plenty to eat, you can spout those high ideals ...but remember this, you have those comforts ONLY because hard, rough men have protected your rights and freedoms to have earned those things.

Was it ethical to protect my freedoms, or just a random choice or happenstance? Or did it become ethical the instant a soldier first raised a gun (note: I have already refuted this)?

So, when you act ethically, you only do so because of a threat, or at least a memory, of punishment. Is that right?

If there were no police, would you rape and steal and murder, Max?

What I'd do, James, is not at issue. I was taught the Golden Rule before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye.

Why obey the Golden Rule? Surely, if you get yourself a big gun, you won't need to worry about obeying some namby-pamby principle like that. In fact, if you took to shooting people at random, and they couldn't stop you, that would be good, according to your definition of good=big gun. Wouldn't it?

As to rresident-elect Osama, when he comes to office, he's going to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

No. He may tax the rich for the benefit of the poor, or something like that. Stealing requires the appropriation of property without consent, and the rich consented to electing Obama.

Oh, and your contention that it is always wrong to steal from one group to give to another is also wrong.

 

[leopold]

Its what Americans call redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Mostly how to get the wealth of the world into their pockets.

sounds identical to mideastern oil sheiks to me.

 

[swarm]

Yet when Osama becomes presient, he's going to steal money from those who have it in order to give to those who don't.

Why are you whining now? You're the one who said the one with the guns makes the morals. Shut up or eat lead.

 

[Baron Max]

You keep confusing enforcement and power with ethics.

Nope. Ethics is a bunch of ideals for human behavior. Power and hard, rough men are what make those ideals even remotely possible. Without power and hard, rough men, ethics would empty words.

I have at no time disputed that some people act unethically. In fact, it is your argument that anybody who has a big gun or stick cannot, by definition, act unethically.

No, I've said it a hundred times, James!! Criminals in society are hard, rough men who, by the laws(ethics) of society, DO act unethically!! I've said it and said it and said! You twist those words consistently.

I want people to reach a consensus on morality, based on reason.

Which would do no good for anyone without the power of hard, rough men to protect those men and enforce those ethics and morals.

What you don't realise is that, ultimately, the pen really is mightier than the sword. When it comes down to it, it is not the big, muscular brutes with guns who determine the course of history, Max. It is the thinkers.

Words didn't stop Hitler, did they? Words aren't stopping the Darfur starvation are they? Words aren't making that rebel in the Congo from attacking the Hutsu (or is it the others?). Words haven't stopped any of the criminal acts in the world.

The ONLY reason that those words have any meaning is because hard, rough men, the good guys, enforce those words!

Moral philosophy is hardly a bunch of "silly little rules".

Without hard, rough men enforcing those morals, moral philosophy IS nothing but silly little rules ....regardless of how much you worship them!

Really, I don't know why you bother participating in discussions of things you don't know anything about. It makes you look like an idiot.

I've always found that when people begin to resort to personal attacks is because they can't "enforce" their will onto others. Get a couple of hard, rough men, James, then come here and beat the shit outta' me ....and I'll concede the discussion. Fair enough? 'Cause that's the way it is in the real world, James, ....FORCE causes men to act morally.

Fundamentally, though, you have things the wrong way around. Ethics is prior to enforcement, not a consequence of it.

I agree. That doesn't make ethics anything more than mere flowery words of behavior. Without the hard, rough men enforcing those ethics, they'd be nothing but flowery words.

But "mere words" do stop men in their tracks. They continually change hearts and minds, and people act on them. Your society is built on a massive edifice of words - like it or not.

Wrong! And to prove it, we'll take away any and all enforcement ...then we'll see how strong and powerful those words are, okay?

The only reason why your beloved police or army men are allowed to run around with guns in a structured society is because carefully structured words define the limits of what they are and are not allowed to do. It's called "law". And law, Max, is based in ethics.

Law? What good are laws without those hard, rough men to enforce them? Laws are empty words with enforcement.

You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you have no meaningful response to this simple objection to your argument.

Interesting comment, James. I've been giving hard evidence of the power of hard, rough men enforcing the ideals of society. Yet you've only given me mere flowery words of worship for ethics and morals. Mere words, James, and worse, they're just words of worship ...you could change some of your words around and it would be no different to worshipful words of god.

Then sooner or later somebody else would have come up with the same idea. The development of Ethics has been a process of building knowledge. You can't really stop an idea whose time has come.

Ideas remain nothing but empty words until a craftsman, working with his hands, puts it all together into working "thing".

Not if might makes right. Then, if you have a gun you're beyond criticism. This is your argument. And it patently fails to account for what we see in the world.

No, James!! People can criticize whatever they want ...as long as the hard, rough men allow it. Those hard, rough men can take criticism just as well as the next man. But if the hard, rough men want to, they can shut that criticism down in mere seconds!!

No, because ethics is a process of reasoning. Hitler was a mad anti-semite. He wasn't reasoning when he ordered the extermination of the Jews.

Well, he killed some 6 million of them! So it just proves that there were hard, rough men who did his bidding ...and your words of ethics didn't stop them, James! The power of the gun stopped him.

See how the ethical judgment once again logically precedes the application of force or power?

Chicken or the egg? Don't matter, James!! It's the power of hard, rough men that make any of those flowery words possible ...regardless of which came first! Who gives a fuck?

Why obey the Golden Rule? Surely, if you get yourself a big gun, you won't need to worry about obeying some namby-pamby principle like that.

Ahh, but I do need to worry ....but not about mere words! I worry about those hard, rough men who enforce those words ...and have bigger guns than me to back them up!!

In fact, if you took to shooting people at random, and they couldn't stop you, that would be good, according to your definition of good=big gun. Wouldn't it?

I could shoot a few ...until those hard, rough men with bigger guns and more force stopped me! And, James, people do that every day ...people commit murder every single day ...because words don't stop them! Hard, rough men stop them!

Stealing requires the appropriation of property without consent, and the rich consented to electing Obama.

Interesting thing to say! Is that to say that when Osama becomes president, he can do anything he wants because his election is consent to do any of those things??? Surely you can see me laughing my ass off!

Oh, and your contention that it is always wrong to steal from one group to give to another is also wrong.

So sometimes stealing is okay? Is that some ethics standard that ol' Ari invented or what?

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

Power and hard, rough men are what make those ideals even remotely possible.

You pussy. Crying because big bad Obama is a powerful and hard, rough man (are you gay or what?) who is going to take your money away and do what he wants with it.

 

[James R]

Max:

Nope. Ethics is a bunch of ideals for human behavior.

That's only partially correct. Ethics may have a theoretical or "ideal" side to it, but it also has a very real, practical side, that people put into practice every day of their lives in deciding how to interact with other people.

You assume that ethics is handed down from on high. It isn't. Every individual knows something about ethics. Every individual makes choices in his or her own life, to act for good or evil. These may not be earth-shattering choices; they may matter only to one or two people. But they go on nevertheless. And the big men with guns don't control or even know about them.

I want people to reach a consensus on morality, based on reason.

Which would do no good for anyone without the power of hard, rough men to protect those men and enforce those ethics and morals.

Do you believe that leaders and others in power are immune from ethics? Do you believe that they do not participate the ethical consensus of their societies? This is wrong. Nobody is "above" or "apart from" ethics.

Words didn't stop Hitler, did they?

Yes, they did. Words motivated people to fight Hitler, and ultimately led to his downfall.

Words aren't stopping the Darfur starvation are they? Words aren't making that rebel in the Congo from attacking the Hutsu (or is it the others?). Words haven't stopped any of the criminal acts in the world.

Yes they have. Time and again.

Moral philosophy is hardly a bunch of "silly little rules".

Without hard, rough men enforcing those morals, moral philosophy IS nothing but silly little rules ....regardless of how much you worship them!

You missed the point again, which was this: morality is not just about obeying rules. It is about living well. It is about being a good person.

I've always found that when people begin to resort to personal attacks is because they can't "enforce" their will onto others. Get a couple of hard, rough men, James, then come here and beat the shit outta' me ....and I'll concede the discussion. Fair enough? 'Cause that's the way it is in the real world, James, ....FORCE causes men to act morally.

This is where you are absolutely wrong.

Force doesn't cause people to act morally. Force only causes one person to do something that another wants, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral. And, importantly, the unjustified application of force is often, in and of itself, immoral.

Ideas remain nothing but empty words until a craftsman, working with his hands, puts it all together into working "thing".

You speak like a man who has spent his life working with his hands, and who knows little of the value or power of ideas.

Why obey the Golden Rule? Surely, if you get yourself a big gun, you won't need to worry about obeying some namby-pamby principle like that.

Ahh, but I do need to worry ....but not about mere words! I worry about those hard, rough men who enforce those words ...and have bigger guns than me to back them up!!

The hard, rough men do not and cannot watch you all the time, Max. I'm sure you could get away with a bit of stealing here and there, or at least some petty crime.

Why don't you commit such crimes? What's stopping you?

But, I'm back to wondering: why do those big, tough men with guns care about what you do - as long as it doesn't negatively affect them? Why should they care if you obey the Golden Rule, or not?

Is that to say that when Osama becomes president, he can do anything he wants because his election is consent to do any of those things???

According to your argument, Obama will have the biggest gun of all. So, what's to stop him trampling all over your wishes and desires?

You handed him the gun. So, anything he does with it is ok, by your own argument. Right?

So sometimes stealing is okay? Is that some ethics standard that ol' Ari invented or what?

Consider, for example, the case of a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, when he has no other option.

 

[Baron Max]

That's only partially correct. Ethics may have a theoretical or "ideal" side to it, but it also has a very real, practical side, that people put into practice every day of their lives in deciding how to interact with other people.

I agree, James. But what you fail to realize is that those ethics have been taught to us as little kids and the fear of punishment is what keeps us all in line. And once again, you have the power of enforcement (threat of punishment, if you want) that does the job.

Tell me, James, how long do you think we'd survive in a place like the outback of Afghanistan using our "western" ideals of ethics? Or in Mugabe's country?

You assume that ethics is handed down from on high. It isn't.

I believe that it was you that mentioned those ol' fart thinkers in the first place, James. I was just following your lead.

Every individual knows something about ethics. Every individual makes choices in his or her own life, to act for good or evil. These may not be earth-shattering choices; they may matter only to one or two people. But they go on nevertheless.

Sure, James, just like everthing else that's drummed into us as little kids. Just like training a puppy. We go about our lives in a "normal" fashion because we've been trained properly ....with the threat of punishment held firmly over our heads (which we don't usually think about much because we've been properly trained ....just like the puppies).

And the big men with guns don't control or even know about them.

But the threat of those hard, rough men coming after you is sufficient to keep us in line. Sorta' like the little puppies, huh?

Do you believe that leaders and others in power are immune from ethics? Do you believe that they do not participate the ethical consensus of their societies? This is wrong. Nobody is "above" or "apart from" ethics.

And yet it's done all the time in nations all over the world. And the UN, with all their ethics and morals, can't or won't do shit about it. I think you'll agree that Robert Mugabe in Africa isn't giving one little rat's ass about your high-sounding words of ethics and morality, is he?

When Mugabe is brought down, it won't be words that did it, it'll be guns that are more powerful than his guns!

Yes, they did. Words motivated people to fight Hitler, and ultimately led to his downfall.

I think you'll find that people were drafted to fight and handed guns and ammo. Words didn't do it, James, men with guns fought Hitler.

You missed the point again, which was this: morality is not just about obeying rules. It is about living well. It is about being a good person.

Does that include thieves, rapists and murderers, too, James? What about what they think is "living well"?

No, James, it's not about "being a good person", it's about being trained like a little puppy to be man's best friend. See? When we're all little kids, we get trained and if we do something wrong, we get punished. So in adulthood, since we've learned in childhood, we go about our lives like the dog that was trained as a puppy. The threat of punishment looms over our heads.

Force doesn't cause people to act morally. Force only causes one person to do something that another wants, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral.

You keep forgetting, or ignoring, the threat of force (punishment). You also forget the early training as little kids ...to go up to be well-trained dogs ...oops, I mean well-trained men and women.

And, importantly, the unjustified application of force is often, in and of itself, immoral.

Why did you throw in "unjustified" force? If someone does something wrong, then the force is justified to set him straight.

You speak like a man who has spent his life working with his hands, and who knows little of the value or power of ideas.

Was that little personal dig meant as some attempt to "prove" any of your silly ideals about the issue, James?

The hard, rough men do not and cannot watch you all the time, Max. I'm sure you could get away with a bit of stealing here and there, or at least some petty crime.

Sure they get away with it ...and that, alone, proves that your ideals don't work by simplistic words alone!

But it's the threat of punishment that keeps us in line. We're trained like little puppies, then we grow up to be good, well-trained dogs. Ahh, ain't ethics a wonderful thing, James?

Why don't you commit such crimes? What's stopping you?

Just like everyone else ....fear of capture and punishment.

But, I'm back to wondering: why do those big, tough men with guns care about what you do - as long as it doesn't negatively affect them? Why should they care if you obey the Golden Rule, or not?

Because they're paid to do it. Hard, rough men are just like all of the rest of us ....some good, some bad. The good ones, the well-trained ones, are paid to stop the bad ones. It's a job just like any other job.

According to your argument, Obama will have the biggest gun of all. So, what's to stop him trampling all over your wishes and desires?

Osama just might do that ...we don't know yet, do we? With his rock-star image, he could do a lot of damage to the USA before he's stopped by hard, rough men.

You handed him the gun. So, anything he does with it is ok, by your own argument. Right?

Well, don't use the word "you". But you're right, James. Osama has been elected by the people. And he's been given lots of power. And he just might cause a lot of damage before some hard, rough men stop him.

Consider, for example, the case of a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, when he has no other option.

Shoot him and his family, then you've solved the entire problem!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Max:

I agree, James. But what you fail to realize is that those ethics have been taught to us as little kids and the fear of punishment is what keeps us all in line.

This may be true for you but believe it or not, many other people are more advanced ethically than yourself. They do the right thing simply because they know it is the right thing to do, and not because of fear of punishment.

You refer often to being "trained" as a child. Perhaps you were smacked around, and so you got stuck in a simplistic idea of what ethics is.

A truly ethical person does not act rightly out of fear of punishment, but out of the desire to be a complete human being who enjoys life and if loved by his or her community.

You'd probably enjoy life a lot more if you could drop your constant fear.

Tell me, James, how long do you think we'd survive in a place like the outback of Afghanistan using our "western" ideals of ethics? Or in Mugabe's country?

A good man is a good man no matter where you put him. Goodness often shines out most in times of adversity.

I think you'll agree that Robert Mugabe in Africa isn't giving one little rat's ass about your high-sounding words of ethics and morality, is he?

Mugabe is a monster, and he is also seriously deluded. His problem isn't just a lack of ethics.

When Mugabe is brought down, it won't be words that did it, it'll be guns that are more powerful than his guns!

Already, it is words that have made inroads into Mugabe's rule, more than guns ever have. Look at the current power-sharing negotiations.

I think you'll find that people were drafted to fight and handed guns and ammo. Words didn't do it, James, men with guns fought Hitler.

What motivated them?

Did somebody just hand them a gun and they said "Derr... suppose I'll go and fight Hitler with this, then."

You missed the point again, which was this: morality is not just about obeying rules. It is about living well. It is about being a good person.

Does that include thieves, rapists and murderers, too, James? What about what they think is "living well"?

They do not live well. Criminals lead sad and lonely little lives. They live on the fringes of society, or locked up in jails. That's not "living well".

And, importantly, the unjustified application of force is often, in and of itself, immoral.

Why did you throw in "unjustified" force? If someone does something wrong, then the force is justified to set him straight.

I said "unjustified" because some use of force is justified.

As to your second point, how do you know when somebody does something wrong and needs to be punished for it? That is, how do you decide that what they did was wrong?

You speak like a man who has spent his life working with his hands, and who knows little of the value or power of ideas.

Was that little personal dig meant as some attempt to "prove" any of your silly ideals about the issue, James?

Sorry. It wasn't meant as a dig - just an observation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why don't you commit such crimes? What's stopping you?

Just like everyone else ....fear of capture and punishment.

Please realise that you are in a minority here. You are not "just like everyone else" in this respect.

But, I'm back to wondering: why do those big, tough men with guns care about what you do - as long as it doesn't negatively affect them? Why should they care if you obey the Golden Rule, or not?

Because they're paid to do it.

*sigh*

Why would somebody pay people to make sure you follow the Golden Rule?

Osama just might do that ...we don't know yet, do we? With his rock-star image, he could do a lot of damage to the USA before he's stopped by hard, rough men.

If he is unpopular, he won't be removed with a gun (or, at least, I certainly hope not). He will be voted out of office. i.e. removed with words.

Consider, for example, the case of a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, when he has no other option.

Shoot him and his family, then you've solved the entire problem!

But that would be wrong. Wouldn't it?