anthony Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said: Let's review what morality is. Same problem of definition. Morality is what? -- for what purpose, needed for what? I'm in agreement with Ayn Rand. Right and wrong in the conduct of one's life. Has nothing to do with others. Never a question of imagined "justice" unless you devote yourself to a public purpose, a war, to kill people and break things, or a humanitarian crusade, to save souls, feed the hungry, teach. Throughout human history people have devoted their lives to something external. They call it "compassion" and "patriotism" and "holy." It's particularly hilarious when politicians and bureaucrats call themselves "public servants." However, doing things for (or to) others is a comic book understanding of morality. If you know the story of The Fountainhead, that's why Wynand lost Dominique. Wynand spent his life doing things for (and to) others, incapable of love, soured to it by shallowness he saw everywhere. When he found a woman worth having -- and an architect capable of building a castle to keep her -- it destroyed him. Had nothing to do with lawyers and judges and legalisms, Greg. How you direct your life, choose a path, undertake challenges, to risk your life is the essential business of morality. The moral coin is courage, but coin collecting is not an end in itself. Maybe you're courageous and think well of it. Maybe your comic book is holy. Too late now. Moral action forms us when we're young and strong. Tangentially, I was thinking now that I sometimes hear and we hear coming on board at OL, a type of individual for whom relating and dealing with others, "selfishly", is what "comes naturally and easy" and therefore, "grasping and immoral". He will then say or imply, that the hard (read, "virtuous") part is to do one's duty to others, self-lessly. I have always found this exactly reversed. To be rationally selfish takes hard effort. One first has to be rational, it has to be earned. One can't (truthfully) announce one day, "I'm an egoist now!" To have good dealings with other people at large, I found to be the easiest thing in the world. Once "duty" is eliminated from a mind, you take them as they come, and view each an individual with a life story and unique character. If rational, we should never need to consider their individual rights and worry about transgressing on them, in order to know what "is right" for human beings and lend them the best of one's attention - implicitly asserting that one merits the same back, justice - for justice. And then, not every person deserves one's continued efforts it transpires eventually. Many you have to walk away from for your own good. For either form of justice to both persons, one needs objective judgment, what else?. I must say I hardly ever derive and deduce from Rand's novels. I don't think that's their main value. Otherwise you made sense, though you misinterpret justice. And: It is never "too late now". Moral action, one forms oneself by commitment to convictions (belief); contrary to what you state, it does not and should not "form" one, when young or ever. An objective morality is a means to one's ends - quite. Where do you see in the Universe anything "holier" than man's existence? Apologies, I notice now you were addressing Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 6 hours ago, anthony said: ... I hardly see how I can "flatter" myself in assessing another person. It's not done in a hurry, by surface impressions or anyone's else's say-so ... Put me in mind of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, Dun & Bradstreet, S&P, Fitch, FICA Speaking personally, I am often inept in judging others, and it's certainly the case that I'm frequently misjudged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 4 hours ago, anthony said: It is never "too late now". Moral action ... does not and should not "form" one, when young or ever. Good conversation, although I have reason to believe that being struck on the road to Damascus later in life is usually a subterfuge, like Charles Colson becoming a "born again" Christian in prison and then making a widely applauded career of evangelism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I think facial hair alarms some people. I just had someone working on my house and they reminded me of a State Trooper I know so I automatically considered them trustworthy, and they were trustworthy. Anthony wrote: Otherwise you made sense, though you misinterpret justice. It is never "too late now". end quote Interesting discussion. If I am forced to take another life . . . how am I forced? It really isn’t force. It’s a decision of mine to avoid another outcome concerning . . . me. If I take another life, I could hide the body and not be concerned with law enforcement or the courts, but how likely is that? If I do violence, in public, in America, I will place the legality and “public morality’ of my actions in the hands of others. What else could go wrong? Usually, the papers report on local crimes and they seem fair to me with mandatory words like “alleged” and “presumed.” But imagine if I were innocent how fair would I think the reporting was? I get to the courtroom after being publically humiliated in the press, arraigned, accused, and after a few days in jail I raise bail but then I get “the hanging Judge Roy Bean.” For the rest of my life, if I have the time, I think I will shoot the villain in the foot, or never get into a risky situation. I wonder how long that father who shot his son’s pedophile karate coach in an airport for personal vengeance, served in prison and is he still there. Does he think it was worth it? One other gripe. Old people get robbed in their homes, and killed, but no one notices. No relatives bother checking on them. A year later for unrelated reasons, like not paying the electric bill, someone enters the house and discovers a skeleton. When I get feeble I think I will get one of those buttons to push to alert the authorities if I am having a medical, or criminal situation. Peter, carrying no grudges with nothing eating away at me, but armed, dangerous to evil doers, and cautious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Wolf DeVoon said: Good conversation, although I have reason to believe that being struck on the road to Damascus later in life is usually a subterfuge, like Charles Colson becoming a "born again" Christian in prison and then making a widely applauded career of evangelism. I am skeptical about every religious person, from the Pope on down. Anyone on a pilgrimage is trying to be noticed. Now I do like Leah Remini who left Scientology and "exposed" it, but the fact that she was duped by a religion that told her a bug was living in her brain makes me suspicious of her long term rationality. She was pretty good recently with her old Kevin co-star. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 7 hours ago, anthony said: Fair enough. I'd paraphrase you: not all choices have ~equal~ moral import. If one accepts a hierarchy of values, right down at the most physical level is the simple enjoyment of simple pleasures and tastes one prefers. They 'feed' that greater worth, the sense of living a good life. The animal remains integral in the "rational animal" and shouldn't be denied. The choice of desert has zero moral import.... It is simply a preference instantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 26 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: The choice of desert has zero moral import.... It is simply a preference instantiated. You never have understood a rational morality, Bob. "A preference" MATTERS. However inconsequential and minor compared with all the other things that matter much more. An enjoyed preference, too, is a selfish choice and something selfishly anticipated and selfishly earned. Why take your second best (i.e. the pineapple dessert) or least preferred, when you can have the best? It is called "pleasure", Bob. Have some yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 59 minutes ago, anthony said: You never have understood a rational morality, Bob. "A preference" MATTERS. However inconsequential and minor compared with all the other things that matter much more. An enjoyed preference, too, is a selfish choice and something selfishly anticipated and selfishly earned. Why take your second best (i.e. the pineapple dessert) or least preferred, when you can have the best? It is called "pleasure", Bob. Have some yourself. I know the difference between sense and non-sense., Moral import has to do with what we should or should not do, not what desert to have after supper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: ...what we should or should not do... For whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 I'd like to loop back to the thread topic (How do you know murder is wrong?) I have repeatedly argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law and thus arguably likewise excused from "unisex" ethical rules of interest to men. Quote For Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughters, there was no piecemeal gray area. Either women won the right to vote, or they didn't. It required riots, pouring acid on golf courses and in Royal Mail letterboxes, smashing the windows of Parliament and Regent Street, exile, prison, and a hunger strike to force the English partiarchy into recognizing women as people. Justice for women. Does that mean anything to you? Is it anywhere on your moral agenda? I doubt it ... We should exempt women from the criminal law. The vast majority of criminals are men, and when women kill, they usually have a good reason for taking life, including abortion. Anything less means slavery ... Women have a separate, non-male agenda. They deserve their own branch of government as of right. It's a plain question of justice ... It is a terrible, irreversible decision to kill, to take a human life. Men do it routinely, in every language, with every conceivable weapon, from machete to cruise missile. We've done it for thousands of years. Women rarely kill. If we're serious about non-initiation of force—if morality still matters—put women in power, pronto. ["Bad Cop No Donut," LFC Times, reprinted in Eggshell pp.94-99] As you can imagine, I needed to have a policy on abortion. The way I solved it was to propose that women be exempt from the criminal law and put in charge of law enforce- ment, to end male 'input' on abortion and domestic violence. This generally went over like a lead balloon, but I still think it's the correct solution. Women and men have contrary political purposes. That's why I also proposed a U.S. Constitutional amendment, giving women the entire House of Representatives. Legislation would require passage by both sexes. [The Rule of Law, LFL p.192] I hereby nominate Kari Freckleton, Annie Lennox, Wendy McElroy, Mary Daly, and Camille Paglia to sit electronically as our first laissez faire supreme court. I trust their judgment above all. If you’ve studied what these five women have said publicly, as I have, perhaps you will agree that justice is safe in their sober deliberations and majority decision. [Property, COGIGG p.86] On the basis of publishing such ideas, I deduced that Wife #3 was exempt from civil suit, and I stepped in as a surrogate answerable for her actions. The complainant was another female, and (surprise!) she couldn't produce any tangible evidence of wrong-doing. She gave Wife #3 permission in writing to do whatever Wife #3 decided to do at her sole discretion, so the case collapsed. Women do extremely silly shit routinely. They get mad irrationally. They can be ruthless. Think of Ayn Rand telling Frank that she's going to romp with a younger man, as of right. Women are different. In 70% of households, they make all family financial decisions. Married men say "Yes, dear" automatically and willingly -- and still catch hell. Should women be held responsible for murder? Nope, unless they are sworn LEOs -- and since male cops are the only ones accused of wrongful shootings, hiring and deploying more female cops is an urgent social priority. I know babes in law enforcement, hard as nails, serving honorably. Quote "There is only one good sex, the female one." -- Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: The choice of desert has zero moral import.... It is simply a preference instantiated. It's not desert; it's choice. You have different levels of morality, the basic one is morality per se joined at the hip with choice. The next level is moral, amoral and immoral. Choosing desert is amoral. When we speak of morality we are taking in both levels. "Should and should not do" excludes amoral except when the amoral is used to avoid proper moral import. We have moral agency because we have free-willed choices which is straight out of our conceptual-cognitive abilities. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 33 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said: I'd like to loop back to the thread topic (How do we know murder is wrong?) I repeatedly argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law and arguably likewise excused from "unisex" ethical rules. On the basis of publishing such ideas, I deduced that Wife #3 was exempt from civil suit, and I stepped in as a surrogate answerable for her actions. The complainant was another female, and (surprise!) she couldn't produce any tangible evidence of wrong-doing. She gave Wife #3 permission in writing to do whatever Wife #3 decided to do at her sole discretion, so the case collapsed. Women do extremely silly shit routinely. They get mad irrationally. They can be ruthless. Think of Ayn Rand telling Frank that she's going to romp with a younger man, as of right. Women are different. In 70% of households, they make all family financial decisions. Married men say "Yes, dear" automatically and willingly -- and still catch hell. Should women be held responsible for murder? Nope, unless they are sworn LEOs -- and since male cops are the only ones accused of wrongful shootings, hiring and deploying more female cops is an urgent social priority. I know babes in law enforcement, hard as nails, serving honorably. If women are exempt from criminal law then they are exempt from legal protection. There are some real bad mommas out there Wolfo. I know you're too young to remember Bonnie and Clyde, but you must have seen the movie. Regardless, how do you propose to sell this notion of yours? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: The choice of desert has zero moral import.... It is simply a preference instantiated. Like saying the choice of a sexual partner is simply a preference. Hah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 23 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: how do you propose to sell this notion of yours? --Brant I hadn't considered it saleable. My job is completed when I work out an idea that makes sense (to me). However... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 22 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said: I hadn't considered it saleable. My job is completed when I work out an idea that makes sense (to me). Why hadn't you so considered it? You are addressing social existence. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Why hadn't you so considered it? You are addressing social existence. --Brant Well, you know how it is. Most of my ideas are unpopular. You've been very kind to me. The other 330 million ignore me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 hours ago, anthony said: For whom? Primarily for ourselves. Getting along in a community is an exercise in rational self interest. It does no good for one to be at war unnecessarily with the neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Primarily for ourselves. Getting along in a community is an exercise in rational self interest. It does no good for one to be at war unnecessarily with the neighbors. That's David D. Friedman's theory of law, derived by wertfrei Schelling Points of consensus. A show of hands, fat bourgeois Tory Quakers. Quote The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing which ever happened or may happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Thomas Paine, Common Sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Not now Pancho. I have work to do. Wolf wrote: I have repeatedly argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law end quote You will never convince anyone of that. No one will ever espouse that line. You will have zero supporters. It is futile to say that. It reflects poorly on your judgement in all areas. It is an immoral proposition, so much so that not even Gloria Steinem or Edith Efron would support it. Anyone of “stature” who repeats your statement in a speech at a club or university would at first have the audience dumb founded . . . then they would erupt in jeers. Peter Quotes from Miguel de Cervantes, in Don Quixote: “Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.” “When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” “It's up to brave hearts, sir, to be patient when things are going badly, as well as being happy when they're going well ... For I've heard that what they call fortune is a flighty woman who drinks too much, and, what's more, she's blind, so she can't see what she's doing, and she doesn't know who she's knocking over or who she's raising up.” “It is not the responsibility of knights errant to discover whether the afflicted, the enchained and the oppressed whom they encounter on the road are reduced to these circumstances and suffer this distress for their vices, or for their virtues: the knight's sole responsibility is to succor them as people in need, having eyes only for their sufferings, not for their misdeeds.” “Destiny guides our fortunes more favorably than we could have expected. Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich ourselves. This is nobel, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth." "What giants?" Asked Sancho Panza. "The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which are very nearly two leagues long." "Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and turn the millstone." "Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, Peter said: You will never convince anyone of that. No one will ever espouse that line. You will have zero supporters. It is futile to say that. It reflects poorly on your judgement in all areas. It is an immoral proposition... Gosh, thanks. That's what people said to Ayn Rand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: There are some real bad mommas out there Wolfo. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsphttps://c24215cec6c97b637db6-9c0895f07c3474f6636f95b6bf3db172.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/interactives/2014/ten-economic-facts-about-crime/assets/crimefig9.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said: Well, you know how it is. Most of my ideas are unpopular. You've been very kind to me. The other 330 million ignore me. Why are they unpopular? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 9, 2017 Author Share Posted May 9, 2017 On 5/8/2017 at 5:12 AM, Wolf DeVoon said: Morality is what? -- for what purpose, needed for what? Only amoral libertine secularist would need to ask that question. Morality is doing what's right. The purpose of morality is to make better people. To become a better person is not only for your own good, it is also for the good of others to help them become better people. If you become a better person, the government will leave you alone to enjoy your life... and if you don't, the government will be your worst nightmare. Notice that no matter what you do, you're getting the government you deserve. That's justice. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Why are they unpopular? --Brant Thanks for another turn at the wheel. It occurs to me, in the context of exempting women from criminal liability, essentially granting chicks the right to murder which men should be denied, that you and I are old men and provision should be made for our intellectual successors in interest. I miss our colleague Selene. I recently asked MSK to change my OL screen name so it would be indexed by Google, and I am speaking for the record. My pen name Wolf DeVoon was created in 1997 after a manuscript was rejected by several publishers, including one that had first refusal by contract. The title indicates why no one would touch it and why some New York editors were deeply offended that they had to read a few pages. The All-Purpose Illustrated Guide To Female Women And What To Do With Them was subsequently web-published behind a pay wall, and (rather unbelievably) led to being recruited by Laissez Faire City. When I arrived at LFC's high tech high security consulate in the diplomatic quarter, next door to the Russians, across the street from the Belgian embassy, two top officials of Laissez Faire City, age 30-something, greeted me with solemn good cheer and shook my hand because I had written The All-Purpose Guide and it had changed their lives. https://web.archive.org/web/20000520052118/www.cthonia.com My knowledge of the fair sex is an awkward fact, as is likewise my experience of working with pirates and spooks. As a foolish young Objectivist, I fought the government and spent a couple years in Federal prison. I traveled the world twice, all six continents, about 100,000 air miles, some of them in First, many world capitals and some truly terrible locations. I know a great deal about Hollywood, about oil companies, about Islamic life, and life on life's terms, the right to bear arms. My work is unpopular for two unrelated reasons. I'm a terrible writer, dull-witted, churlish. The other reason is less excusable. I speak freely. I sorely regret it, that I was unable to save Laissez Faire City. They could not permit themselves to accept the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Primarily for ourselves. Getting along in a community is an exercise in rational self interest. It does no good for one to be at war unnecessarily with the neighbors. 13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Healthy signs of your skeptical certitude (!) being dented, finally. First you say "Moral import has to do with what we should and should not do". Now, you acknowledge "rational self interest". Wow. Self. Should. Have you been recently discovering ought from is? I.e. - value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now