Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[luutzu]

No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.

You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.

Society acting morally towards one another builds a greater society where everyone benefits on all levels, so acting morally has real world benefits, you don't need to trick people with superstition.

....

I thought you said you're not a commie.

 

[SirRumpole]

There are consequences either way. Put religion into the mix will first dumb down the masses, make them susceptible to charlatans, pious politicians and other fake religious nuts who spout one thing but do the other.

Belief in an afterlife does not require religion. Religions try to pretend that they own the afterlife, but that's their problem.

 

[Value Collector]

Of course, and that is why we have LAWS. So obviously, laws are based on morality or is morality based on laws ?

As you say, it's not against the law to gamble, but is it moral to deprive a lot of people of their money to benefit a few ?
..

I have stated my views that morality is objective not subjective, we had a conversation about it over many posts, laws are made by men, and may or may not be based on the best opinion of moral outcomes, but the fact that mens opinion can be wrong or ignored doesn't change the fact that objective morality exists.

Eg, Smoking is dangerous, so it is immoral to force people to smoke, and it was immoral to force people to smoke even before we knew it was dangerous, learning it was dangerous didn't suddenly change the morality of it, the facts about its effect on human wellbeing meant it was immoral even before smoking was invented.

That can be hard to show in some cases

.

You don't have to show it for it to be immoral

There have been many cases of good samaritans stopping to help people in broken down cars and getting run over, or people trying to stop a fight and getting beaten up by the fighters, or people offering medical assistance and later getting sued etc etc,

That doesn't change anything.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have stated my views that morality is objective not subjective, we had a conversation about it over many posts, laws are made by men, and may or may not be based on the best opinion of moral outcomes, but the fact that mens opinion can be wrong or ignored doesn't change the fact that objective morality exists.

Eg, Smoking is dangerous, so it is immoral to force people to smoke, and it was immoral to force people to smoke even before we knew it was dangerous, learning it was dangerous didn't suddenly change the morality of it, the facts about its effect on human wellbeing meant it was immoral even before smoking was invented.

Who forced people to smoke ?

That doesn't change anything.

Yes it does. It makes your job harder to convince people that moral behaviour is good for society when there are obvious personal perils in helping others.

 

[Value Collector]

I thought you said you're not a commie.

I think you need to find out what communism is.

 

[Value Collector]

Who forced people to smoke ?
.

I didn't say any one did. I am saying that due to what we know about the effects of smoking, we know it would be immoral to force some one to smoke, because this would effect their well being. and that's not based on opinion, its a fact of the real world, as doesn't require a god, the objective facts of the universe make it immoral.

The next thing people will say is , "well doctors used to think it was healthy to smoke, so it used to be moral"

What I am saying is that a persons opinion that something is healthy, doesn't change the actually facts or whether it is healthy, and a practice that harms people is and always will be immoral regardless of the opinions involved.

Yes it does. It makes your job harder to convince people that moral behaviour is good for society when there are obvious personal perils in helping others

But your argument is that tricking them into believing a god is watching is better.

But if you flip your example around, it also shows that a society where good sumaritans are taken advantage of, is probably going to generate less good sumaritans, so it is in my interests to not take advantage of them, if I want people to help me and my family in the future.

 

[luutzu]

I think you need to find out what communism is.

Why so serious?

In your crusading mode were you?

 

[luutzu]

Belief in an afterlife does not require religion. Religions try to pretend that they own the afterlife, but that's their problem.

really? I thought only religion could come up with that kind of stuff.

 

[Value Collector]

Belief in an afterlife does not require religion.

It does if you want to build some sort of moral system around that idea.

And then once you have the "religious morals", how do you go about changing them once you realise they are wrong.

If you have convinced people that the moral come from an all knowing all powerful god, once we develop a better understanding of something and know the practice is wrong or that its not harmful, how do we change it without looking like the cherry picking fools from the churches?

people will soon see the religion is false, and that they aren't being watched, and without a sound moral base that comes from real world things they will be open to anything.

 

[Value Collector]

Why so serious?

In your crusading mode were you?

No, it just seems you keep suggesting anything to do with capitalism must be wrong, and any thing to do with helping people or looking after society must be communism.

I don't see anything immoral about capitalism, and I don't see capitalism as preventing social structures forming.

Wanting the people to have access to education, healthcare, social safty nets etc etc isn't a communist thing, its a part of strong capitalist society IMO, I will be richer (wealthier) personally, if society is in general happy, healthy, educated and productive.

offcourse I don't want the social safety nets to encourage society to become unproductive, because then no one benefits long term, productivity boosts every ones standard of living

 

[SirRumpole]

It does if you want to build some sort of moral system around that idea.

Well, I don't want to preach to anyone. I have my beliefs and I will tell people what they are if they ask, but I'm not looking for disciples or trying for any sort of theocracy.

The belief I have is pretty simple. What you give out you get back, either in this life or the next. It's a punishment/reward system or if you prefer a learn by experience system.

I don't really see any need to go into objective morality, in fact this is what rationalwiki says about it

Objective morality
J
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.

The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

So my opinion is that morality is subjective and derives from the experiences of people throughout their life (or lives). ie people learn as they live and so their morality developes.

 

[Value Collector]

Well, I don't want to preach to anyone. I have my beliefs and I will tell people what they are if they ask, but I'm not looking for disciples or trying for any sort of theocracy.

The belief I have is pretty simple. What you give out you get back, either in this life or the next. It's a punishment/reward system or if you prefer a learn by experience system.

I don't really see any need to go into objective morality, in fact this is what rationalwiki says about it



So my opinion is that morality is subjective and derives from the experiences of people throughout their life (or lives). ie people learn as they live and so their morality developes.

objective morality is bogus when its used in a religious context, but when you are using human wellbeing its not, because things are either good for wellbeing or they aren't, its not an opinion.

What is the best outcome for human wellbeing in any scenario is not subjective, its objective based on facts.

----

its true your understanding (and societies understanding) of morality develops over time, and you may have opinions on what is moral, But that doesn't change the facts of what is objectively moral based on human wellbeing.

Hence my long winded analogy about smoking, eg it was immoral for doctors to prescribe smoking, even though at the time they didn't know it was harmful, it didn't just become immoral the day they learned of the dangers.

 

[luutzu]

No, it just seems you keep suggesting anything to do with capitalism must be wrong, and any thing to do with helping people or looking after society must be communism.

I don't see anything immoral about capitalism, and I don't see capitalism as preventing social structures forming.

Wanting the people to have access to education, healthcare, social safty nets etc etc isn't a communist thing, its a part of strong capitalist society IMO, I will be richer (wealthier) personally, if society is in general happy, healthy, educated and productive.

offcourse I don't want the social safety nets to encourage society to become unproductive, because then no one benefits long term, productivity boosts every ones standard of living

Oi, I was being sarcastic about the communism stuff. But (partly) true, I don't like the Capitalism bit either.

We all get into trouble when we use terms with ism in it. We all know Communism isn't really communism - or maybe it is but it's not the Socialist -ism that communists proclaims to represent; Same with Capitalism.

Your definition of Capitalism are textbook definition. Capitalism as practised, since ever, has never really been "Capitalism" where free enterprise and innovation and entrepreneurialism triumph over less innovative, less efficient operators and status quo etc. etc.

You talk of capitalism benefiting consumers, emplyees, the community and then shareholder benefits from benefiting all those... yea that's the idealised version. There might be companies and capitalists out there that does that, and I honestly believe that long term value and riches come from creating such value and providing such benefits... BUT...

Just as a business make profit from providing real value; another business could make just as much profit, if not more, by buying politicians, lobbying for certain law, and so corner practically the entire market and providing false choices and only some value (when compare to what a free market and even playing field could otherwise have provided).

In other words, a business could make profit by fair dealing and treat their workers well; or they could make profit just as well through slave labour and harmful products; Business could make money by taking care of their waste, pass that cost on to consumers so we all benefit from clean air etc.; or they just dump the waste into the environment at no cost to themselves, past on that cost to the public through ill health and pollution and eventual cleanup, and get to keep as much if not more profit in their own pocket.

Capitalism as practised is a total disaster. It harm the environment, ill treat the workers, and ill serve the public.

No one said it better than Buffett - probably the most generous Capitalist in the history of the world - that if he was around at Kitty Hawk [?] when the Wright Brothers were testing their aeroplanes, he'd shoot them. Why? Because all investor in airliners have gone broke doing it.

We don't need to go into the benefit of air travel to the hundreds of million travellers and commerce and all that right?

What Buffett said there show that Capitalist are simply after profit and money - social contribution and well being are incidental.

So the kind of capital allocation we all love and benefit from... it's not the Capitalism that's out there as the epitome of Capitalism. The innovation and value creation we all want and grant to Capitalists and captain of industries... it's all either through entreprenuers who take great personal and commercial risk, or through small businesses getting a kickstart from grants and contracts for research and development from the gov't.

 

[SirRumpole]

Hence my long winded analogy about smoking, eg it was immoral for doctors to prescribe smoking, even though at the time they didn't know it was harmful, it didn't just become immoral the day they learned of the dangers.

Ok, some some things may be found to be objectively wrong at some time in the future, but so what if we don't know all the facts NOW ?

It seems that you can't accept that people can act morally NOW based on information they have NOW, if their actions are intended to do good, even if at some time in the future it is found that their actions may have caused harm because of information that they weren't aware of ?

And if you don't accept the above then I think you are setting yourself up as some sort of God, expecting people to have unlimited knowledge about all the implications of their actions.

 

[Value Collector]

Ok, some some things may be found to be objectively wrong at some time in the future, but so what if we don't know all the facts NOW ?

.

I am suggesting we just act as best we can, and make the best decisions we can based on the information we know, and not be scared to change our ideas as we discover new information, Religion based moral systems generally oppose change, eg God said this, so it must be so, forever.

It seems that you can't accept that people can act morally NOW based on information they have NOW,

Nope, I didn't say that.

if their actions are intended to do good, even if at some time in the future it is found that their actions may have caused harm because of information that they weren't aware of ?

you are saying morality is subjective, I am saying it's not its based on facts that don't change.

Now Offcourse peoples ideas and understandings can change, but that doesn't change the facts.

And if you don't accept the above then I think you are setting yourself up as some sort of God, expecting people to have unlimited knowledge about all the implications of their actions

I am not expecting people to have ultimate knowledge of anything, I am saying we should do our best to act morally based on the information we have, and as we learn more and gain a better understanding we should be prepared to change our actions.

I fully accept that a person can make the wrong decisions even though they are trying their best to make moral decisions, that's just a fact of life, but a truly moral person will change their actions when they discover a flaw, a person of religious Amorality probably won't be able to.

 

[SirRumpole]

I fully accept that a person can make the wrong decisions even though they are trying their best to make moral decisions, that's just a fact of life, but a truly moral person will change their actions when they discover a flaw, a person of religious Amorality probably won't be able to.

Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Live and learn right ?

But in that case you seem to be admitting that morality is subjective, ie it can vary with knowledge.

 

[Value Collector]

Oi, I was being sarcastic about the communism stuff. But (partly) true, I don't like the Capitalism bit either.

We all get into trouble when we use terms with ism in it. We all know Communism isn't really communism - or maybe it is but it's not the Socialist -ism that communists proclaims to represent; Same with Capitalism.

Your definition of Capitalism are textbook definition. Capitalism as practised, since ever, has never really been "Capitalism" where free enterprise and innovation and entrepreneurialism triumph over less innovative, less efficient operators and status quo etc. etc.

You talk of capitalism benefiting consumers, emplyees, the community and then shareholder benefits from benefiting all those... yea that's the idealised version. There might be companies and capitalists out there that does that, and I honestly believe that long term value and riches come from creating such value and providing such benefits... BUT...

Just as a business make profit from providing real value; another business could make just as much profit, if not more, by buying politicians, lobbying for certain law, and so corner practically the entire market and providing false choices and only some value (when compare to what a free market and even playing field could otherwise have provided).

In other words, a business could make profit by fair dealing and treat their workers well; or they could make profit just as well through slave labour and harmful products; Business could make money by taking care of their waste, pass that cost on to consumers so we all benefit from clean air etc.; or they just dump the waste into the environment at no cost to themselves, past on that cost to the public through ill health and pollution and eventual cleanup, and get to keep as much if not more profit in their own pocket.

Capitalism as practised is a total disaster. It harm the environment, ill treat the workers, and ill serve the public.

No one said it better than Buffett - probably the most generous Capitalist in the history of the world - that if he was around at Kitty Hawk [?] when the Wright Brothers were testing their aeroplanes, he'd shoot them. Why? Because all investor in airliners have gone broke doing it.

We don't need to go into the benefit of air travel to the hundreds of million travellers and commerce and all that right?

What Buffett said there show that Capitalist are simply after profit and money - social contribution and well being are incidental.

So the kind of capital allocation we all love and benefit from... it's not the Capitalism that's out there as the epitome of Capitalism. The innovation and value creation we all want and grant to Capitalists and captain of industries... it's all either through entreprenuers who take great personal and commercial risk, or through small businesses getting a kickstart from grants and contracts for research and development from the gov't.

What you are describing of business is no different to people.

Pointing that Pirates exist, in no way suggests or proves that co-operative societies can't and don't exist or that its better for you to choose to be a pirate.

Just as I suggested being a person of poor character will be bad for your well being long term, I suggest being a business of poor character is also bad for you long term.

Rumpoles original comment was that when you make money in capitalism and the stockmarket, you must be creating a victim some where, In general this is not the case.

-------

Even if you are involved in a situation where you make money gambling, that isn't itself immoral either, the counter party that lost entered the transaction willingly.

 

[Value Collector]

Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Live and learn right ?

But in that case you seem to be admitting that morality is subjective, ie it can vary with knowledge.

No, morality is not subjective, it is fixed, your Understanding of it is subjective though.

eg, the laws of physics are fixed, however our understanding of them is not, we learn more as we go along.

The laws of physics didn't change when man learned to fly, our understanding of the laws of physics and our opinions of what was possible based on the understanding changed, not the laws of physics themselves.

----------

I really can't see why your are struggling to see the difference between a fact that exists regardless of opinion, and a persons understanding of that fact.

 

[SirRumpole]

I really can't see why your are struggling to see the difference between a fact that exists regardless of opinion, and a persons understanding of that fact.

Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.

You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.

You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.

Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?

If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.

But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule. Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.

I refer you to the rationalwiki quote I posted before.

 

[luutzu]

What you are describing of business is no different to people.

Pointing that Pirates exist, in no way suggests or proves that co-operative societies can't and don't exist or that its better for you to choose to be a pirate.

Just as I suggested being a person of poor character will be bad for your well being long term, I suggest being a business of poor character is also bad for you long term.

Rumpoles original comment was that when you make money in capitalism and the stockmarket, you must be creating a victim some where, In general this is not the case.

-------

Even if you are involved in a situation where you make money gambling, that isn't itself immoral either, the counter party that lost entered the transaction willingly.

Institutionalised Capitalism, aka Corporation, are all bad. Or at least insane. I know this because if you can point me to a morally upright corporation, I wouldn't be buying it. I'd give it an award and a sticker or something. And I can bet you all investors would do the same.

And it is not a case of a few bad apples; not even the case of a corrupt or greedy CEO or parasitic shareholders either.

The way a corporation is structured and endowed with its responsibilities and obligations of its directors... mean it will have to do things that very often results in very corrupt and immoral behaviour. Legal, sure... Right and good? Only some time.


In fact, the only time a corporation could do anything noble and good without strings attached would be when it is still controlled by its founder. But then not all the capitalist are benevolent either.

So we have Buffett - by all account a decent human being. He didn't get generous and kind in his business purchases... he only got to really be himself once he decided to give all the money he himself have away.

Same with Andrew Carnegie; J D Rockefeller. etc. etc.

All these more generous Capitalists break up unions, pay as little as they can and they can because they got friends in high places to make it possible... they exploit and gain for themselves and their shareholders as much as possible and as much as they can get away with from conditions they create to let them get away with - it's all "rational" and part of their innovation and legal obligations.

So the system is screwed.

A good example would be, say, any company were to hire me and out of my longterm thinking and strategic this and that, I'd decide to give everyone a 5% pay increase - happy and secured employee makes good quality products/services etc.; do right by the environment etc. etc.

If I or any CEO were to do that kind of stuff, they'd be out of a job for reason of insanity or negligence.

So Capitalism, in setting up incentives and obligations like these... well what do we expect from them?