Your Top 5 Policies

[Smellyoldgit]

Good Doggie!

[Sternwallow]

Philboid Studge wrote

First, stop thinking of morals as 'knowing the difference between good and bad' or some such simplified bromide. In fact, stop using the term 'morals' or 'morality.' Better to say 'moral systems.'



"Evolved psychological mechanisms" include, but are not limited to, emotions. (Not for nothing but Antonio Damasio proposed that not only morality but rationality itself is dependent on emotional circuitry in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex of the brain. So think twice [at least] before you say that emotions are the enemy of rational thought.)

"Institutions" include, but are not limited to, religious organizations.

Morals Morality Moral systems essentially have one function: to regulate selfishness.

OK, "moral system", it is. MS implies regulation of behavior partly by labeling it good or bad and thereby extends a cloak of sanctity over it quite beyond a simple purpose to counter selfishness.

If one can show an objective value to society of a lack of selfishness and that a particular tenet of MS demonstrably supported that objective, that would be my long-sought rationale.

That definition and those qualifiers cover all that "is" in the "is/ought" equation of moral foundations. I think what Stern is looking for is some rational justification for the "ought," what we should do.

In the puppy kicking example I see a split in the MS issue between regulating our behavior versus some of us forcibly regulating the behavior of others, especially when that behavior cannot be shown to be detrimental to society beyond making some people feel queasy in their empathy muscle.

I say, why bother? Unless your goal is to influence the "values and practices" of a given moral system, there's no reason to concern ourselves with "ought." Whatever justification that can be concocted for any moral question -- theft, banging your neighbor's ass, mur-diddly-urder -- is going to be corralled within Haidt's definition of moral systems anyway. In other words there is no base, objective justification. All 'moral' precepts are about regulating selfishness, full stop. (All of that said, it's not useless to at least talk about rationalizations [in the sense of using reason], since many of these precepts are in conflict.)

So, would you accept a group of armed people (a police squad) invading your home and fine you (with an official ticket) for dropping a colored plastic bottle in the general recycle bin instead of the colored bottle ("no jars") recycle bin, just because such laxity is selfish of you?

Sam Harris -- loathed to be labeled a moral relativist (or relative moralist) -- attempted to bridge the is-ought divide by insisting that "well-being" should be the basis of moral decision-making. To which a legion of philosophers replied, says who?

I think Harris made a good case that "well being" is the natural and adequate baseline for those (us) who are attempting to create/discover beneficial MS and avoid destructive ones.

I am not so sure that extending the application of his formula to non-human animals is well justified (at least without acknowledgment that consciousness is continuous and not binary).

And, though I am much happier while conscious than not, I do not class it as sacred or more important than other emergent properties like wetness.

[Sternwallow]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Where's the surprise? I understand that they have to carefully pump the queen empty and dry before letting her loose in public.

[Kinich Ahau]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

My mother in law shows a recue greyhound. No inbreeding etc. Just shows. On many occasions she has been harassed by the animal rights brigade at shows for putting the dog through its paces. The dog seems to enjoy it, my mother in law is dog nuts, and wont even let me move it off the chair to sit down lol.

Good on your mother in law. Is she making a point of her own?

Either way if every one did this they would have little to protest about.

[Kinich Ahau]

ILJ, When you say recue dog, do mean like this?

[Philboid Studge]

OK, "moral system", it is. MS implies regulation of behavior partly by labeling it good or bad and thereby extends a cloak of sanctity over it quite beyond a simple purpose to counter selfishness.

Individuals might do such labeling, but a thoughtful philosopher would not, at least not without fumigating the words "good" and "bad" with quotation marks. The definition is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is, not ought.

So, would you accept a group of armed people (a police squad) invading your home and fine you (with an official ticket) for dropping a colored plastic bottle in the general recycle bin instead of the colored bottle ("no jars") recycle bin, just because such laxity is selfish of you?

Accept them? I would welcome them, and fete them with bagels and cranberry juice.

And a 'nuther thing: One of the most interesting things to emerge from neuroscience in the past ten years is the realization that our moral decision-making is done prior to our conscious decisiveness. (Not only moral d-making; many "rational" "choices" as well.) It's a beautiful thing to see science come to grips with the possibility (inevitability?) that what we call "free will" is a potent illusion.

But that's only the half of it. The lab coats are finding that people make (make up?) post-hoc explanations for the pre-conscious decisions they'd just made, kind of like the way you are seeking a justification for why you feel disgust at puppy-kicking, or rather, the way you are seeking justification for forcing others to adhere to rules that would prevent that feeling, which I think is another way of asking, How disgusted am I, anyway?

[Philboid Studge]

My five, in ascending order of importance.



1) End the the infield fly rule. Specifically, conduct an entire Spring Training with no IF rule and analyse the results. How many IF opportunities are there in a game on average? How many "cheap" double plays were executed? Is the game more or less interesting with no rule in place?



2) Children shouldn't be seen or heard or smelled. A rule of thumb for airlines: if a passenger has a recent history of shitting in his pants (lets say any time within the past year), he should have to fly in the cargo hold with the drugged dogs and cats.



3) Local governments should be able to implement harm-reduction policies to address addictions, as opposed to waging "war" on drugs. Municipalities should be able to establish freer rules for soft drug use, a la Amsterdam (for now), without interference from pezzonovante centralized governments.



4) Establish a tax system in which individuals can assign percentages of their tax payments to specific programs. Something along these lines.


5) Put the brakes on economic growth. I'm not sure how, but we should embrace the end of growth rather than resist it.

Maybe step one for Merkins would be to end fossil fuel subsidies.

The End is Nigh

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I thought the purpose of this thread was to come up with five policies in the manner of a dictator, no questions asked. Boy, having to justify their morality sort of ruins the fun of being a despot for the day!

There were two main purposes behind the thread. The first was just to open up the discussion to a wider array of policies, and maybe get to each persons priors on policy (i.e., what is the underlying goal of the policies people want?). Second, once the priors were out or could be inferred, would they match up with peoples' soaring rhetoric?

Most of the libertarians on the forum have been pretty constantly brow-beaten fr not caring about other human beings, so I wanted to see what kinds of policies people who allegedly care about other human beings would prioritize given a limited number of options. Puppies appear to have been their first choice.

[dogpet]

Philboid Studge wrote

1) End the the infield fly rule. Specifically, conduct an entire Spring Training with no IF rule and analyse the results. How many IF opportunities are there in a game on average? How many "cheap" double plays were executed? Is the game more or less interesting with no rule in place?

Is this the same as backfield in motion, whatever the heck that is, or against a completely different rulez?

2) Children shouldn't be seen or heard or smelled. A rule of thumb for airlines: if a passenger has a recent history of shitting in his pants (lets say any time within the past year), he should have to fly in the cargo hold with the drugged dogs and cats.

This could only be implemented post the one brat per twat law, when all incontinent persons will be born male.

3) Local governments should be able to implement harm-reduction policies to address addictions, as opposed to waging "war" on drugs. Municipalities should be able to establish freer rules for soft drug use, a la Amsterdam (for now), without interference from pezzonovante centralized governments.

Rool Would it be too much to include licence for beer & hash in the same room? The Dutch still have this pariah corner thing going on

4) Establish a tax system in which individuals can assign percentages of their tax payments to specific programs. Something along these lines.

Wherever you wish it to go, half will still be poured down the public sector pension drain.

5) Put the brakes on economic growth. I'm not sure how, but we should embrace the end of growth rather than resist it.

When you say embrace, could that be taken as suck faster, I mean why delay the inevitable? What I'm asking is, what's in it for us who sacrifice now?

[nkb]

Sternwallow wrote

If one can show an objective value to society of a lack of selfishness and that a particular tenet of MS demonstrably supported that objective, that would be my long-sought rationale.

Sterny,
You still haven't explained how you rationally justify "value to society" being the important factor. What non-emotional basis is there for deeming society as important?

[Philboid Studge]

dogpet wrote

When you say embrace, could that be taken as suck faster, I mean why delay the inevitable? What I'm asking is, what's in it for us who sacrifice now?

Good point! The only reason to apply the brakes is to keep the next generation from eating each other over the last droplets of oil. Since next generation = the bairn, maybe better to just let #5 go and that will take care of #2,.,

[ILOVEJESUS]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Good on your mother in law. Is she making a point of her own?

Either way if every one did this they would have little to protest about.

No , the twats at the shows who do nothing but protest for the sake of it are trying to make the point of it being cruel to show dogs. I cannot see this unless the owner overly chastises their pet when trying to win.

[Kate]

[Philboid Studge]

That's harsh Kate. I like it.

[Philboid Studge]