"Theft" is not the same concept as "taxation", no matter how constipated you get from wanting it to be the same thing.
And yet the action is the same.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 23. (Read 17785 times)
And yet the action is the same.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
is a anarchistic world the "cost" of murder/rape/whatever would be significantly lower and people would do it more often.
This is an anarchist world of survival of the fittest. It just so happens that groups have formed to protect their own interests. These groups with the most amount of power are able to control those with less power. Those with less power can either try to fight that power which they do not stand a chance, or they can just play along under the rules of those with the power.
no i think that governements are what are holding people back from total chaos, where people are killing eachother.
There wasn't even total chaos and everyone killing each other pre-government when people wandered round in tribes. It wasn't happening in Australia before the white man came along. (The indigenous population plummeted AFTER government was established).
So, really, this is just hysteria.
Security is always going to be required. But really, not everyone thinks raping and unprovoked murder is OK. In fact, most don't.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
Good! Then you agree we don't need government for this either
is a anarchistic world the "cost" of murder/rape/whatever would be significantly lower and people would do it more often.
people need governements to functions in larger(1M+) groups.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
Good! Then you agree we don't need government for this either
Guize! It's much simpler than you think.
"Moral," and its slightly stuffier twin, "ethical," are just words used by weak-kneed atheists.
"Moral," and its slightly stuffier twin, "ethical," are just words used by weak-kneed atheists.
+1!
Guize! It's much simpler than you think.
"Moral," and its slightly stuffier twin, "ethical," are just words used by weak-kneed atheists. Those who still want to appeal to God in questions of right & wrong. With nothing to reach for when defining "right" & "wrong," and finding Nietzsche's "life affirming" unsatisfying, they resort to pseudo-logic, building a quasi-convincing framework justifying the stuff they feel with their gut. Of course, that framework suffers from a basic flaw: It's turtles all the way down.
*We can forget Kant altogether -- he was a Christian wannabe, his reasoning (knowingly) leads to the Leap of Faith. Yeah, *that* faith.
"Moral," and its slightly stuffier twin, "ethical," are just words used by weak-kneed atheists. Those who still want to appeal to God in questions of right & wrong. With nothing to reach for when defining "right" & "wrong," and finding Nietzsche's "life affirming" unsatisfying, they resort to pseudo-logic, building a quasi-convincing framework justifying the stuff they feel with their gut. Of course, that framework suffers from a basic flaw: It's turtles all the way down.
*We can forget Kant altogether -- he was a Christian wannabe, his reasoning (knowingly) leads to the Leap of Faith. Yeah, *that* faith.
i think you got the point.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
Taking a look at how Kant defines what is morally permissible...
Kant's first formulation of the “Categorical Imperative” states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
So for the moral question of whether you should steal or not.
1. Your reason is that you want stuff from someone else. First step passes.
2. Should everyone steal? This is where stealing falls apart...if everyone steals then the world decends into chaos.
would i live in a world where people did what they liked to do? yes.
good, are we done now?
i think you got the point.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
Taking a look at how Kant defines what is morally permissible...
Kant's first formulation of the “Categorical Imperative” states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
So for the moral question of whether you should steal or not.
1. Your reason is that you want stuff from someone else. First step passes.
2. Should everyone steal? This is where stealing falls apart...if everyone steals then the world decends into chaos.
I answered no to the first question.
Everything that is beneficial to me is morally okay. including stealing, raping, and unprovoked murder.
In most cases its just not beneficial to me as for some odd reason gets pissed at people doing stuff they consider immoral, and thereby forcing their moral views upon others.
Everything that is beneficial to me is morally okay. including stealing, raping, and unprovoked murder.
In most cases its just not beneficial to me as for some odd reason gets pissed at people doing stuff they consider immoral, and thereby forcing their moral views upon others.
How are you still not in jail?
It's not good for you to be doing stuff that will get you harassed, beat up, and shot, either, so it won't really matter what form of government, or lack thereof, you live under. With you specifically, other people will keep you in line, regardless of whether they are police, or just pissed off strangers.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?
Moral is roughly what we are wired to think is moral but it varies significantly between us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
Morality is subjective and unproductive. A much better approach is an objective goal approach.
Morality is subjective and unproductive. A much better approach is an objective goal approach.
Interesting video, thanks.
Moral is roughly what we are wired to think is moral but it varies significantly between us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
Morality is subjective and unproductive. A much better approach is an objective goal approach.
Morality is subjective and unproductive. A much better approach is an objective goal approach.
We're actually considered one of the least if not the least corrupted countries. We're in the EU so that kind of helps to keep everything under control. 
Well, that only narrows it down to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
I am discounting Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania since they have had between somewhat ok to great economic development since Soviet Union fell, and you claim that your country is really suffering from shitty economy. Then again, maybe it's just a part of the country you live in... (I'm also eyeing Romania a bit as maybe one of the candidates, because those vampires can really wreck the economy, too)
Lithuanian!
10/10, but I knew what the quiz would be by the second question 
It is unusual that so many people stopped at 9/10, but I suppose it makes sense. Though they acknowledge that theft is immoral, they believe it's necessary for society to function--the "necessary evil". If you know no alternatives, how could you consider them? If the world is flat, and we can obviously see just from looking outside that, despite a few hills and mountains, it is indeed flat, who would dare question such an obvious fact of nature? We can argue that, because there always has been a state, there can always only be a state, just as we can argue that because people have always been violent, they must always be violent, but without acknowledging the existence of the "other side", the grass is always greener where we are, and can be no greener no matter how hard we try. Of course, there's no such thing as "greener" when you have but one green, but as long as we keep repeating it, it'll surely remain as fact.
It is unusual that so many people stopped at 9/10, but I suppose it makes sense. Though they acknowledge that theft is immoral, they believe it's necessary for society to function--the "necessary evil". If you know no alternatives, how could you consider them? If the world is flat, and we can obviously see just from looking outside that, despite a few hills and mountains, it is indeed flat, who would dare question such an obvious fact of nature? We can argue that, because there always has been a state, there can always only be a state, just as we can argue that because people have always been violent, they must always be violent, but without acknowledging the existence of the "other side", the grass is always greener where we are, and can be no greener no matter how hard we try. Of course, there's no such thing as "greener" when you have but one green, but as long as we keep repeating it, it'll surely remain as fact.
We're actually considered one of the least if not the least corrupted countries. We're in the EU so that kind of helps to keep everything under control.
Well, that only narrows it down to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
I am discounting Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania since they have had between somewhat ok to great economic development since Soviet Union fell, and you claim that your country is really suffering from shitty economy. Then again, maybe it's just a part of the country you live in... (I'm also eyeing Romania a bit as maybe one of the candidates, because those vampires can really wreck the economy, too)
Lithuanian!
We're actually considered one of the least if not the least corrupted countries. We're in the EU so that kind of helps to keep everything under control.
Well, that only narrows it down to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
I am discounting Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania since they have had between somewhat ok to great economic development since Soviet Union fell, and you claim that your country is really suffering from shitty economy. Then again, maybe it's just a part of the country you live in... (I'm also eyeing Romania a bit as maybe one of the candidates, because those vampires can really wreck the economy, too)
Not socialism, the idea of socialism is pretty good and fair, it's the people hiding behind the idea. They take the idea in another way as in "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". BTW, Elwar, you live in the US or somewhere else, if that's not a secret?
Yes, I am a citizen of the United Socialist States of Amerika. Not currently living there though, nor am I sure if I will go back.
Socialism is a race to the bottom. Whoever is the poorest wins. That is why I would rather be Bitcoin rich and dollar poor in the government's eyes.
We're actually considered one of the least if not the least corrupted countries. We're in the EU so that kind of helps to keep everything under control.
Well, that only narrows it down to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
I am discounting Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania since they have had between somewhat ok to great economic development since Soviet Union fell, and you claim that your country is really suffering from shitty economy. Then again, maybe it's just a part of the country you live in... (I'm also eyeing Romania a bit as maybe one of the candidates, because those vampires can really wreck the economy, too)
I live in a post-socialist country where the people aren't wealthy.Getting a job hefe isn't easy and people already are fed up with paying anyone. So good luck with your non tax revolution because it isn't going to come any time soon. Ffs, we only have 23 years since we regained our independence again
Ah, Eastern Block countries. Aren't you guys suffering from extremely corrupt governments that border on fascism? Regardless, it will take a long while for the culture, that was poisoned by the communist mentality for 70 years, to get over it
I would guess you are not from Poland or Finland though, as those two weren't as suppressed when it comes to capitalism, and bounced back quickly once they opened their borders to privatization and trade.
I live in a post-socialist country where the people aren't wealthy.Getting a job hefe isn't easy and people already are fed up with paying anyone. So good luck with your non tax revolution because it isn't going to come any time soon. Ffs, we only have 23 years since we regained our independence again
Ah, Eastern Block countries. Aren't you guys suffering from extremely corrupt governments that border on fascism? Regardless, it will take a long while for the culture, that was poisoned by the communist mentality and forced to live in fear for 70 years, to get over it
I would guess you are not from Poland or Finland though, as those two weren't as suppressed when it comes to capitalism, and bounced back quickly once they opened their borders to privatization and trade.
Jump to: