i thought you were calling me a joke. anyway, there is no moral obligation to check if its ethically sourced, because in a capitalist society all activity is immoral. theres nothing wrong with it persay but just that morality has nothing to do with it. in a sharing economy all actions are moral hense the term share. but, if the owner was to have saved his money working for a non-profit its slightly different. but not exactly because for him to afford anything more than his basic needs, such as a diamond ring he would have to have been paid a wage that provided him with extra. which is a wage based on capitalist economics. if he worked in a non-profit that paid his exact wages and the guy starved himself over the course of 10 years in order to afford the ring, he would still be behaving immorally, because the ring would have to be of moral equivalency, meaning that he would have to reimburse the community for which the diamond came from (how can you evaluate that?). but hey why does that community have ownership over a crystal that took so long to create? what about the future community? there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral. and so the guy has no moral obligation within that system. he may only have a legal obligation, which in this case he does not. Although he does not have a contract for the ring and so does not own it, he can sell the ring legally and keep the money because contract is not based on morality, it works technically for the benefit of ease of enforcement. buyer beware! because the buyer would not have ownership either so if the train guy found him and could evidence ownership hed have to give the ring back and have no easy legal recourse to the money he lost.

yeah thats fair, wishful but fair.

there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral.
I disagree. A Google search will refute this claim, as does our current conversation.
This statement does not prove that capitalism is immoral.

To my understanding capitalism has both moral and immoral implications based on how the individual utilizes it. Is it perfectly moral? No. Is it comparatively more moral than communism? I would argue yes. Something does not have to be 100% perfectly moral for it to not have implications of moral principles.

in a capitalist society all activity is immoral. — Martin Krumins

If that's an axiom for you, I suggest you reconsider it. If just the premise of an argument, then make your case! I think it's absurd on it's face, for oh so many reasons. But people have got out their rifles on such beliefs. Are you a rifleman? Or are you reasonable? If a rifleman, would you just stand still for a moment? if reasonable, then be reasonable and reason!

Like this: I grow tomatoes. I eat what I need and barter the rest with people similarly engaged in community enterprises that serve the community's needs. We establish a system of values for goods and services beyond mere need. Parties to transactions agree as to the value of something. Ok, enough. Demonstrate immorality. Before you do, it might be good to define "moral" and "immoral."

The ring is a symbol of bourgeois extravagance. For that reason, as a working class hero, I should keep the ring.

Keep a ring gotten by unethical or immoral means? How would that dignify you in a way it doesn't dignify the capitalist who extracts it and brings it to market for her own purposes? How would it improve the people from whom it was 'taken in capitalism' if you elect to keep it? Is it more valuable to you than it would be to them?

The ring is a symbol of bourgeois extravagance.


A ring is an investment in savings.

Capitalism is moral when the people involved in it utilize it with moral standards in mind.
Eg: I helped someone in order to acquire this ring.

Capitalism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring.

I stole this ring. — Lif3r

Thief!

:lol:

it might be good to define "moral" and "immoral."


I would like to try, Tim. And if we can pick this apart, please let's. I am interested in my definitions of these words and also happy to learn.

If something is moral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a betterment for that society.

If something is immoral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a deterioration for that society.

And there are of course different types of morals and immorals. Personal, societal, planetary, and perhaps universal.

thanks

It turns out he was very polite and did give me a nice reward (a use laptop). The ring did not have sentimental value to him - he wanted to sell it and he was up front about that.

turns out he didn't know it was there - not a surprise given where it was

:grin:

thanks

I like how you phrase that

Before you do, it might be good to define "moral" and "immoral." — tim wood

I would like to try, Tim. — Lif3r

You'll have to get around G. E. Moore's open-question argument.

I just wasn't comfortable doing that - not my style

Yes, we are interdependent. The tribal mentality that is so prevalent now is unfortunate.

yes it does

Since it had no sentimental value to him, I'd say the value was equal to us both.

hey tim, im not even right wing, i lean toward being an anarchist, but im not in actuality as im a part of a very capitalist community. So yeah im cool with reasoning this. ok immoral was perhaps the wrong word what i mean is not in the category of moral action rather than 'bad'. I personally do not believe in morality at all but that does not stop me from prefering an equal stake society. Ok so ill just tackle your hypothetical. First you changed diamonds for tomatoes so this is a different argument but anyway. I will take moral here in an economic sense to be fair or to a reasonable degree, equivical. Your situation what you describe is a sharing economy and that does not exist at present. In order for a sharing economy to exist you would have to universalise the doctrine or demarcate the sharing boundary and operate within that demarcation. This I would think would be unfair to those outwith the demarcation who are poor so then you would have to universalise the sharing economy. now here is where it gets tricky #stalin. Universalising a doctine designed on fairnes does as the right liberal wankers always state, an act of will over an innocently immoral being. like getting your dog not to eat a snack by shouting at it, its not the dogs fault. that act alone becomes immoral. ok I'm not saying we are dogs but in some circumstances we are all going to break rules...I would say that your example is two people existing in a bubble. I have known such bubbles and they are bubbles. self sufficient communites would not cope with population levels like that of new york (they can barely make it past 20). so bubbles are usually created by highly educated people who use the capitalist system to create their bubble. this is not moral, moral would be fair or exactly equivical. Now as an anarchist I believe that although the taking of ownership can never be fair or equivical, I can think that It can be so scrutinised that people can behave properly and thus creating an equal stake society. whats your take?

You might try this:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore-moral/

Then recognize that I suggested to Martin Krumins that he define his terms.

It might be useful if instead of posting a link, you instead wrote out your understanding of what the link says. Or, by the time you're ready to write, you may find you have nothing to write about. If you meant by posting your Wiki leak that "moral" couldn't be defined, I think you failed to understand the post, and educating you is just more work than at my advanced age I'm up to. But I commend you to the effort; you just might learn something. In particular, I buy the notion that "moral" is definable. Further, that if I define it and you don't like my definition, then we can discuss that and see where it goes. I, personally, often make errors that need correction.

Blimey. Arrogant much? The question is what is "good", yes? The link I provided takes you to the following argument I referenced:

Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless.
Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).
Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.

The challenge is how you, Tim Wood, or Martin Krumins, or whoever wants to take a stab at it, would deal with that argument. I don't need a lecture from you, thanks. Just stick to the point and cut the crap. Or don't and we can go our separate ways. It's no skin off my back.

Premise 1. The consequent is meaningless. ("Meaningless": a term of art meaning absent a determinable meaning. It does not mean that meaning cannot be assigned, however problematic that might be.) The problem is the "is." Is it predicative, or is it merely an indicator of identity? Can't tell. And when and where you cannot tell - don't know - then it is a fundamental if common error in thinking to suppose that you do know. (Not to be confused with supposing for the sake of analyzing implications; in this case supposition is never confused with knowing.)

Now, we have no understanding of what "analytically equivalent" means. It cannot mean "the same as." If we allow it at all, it can only mean, "equivalent in some unspecified sense." "Unspecified" because it is not specified.

Here's what we've got:
1) If X is akin to Y, then blah.
2) Blah is not meaningless. (i.e., blah means something.)
Conclusion: X is not akin to Y

See any problems with this? Care to try to resolve them?

Easier just to read the two links a little more closely and critically than you have done.

Further, let's grant what it seems you're after. In terms of the links as I read them, the claim is that normative - moral - judgments are objectively true or false, but that the truth of same cannot be grounded in observation of the non-human "natural" world. Your claim, as I understand it, is that "moral" is not such a judgment, and is not grounded in any observation at all. Do you see any problems here that you care to try to resolve?

Again, easier just to read the two links a little more closely and critically than you have done.

But your underlying motive seems to be to defeat the notion of morality. Is that your motive? Not a respectable motive, I'm afraid, either intellectually or morally.

But your underlying motive seems to be to defeat the notion of morality. Is that your motive? Not a respectable motive, I'm afraid, either intellectually or morally. — tim wood

Wrong. It's rude and uncharitable to assume that your interlocutor has an underlying ulterior motive, let alone to openly speculate about what it might be, let alone to single out one which you consider to be disreputable.

You could have just asked, and I would have answered along the lines that my motive is exploring problems in philosophy, and how various people I encounter respond to them.

Ah, Martin. You're a smart guy lacking in some basic education or you're a damned fool. It's not easy prying meaning loose from your kind of style. If you're doing the best you can, I give you credit. If not, then you're paying a price for affectation, probably more than you want or are aware of.

Anyway, it seems you meant amoral. I posit a sharing community/economy. You disqualify that on the basis of scale. I provisionally accept that disqualification. But you also get interesting:

Universalising a doctrine designed on fairness does as the right liberal wankers always state, an act of will over an innocently immoral being. — Martin Krumins

I think the only "innocently immoral" people are children and idiots. Mere ignorance may account, but it's rarely exculpatory. I read this as simply the acknowledgment that government must sometimes mandate fairness as a matter of law, when it can be got to do so. And it is necessary that it do so; history teaches that, as well that government sometimes makes a bad job of it.

I will take moral here in an economic sense to be fair... to a reasonable degree — Martin Krumins

. Can't ask for more than that.

I wonder if you're distinguishing between what we can call here good and bad marketing - these terms being entirely arbitrary and not intended to mean anything beyond this immediate use. Good marketing is your fairness in the marketplace. This is often described as the meeting of the minds of buyer and seller as to value (usually price), neither under compulsion to perform. Bad marketing is when one of the parties is under compulsion and the other unfairly exploits that. The "unfairly" is not a throw-away term. In some circumstances - in many circumstances - value under compulsion is not-so-easy to determine.

Now as an anarchist I believe that although the taking of ownership can never be fair or equivocal, I can think that It can be so scrutinized that people can behave properly and thus creating an equal stake society. whats your take? — Martin Krumins

Ownership is just how the world works. Folks who are against ownership are usually against your ownership and in favour of theirs, which they likely will call some other name, like "stewardship" or something like. Nor is it unfair. It can be unfair, but that's a different game. As to people behaving, often the standards of correct behaviour, especially in the marketplace, have to be legislated. Because the marketplace is often a function of adversarial practices.

In consideration of what you wrote, near as I can tell, you're no anarchist, but closer to a conservative wearing rose-colored glasses. Welcome aboard!

Wrong. It's rude and uncharitable to assume that your interlocutor has an underlying ulterior motive... and I would have answered along the lines that my motive is exploring problems in philosophy, and how people respond to them. — Sapientia

If you do not make your motives known, people will attribute them you willy-nilly. And in fact I did not attribute, but asked. I guess you missed that.

Now, on the basis of what you've written above, and in consideration of the parts you played in other threads, I'm forced to suppose you a troll. And that's a problem because now I have to ask myself if something you post can be taken seriously; if, in short, it's worth replying to.

Capitalism is moral when the people involved in it utilize it with moral standards in mind.
Eg: I helped someone in order to acquire this ring.

Capitalism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring. — Lif3r

Mixing political and moral ideas is not a good idea, and the same can be said about any political system.

Communism is moral when the people involved in it utilize it with moral standards in mind.
Eg: I helped society in order to acquire this ring.

Communism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring.