You've yet to explain what they are actually doing. What are they doing? — Outlander

Cutting into a slope and risking a landslide.
Burning trash close to the property line, so that the trees and grapevines on our side are damaged from the fire.
Damaging our fence when digging on their side.
Planting very tall trees (pines that will grow some 20 meters) in a direction that will put a considerable part of our property into complete shade.
And so on.

Are you an introvert who's disinclined to be "neighborly" with your other neighbors?

Not at all. It's these new neighbors who are on good terms only with one other neighbors (the ones who sold them the land), and their relatives who also live in the neighborhood.
It's all becoming more like life in a city, with distance and anonymity, whereas we "old settlers" are used to more cordial and considerate neighborly relations.

Like was said before there's strength in numbers. If they decrease your property value, they decrease not only their own but others around them. Which removes the "morality for the sake of morality" dynamic.

I don't understand that. What do you mean?

This is still too puzzling!

So neither you nor anyone can dismiss them out-of-hand without at the same time dismissing your own humanity. — tim wood

Do you think Donnie writes into his gratitude journal every day? Exactly.

But for you they seem to be a burden. I submit that what burdens you is not any issue of EM, but in part perhaps lawless neighbors and what to do about them - no trivial problem at all.

Why ignore the obvious?

Why should the way things actually are IRL play no part in a theory of EM?

Given, for example, that bullies usually win, shouldn't that be taken to mean that bullying is morally good?

Has it never occured to you that being honest, fair, considerate, law-abiding actually makes you a loser and an untermensch?

Say I'm old and dying. I managed to amass considerable wealth in my lifetime and am slowly beginning to realize I cannot take it with me. I have two kids. Or none, even. I want my life's passion to be nurtured by someone caring and dedicated who is capable of respecting whatever it may be, perhaps even seeing a young version of myself in them, or something. How do you go about ensuring this will be so?

Placing a half-age ad in the largest paper in the city saying "million dollar business looking for young, smart, financial guru to take the reigns"

Or...

Finding a smaller niche magazine for whatever that interest/business/passion is and writing a humble black and white classified "small, rustic business of 50+ years looking for passionate, young enthusiast to manage and keep her afloat"

In the first example, someone who couldn't care less about what the business is about other than the money or benefit they could gain, probably just selling it off to a company that would turn it into a Wal-Mart or something after pocketing a sizable return would be the most likely, qualified candidates.

In the second example, there is no "huge payday" promised. If you truly have an interest in whatever the business is about, that would be the sole reason you would apply.

In both examples, the work could be observed and a judgement could be made, however in just one, would this be a true test of passion, dedication, and determination, not solely motivated by money. Sure a few may sneak through in the second example, but by only exposing a fraction of what the true inheritance/assets would be, in a rustic, run-down environment that still manages to test the applicant within the context of a scaled-down version of the true job/assets/etc to ensure the qualifications/ability is still there, you effectively screen out 95% of those who are just in it for the money/benefit who couldn't care less about what you care about after you're no longer in the picture.

Imagine this wealth/passion in life was about sailing and boats. You have a multi-million dollar shipyard loaded with yachts and other worthy vessels that would have to "go to" or otherwise be managed by someone. By seeing how they perform in a small run-down boatyard with maybe a few average vessels and one small yacht, perhaps even saying none of those are "included", or even saying none of it is "included" and it's just an hourly/per-task job... you remove any factors that would affect the performance and passion of the person who you may potentially wish to carry on your life's work.

It makes for more than just a heartwarming story of "young man with a love for the sea and sailing, spends life savings to buy small shipyard, ends up inheriting multi-million dollar seaport" it's now damn near the only way to do things. The only way to make sure your passion in life is preserved and will live on, and not just the money it accrued.

Does this apply directly to your scenario? It would appear not. But you never know.

Why should the way things actually are IRL play no part in a theory of EM?
Given, for example, that bullies usually win, shouldn't that be taken to mean that bullying is morally good?
Has it never occurred to you that being honest, fair, considerate, law-abiding actually makes you a loser and an untermensch? — baker

No, it hasn't. Are you thinking maybe you need to be dishonest, unfair, inconsiderate, law-breaking? It 's hard to determine in what way you are most off-base. Let's take killing. It's pretty clear it is wrong to kill people - although most folks could not coherently say why. Let's suppose it's the golden rule in action: I don't want to be killed, so I accept the EM principle that it is wrong to kill. Except when..., and you can fill in the exceptions. That is, the proposition that it is wrong to kill people is just plain false. And this exposes the first problem many have with EM - they do not understand them, and, in many cases they think they do. In my book the movement from ignorance - which we all are - to stupidity.

Next. They don't obey the rules. Immediately two possibilities: they really are not obeying the rules, or they actually are and you just don't yourself understand the rules. First step, do you actually know the rules? Now by cases. 1) They are actually not obeying the rules. If so, they have conferred on you a good bit of power. You have access to your own voice and being in the right, your community, your church, the law, the police, your local government. And sometimes that's what you have to do, because there are bad and stupid people out there and proximity to them can be bad for one's health. That is, EM is shoulds and oughts but themselves without force until and unless enforced - and sometimes you the engine that gets them enforced.

Or they're not breaking the rules. Then you need to negotiate. Getting to Yes is a good place to start. Or move. Maybe you're in the wrong place - and place can make a big difference.

IRL is not EM. Should be, ought to be. And that leaves you with a choice, maybe neither easy nor convenient. EM is ultimately about taking responsibility and being responsible - which covers a lot of ground. Make the right choice(s).

No, it hasn't. Are you thinking maybe you need to be dishonest, unfair, inconsiderate, law-breaking? — tim wood

How can something that leads to success in the world be morally wrong?

Next. They don't obey the rules. Immediately two possibilities: they really are not obeying the rules, or they actually are and you just don't yourself understand the rules. First step, do you actually know the rules? Now by cases. 1) They are actually not obeying the rules. If so, they have conferred on you a good bit of power. You have access to your own voice and being in the right, your community, your church, the law, the police, your local government. And sometimes that's what you have to do, because there are bad and stupid people out there and proximity to them can be bad for one's health. That is, EM is shoulds and oughts but themselves without force until and unless enforced - and sometimes you the engine that gets them enforced.

That's assuming that rules apply equally to all people, regardless of their status and power.
That's not how the world works.

Do you know how to play chess? Some people do not. Do you conclude from that, that you are allowed to - or that it is good to - move your rook diagonally? And if you do, what happens to the game of chess? And what happens to people who make illegal moves on a chessboard?

How can something that leads to success in the world be morally wrong? — baker

Because of confusion and ignorance on what "success" means and is.

That's not how the world works. — baker

My heavens! You're expecting the world itself to be an EM place? Possibly so that relieved of the burden and responsibility you do not have to be?

There is a system of words: good, better, best, bad, worse, worst. What do you imagine they mean or refer to? At the moment, it appears you're arguing that whether a mugging is good or bad depends on whether you're the mugger or the muggee. And that's not how the world works.

Do you know how to play chess? Some people do not. Do you conclude from that, that you are allowed to - or that it is good to - move your rook diagonally? And if you do, what happens to the game of chess? And what happens to people who make illegal moves on a chessboard? — tim wood

The assumption that there is such a thing as objective morality (which would have the same type of function as the rules in chess) tends to lurk in the back of discussions about morality.

Because of confusion and ignorance on what "success" means and is.

You're going to argue that, say, becoming the president of the most powerful country in the world is not success?

My heavens! You're expecting the world itself to be an EM place?

No, I'm expecting to deduce what EM is, based on known facts about the world.

There is a system of words: good, better, best, bad, worse, worst. What do you imagine they mean or refer to? At the moment, it appears you're arguing that whether a mugging is good or bad depends on whether you're the mugger or the muggee. And that's not how the world works.

The world generally sides with whoever is better off, and this can be either the mugger or the muggee.

If a rich and powerful person beats up a poor person, the rich and powerful person is deemed as having done nothing wrong.
If it's the poor person who beats up the rich one, it's the poor person who is the criminal.

Don't forget that the police was invented to protect the upper class from the lower class.

The assumption that there is such a thing as objective morality (which would have the same type of function as the rules in chess) tends to lurk in the back of discussions about morality. — baker

Do you "buy" the rule of non-contradiction in logic, that 2+2=4, that down is down and up is up? Now prove any of them. And of course you cannot. So why are they true? I leave that to you. But EM is the same. It you aspire to the ethics and morals of a squirrel or a lizard, you can do that, or try. But it's not human. So what is being human? That to you as well. And you get to choose, but your choice is yours and no one else's. Until you make it, you're not a man; and when you make it, then you're either a good or a bad man. The verdict of history is that good is substantive and it is better to be the good man.

So they always win.

Similar examples are common all over the globe and history.

Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.


I dare you to prove this wrong. — baker

I have lived in several homes around cities where the neighbors are concerned and upright citizens. Where they are considerate and mindful of how they behave. Where homes are safe and if there are any problems they can be settled peacefully following a discussion.

There are many safe and happy places like this all over the globe and in history.

Given this state of affairs, the only conclusion is that morality works and is evolutionarily advantageous.

Actually I don't make any conclusion based on my own experience or examples culled from elsewhere. How people behave in the world is a separate matter for whether or not morality or some code of conduct is useful. There are better and worse places to live and if people follow a code of conduct life tends to be better for all.

Sounds like your life is challenging and I don't minimize the risk you face.

Seems like cherry-picking to me - you've got few instances in which being moral would likely be a fatal error but you're ignoring what must be instances where the only sensible choice is to be moral.

Too, if you haven't noticed (I have), morality makes so much sense that some, if not all, people have come to believe in "good for the sake of good". It is/has become a reason unto itself - it needs no argument to hold it in place, it's self-justifiying.

Seems like cherry-picking to me - you've got few instances in which being moral would likely be a fatal error but you're ignoring what must be instances where the only sensible choice is to be moral. — TheMadFool

If you have a group of people who behave morally (what is, in some traditional sense considered "moral"), and then comes one who doesn't behave morally, chances are he'll get away with it, because the "good guys", being the "good guys" that they are, won't be able to do anything against him. That is, unless they give up on their goodness.

Human goodness is weak and easy to exploit.

Too, if you haven't noticed (I have), morality makes so much sense that some, if not all, people have come to believe in "good for the sake of good". It is/has become a reason unto itself - it needs no argument to hold it in place, it's self-justifiying.

I'd like to believe that, very much so.

But then Blondie Orange wins the elections, and one has to wonder what it is that really counts in life.

How exactly do you think the world runs its cities? How is the peace maintained in towns, cities, megacities? The police force is, by my reckoning, just too small, in some cases poorly trained, ill-equipped, evn corrupt - surely some other factor is in play here? What, in your view, is that?

How exactly do you think the world runs its cities? How is the peace maintained in towns, cities, megacities? The police force is, by my reckoning, just too small, in some cases poorly trained, ill-equipped, evn corrupt - surely some other factor is in play here? What, in your view, is that? — TheMadFool

Inertia, fear of conflict, minding one's own business, physical exhaustion due to overwork and stress.

I'm not convinced that people set out to try to "maintain peace". For that, they would actually have to know what brings about peace. Rather, I think peace is one of those states that are essentially byproducts of other things.

Do you "buy" the rule of non-contradiction in logic, that 2+2=4, that down is down and up is up? Now prove any of them. And of course you cannot. So why are they true? I leave that to you. But EM is the same. — tim wood

It's not up to me to decide how much 2 and 2 is.
If there is objective morality, it cannot be up to me to decide what it is.

It you aspire to the ethics and morals of a squirrel or a lizard, you can do that, or try. But it's not human. So what is being human? That to you as well. And you get to choose, but your choice is yours and no one else's. Until you make it, you're not a man; and when you make it, then you're either a good or a bad man. The verdict of history is that good is substantive and it is better to be the good man.

*tempted to do a feminist pun*

By your logic above, can a good man do bad things?

Inertia, fear of conflict, minding one's own business, physical exhaustion due to overwork and stress.

I'm not convinced that people set out to try to "maintain peace". For that, they would actually have to know what brings about peace. Rather, I think peace is one of those states that are essentially byproducts of other things. — baker

Really, fear? Fear of what? As I mentioned the police forces are spread thin over large urban settlements - it would be quite easy, in my humble opinion, for people to, as you said,

get away with endangering and damaging it (property/lives). — baker

I don't think you're giving good people due credit.

Really, fear? Fear of what? — TheMadFool

Like I said:

fear of conflict — baker

The prospective conflict isn't just with the police, but primarily with owners who are willing to protect their property and their lives.

I don't think you're giving good people due credit. — TheMadFool

But who are the good people? You want to argue that, say, Blondie Orange is not a good person?

By your logic above, can a good man do bad things? — baker

You give me too much credit. Aristotle thought that you could tell the good from the bad man - on his understanding of good - and that the good man doesn't do bad things. And the same from Socrates via Plato, that the bad man ultimately acts against his own self-interest.

If there is objective morality, it cannot be up to me to decide what it is. — baker

And this is where imo you're confused. It is, and you do. Do the stones care? They do not. But people do and that's your ground. Even 2+2=4 is up to you to live in accord with in terms of your actions and expectations.

It seems to me you look for something, perhaps a kind of solidity that you would like morality to have, that it doesn't - and most people know it doesn't. But you then deny the possibility of a different kind of solidity which it does have. Let's call it here the imperative of the well-grounded ought.

It seems to me you look for something, perhaps a kind of solidity that you would like morality to have, that it doesn't - and most people know it doesn't. But you then deny the possibility of a different kind of solidity which it does have. Let's call it here the imperative of the well-grounded ought. — tim wood

No, that's one and the same solidity.

???

Well, I don't think fear alone, as you seem to be suggesting, is the reason why society, excluding the occasional disturbance to peace, is able to function as smoothly as it does. I do realize that, from the rioting that follows when law and order breaks down, the general calm and harmony that we experience in society is extremely fragile and complete chaos being a function of the health of the police.

However, there are two sides to this coin. As I mentioned earlier, the opportunities to engage in criminal activity and then being able to, in your words, "...get away with it..." are aplenty given the citizen to police ratio is huge in most places around the world and yet peace and calm are more the norm than the exception.

I concede that fear does play a role, probably a huge one, in morality but I don't agree that it's the only reason that we're, society is, good.

Well, I don't think fear alone, as you seem to be suggesting, — TheMadFool

I said:

Inertia, fear of conflict, minding one's own business, physical exhaustion due to overwork and stress. — baker

However, there are two sides to this coin. As I mentioned earlier, the opportunities to engage in criminal activity and then being able to, in your words, "...get away with it..." are aplenty given the citizen to police ratio is huge in most places around the world and yet peace and calm are more the norm than the exception.

I said:

The prospective conflict isn't just with the police, but primarily with owners who are willing to protect their property and their lives. — baker

"Getting away with it" does not refer only to not being prosecuted for one's crime by the official legal system. More than that: it refers also to the people one has harmed not taking any action of vigilante justice against one on their own.

I concede that fear does play a role, probably a huge one, in morality but I don't agree that it's the only reason that we're, society is, good.

In my original list, fear of conflict was just one of the items listed.