That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. — Agustino
Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. Why is it learned? Because it doesn't pop into you when you're born. You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. — Metaphysician Undercover
Certain aspects of morality are natural. Obviously not being barbaric and cruel to those around is something that comes natural. Someone who just does things for the sole purpose of hurting others is NOT behaving naturally (nor morally).Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? — Metaphysician Undercover
Why are you bringing biological evolution into this? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And no, I don't think we have evolved much morally, if that's what you want to say.But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it? — Metaphysician Undercover
Why should you make that assumption knowing that most people don't behave morally?This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly. — Metaphysician Undercover
Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.This is an internet forum, you shouldn't have such idealistic expectations. Don't you know shitposting is how internet discussions work in the real world? — WhiskeyWhiskers
Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. — Agustino
Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial.Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Fair enough, I have no problem with that. — Agustino
Yeah, give yourself a pat on the back. You were very successful. You've certainly showed how right you are. Not.And therein lies the absurdity of your self-refuting position. That was an easy one to address. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial. — Agustino
If I was a leader, I wouldn't expect people under me to behave morally. Quite the contrary. So I would set up the necessary structures around in order to prevent them from behaving immorally. How? By holding leverage over them. — Agustino
Oh quit quibbling with nonsense. Look. It's simple.Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover
Good, at least you are recognising the problem. The issue though, is that people don't have equal leverage over each other. Donald Trump has a lot more leverage over me than I do. Why? Because he controls - or can control - a large portion of the institutions of the state directly, and I can't. Because he has access to a lot more capital than I do. Etc.What you're missing is that this is the whole point of democratic institutions. You can also look at them as inscribing rights of you like, but they're also practical. Assume people cannot be counted on to behave virtuously, and give all the people leverage over each other. That's the ballot, of course, but also in the structure of government.
I don't need the lecture on how the world really works. You need to recognize that the theory here is designed to address exactly your concern. Even if you start from the belief that life is a war of all against all, maybe we can do a little better. Not by wishing away venality, but by reigning it in. That's what the project of civilization is all about. We're not stuck with the state of nature. — Srap Tasmaner
Nope. You've been a cunt to me, so I told you to go fuck yourself (figuratively of course).Not placing expectations on people to do better leads to a race to the bottom because being a cunt to people becomes validated, so we end up living in an even shiter state of affairs where there are no moral standards and leverage is all that matters. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.
Yeah, but look - it's always been like this. Look at history. So are you going to fool yourself believing an illusion that has never been real?It does us no good because politics will come to be about power and self-interest rather than public service. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes, well said, it doesn't LOOK absolute. But is there anything that if he really wished he couldn't achieve from his position? Very few things probably. In either case, his control is larger than probably 99.99% of people on the planet.Now look at President Trump's control. Doesn't look very absolute, does it? That's the whole idea. Of course he has power. We just need to make sure other people do too. That's how this works. — Srap Tasmaner
You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself. — Agustino
Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives?The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.
So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned. — Metaphysician Undercover
Or rather, it's a question of how you can help satisfy the interests of those parties, so that they can help satisfy your interests in turn (or at least let you satisfy them without trouble).Certainly people try. But there are a lot of people involved, interested parties in and out of government, a lot of moving parts, so it's always hard to get away with too much for too long. It's a question of how much damage you can do before it comes out. — Srap Tasmaner
And you claim to be a Stoic — Agustino
Of course! But that holds true even in a dictatorship. If you're an absolute ruler, you think you can satisfy all your desires and ignore everyone else? Of course not. You have to ensure that those who help you rule - all the parties involved in the management of power - can satisfy their interests too, so in turn they let you remain in power, and even help you remain there, because it's in their interest.Sure, but not everyone's gonna be in on it, and the people left out will try to fuck you. Democracy in action. — Srap Tasmaner
Okay, my apologies then. I somehow remember you saying it, but it may have been at the old forum. Of course I can be wrong. Your comments in this thread at least though, suggest you appreciate the Stoics highly:Err, citation needed? I know for a fact I've never said that. This is the second time you've insisted I call myself a Stoic, and the second time I've rejected it. At most I was quite influenced by some of their ideas, but that was in 2015. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Okay, about what? You being a Stoic or you appreciating the Stoics? Or both?Fair enough, but you are wrong. — WhiskeyWhiskers
But that holds true even in a dictatorship. — Agustino
For the record I don't think I was particularly vague. Whether it was an insinuation, well, who's to say? — Srap Tasmaner
As for Obama and Trump, I don't actually care that much. I do care about institutions. I believe it is important that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. — Srap Tasmaner
Yeah, about the same... not. — Banno
I could ask that question on a psychology forum but that doesn't mean it requires a psychological answer does it? It was a simple question so it's a bit dubious you can't make yourself clearer than vague. If don't want to say 'no', I can understand the dissonance. You don't need to deflect, or go on about subjectivity and interpretations. Do you think he has a good understanding of them? — WhiskeyWhiskers
I never said Obama 'told no lies', but I see zero evidence that Obama was the spectacularly mendacious bullshit artist that Trump is. — Wayfarer
If it's to be an insinuation, then I won't. (Did you really miss the joke? I'm about to lose all the newfound respect I had for you.) — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.