My arguments have been to illuminate Gert’s moral insights rather than contradict them. That illumination starts with understanding the ten rules as advocacy for initiating or maintaining reciprocity strategies which are powerful means for solving cooperation problems. Solving cooperation problems is the default behavior most likely both to lessen harms (Gert’s and negative utilitarianism’s goal) and, as I argue, positive utilitarianism as well. The same 10 moral rules support both positive and negative utilitarianism equally well because the same cooperation problems must be solved.

Imagine you have 2 parents with 10 kids, they can afford to provide each of them with minimal means of subsistence or kill five of them to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence. Now consider 3 scenarios:
(A) Both parents agree on providing each kid with just minimal means of subsistence
(B) Both parents agree on killing 5 kids to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence
(C) Parents disagree
In case A and B we do not have a cooperation problem between parents while in C we do, right? — neomac


As you describe it, the cooperation problem is just between the parents. But alternatives A), B), and C) could each be ‘rational’ (depending on the parents' values) ONLY if the kids have no independent moral worth. If the kids have independent moral worth, then any of the options would be a cooperation problem for the kids plus the parents. — Mark S

"Lack of suppression" doesn't mean "being fine" — neomac

So you're not fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated. Good. We agree on that. — Isaac

I didn't ask you where one can read about Sy Hersh's story. If you don't want to answer my questions just don't. There's no need to answer a different one. — Isaac

If there is a relevant delta of credibility between BBC and TASS in favor of the former, and Hersh gets mentioned only by the latter, this is not a boost of Hersh's credibility. I guess. Unless one assumes that Hersh is the relevant meter by which one can assess BBC vs TASS credibility. — neomac


This is either deliberately obtuse or childishly naive. A broadcaster like TASS will give its eye teeth to publish a story which reflects badly on the US. Their doing so, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on its credibility. Do you think they'd avoid anti-US stories because they're true. I mean its just dumbfoundingly stupid. A non-credible news agency like TASS doesn't actively seek out fake news. They publish news which promotes their agenda, true or not. So a news article appearing in TASS doesn't indicate it's false. It indicates that it's good for Russia. I hate to blow your tiny mind, but some things are both true and good for Russia, and Russian propaganda will publish those thing with no less enthusiasm than they publish flashhoods. — Isaac

The agencies whose investigations you claim are relevant fall into two camps; governments and journalists. Governments will not report honestly their own collusion so you cannot trust a government to report on its own behaviour. You yourself pointed to the untrustworthiness of TASS.
So you're left with journalists. But you've said that independent journalists lack sufficient credibility to be taken seriously. So who's left? Mainstream media. You're saying that if the mainstream media don't report it, it doesn't deserve any credibility. So I asked, if the.mainstream media have a problem, how do we hear about it? — Isaac

That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine" — Isaac

If visibility in the mainstream dictates credibility, what happens if the mainstream become corrupt? Who points that out and to whom? Who holds mainstream media to account? Or are they Gods? — Isaac

the Western news platform credibility — neomac

...oh, turns out they are gods. Well, that answers that question. — Isaac

Do you think the mainstream press doesn't have a politics? Over 90% of Washington Post readers are Democrats. You're suggesting that's a coincidence? They're reporting the news unbiasedly and just happen to be liked overwhelmingly by one side? — Isaac

the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets — neomac

You've given a list which involves only two independant agents - governments and news agencies. You've dismissed results of half of the news agencies, and governments are not going to incriminate themselves, so you're basically saying the mainstream media are inviolable and we need never concern ourselves with the possibility that they may be biased. — Isaac

Take Seymour Hersh's article for example. It blames the US government for the pipeline sabotage. So the US government will want to suppress that story (note we haven't even got to whether it's true or not yet).

They will use their enormous power to rapidly put it down. If, therefore, you think you might not want that story put down, you have to amplify it quickly and with force. You have to resist that suppression. — Isaac

don’t get what you mean by “more epistemic than moral notions”. — Mark S

I do know, empirically and independently of any of Gert’s claims, that the ten moral norms are fallible heuristics for reciprocity strategies. — Mark S

But if they are not moral absolutes, in what circumstances would following them be immoral? The heuristics for solving cooperation problems perspective provides a simple answer. It would be immoral to follow them when doing so is more likely to create rather than solve cooperation problems. — Mark S

But that is because they are moral norms about behaviors (moral means), not moral ends (goals). — Mark S

it's mainly about raising, or maintaining, a movement of voters opposed to the abuses of power — Isaac

fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it — Isaac

When events are moving powerfully and with speed, responses have to match both or else fail. — Isaac

You are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off a PowerPoint presentation. — Tzeentch

I don't see need absolute certainty to be sure of something. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and the pretention that such is necessary to take a strong stance towards something, that is intellectually dishonest, especially when that standard is applied one-sidedly to the narrative you happen to disagree with. — Tzeentch

Moreover, outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit. That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor. — Tzeentch

However the fun part to me is mainly to play by argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. Besides since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum, we can more easily end up discussing our conceptual frameworks, our terminology, our beliefs’ inferential or explanatory power, etc. and this in turn can help not fix the world, but fix (clarify/reorder/clean up) one self’s ideas about the world. — neomac

I do have the relevant academic background to develop my own general picture based on rudimentary data like troop numbers, movements, etc. That's good enough for me. — Tzeentch

Good job we're avoiding loaded terms and caricature — Isaac

The US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking. As such it is their faults and strategies which are our primary concern. — Isaac

An odd response, but I appreciate the honesty. — Isaac

If you assume people are generally rational, then it collapses into historicism, i.e., conventional morality at time X was rational given the information constraints of the era. If you don't allow information constraints to play a central role it becomes deontological morality with less punch. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, but referring to “normative systems” rather than something like “cultural moralities” could lead to confusion about when a system is normative – “when it would be advocated by all rational people”. — Mark S

This only becomes normative if it is what all rational people would advocate as I understand Gert’s arguments — Mark S

But Gert is not advocating these 10 rules as moral absolutes. Rather, they are heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible rules of thumb) for the goal of “lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system”. And “human sacrifice or slavery” would violate that moral behavior goal. — Mark S

Am I correct in taking your understanding of
“An informal public system applicable to all moral agents that has lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system as its goal.”
to be the claimed negative-utilitarianism goal of moral behavior? — Mark S

In this case, I agree that adding the phrase “increasing the benefits of cooperation and” does not make sense.
I have been thinking of Gert’s above claim as a claim about moral ‘’means’ (lessening of harms) not moral ‘ends’ (the negative-utilitarianism goal of moral behavior). Your interpretation seems more likely. — Mark S

You, SophistiCat, @neomac... What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. What, over the last decade, say, has lead you to believe that US intelligence agencies are trustworthy, that government sources tell you the truth, that the official version of events is pretty much how things are... I'd love to know what string of successes has given you all such unwavering faith in the system. — Isaac

The reality is, when the US bombed Nord Stream 2, a piece of major infrastructure critical to the German economy, all Scholz asked was how many tanks the US wanted him to send. He's an absolute tool. — Tzeentch

As Hersh said himself about his report on Nord Stream: all he did was dissect the obvious. And the only reason obvious things aren't said out loud is because of deafening US propaganda basically gas lighting the entire western world. — Tzeentch

The only reason these things aren't yet part of the western common sense is because of a relentless propaganda campaign.

For example, the defense on Kiev has been framed as a heroic Ukrainian defense and a huge failure of the Russian armed forces. However, the order of battle on the Ukrainian side was never disclosed which means it's hard to tell what exactly happened.
Recently, Seymour Hersh gave an interview in which he named the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders at the battle of Kiev. Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. The Russians attacked Kiev with ~21,000 troops. This is a small amount for a city as large as Kiev, but against a defending force of 60,000 there's simply no way this force was meant to capture the capital. One would have expected the Russians to aim for a local numerical advantage of at least 3:1, especially for the type of urban fighting the capture would have involved. This would have required roughly 180,000 troops - basically the entire Russian invading force.

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — "Tzeentch

All of what I said is supported by hard facts and expert opinions (which I will happily share if you're interested).


I'm laying out the painful reality of the situation, because cheerleading and sugar coating aren't going to change it, and the price of ignorance is paid every day by the young men dying on the frontline, and civilians suffering under the war. — Tzeentch

And Russia is the only player (that I know of) that has actually done this before. Possibly more than once. But those Georgia incidents made a lot more sense at the time. With Nord Stream it's not obvious. — SophistiCat

Use your brains guts, people. — Tzeentch

He goes around proclaiming Putin to be a great man and Russia being "on the right side of history", etc. I don't trust such a person's judgement. If you do, good for you. — Tzeentch

He also gave the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders, which supports the hypothesis. — Tzeentch

Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously. — Tzeentch

Do you? — Tzeentch

Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. — Tzeentch

If we are to believe Hersh's sources, it turns out the idea of the advance on Kiev being a binding operation and not an attempt at capturing and occupying Kiev - an idea that I have posited multiple times in this thread - wasn't so far-fetched after all. In fact, it might've been exactly what took place. — Tzeentch

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — Tzeentch

↪neomac
So you agree that a European security cooperation that does not involve primarily the United States and the United Kingdom would be beneficial to Europe, and it's just the practical aspects that you are worried about? — Tzeentch

Obviously the practical implementation of this is a whole other story. The European Union is a non-democratic abomination that needs to be replaced with something that is actually functional before this could ever happen, but lets leave that aside for now. — Tzeentch

This is where I see the "no true Scotsman," 20/20 hindsight problem coming in. It's easy to say now that all sorts of prior norms were irrational. — Count Timothy von Icarus

we can posit and idealized world where agents agree to follow moral principles before they enter the world, perhaps from behind some "viel of ignorance." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you mean include rules about human sacrifice and slavery? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you really thought human sacrifice meant the difference between famine and a good harvest, isn't human sacrifice rational? There it is merely an information constraint that changes the nature of such a behavior.
We might abhor slavery, but military conscription, a form of temporary bondage, is seen as essential to virtually all states. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What do you understand descriptively moral and normatively moral to refer to? — Mark S

Morality descriptively is NOT simply lessening harm as Gert’s version implies. Morality descriptively is lessening harm by increasing the benefits of cooperation. — Mark S

Odd how that whenever it suits your narrative we should trust his word, and whenever it doesn't suit your narrative, he's lying.

15 years of protest against NATO expansion > Not a genuine expression of worry, but a carefully crafted lie.

Some war-time rhetoric > Not nonsense narratives meant to influence the public, but a genuine expression of his intentions.


You have to be pretty deep down the propaganda rabbit hole not to see this. — Tzeentch

How does Gert’s definition of what is descriptively moral based on “lessening of harms” explain, as you claim:
(A) “slaves must obey their masters”
(B) “working on the sabbath deserves death”
(C) “homosexuality is evil”.

I don’t see that it can. My "Morality As Cooperation Strategies" (MACS) definition of what is descriptively moral does explain them because it includes cooperation strategies. It explains them as marker and domination strategies, strategies for increasing the benefits of cooperation in ingroups at the expense (always for domination norms and sometimes for marker norms) of outgroups. — Mark S

Yes, “slaves must obey their masters” has too often been a cultural moral norm enforced by an ingroup to exploit an outgroup.

The reason that "increasing the benefits of cooperation" improves Gert’s definition of what is descriptively moral is that 1) it adds explanatory power, particularly for marker norms such as “working on the sabbath deserves death” and “homosexuality is evil”, and 2) it directly follows from the ultimate source of morality - the cooperation problems that all highly cooperative societies must solve.

Without "increasing the benefits of cooperation" you can’t say you have a definition of what is descriptively moral that explains past and present moral norms. And you can’t link cultural moral norms to their ultimate source - the cooperation problems that all highly cooperative societies must solve. — Mark S

He has not justified stating this as a normative (ought) claim as you (and perhaps others here) are interpreting it. — Mark S

That said, I am frustrated by Gert’s ambiguity in his lecture about whether he means the definition to be descriptive (the only way I can make sense of it) or normative (which he has not justified). — Mark S

For example, the definition includes the phrase “by those protected by the system”. Consider the moral norm: “slaves must obey their masters”. If those protected from harm by the system are only the slave masters (which was too often the historical case), then this repulsive moral norm would be included under Gert’s definition of what morality ‘is’. This makes no sense to modern sensibilities as a normative claim but is sensible as a claim about what is descriptively moral. — Mark S

My suggested revision, “An informal public system applicable to all moral agents that has increasing the benefits of cooperation and lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system as its goal” more accurately reflects what science tells us of morality’s function – the principal reason what we call descriptively moral behavior exists. — Mark S

By the way, I can think of some that would like the US going all isolation and NATO closing up shop. Can't tell if that's what you're suggesting here; is it? — jorndoe

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, NATO is a threat to European security. — Tzeentch

What morality is: An informal public system applicable to all moral agents that has increasing the benefits of cooperation and lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system as its goal. — Mark S

The shared rule. — neomac

If we shared a rule we would have agreed on the first proposition. If there were some rule (which we agree on) that can be used to demonstrate the truth of a rational argument, such that it compels me to believe "you committed fallacy X", then it could have been used in the first place to compel me to believe your original proposition. I don't see why it suddenly becomes more compelling when used to argue for a fallacy. — Isaac

If we can't converge on such basic level, we remain unintelligible to each other. — neomac


Nonsense. I can vaguely understand people even talking to me in a foreign language. Most of our words are just fluff. We needn't agree on much. I determine most of my opinion about what you mean from my experience of people and assumptions about what kind of person you are and what you might likely be trying to say. You become a character in my story, playing a role I determine. You'll fit that role all the while it's not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary because it's easier for me to predict your behaviour that way. It's just basic cognition. We're not powered by words and their meanings, we're powered by predictions, stories, expectations. — Isaac

And what prevents anyone from rejecting that 'showing', why are they suddenly compelled by your second judgement when they weren't by your first? — Isaac

I should have had you pegged for a 'fallacy-o-phile.

A couple of questions...
Do you think those with whom you're arguing would agree that their propositions succumb to these fallacies? — Isaac

If not, to what do you then appeal when arguing that they, in fact, do? More fallacies? Fallacy fallacies? And then, when we disagree about the fallacy fallacies? Fallacy fallacy fallacies, perhaps? — Isaac

What are these rules? Can you enumerate a few? — Isaac