"Protestant" maybe isn't any thesis at all, but a historical category? — Moliere

It's was an element of a large scale shift in power in Europe. The old Catholic view was that if you were born poor, this was God's will for you. To promote social mobility was blasphemy because it meant you were defying God's plan. The Catholic clergy were generally sons of the aristocracy, so Catholicism and the aristocracy were joined at the hip. Protestantism was backed by the rising merchant class so they could break from that kind of thinking. To them, it was obvious that God intended everyone to fully express their potential, whatever that may be. So Protestantism was the ideological grounding for social destratification. It was about freedom. The Catholic Church reacted to the rise of Protestants by becoming violently ultra-conservative. Where it had once been a rich forum for diverging ideas, it became just a reflection of the Protestants. That's what Catholicism has been ever since.

By the way, Erik Erikson wrote a really interesting book about Luther. It's part biography and part psychoanalysis. When Luther went off to become a monk, his father showed up at the monastery and stood outside screaming about the fact that Luther had abandoned the family's plan, which was about social mobility. Luther's father wanted him to study law and become a burgermeister, which would have been another step upward out of the mines and into a position of power.

Does any of that fit with Kant?

Right. Free will is the idea that there are choices and you're responsible for what you pick. If there is only one choice, you have no responsibility.

Yes or no?

My thinking is that Kant is protestant, through and through, because while he accepts there are other possible ethics he believes the only rational faith is believing in the Christian doctrine of immortality, free will, and the existence of God.

It's not so much about the baptism into community but about how God influences your ethical life as an individual rational being. — Moliere

I don't think there is one Protestant ethical outlook. One potent vein of Protestantism is Calvinism, which disconnects your actions from reward or punishment. You don't act ethically for a reward, but rather because your life has no meaning other than to glorify God. For Baptists, God loves you and is ever-forgiving, so at any point, you can be "born again" into innocence by just waking up out of your degradation. I don't think either one has much to do with community vs individuality, but the Catholics had explored that opposition pretty thoroughly before Protestants came along.

Protestant faith belonged to those who struggled against the aristocracy's control over social structure, so there's an element of egalitarianism to it, like Hussites whose grave stones are all the same, no matter who you were in life. It's equality in death.

And then there's fortune. It's just a wheel that turns. There's no plan. It's just the way things are. One day you're fantastic, the next you're in a dungeon.

Following and going against a rule is recognisable by a community, and forms the way in which a community functions — Banno

Kripke gives good reason to doubt that this is what's really happening. It certainly sounds plausible, but falls apart in the details. Maybe the missing piece is empathy... emotional bonds.

Maybe you could have free will by imagining something like the multi-verse scenario, and you have the ability to pick which universe you end up in.

If there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, and no matter who does, the nature of power is to corrupt, and so they will be corrupted and will take advantage. — Frog

I think cultural forms always express the same story arc. They start with a golden age where everyone is strong and true. Then they progress to greater maturity and what was black and white starts to become grey. In the final stages pessimism is rampant. Listen to some of the people on this forum and you can hear the sound of profound pessimism, where it just seems absurd to love yourself and your culture's ideals. It's all turned to shit and there's nothing can be done. In this world corruption is common because nobody believes in anything anymore. And then a reformer comes and starts the cycle over.

What I'm saying is that every cultural form goes through these phases. The adage that power corrupts is mainly true in the final stages. How does that sound?

Once the distributors are revealed it appears the transaction is less and less sharing as it is a racket. — NOS4A2

That's true. But if you rely on a government to enforce your property rights, that also becomes a racket. You'll have to protect your stuff with your little arsenal out there in northern Canada.

I've long been fascinated by Russian history. I read a book by Hosking that didn't paint a rosy picture of Lenin. But I absolutely agree that suffering (of all kinds) is the fuel. Schopenhauer said essentially that: that cold, hunger, fear, anger, lust, etc. Those things drive the engine of the mind. Without them: oblivion. So yes, that's what propels the pendulum.

:up:

The selfish human desire is both nature and nurture. It is built into us (selfishness means more food means better chance to reproduce; therefore evolution makes us selfish), and built into our society, too (ex. capitalism). The urge to own private property is an example of selfishness. But selflessness is, too, built into us, though not to the extent that selfishness is (selflessness means community means protection; therefore evolution creates a selfless element within us. This is furthered within our cultures regarding respect, kindness, honour, and other traits that integrate one into a society, and make us protected). To be able to give up on property is to be selfless. — Frog

Yea, I also thought there might be a spectrum with extremes of selfishness and selflessness on the poles and a mixture in middle. Conceptually, at the extremes of selfishness, no society is possible. No one can compromise. No government is possible. At the extreme of selflessness, the society is like a pervading super identity eclipsing individuality completely. I would speculate that we never see either extreme in reality, but we can see cases where the pendulum has swung toward the extreme.

What I was wondering was: what causes the pendulum to swing? What are the conditions that result in society where selfishness dominates? I hypothesize that the answer is that selfishness dominates in a world where a strong government exists. Nobody really ever worries that the society will fall apart. They're so sure of that that they let their selfishness free. It would be in a world where government is fragile that people reflexively become sheep-like, sensing their vulnerability. So I'm leaning toward saying that what's really innate is dynamic tension between the two.

So yes, I agree with you that the extreme of selflessness isn't realizable. Thanks for hypothesizing with me! :grin:

I don't see much stability now, nor any time in recorded history. — Vera Mont

I think the kind of stability you're looking for only exists in the grave.

The AI answer:

"Yes, Karl Marx believed that communism was inevitable. Marx's theories of history and economics, which he called economic determinism, argued that capitalism would be overthrown by revolution and replaced by communism. Marx believed that capitalism was inherently flawed and unsustainable, and that it created contradictions that would eventually lead to its downfall. One of these contradictions was the exploitation of the working class, or proletariat, by the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie. Marx believed that this exploitation would lead to a growing class conflict between the two classes, which would eventually result in a communist revolution."

It's not likely that we'll have a global proletariat revolution before climate change destabilizes the present global order. Maybe after we reestablish stability? A few thousand years maybe? I doubt it though. All signs suggest Marx was just wrong.

No, that's the communist fallacy, which I'm on extensive record of not having made. Communism could not have worked in China, because it was never attempted in China — Vera Mont

:grin: According to Trotsky, Communism wasn't the kind of thing anyone tries. It was supposed to be the inevitable unfolding of events according to the internal integrity of the universe. That didn't happen. Marx was wrong.

Socialism, on the other hand, is the sort of thing we bring into being by our own wits. The Russians did socialism. They just did it while simultaneously placing the USA, recently morphed into Godzilla, on their shit lists.

When people say, “more money than God,” what might be a real number for that amount of money on Earth that God has? ....If you’re looking at the Catholic Church alone, “God” has at least — and we’re putting a huge emphasis on “at least” — $73 billion in assets.

You're doing the Socialism fallacy: because Socialism didn't work in China, it won't work anywhere, except you're saying that because the Church ended up being greedy, it never stood for selflessness. It did, and I think in general, religions are about social well-being as when the people gather to repeat the phrasing of the voodoo priest. It's about us, ideally anyway.

Tribalism is far more likely to become the norm. — Vera Mont

For a while, yes, but the world's biggest religions came out of tribal societies who lived in the devastation that followed the Bronze age collapse. History repeats itself.

The global situation is already falling apart, as complex societies fragment into hostile factions, tribes demand self-determination and populations are displaced by weather, war and famine. Debt/profit -driven economies collapse when the debt can no longer support the profit; international trade collapses when countries default on contractual obligations; commerce collapses when a large enough percent of unemployed due to automation can't buy the products and services. Killing off wide swatches of productive people and destroying infrastructure isn't particularly helpful, either; no more is spending mega-resources on weaponry and waste. And here comes another summer of wildfires, drying-up rivers and deaths by heat-stroke. — Vera Mont

I agree. People turn to religion when they don't feel good about the world. I think the old religions are worn out. Maybe a new one will appear shortly. Historically, religion doesn't get along well with money grubbing, so the idea of ownership might wane, but continue to reside in the collective psyche, waiting for it's next appearance as God.

The global/galactic situation would fall apart as societies of that size would subdivide into minisocieties — LuckyR

The US is made up of subgroups. Couldn't that work on a larger scale?

No: I was commenting on what a consequentialist would have to commit themselves to. They would have to claim that sometimes it is morally right (or at least permissible) to kill an innocent human being. — Bob Ross

I see.

ECB dropped it's rate by 25 basis points. In the US, unemployment is rising, so we might be next.

I think the only way a consequentialist can consistently go is to deny that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being: they would have to say that sometimes that is true, and sometimes false. — Bob Ross

Are you saying the switch operator is guilty of murder no matter what she does?

Even if a society doesn't have ownership between members of the society, it would still declare ownership against other societies. — LuckyR

This occurred to me as well. A society without the concept of ownership would have to be stranded and alone (like the original Berbers) or a global entity (or galactic as the case may be.)

Trollies don't kill people. Switching attendants kill people.

Millions of imaginary people have been severely injured due to this problem.

Trying — Fire Ologist

That's cool. If you can't conceive of it, I imagine it's because you're investing the idea with essential features of thought or the nature of animals. If someone can conceive it, they must be limiting the concept to... what? I guess the ways we deal with selfishness and conflict, so if you imagine a world with a strong emphasis on the group identity over individuality, ownership might become an alien idea.

For example, in Russia after the fall of the USSR, there was a factory where the owners wanted to lay off part of the labor force. Laying people off is an exercise of property rights, and the workers weren't up to speed on how that works. They thought the factory was a feature of the community and so they refused to leave it. This is how a society that emphasizes sharing is.

Problem solved. — Fire Ologist

Yea, I was just pondering the origin of the concept of ownership. I suppose it's somewhere in mammal evolution. Not sure where.

OK :up:

Aren’t they then still owned, now personally, after the sharing? — Fire Ologist

1. Imagine a possible world W where there is no concept of ownership.
2. Let's say that in this world there's no way to say "my wife," but there is a word-whisker you can add to indicate that a certain woman is special to you (apparently there is a Native American language that is like this.)
3. So outside this possible world, you might claim that the word-whisker indicates ownership, but inside the world, they wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Is world W possible?

I think this is possible with groups small enough to everyone, on average, is aware of everyone else, in some either direct or minimally indirect way. Say groups up to 5000 or so.

You could, pursuant to another thread here this morning, elicit 'good faith' and collectively deal with 'bad faith' essentially as it arises. THe distribution of 'goods' wouldn't matter much until everyone was bored. — AmadeusD

But what about some science fiction future where there is no shortage of goods. Would boredom intrude there as well?

n other words, the debate between communism and capitalism isn’t a debate about ownership, it’s a debate about who are the owners. — Fire Ologist

I knew that if this thread went long enough, someone would comment on that. :grin: I wasn't proposing a debate between communism and capitalism. History already settled that debate.

In my experience with children, you have to teach them to share and the definately know what "Mine!" means. — Hanover

Then what's the origin of sharing? Is that also innate, or is it an adaptation to circumstances?

Exactly, and I strongly suspect people felt that way about the shit they worked for, for as long as people have been working for shit. I don't think there's any point in homo sapiens history where someone is happy to lose their days work to a stranger for nothing. — flannel jesus

It's true though.. Communism came first. Free markets came much later, when the old system was dying. I think property, as we know the concept has to do with chaotic conditions and a profound lack of trust. In other words, I think private property is an adaptation. Makes sense doesn't it?

Joined at the hip.

I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. — flannel jesus

I suppose that's because you think the fish are yours, and not public property.

Even apes have a sense of ownership. — flannel jesus

What about chipmunks?

And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. Before that, people weren't murdering, stabbing someone was just an "uninvited metallic guest". — flannel jesus

It's not the same. You can kill someone whether there's a law against it or not. You literally can't be a thief if there's no such thing as private property. The concept of theft becomes meaningless.

The way you worded it makes it sound almost like ownership makes someone taking it MORE likely. — flannel jesus

I didn't mean that, but that's the point of Augustine's City of God. He was saying that when cities pile up riches, they're practically asking to be raided. I guess another way to put his point is that there is no theft until there is ownership. Ownership makes thieves. Something like that.

Why would owning something mean someone was likely to take it from them? — flannel jesus

Isn't that what private property is about? What does it mean for it to be "mine" other than that you can't take it from me? Or have control over it? I'm asking.

The first agricultural societies were what we would think of as communist. The people brought their produce to the temple and the priests divided it up. That doesn't mean there was no idea of ownership, but it wasn't private property. The preceding tribes were nomadic. "Home" was wherever they were. Again, that doesn't mean there was no ownership. They say Lakota women built and "owned" their portable dwellings. I don't think that means someone was likely to take it from them. I think it just means it was the women's domain?

I think at least by September, the Fed will lower rates.

I think property, not "ownership" (mine-ness), is optional – a venn diagram from the least artificial and essential social arrangement to the most artificial and inessential: personal property (one's own mindbody (re: responsibilities), clothes, tools / labor, leisure), communal property (commons), public property ('republic', city / town, roads / waterways), and private property ('codified' scarcity-re/production, ergo class-caste conflicts) – [personal [communal [public [ private ]]]]. — 180 Proof

Maybe there's a spectrum.

Respect for personal property is not enshrined in nature, it is established cooperatively in human societies. In an emergency, the government will requisition whatever it deems to be required for the protection of the people, and that limitation to ownership will also be cooperatively established. It seems hard for some to understand that one cannot have ownership unless others recognise and respect that relation. — unenlightened

Why do some societies enshrine private property? I think it may have to do with a lack of trust. Maybe it first started in chaotic times. Then once the order is reestablished, the property owners really want only one thing from a chieftain: protect their property rights. Whereas the chieftain was once the hub of the world, he or she has been reduced to constable. Property owners are now the hub.

So the US GDP is down and initial jobless claims are up. Wall St celebrates. Isn't that weird? The reason Wall St is happy is that it means Powell may lower interest rates a little sooner. Lower interest rates means investment becomes easier. The moral to the story is that if Wall St and Main St have diverging agendas, Wall St is going to win because it has the federal government backing it. The other moral to the story is that while the government is backing the well-being of Wall St, you should invest in it.