[MD] Values

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

At 03:06 AM 9/30/2007, you wrote:

>Greetings Craig, Marsha, David --
>
>
>On 9/28 Marsha, challenging my morality of "rational self-interest", said:
> > There is the obvious problem [with the Golden Rule], the sadomasochist.
>
>In defense of "rational self-interest", Craig said:
> > The sadomasochist is not an exception to the Golden Rule.
> > They would have you physically harm them when they want you to,
> > so they should only physically harm you when you want them to.
>
>Thanks, Craig, but I think your conclusion is insupportable.  I could be
>wrong, but I believe a sadomasochist will inflict harm when HE wants to,
>whether his victim (participant?) "wants" it or not.  Marsha's point was
>that the value here is simply the pleasure of causing and/or receiving pain,
>which is a psycho-pathological abnormality.  It is also irrational behavior
>by any standard.  What Marsha, and now
>David, are asking me is: How can society expect human beings to behave
>rationally?
>
>[Marsha]:
> > By rational, do you mean 'whatever you think'?   Because it seems to
> > me that humans are comprised of very different patterns of thought.
>
>[David M]:
> > We need some way to live together given these different values.
> > I want people to consider my values when dealing with me and
> > vice versa. I don't want them treating me according to their values
> > and telling me to put up with it because that is how they would
> > want to be treated. The golden rule fails to deal with our plural reality
> > and crushes individuality too. I am sure Stalin could have made good
> > use of this rule. Life is much more complicated than this rule can handle.
>
>I defined my morality to Marsha as contingent upon "a free society", which
>assumes a code of rational conduct established by that society.  Stalin,
>Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein were dictators who committed genocide,
>not because they took pleasure in killing but because they exercised
>absolute control over their subjects, and found it convenient to be rid of
>certain people.  Hussein at his trial argued the "rationality" of such
>atrocities by claiming the victims were enemies of the people.  Given the
>opportunity, I suspect the other leaders would have made the same claim.
>But tyranny itself is immoral, in that it violates man's innate freedom, and
>subjects of tyranny are incapable of exercising free choice, unless they can
>overcome their fear and revolt against the tyrant.

If you compare a master thief to a mass murderer, the thief may look 
like a saint.  I consider the U.S. a democratic-oligarchy, and while 
it is freer than many, it is hardly "a free society".  That brings up 
the most challenging problem to Kant's Categorical Imperative, which 
is the problem of description.  I may call something killing, while 
you may call it collateral damage.  You may call something rational, 
I may call it baloney.


>Implicit in my "rational self-interest" morality is that values ARE
>considered, but no one's values are imposed on anyone else.  Since it is
>behavior, not proprietary values, that can offend or harm others, civilized
>nations have found it expedient to codify their social values as the rule of
>law.  This serves a rational end: i.e., human survival under a collective
>morality that optimimizes individual freedom.  With certain exceptions
>(which I'll refrain from citing because of their political implications) I
>would argue that this is essentially the moral system enjoyed by U.S.
>citizens.

Humans SHOULD consider value, but do they?  And using what?  Most 
often they make judgements based on past experiences, habits of 
thought, static patterns of value.  History offers plenty of examples 
of immoral judgements made by groups of humans. The road to hell has 
been paved with good intentions.

'Rational' is a very high-minded word, but you've left it rather 
ambiguous.  'Civilized nation' is another high-minded term.  It's not 
surprising that are using these words to reinforce your 
point-of-view, but I don't buy it.  Are you willing to let the 
masses, the mob, the citizens determine your morality?  Are they 
educated to do so?  And do you want the politicians, who actually 
vote to enact the laws, determining your morality?  Is that 
'rational'?  How many laws are on the books today in the U.S., and 
how many do you actually know?

And who is to determine what is abnormal behavior to say that a 
person is a psychotic individual?  Society?

David is correct.  Life is much too complicated for such a simplistic 
approach.


>Thanks for your interest and comments.
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham

Skeptically yours,
Marsha