[MD] Correctness and Usefulness

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or suggesting an alternative to 
rational self-directed value.  "Justice" is a perfectly good term for 
Morality in the legal sense.  So are "ethics" and "consideration for 
others", I suppose.  My point to Platt was that morality is society's 
attempt to codify individual values as a guideline for collective behavior.


 [Krimel]:
> Studies of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that both Kant
> and the Golden Rule are effective strategies for maximizing
> outcomes even within game theory and psychology.

I read about this theory from the link you provided, and it would seem to 
support my view that group or collective behavior should (and does in free 
choice) favor the individual's interest.

> Similar formulations of this rule are so universal within human
> cultures across the planet and throughout the ages that it is
> tempting to see it as a genetic rule. But I think a good case can
> be made that that's just The Way it shakes out when shit happens.

If that crude statement is meant to support the notion of morality as a 
universal principle, it is no more moral than Darwin's principle of Natural 
Selection, or, for the at matter, the law of the jungle.  It overlooks the 
fact that biological instincts and genetic propensities are offset by reason 
and value sensibility in man.  I don't think human behavior can be expressed 
mathematically, and see no reason to do so.

> Collective behavior can be manipulated in many ways and
> as you suggest force is one of them. Others would include
> inspiration, loyalty, brotherhood, service, devotion ... Heck,
> they make framed posters representing divergent views on the
> values that influence common cause.

Whatever is meant by "common cause" must defer to individual values.  The 
integrity of a chain is no greater than its weakest link.  If the guidelines 
for collective behavior are not systemized to favor the individual, it is 
not a moral system, in my opinion.

> I might remind you that imperial decrease was a very successful
> social strategy on this planet for at least 3,000 years in Egypt,
> longer in China.  Priestly rule is not uncommon from shamans to
> Popes. This has worked in many places for hundreds perhaps
> thousands of years. The Greeks and Romans had slaves and
> similar forms of indentured servitude were common throughout
> the middle ages. None of these systems can long be sustained
> purely by force. Witness the US prison system if you believe
> humans can be controlled by force alone.

This is a strictly utilitarian position.  We're discussing morality here, 
not efficacy or "what works".  The unpredicability of Human culture does not 
lend itself to the rules of pragmatism.  My whole thesis is predicated on 
man's innate autonomy and his free choice of values.  How could you possibly 
conclude that I'm interested in "controlling" mankind?

> I would say that the ideal society would be a just society.
> I would say that a just society provides the context for
> maximizing individual freedom of expression. In a just society
> the rules are simple, no more than say ten.  Everyone knows
> and understands them. Not everyone agrees with all of them
> but they know how hard they can push those they don't.
> People can be very ingenious when it comes to bending rules.
> Think prohibition, then and now. Just rules don't need to be
> bent.  People follow them willingly and take personal offense
> at violators. Just rules harmonize the common good with
> common sense. Traffic laws, laws against theft and personal
> acts of violence come to mind. It is absurd to say that
> "...restriction of individual freedom is immoral." No people
> or peoples ever in history have held this to be true. That is
> anarchy and chaos. The Tanahk speaks of times when
> "every man did what seemed good to him" trouble always results.

I'm not advocating anarchy, and I agree that society needs just laws. 
However, I would also argue that the "concessions" we make in order to live 
in harmony with our neighbors are not "restrictions" on our individual 
freedom, but the most reasonable way to optimize it.  A moral society is one 
that respects individual freedom and institutes laws that foster free 
expression.

If there's some argument here, you haven't put it in focus.

> You say, "Hence the need for reason to mediate the free
> expression of value." But reason seldom mediates the free
> expression of value. Some might say that reason impedes
> a truly free expression of value. Artists and mystics, divas,
> dancers and drummers might agree. Reason is just one of
> many paths to justice.
>
> The Tao te Ching has much to say about justice. A personal
> favorite passage describes its dissolution. This is based on an
> old translation by James Legge. I have taken certain liberties
> with it.
>
> "Thus it was that:when the Tao was lost,
> its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost,
> morality appeared; when morality was lost, laws appeared.
> Law is the shadow of good faith, and the commencement
> of disorder."

I don't understand "the commencement of disorder".  If laws reflect the 
morality of individual values ("attributes" of Essence), how does it cause 
"disorder"?  Up to that point, I think it's a valid metaphor for what 
morality strives to do..

Thanks for your comments, Krimel.

Regards,
Ham