[MD] Correctness and Usefulness

[Ham Priday]

Krimel [Platt mentioned]--

> Studies of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that both Kant
> and the Golden Rule are effective strategies ...

> I think a good case can be made that that's just The Way
> it shakes out when shit happens.

> Collective behavior can be manipulated in many ways and
> as you suggest force is one of them. ...

> I might remind you that imperial decree was a very successful
> social strategy on this planet for at least 3,000 years in Egypt,
> longer in China. ... This has worked in many places for
> hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. ...

These statements are troublesome for me for reasons mentioned previously. 
In fairness, we should not be discussing morality under the heading 
"Correctness and Usefulness".  I'm only doing it because Platt brought it up 
in this context.  When you talk about morality in terms of "effective 
strategies", "manipulation of collective behavior", and "social strategies 
that work",  you're running on a different track than I am.

> A moral system that favors some at the expense of others,
> or that ignores some altogether is not a moral system
> in my opinion.

Sounds like a defnition of "affirmative action" to me, a decidedly "unjust" 
system.

> You don't believe human behavior can be expressed
> mathematically? Tell that to insurance companies, advertising
> firms, pollsters, state lottery commissioners, politicians and
> casino operators. Please say you aren't serious.

Statistical surveys of public attitudes, life expectancies, and consumer 
preferences neither define nor express human behavior.  They only plot 
numbers.  I seem to recall that you are a systems analyst, and it shows 
through in all your assertions.  To wit ...

> Justice is not morality. It is a sense of balance. It is karma.
> It is the basis for judgment of the quality of a morality. Codification of 
> morality only become necessary with the
> number of individuals in a society grows larger than about 150.

Why this specificity about numbers?  The Prisoner's Dilemma involved only 
two suspects to illustrate a moral principle.  What's the special 
qualification for 150 people?  It would appear that you have a systemic view 
of morality as opposed to my "microcosmic" view, and we're talking at 
cross-purposes.  Your moral thrust is that of an efficient, smoothly running 
system, whereas my concern is the freedom of the individual.  Morality is 
not law, and it is certainly not achieved by social engineering.

Since the confusion here relates to our respective ontologies, let me 
clarify my position:

1. There is no Universal Moral Principle.  At best, morality is an 
intellectual scheme designed by humans to minimize social conflicts.

2. All human actions originate as a response to proprietary values.  When 
the perceived values are shared by others, there is no need for moral 
guidelines.  Such accord may be found in societies with a common cultural 
heritage, and are least likely in "mixed" societies with strongly held but 
disparate belief systems.

3. Since value is proprietary to the individual, the ideal solution to 
social conflicts would be a "universal philosophy" based on fundamental 
(innate, authentic) human values, including the sanctity of life, individual 
freedom, and rational (responsible, ethical) conduct.  This would be quite 
simple to achieve, were it not for individuals obsessed with power or 
xenophobia, indoctrinated to notions of sin or idolatry, or living in mortal 
fear of failing to appease a deity.  While some of these anomalies may 
require psychiatric treatment, a valuistic philosophy adopted by the 
community of mankind would go a long way toward resolving our social 
inequities.

This is where I'm coming from, Krimel.  Where are you?

Regards,
Ham