Government and Philosophy.

yet, they must be "natural".

 

I answered this in post #118

 

Which one of the bajillions of interpretations of morality is logical, then?

...Kako god ti kažeš.

 

To je cilj promatranje u prirodi.

 

Što je cilj promatranja prirodu?

 

Priroda je. I, moramo razlikovati priroda i odgoj.

 

Ma...okej...?

Daaa, moramo, al' koliko je ovo relevantno?

Da razgovaramo na PM-u? Nepristojno je pričati ovdje na hrvatskom/srpskom...

 

It is about Government and philosophy.

Nature Is; and might can make right in Nature.

Nurture is what could be; and it is up to us to make it happen.

 

You're not making any more sense in English.

 

Can you make a leopard "change its spots" or a scorpion "not sting", in Nature?

 

Certain situations would probably induce such behaviour, yes. But we're not talking about the rest of the animal kingdom, we're talking about humans, whose behaviour and social organisation has been changing throughout history in accordance with material conditions.

I also don't see how that has anything to do with this:

 

It is the difference between Nature and Nurture.

Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.--Jeremiah 13:23

 

Well, you are free to argue about other interpretations, but the most logical one seems to be utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be used to justify all other moral frameworks, and, thus is the most logically sound one.

 

You do not think nature can be the creator?

 

Not really which is why it has mostly been discarded. Determining moral value as Bentham and Mills claimed, by measuring a persons pleasure after deducting the amount of suffering their action caused is technically flawed. Different people will have different amounts of pleasure for doing the same action which means that basing morality on that concept would make everything more and immoral at the same time based on who is doing the action.

 

I dont understand your point. If someone chops your arm off you will experience a certain amount of suffering. This amount of suffering is the same, no matter who does the cutting.

 

"nature" is simply the laws of physics. Are you suggesting that the laws of physics created human rights?

 

the philosophy is that the government works for We the people (all the people)... not just the majority at the time

 

some have evolved past the need for myths, some still cling to them like a security blanket....

 

Utilitarianism is about the moral justification for a persons actions not about the effect their actions have on someone else.....that is a completely seperate philosophy altogether. So one person may receive more pleasure for cutting off someone's arm while another person may receive no pleasure because the suffering they caused is too great.

Does this mean that the first person was morally justified while the second person is not?

That is the flaw with utilitarianism.

 

My personal version of utilitarian is somewhat different. It takes into account all effects of a certain action, including on the rest of society. For example, if a person cuts off another person's arm because cutting off arms gives him pleasure - you can factor in the pleasure of the person doing the cutting, and the suffering of the person getting cut. But you also have to factor in other things. For example, the person being cut is having his personal safety violated. The concept personal safety, itself, has utility as a sense of personal safety is important for a whole range of societal transactions (ie if people don't feel safe, they will modulate their behavior in ways that can have damaging effects on the economy, and on social welfare in general). Secondly, the act of cutting an arm of basically amounts to theft (where party is obtaining a benefit from a transaction, and another's expense without the consent of the person who is being adversely affected). Allowing theft itself, has all sort of deleterious economic and non-economic effects on society.

So if you add up the loss in societal utility from violating all these other principles, the actual pleasure gained is not really even in the equation----and so it is not justified to cut off anyone's arm, no matter who does it.

 

It is not true that it is not justified to cut off anyone's arm. What if cutting their arm off gives you pleasure, but at the same time saves their life. In turn the persons child still has a parent because the arm was cut off. NOTHING is intrinsically right or wrong. It just is. We as human beings make judgements on the actions. Two people can do the opposite and be completely moral because it is what THEY believe to be right. For instance one person could decide to use a nuclear weapon and kill thousands to save what they believed could be millions, because they believe it is right. Another person could choose to allow the war to go on as it is and the people that were killed in the war amounted to more than would have died in the nuclear explosion. They did not know what would happen and didn't want to kill thousands based on a guess even though they ended up losing more. There is no nuclear fallout in the area though and people did not die slow painful deaths because of it. Both sides could argue that they morally made the decision they did.

There are certain things in our society that we can not allow to happen to function. That is why we have laws. Burglary is a crime, is it more moral to steal an apple for a starving child than a laptop to sell for drugs. It's not about morality. It's about keeping the peace and not allowing certain behaviors no matter the reason for them. The person who stole the apple will probably do less time, but if you believe stealing is wrong, they were no less immoral than the drug addict.

There are certain things that I feel deep down are right or wrong. Someone else may feel differently. We do the best we can by creating laws for crimes that have the potential to hurt others. That is all we can do. Without law it would be chaos. We can't get along on a good day. Trying to define morality though is pointless. All we can do is muddle our way through this mess of a world in the best way we can.

 

In other words, there is no escape in our "Nexus" for being loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom and making the best of it as specialists it politics.

 

I guess that 'philosophy' can be just as argumentative & dissentious as 'religion!' Whoda thought it.. I guess maybe they aren't so different, after all.

From my perspective, the founding of America is built squarely on the shoulders of the Enlightenment. The early writings were steeped in enlightenment verbiage & principles. America is a direct result of the Enlightenment. Self rule. Limited Govt. Checks & balances. The quest for a utopian system, & a LOGICALLY based human collective system of organization, aka, govt. Gone were the old notions of divine right of kings. Man was EQUAL, & his collective ventures should reflect that. They should SECURE his basic rights, which were man's inherently, not granted by kings or parliaments.

It covered a wide swath of philosophical & religious values. 'The laws of Nature, or Nature's God', as Jefferson put it. Take your pick. But these rights are ours, & we are taking them. Kings, nobles, & their serfs will not deter our quest for freedom.

Today, we have a different 'elite' wishing to drive us back to bondage. They are the statist, progressive left. They have departed from the principles of the Enlightenment, & are dragging us back to elitist rule by a privileged few. No more self rule, the inferior masses are unfit for that. They cast aside what has taken us centuries to achieve, & all for a fantasy.. a delusion of a collectivist utopia, where govt can enable everyone to live off of everybody else.. especially the rich. No more working. No more struggling to survive. The greedy rich can be plundered & we can all ride the gravy train to the promised land of peace & harmony. But it is a lie. It is a damnable delusion, & only leads to oppression & bondage. They will lead us back to tyranny, & their dream of utopia will be just another elitist run nightmare. Fools, they are, who learn nothing from history, & even less from philosophy or religion. They are only useful idiots for the destruction of human freedom.

I'm standing on the shoulders of Giants. Enlightenment thinkers who RATIONALLY put philosophical thoughts together with a clear view of humanity, instead of hoping in an altruistic 'new man' to evolve. I can see where they wanted to go, & i can see the few things that need tweaked to get there. But the leftist fools only want to destroy the only valid experiment in Human Freedom, the Dream of America. Madmen. Lunatics. They would toss aside a sparking treasure of humanity, the dream of self rule & equality, & plunge us back into tyranny & oppression. It is appalling. It is disgusting. But it is the current reality.

 

There are no personal versions of utilitarianism, it is an established political philosophy developed by Bentham and mills......you either agree with it or you do not.