Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

It's interesting that you focus on fairness. This is an issue that cannot be fair to all at the same time, I think. If we fail to interfere, the greedy rich will use 'trickle-up', and other nefarious tricks, to capture all the money.

There is no wealth to "capture." Whatever wealth exists has been produced by someone; it is not a God-given gift in limited supply...

Most wealth is wrested directly from the environment, by mining or otherwise. The extraction may take work, but the coal/diamonds/etc come from "God" (i.e. the Earth), and are definitely "in limited supply". Centuries ago, we thought the resources were infinite, in practice, at least. Now that our 'need' for resources has become so huge, their finite nature is obvious.

[Belindi]

Mystery wrote:

but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?

It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.

(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.

[GE Morton]

Mostly, surviving has to do with the pie being smaller than the sum total of what we all want, so if you are to be richer, someone must end up poorer.

That's the "Manna from Heaven" assumption again.

"Poorer" . . . than what or whom?

Alfie plants and harvests a bushel of corn, builds a house, digs a well. Bruno does none of those things. Do you mean Bruno will be poorer than Alfie?
Of course. But he doesn't "end up" poorer because Alfie is wealthier. His welfare --- his lack of food, shelter, water --- is unchanged by anything Alfie did. It would be the same if Alfie never existed.

[GE Morton]

Most wealth is wrested directly from the environment, by mining or otherwise. The extraction may take work, but the coal/diamonds/etc come from "God" (i.e. the Earth), and are definitely "in limited supply". Centuries ago, we thought the resources were infinite, in practice, at least. Now that our 'need' for resources has become so huge, their finite nature is obvious.

That's all true, and irrelevant. The question is who is entitled to a particular natural good, regardless of the limits on its supply. And the answer is, the person who discovered it and put it to beneficial use. Had it not been for that person no one would benefit from it.

No one pays for natural goods. They are all free. What you pay for is the time, talent, and effort invested by people to find those goods, extract them, and transform them into something useful and therefore valuable.

[GE Morton]

Most wealth is wrested directly from the environment, by mining or otherwise.

That is also false, BTW. Sales of natural resource goods (minerals, oil, even land) represent 5% or less of GNP globally; less than 2% in advanced economies.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.ZS

[Sy Borg]

In order to survive, one needs to kill, steal from, exploit or displace others.

If you're speaking of humans in a social setting, that claim is ridiculous.

If you are vegan hermit, then you probably don't do those things.

However, in truth, you kill animals constantly. You are the beneficiary of a government prepared to invade sovereign nations and kill many thousands of people and other species so as to access their resources. Your government routinely exploits and manipulates weaker nations with useful resources.

So yes, almost all humans kill, steal from, exploit AND displace others, because we do it in blocs. Most of us are perfectly delightful one-on-one because we can get tough guys to do the dirty work for us.

Your claim that humans are the only creatures that do not kill, steal from, exploit or displace others - when we are BY FAR the worst in these things - is not just ridiculous, it might be the biggest oversight - the very most wrong statement - I have ever seen on the forum from a secular member. It's especially ironic since you come from one of the murder capitals of the world where almost everyone is complaining about being exploited.

[GE Morton]

First, I consider "morals" and "ethics" to be synonymous terms, in the context of moral philosophy.

This explains a lot.

I believe that ethics are situational and apply to everyone who holds a certain title or is in a given situation of trust. Shoot, even lawyers have ethics! Ethics say that a doctor has a duty to help someone in medical distress when he is able . . . [etc.).

Morality involves general ideas of right and wrong that largely apply to everyone all the time. But, morality is also a personal judgement. It is an attempt to be a good person, or perhaps to judge whether or not someone else is a good person . . .

I'm aware that in popular usage the terms have somewhat different meanings. That's why I said "in the context of moral philosophy."

Some moral philosophers have titled their works "Ethics," e.g., Aristotle, Spinoza, Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, et al. Others have titled them "Morals," e.g., Hume, Kant, Sam Harris, et al.

In moral philosophy the terms are interchangeable.

"Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that 'involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior'. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.

"Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Your system presupposes that you have chosen the most fair possible way to distribute wealth, and that wealth or property are the true goals of life.

Oh, please. Please read the posts you're purporting to criticize, try to understand what is being said, and respond relevantly. The theory I've been presenting make no presumptions of any sort regarding distributing wealth, though it does draw some conclusions about that from the Axiom and postulates. And it certainly doesn't assert that "wealth and property are the true goals of life." There are no "true goals of life." That is a meaningless phrase. The only goals there are, are those individuals set for themselves, and those vary from person to person.

Morality is getting companies to pay their share of taxes, to stop hiding their profits and polluting and exploiting labor overseas. It is housing the poor and granting the right to basic health care to all (medicare for all, for example).

Well, no. Morality is a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. If you believe people have a duty to pay more taxes and for other people's health care, you need to present some rational argument, derived from some self-evident, morally neutral premises, for such duties, rather than asserting them dogmatically. That is what distinguishes moral philosophy from political demagoguery, soap-box sermons, and emotional rants.

[mystery]

as long as we have a free market system we will have rich and poor due to chance, effort, and wisdom that is not granted or not applied in equal measures and never can be.

...

so what power of choice should the poor receive and how will it help and how is it fair?

It's interesting that you focus on fairness. This is an issue that cannot be fair to all at the same time, I think. If we fail to interfere, the greedy rich will use 'trickle-up', and other nefarious tricks, to capture all the money. It isn't fair that the rich get all of the money; not fair to the non-rich, I mean. And if we do interfere, the rich will be reduced to only one ocean-going yacht each, and they (if no-one else) will consider this unfair.

Whatever moral/political system is in place, there will be some who feel they have been treated unfairly. I think the best we can do is to attempt to be as fair as possible to as many of the community as possible, rich and poor, male and female, young and old, and so on ad infinitum. It's a practical compromise that is required, I think.

I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest, we shall be limited to one small car perhaps and a home that is perhaps only 50 square meters and one bathroom. This reduction may not be enough to truly bring equality to all, because so very many worldwide have less than I just suggested. For this model to truly work, you and I also will have to sacrifice much of our hard work to others that have far less than us. It is not only the yachts but also meat with every meal or unlimited clean water...

what I find often in this debate topic is that many always look only up to find adjustments, we see only those that have more and want them to liquidate a yacht. the real magic starts when we look down, and see the vastness of the below. we can help those without any conflict, only by choosing to do so. usually, after this is pointed out and understood the crowd clears because the clarity of the situation is now foggy...

yes, the rich... control much. but within that much, are many ppl that enjoy wealth. depending on who you work for or do business with we may be part of that. simply changing the control from a rich person to others does not move meat and clean water to others. those that actually are using those things have to share. you and me.

I actually like the model of all things shared, it doesn't work for humans because of what we are.

[mystery]

Mystery wrote:

but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?

It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.

(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.

thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?

[Leontiskos]

If property rights exist only by rule of law then your "principle of justice which overrides the will of the majority or the king" is not applicable to property rights. It means that whatever the legislator decides is right is right. In that case a law that says the rich must give money to the poor is no more just or unjust than a law that says the poor must give money to the rich. When it comes down to it, I doubt you would want to go the route of legal positivism with respect to property rights.

This simply doesn't follow from my suggestion that property rights exist by rule of law. Why can't some laws be just, fair, and conforming to some moral principle ("greatest good for the greatest number" or something else), and others be unjust and cruel?

Well, you said, “I think rights concerning property are more ‘legal’ than ‘moral’.” Appeals to justice are appeals to morality. It is only if you hold to some kind of morality or system which precedes the legal sphere that you would be logically permitted to say that a law is good or bad. If rights are merely legal, and not a function of pre-legal justice, then what I said follows.

I also suggest that "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is reasonable from the point of view of justice, charity and kindness. If it is impractical, or inefficient, and fails to conduce human well being as a result, then (as a practical matter) we should abandon it. But there's no intinsic (i.e. intrinsic to some natural nature of property) reason to think it immoral. I'd suggest that billionaires can (and should) give half of their money for the public good, at which point they will be (for all practical purposes) equally "well-off" as they are now. If the public good is enhanced, human well-being will be conduced by such an arrangement (some people will be substantially helped, and nobody will be substantially harmed).

But if this is your approach to rights then how could you say that they are more legal than moral? You are proposing a moral principle which grounds and judges the legal sphere.

However, devising a logical system is inevitably circular (that's the nature of logic).

Things that are objective and rationally defensible are not necessarily circular.

Nor is deriving morality from a "basis" of principles the only way to derive morality. We can derive morality analogically as well as logically. This is obvious to us Westerners, since Christians are called on to "emulate Christ". Are they supposed to derive principles from Jesus' life and teachings, and then use that to build a moral superstructure? I don't think so. Instead, they are asked to "become" (with God's help) Christs themselves, by channeling and intuiting "what Jesus would do". We need not be Christians to find this a reasonable (rationally defensible?) system. Perhaps we would admire different role models from history, myth or fiction and emulate them. Although (I suggest) such an ethos is "rationally defensible", it is (perhaps) not "objective". Nor is any other moral system, since they must all start somewhere. The objectivity begins only after the postulates are accepted.

But isn’t that morality derived from a principle? The principle is simply “WWJD”. Aristotle said we should do something very similar, “What would the virtuous man do?” I don’t find either of these to be non-objective. I realize there is a very strong bias on this forum against objective morality, but I haven’t seen anyone defend the bias.

[Belindi]

Mystery wrote:

but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?

It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.

(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.

thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?

That is a big ask and I risk over-simplifying.

The material I copied and pasted on Romanticism is the best I can do without quite a few examples, such as the advent of the 19th century novel, political and religious initiatives, and many painters and poets.
The main motive towards Romanticism is the rise of individualism which shows up in art and politics as consideration of individual men and women, their feeling and life styles, as against traditional social classes and displays of power. Perhaps if you like pictures you could look up the Romantic tradition in art.

Monism is a theory of existence that posits only one fundamental substance , which is popularly called "the universe". The two main branches of monism are idealism and materialism. Idealism holds that what is fundamental is ideas about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as mind), and materialism holds that what you see, hear and so forth is what is fundamental about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as matter).

[mystery]

Mystery wrote:

but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?

It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.

(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.

thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?

That is a big ask and I risk over-simplifying.

The material I copied and pasted on Romanticism is the best I can do without quite a few examples, such as the advent of the 19th century novel, political and religious initiatives, and many painters and poets.
The main motive towards Romanticism is the rise of individualism which shows up in art and politics as consideration of individual men and women, their feeling and life styles, as against traditional social classes and displays of power. Perhaps if you like pictures you could look up the Romantic tradition in art.

Monism is a theory of existence that posits only one fundamental substance , which is popularly called "the universe". The two main branches of monism are idealism and materialism. Idealism holds that what is fundamental is ideas about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as mind), and materialism holds that what you see, hear and so forth is what is fundamental about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as matter).

thank you for the pointer. I have no background formally in that/this knowledge, albeit it "feels" like something I know. I plan to read/study more on it.

[Pattern-chaser]

No one pays for natural goods. They are all free.

This simple arithmetic lie enables our economic system to appear workable. It discards a major overhead cost by pretending it is free. Once we factor in all the costs, almost nothing we do is economically justifiable. This would undermine our global devotion to capitalism, and generally bring down the financial side of our global economy.

This is happening in practice anyway, as the environmental catastrophe brings home to us the actual real-world costs that we have been pretending are non-existent. We have been consuming our capital, to put it into financial/economic parlance. Now the capital is, in some areas, exhausted and our folly is obvious, as it should always have been if we weren't so greedy.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest...

Sorry, I didn't suggest any model, I only commented in general terms on your introduction of the concept of fairness, which is an important part of this discussion. All I said was it's very difficult to be fair to all, and so a compromise is probably the only practical way forward.

[mystery]

I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest...

Sorry, I didn't suggest any model, I only commented in general terms on your introduction of the concept of fairness, which is an important part of this discussion. All I said was it's very difficult to be fair to all, and so a compromise is probably the only practical way forward.

Haha, you clearly suggested that it is not fair for the rich to be rich and that if we fail to interfere that the problem will continue. You specifically suggested those that who have yachts are the blame. I countered that and suggested that it is actually common people that fail to share with the less wealthy. Perhaps those like us.