Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”? (from reddit) USER STRAY ASKS

Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”?

(from reddit)

USER STRAY ASKS

—“So is it possible for two distinct sets of morals to be “right”?—

USER CHUCK REPLIES

—“Well according to Curt, probably no, because he says that morality is absolute. But (and this is probably what you mean) two distinct strategies (to use his language) could both be “right”, i.e. “moral”. However one might be more “moral” than the other, depending on its ability to promote the end. For example. As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. Ultimately I could be wrong about all of this. It would be best for someone who knows Curt’s work better to explain it, perhaps even Curt himself.”—

CURT REPLIES

I think you’ve done a great job really. I can add minor clarity.

1) We may prefer different ends, but we can still cooperate voluntarily upon means. Then we discover at the conclusion which was right or not. This is the secret of the market. My work on politics is to create a market for commons (goods that cannot be privatized) rather than the monopoly means of production of commons we have under democracy. This lets us produce commons that compete if we want, but cooperate on their production. (In Seattle the train vs monorail debate was nonsense: do both.)

2) our individual and group strategies may consist of a combination of objectively moral and immoral preferences. within group these differences are resolvable by contractual means. Across group they are resolvable by objective means.

3) if we are not engaging in cooperation then morality has no meaning, since morality is merely the necessity of preservation of cooperation. In other words, when we resort to preying upon one another we have abandoned morality. In practice humans rarely do this. We actually engage in punishment in an attempt to restore cooperation.

Mobs are scary things. Outliers are scary things. That is why we kill off people that make us nervous in group and out-group.

That’s why ancapism never works. The only people for whom it is rational to join such a polity over another with greater legal coverage has historically been slavery, piracy, black marketing, or some financial equivalent. And the reason these groups dont’ exist is because we exterminate them as parasites.

Its the same reason we punish animal cruelty. “People who do that kind of thing are f—ing dangerous to us. That kid who mows over a kitten is destined to be a serial killer.” etc. The ancap is destined to engage in parasitism. Why? well, why else would he choose a low trust legal code over a high trust legal code?

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)