Author: Curt Doolittle

  • I don’t particularly like how it’s discussed or positioned but in less emotional

    I don’t particularly like how it’s discussed or positioned but in less emotional terms, it is true that genes that assist in cooperation spread with greater certainity (indirect selection) than those of direct selection.

    So yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:19:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745299427793703172

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745296947806687556

  • ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW WHO –“Among co

    ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW WHO

    –“Among contemporary common-law legal practitioners and Anglophone legal philosophers, “natural law” often simply refers to any approach that treats law as necessarily having a connection to morality.
    This meaning is essentially the converse of “legal positivism,” which is often defined, minimally, as the contention that law has no necessary connection with morality.”–

    So there exist those of us who hold to the rule that if it is not moral it is not law as we may not be bound to that which is not moral. And there exist those of us who hold that morality does not exist, or is not relevant to the law, and as such law is whatever they say it is. WHne in practice they mean only that a law must be produced by some pretense of legitimacy, not that it must be moral.

    This is of course, because they have no means of judging what is moral -for reasons I’ve explained exhaustively elsewhere.

    The purpose of my work, is, in part, to produce a science of morality so that we can render attempts at positive law illegal even to propose.

    Cheers
    CD

    PS: In my world it’s smart and moral people vs dim and immoral peole but, hey…. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:03:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745295391082393600

  • “If we instead recognize that the fundamental political issue is that of respons

    –“If we instead recognize that the fundamental political issue is that of responsibility,”– Luke Weinhagen https://twitter.com/LukeWeinhagen/status/1745228306620805267

  • “If we instead recognize that the fundamental political issue is that of respons

    –“If we instead recognize that the fundamental political issue is that of responsibility,”– Luke Weinhagen


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:03:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745295288674160640

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: Related

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: Related –
    https://twitter.com/LukeWeinhagen/status/1644120522949533696

  • Yes

    Yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 03:57:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745293816645423509

    Reply addressees: @TabbyTeamster

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745291591407854068

  • ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLLY YOU KNOW WHO –“Among c

    ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLLY YOU KNOW WHO

    –“Among contemporary common-law legal practitioners and Anglophone legal philosophers, “natural law” often simply refers to any approach that treats law as necessarily having a connection to morality.
    This meaning is essentially the converse of “legal positivism,” which is often defined, minimally, as the contention that law has no necessary connection with morality.”–

    So there exist those of us who hold to the rule that if it is not moral it is not law as we may not be bound to that which is not moral. And there exist those of us who hold that morality does not exist, or is not relevant to the law, and as such law is whatever they say it is. WHne in practice they mean only that a law must be produced by some pretense of legitimacy, not that it must be moral.

    This is of course, because they have no means of judging what is moral -for reasons I’ve explained exhaustively elsewhere.

    The purpose of my work, is, in part, to produce a science of morality so that we can render attempts at positive law illegal even to propose.

    Cheers
    CD

    PS: In my world it’s smart and moral people vs dim and immoral peole but, hey…. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:03:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745286965396639744

  • Q:WHAT’S THE NATURAL LAW AND HOW IS YOUR WORK DIFFERENT FROM IT?”– -“What, then

    –Q:WHAT’S THE NATURAL LAW AND HOW IS YOUR WORK DIFFERENT FROM IT?”–

    -“What, then, is natural law? For its proponents, “natural law” is law that proceeds from or is grounded in – variously – the mind or will of God, nature, or human reason. In the broadly shared Western tradition of moral reflection found in the centuries we will explore, “natural law” is the understanding that there is a universal morality naturally accessible to all rational people.”–

    In my work, having adopted the Natural Law frame once I understood my own work well enough to consider the application of it to the broader context, is simply the result of unification of the four sciences (physical, behavior, evolutionar, and formal-logical), and the resulting science of decidabilty, applied to the question of human cooperation at increasing scales.

    I did not base my work on theology, or philosophy, but on the demonstrated behavior of man, the sciences of neurology, economics, and law. Hence, I don’t make use of moral prose, or engage in moral noise-making or moral pretense. Morality is simply a fact – and a universal.

    I can either write a proof of it or not.

    The principle problem facing historical thinkers theorists jurists philosophers, and theolgians was that they concievd morality as a universal positive prescription rather than a universal negative proscription.

    So, just as justificationary philosophy was false, just as justiicationar logic was false (all logic is falsificationary) and all science is falsificationary – so are moral laws falsificationary. In other words, what is universal is what we must not do. What varies are the conditions under which we must not do it.

    This places a higher cognitive burden on the human subconsious, intiuiotion, emotions and mind, since at all times humans prever intuition and imitation over reason, and in most case other than the ordinary habit, morality, as a negativa, requires some thinking – and it turns out that much more than half of the population in some cases, in some demographic distributions, has a very difficult time with it. As such we need moral rules, encoded in moral laws for those things that are hard, more so than those things that are simple. 😉

    As such, as I use the term Natural law, I mean it as within that set of Laws of Nature, Within that set of Behavioral laws of nature, the rules of cooperation, in the form of the mandatory (Inalienable), the positive assertion (Rights), and the negative assertion (Obligations), and the resulting institutional means of organizing the hierarchy of markets of cooperation from individuals to the government, for the production of goods, services, and information, both private and common.

    Or stated more simply, those rules of cooperation that suppress the incentive for conflict, aggression, retaliation, retaliation cycles. As such the natural law is a standard of weights and measures for not only mankind but all sentient life capable of reason.

    Therein lives the rub – that we are not all equllay capable of that same reason. And our insticts suggest we avoid it at our leisure. 😉

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 03:18:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745284021163012096

  • Results of Reading Today’s Books (Recent Publications) 1- Pure Political Philoso

    Results of Reading Today’s Books (Recent Publications)
    1- Pure Political Philosophy: Natural Law and Sulaocracy- 2019 (Rating: amaturely written, intellectually embarassing. The first page is intellectually insulting.)
    2 – The Architecture of Law: Rebuilding Law in the Classical Tradition – 2023 (Rating: Religious drivel)
    3 – Mere Natural Law – Originalism and the anchoring truths of the Constitution- 2023 (Rating: well written for mass audience. Should have been a short paper with the same examples. Makes no substantive arguments. Pointless.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 02:53:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745277816097128448

  • “…it becomes critical to remind ourselves that the Catholic position on aborti

    –“…it becomes critical to remind ourselves that the Catholic position on abortion does not appeal to faith or revelation. Rather, it draws upon the facts of embryology woven with reasoning from moral principles. Catholics argue that there are no principled reasons for removing the child in the womb from the circle of human beings that would not apply equally to many people walking around outside the womb. It is the moral reasoning of the Natural Law.”– “Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution.” by Hadley Arkes.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 02:37:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745273645654515712