Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • 1 – We have evolved instincts that inform is about the demands of reality. 2 – W

    1 – We have evolved instincts that inform is about the demands of reality.

    2 – We vary in those instincts because of our class and gender demands of reality.

    3 – Like the physics of the natural world, all of our instincts are reducible to problems of existence, information, and ability.

    4 – Our instincts have an evolutionary purpose.

    5 – We do not have instincts for arbitrary reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:29:00 UTC

  • HOW WILL THE CURRENT ERA BE REMEMBERED? I am almost positive that the current er

    HOW WILL THE CURRENT ERA BE REMEMBERED?

    I am almost positive that the current era will be interpreted as a century long failed experiment, and that cognitive scientists and legal philosophers and anthropologists will obtain the credit for repairing it.

    Not that Austrians are wrong, but that their program was incomplete, cut off by the wars, and the need for reconstruction.

    And that Mises fundamental insight was misunderstood – not only by others but himself: moral criticism.

    Hayek was likely right in that the twentieth century will be considered an era of mysticism in the future. Mysticism meaning ‘pseudoscience’ today, for having relied upon aggregates alone rather than testing them with actions.

    But explaining why this is true is difficult.

    What we have been exploring is not so much economics but the addition of credit to the inventory of weapons of influence that can be used to govern a people.

    I am almost certain now that this is correct.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:15:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 05:06:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 05:05:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.sciencedump.com/content/people-who-use-emojis-lot-are-hornier-according-scienceOMG.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 05:03:00 UTC

  • ***”Internal consistency is insufficient for truth propositions in non axiomatic

    ***”Internal consistency is insufficient for truth propositions in non axiomatic systems without external correspondence to replace those axioms with limits.”***

    That sentence is extremely powerful.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 03:50:00 UTC

  • TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS? —“My philosophical problem with conseque

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS?

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    I’d like to give you a different suggestion.

    That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.

    1) Pedagogical Myths…(very young)…………..Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)

    2) Virtue Ethics………….(young)………………….Biographies

    3) Rule Ethics……………(inexperience adult)…Laws

    4) Outcome Ethics……..(experienced adult)….Science

    But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).

    So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.

    My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.

    So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.

    ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY

    So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.

    “SOLID BASE”

    Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).

    The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.

    As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.

    SEE:

    INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/

    THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/the-fallacy-of-free-trade-absolutism/

    Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 02:28:00 UTC

  • “Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation)

    —“Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation).”— Steve Pender

    Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.

    Violates the rule of warranty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 13:50:00 UTC