Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • Unite The Right

    SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC

    —“Unite the right by natural law. We don’t have to agree on where the law comes from, just on what it is.”—Martin Štěpán

    The result is the same, only the why differs.

  • Unite The Right

    SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC

    —“Unite the right by natural law. We don’t have to agree on where the law comes from, just on what it is.”—Martin Štěpán

    The result is the same, only the why differs.

  • Demarcation

    Demarcation https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/demarcation/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:38:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179858213895839746

  • Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent

    Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/anything-other-than-reciprocity-isnt-internally-consistent/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:34:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179857236669161473

  • Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent

    VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE OPINIONSby Alain DwightSeptember 21 at 8:34 PM [T]o a large extent terms like good and evil or ethical and unethical are opinions. The catch is that if morality and ethics is defined by anything other than RECIPROCITY it is no longer internally consistent (no high trust commons, no agency, no forwarding your claimed values). That’s the beauty of reciprocity though, it packs all that punch and then more because it lets the speaker point out the relevant operation and leave out the moral judgements. Moralizing and justifying is begging people to agree, it’s really weak. People get the implications of reciprocity on their own without all the bs loading, anyway.

  • Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent

    VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE OPINIONSby Alain DwightSeptember 21 at 8:34 PM [T]o a large extent terms like good and evil or ethical and unethical are opinions. The catch is that if morality and ethics is defined by anything other than RECIPROCITY it is no longer internally consistent (no high trust commons, no agency, no forwarding your claimed values). That’s the beauty of reciprocity though, it packs all that punch and then more because it lets the speaker point out the relevant operation and leave out the moral judgements. Moralizing and justifying is begging people to agree, it’s really weak. People get the implications of reciprocity on their own without all the bs loading, anyway.

  • It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity

    It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/its-empirical-morality-reciprocity/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:32:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179856886939754496

  • It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou are welcome to falsify: (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.

  • It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou are welcome to falsify: (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.