QUESTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER MORALITY

–“Curt: Are we correct to equate morality with the ability to operate well under certain rulesets?”–

Great question.

1) definition of moral. In my research, immorality is universal: do not impose costs upon the demonstrate interests of others either directly or by externality. This is in fact the universal human test of morality by producing a test of what is immoral.

2) humans think and function in terms of imitation. So we tend to express the ‘not immoral’ action as the moral obligation. In other words while morality is a negativa expression, we convey morality by positiva examples. This has the side benefit of not teaching people what is immoral, and propagating immorality. 😉

3) So moral display word and deed, being the opposite of immoral, is reducible to demand for sovereignty in demonstrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed, where reciprocity must be satisfied by both direct and seen and indirect and unseen.

4) However, (a) civilizations and cultures differ in their degree of development so they differ in what constitutes demonstrated interest. More advanced cultures and civilizations include a greater scope of potential interests and less advanced cultures and civilizations include a lower scope. The principle difference for example is between european responsibility for the defense of the commons and the middle eastern (semitic) pursuit of externalizing costs of privatizing gains of the commons. Or the chinese total irresponsibility for the commons (“don’t stick your head up”) such that children can be run over or people abducted or crimes committed while legions of observers pretend it’s not happening. Iin the west we even consider information a commons. So we speak in truth before face, In the east, one practices face before truth (what the woke movement wants), in the middle east they practice facelessness – it’s still honorable to like and cheat and steal on behalf of your family or clan. In africa it’s amplified into face-blindness where the idea this is ‘wrong’ is equated with being caught and punished but no moral obligation exists.

5) Ergo each civilization (a) has evolved some group strategy due to climate, resources, geography, competitors, and what we are prohibited from discussing: degree of neotenic evolution usually measured by median IQ. (b) Has reached some degree of development, where the collectivity or atomicity of property rights combined with the success of rule of law at the suppression of free riding, rents, parasitism and corruption, combined with median IQ are a perfect measure of economic cultural scientific, and artistic velocity. (c) And as such the competition between group strategy, path dependency of their institutional development, potential individual agency (property), collective rents, collective corruption, rule of law, and truth before face creates a dynamic where what is not immoral and is therefore either amoral (ok) or moral (good) *AND* is insured by rule of law, and enforced by laws, causes variation in moral tradition, norm, institution, and codification. In other words, different groups have different moral portfolios (investments) that allow that group in its demographics, geography, climate, resources, amidst competitors to cooperate sufficiently to survive. So there are always variations in group demand for cooperation on terms suitable to each group.

6) The sexes have polar opposite moral instincts whose reconciliation can only be achieved through trade: female consumption in time (demand), and male capitalization over time(supply). Trade(exchange) is produced, first through sex, second through familial insurance, and third through social insurance, and fourth through political and institutional insurance. So there are always variations between individuals producing ingroup DEMAND for cooperation on terms suitable to sex, class, and ability (IQ, personality, fitness) and age.

7) So individuals, cultures (ethnicities), civilizations(races) produce a universal prohibition on imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. But they vary in the scope and complexity demonstrated interests, atomicity of interests, truth in negotiation, degree of insurance, and means of insurance (personal, familial, tribal, or institutional).

8) However, that doesn’t mean morality is relative such that we cannot absolutely judge the moral from the amoral from the immoral. We can. We can merely investigate who imposed a costs on the demonstrated interests of others regardless of the cultures, norms, traditions, institutions, and degree of development of the populations.

9) That’s what natural law means. It’s why international law, at least under the dominance of teh anglosphere, has converged on natural law.

–“the man in the Chinese Room is translating Chinese without understanding a word of it, are these people simply exhibiting moral behaviors without actually acting for moral reasons?”–

If I told you that very few of us understand what we do as other than imitation of what works and threat of what doesn’t that would be true. I mean, I work in operationalizing most of human thought in every discipline and I’m convinced almost no one knows what they’re talking about. They’re just doing the best they can within some domain within which generations have produced enough of a system of measurement that they can discuss that domain with some semblance of reason. ;). (Yeah, I’m overstating it a bit for the purpose of conveying the idea, but ONLY A BIT. 😉 )

–“After all, there are people who take an action for a reason they believe to be moral which produces a suboptimal outcome for them. Do we lump these two groups together?”–

If I lie by intent vs I fail to perform due diligence such that I speak a falsehood, what is the performative difference? In both cases I have conveyed a falsehood which has imposed a harm on the knowledge of the audience. This is why in tort law your intention is irrelevant. If you caused a harm even involuntarily by a failure of due diligence (manslaughter while driving for example, or your tree falling on your neighbors house) then you are liable.
In law we separate (a) responsibility (cause) from (b) (liability) and (c) restitution (compensation) from punishment (DIscipline, training), from prevention (prevention of imitators, often by making an example of you. — ouch).
Ergo we do not expect infants and children, but we do expect teens, we do expect maturity, and we do expect adults to be capable of due diligence sufficient for the burden of responsibility for their actions. And the truth is we do compensate at least in court for ‘stupidity’ meaning a lack of intelligence. In my work I have unfortunately become all to familiar with how quickly IQ declines under about 105. And that means for most of the world, that 91% of the population – at least – is below 105. Hence the folly of the anglo enlightenment’s promise of an aristocracy of everyone. That is proximally possible in 1790 when the english IQ was probably an average of 115, and only 1/4 of the population was below 105, and only .04% was below 90. But most of the world is in the low 80s or lower.
As such what do we expect of different civilizations (races) cultures (ethnicities) classes (genetic load) and sexes? We see the evidence through enlightenment fantasy and christian morality.
As such why is free speech not freedom of due diligent speech, at least, requiring freedom of assertions in speech, meaning freedom of claims of truth and goodness, falsehood and badness to be subject to warranty of due diligence? (for most of history women didn’t count because of their inability to speak the truth without education and training. Which we still see in false accusations and magical thinking and claims of oppression etc.)
Ergo we have failed to maintain, because the left has undermined our laws, the common law requirement that when we speak in public it is testimony and therefore testifiable. This was done by the left. On purpose. and justified by the postmodernists and feminists.

I hope this answers your question.
Cheers
CD

QUESTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER MORALITY

–“Curt: Are we correct to equate morality with the ability to operate well under certain rulesets?”–

Great question.

1) definition of moral. In my research, immorality is universal: do not impose costs upon the demonstrate interests of others either directly or by externality. This is in fact the universal human test of morality by producing a test of what is immoral.

2) humans think and function in terms of imitation. So we tend to express the ‘not immoral’ action as the moral obligation. In other words while morality is a negativa expression, we convey morality by positiva examples. This has the side benefit of not teaching people what is immoral, and propagating immorality. 😉

3) So moral display word and deed, being the opposite of immoral, is reducible to demand for sovereignty in demonstrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed, where reciprocity must be satisfied by both direct and seen and indirect and unseen.

4) However, (a) civilizations and cultures differ in their degree of development so they differ in what constitutes demonstrated interest. More advanced cultures and civilizations include a greater scope of potential interests and less advanced cultures and civilizations include a lower scope. The principle difference for example is between european responsibility for the defense of the commons and the middle eastern (semitic) pursuit of externalizing costs of privatizing gains of the commons. Or the chinese total irresponsibility for the commons (“don’t stick your head up”) such that children can be run over or people abducted or crimes committed while legions of observers pretend it’s not happening. Iin the west we even consider information a commons. So we speak in truth before face, In the east, one practices face before truth (what the woke movement wants), in the middle east they practice facelessness – it’s still honorable to like and cheat and steal on behalf of your family or clan. In africa it’s amplified into face-blindness where the idea this is ‘wrong’ is equated with being caught and punished but no moral obligation exists.

5) Ergo each civilization (a) has evolved some group strategy due to climate, resources, geography, competitors, and what we are prohibited from discussing: degree of neotenic evolution usually measured by median IQ. (b) Has reached some degree of development, where the collectivity or atomicity of property rights combined with the success of rule of law at the suppression of free riding, rents, parasitism and corruption, combined with median IQ are a perfect measure of economic cultural scientific, and artistic velocity. (c) And as such the competition between group strategy, path dependency of their institutional development, potential individual agency (property), collective rents, collective corruption, rule of law, and truth before face creates a dynamic where what is not immoral and is therefore either amoral (ok) or moral (good) *AND* is insured by rule of law, and enforced by laws, causes variation in moral tradition, norm, institution, and codification. In other words, different groups have different moral portfolios (investments) that allow that group in its demographics, geography, climate, resources, amidst competitors to cooperate sufficiently to survive. So there are always variations in group demand for cooperation on terms suitable to each group.

6) The sexes have polar opposite moral instincts whose reconciliation can only be achieved through trade: female consumption in time (demand), and male capitalization over time(supply). Trade(exchange) is produced, first through sex, second through familial insurance, and third through social insurance, and fourth through political and institutional insurance. So there are always variations between individuals producing ingroup DEMAND for cooperation on terms suitable to sex, class, and ability (IQ, personality, fitness) and age.

7) So individuals, cultures (ethnicities), civilizations(races) produce a universal prohibition on imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. But they vary in the scope and complexity demonstrated interests, atomicity of interests, truth in negotiation, degree of insurance, and means of insurance (personal, familial, tribal, or institutional).

8) However, that doesn’t mean morality is relative such that we cannot absolutely judge the moral from the amoral from the immoral. We can. We can merely investigate who imposed a costs on the demonstrated interests of others regardless of the cultures, norms, traditions, institutions, and degree of development of the populations.

9) That’s what natural law means. It’s why international law, at least under the dominance of teh anglosphere, has converged on natural law.

–“the man in the Chinese Room is translating Chinese without understanding a word of it, are these people simply exhibiting moral behaviors without actually acting for moral reasons?”–

If I told you that very few of us understand what we do as other than imitation of what works and threat of what doesn’t that would be true. I mean, I work in operationalizing most of human thought in every discipline and I’m convinced almost no one knows what they’re talking about. They’re just doing the best they can within some domain within which generations have produced enough of a system of measurement that they can discuss that domain with some semblance of reason. ;). (Yeah, I’m overstating it a bit for the purpose of conveying the idea, but ONLY A BIT. 😉 )

–“After all, there are people who take an action for a reason they believe to be moral which produces a suboptimal outcome for them. Do we lump these two groups together?”–

If I lie by intent vs I fail to perform due diligence such that I speak a falsehood, what is the performative difference? In both cases I have conveyed a falsehood which has imposed a harm on the knowledge of the audience. This is why in tort law your intention is irrelevant. If you caused a harm even involuntarily by a failure of due diligence (manslaughter while driving for example, or your tree falling on your neighbors house) then you are liable.
In law we separate (a) responsibility (cause) from (b) (liability) and (c) restitution (compensation) from punishment (DIscipline, training), from prevention (prevention of imitators, often by making an example of you. — ouch).
Ergo we do not expect infants and children, but we do expect teens, we do expect maturity, and we do expect adults to be capable of due diligence sufficient for the burden of responsibility for their actions. And the truth is we do compensate at least in court for ‘stupidity’ meaning a lack of intelligence. In my work I have unfortunately become all to familiar with how quickly IQ declines under about 105. And that means for most of the world, that 91% of the population – at least – is below 105. Hence the folly of the anglo enlightenment’s promise of an aristocracy of everyone. That is proximally possible in 1790 when the english IQ was probably an average of 115, and only 1/4 of the population was below 105, and only .04% was below 90. But most of the world is in the low 80s or lower.
As such what do we expect of different civilizations (races) cultures (ethnicities) classes (genetic load) and sexes? We see the evidence through enlightenment fantasy and christian morality.
As such why is free speech not freedom of due diligent speech, at least, requiring freedom of assertions in speech, meaning freedom of claims of truth and goodness, falsehood and badness to be subject to warranty of due diligence? (for most of history women didn’t count because of their inability to speak the truth without education and training. Which we still see in false accusations and magical thinking and claims of oppression etc.)
Ergo we have failed to maintain, because the left has undermined our laws, the common law requirement that when we speak in public it is testimony and therefore testifiable. This was done by the left. On purpose. and justified by the postmodernists and feminists.

I hope this answers your question.
Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @basedc1 @sbkaufman