If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to experience), then how can we convince people that something that they cannot intuit is in fact moral…… How the hell do we solve this problem…
If one is intuitively immoral (as it appears the majority are) then, then how is any argument able to persuade?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:59:00 UTC
AN INTUITION:
where does conflict-cooperation sit in haidt’s foundations?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 05:10:00 UTC
I still don’t understand. I learned from Hoppe, so why were they able to fool him?
Was it merely his early work with Marxists? Was it German rationalism?
I can see where and when he looked at the operationalists and failed to understand the importance of their arguments.
Is he still structurally a Marxist only trying to restore German regional nationalism.
I mean. This is one of those things I just have to discuss one on one with him.
My only conclusion is that the academic incentives of his associations caused precisely the consequences I warn about when I criticize rationalism. And advocate calculation ( operationalism).
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 11:56:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM AND THE IS-OUGHT DIVIDE
As far as I know, under Propertarianism, (a) “is” and “ought” are identical, and (b) all moral propositions are decidable. And as far as I know, satisfaction of those two conditions is the only requirement for a universal theory that solves the is-ought dichotomy.
I would say that the prohibition on free riding (parasitism) is the general rule. But, that very moral, and very immoral peoples make use of different strategies. The moral proposition then could be suicidal. And the immoral proposition could be highly successful. We could have a universally moral world in theory and practice given a narrow distribution of talents. But we cannot have that world if immorality is advantageous. There is no way of attributing success to morality. In other words, morality is may not result in a successful evolutionary result.
So the assumption that a universally applicable moral theory may be true, but the desirability of the application of a universally applicable moral theory may not be. (and appears not to be), precisely because immoral activity is more temporally advantageous than moral activity.
One position to adopt is that we should then eradicate immorality from the practice of man, regardless of the consequences. The counter argument would be that it is somehow moral to provide an institutional framework in which immorality flourishes.
My argument is to imposed the universal rule by means of nomocracy, deny redistribution to immoral peoples, and let evolution take its eugenic course. This is how the aristocratic egalitarians under manorialism functioned. It is quite the opposite of the Sinic method of constant deliberate culling of the population.
Propertarianism a sufficient institutional solution for all moral people irrespective of their distributed abilities. But, the question remains: what do you do with groups who practice immorality as a positive strategy? Why are they any different from terrorists, conquerers or thieves?
Why tolerate immorality?
(I honestly don’t know what to do here. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 15:56:00 UTC
WHY MUST STOICISM BE A CHOICE?
Question: If one chooses a stoicism as personal philosophy, or if one is pedagogically indoctrinated into stoic behaviors, why does it matter?
If what remains of stoic thought is largely personal, ethical, and tangentially political, versus metaphysical, pseudoscientific, or particularly rational, then why does it matter if it is the deliberate choice of a minority, or a formal institution imposed upon the majority?
Is it not the behaviors that produce beneficial ends? Is not much of any philosophical framework, mere justification for choosing it? Whereas the product of practicing the necessary disciplines, and adopting the suggested frames of reference, is that we produce beneficial ends whether we make a deliberate choice, or whether we are simply trained like we are trained in all systems of pedagogy: myth, tradition, norm, habit, and justification for them.
All cultures ‘train’ in one civic and personal philosophy or another – because all humans need a framework for decision making given their fragmentary knowledge and diverse abilities. Why should a stoic philosophy be imposed versus a secular humanist, or a buddhists, or a jewish, or a muslim, or even one of ‘scientism’?
Isn’t it a refutation of the value of any framework to claim that it must be chosen deliberately? In other words, are advocates lacking confidence or evidence that that practice of stoic behaviors will in fact produce a good life, a good society, and a good mankind?
(I have touched on this before but I am trying to ask the question a bit better this time.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 03:23:00 UTC
Don Finnegan, Tim Koelkebeck Is there any useful work on MBTI / Jung on political affiliation? It’s clear that there are some predominantly masculine and feminine personality types. I don’t want to express these things as political affiliations but as the moral bias that determines political affiliations. In other words, I want to capture the intersection between Jungian grid, and Haidt’s foundations. I am trying at the moment to figure out how to represent Haidt’s work on a coercive triangle (matching my other work – weapons of influence.)
ie: If I reorganize the MBTI grid can I reflect the weapons of influence – gender strategy? I can intuit that this MUST be true, but I don’t see it off the top of my head.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 05:49:00 UTC
Social science experiment:
Ask a few random women their opinion on an uncomfortable truth.
On a scale of:
1-Shaming and rallying
2-Shaming.
3-Displeased.
4-Denial.
5-Excuse making.
6-Uncomfortable agreement
7-Tacit agreement.
8-Factual acknowledgement
9-Positive affirmation
10-Elaborates upon it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-09 05:35:00 UTC
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-new-bureaucratic-brazenness-1412288561DOES ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY ANY LONGER? (No)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 15:21:00 UTC
WHAT OPERATIONS ARE INVOLVED IN EACH OF THESE PROCESSES?
(important)
Reacting (to stimuli)
Daydreaming
Thinking
Reasoning
Calculating
Following an Algorithm
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 04:53:00 UTC
CAN YOU PLEASE VET THIS GUY FOR “100 POSSIBILITY?”
https://www.facebook.com/kees.colijn?fref=ufi
Seems like very good at constructing moral examples.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 09:24:00 UTC