Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: @WalterIII @curtdoolittle P-Law proscribes. Domestication inh

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: @WalterIII @curtdoolittle P-Law proscribes.

    Domestication inherently includes prescription, as it must account for the…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-08 19:17:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854966512924414204

  • Christianity (via positiva) and Natural Law (via negativa) are compatible as lon

    Christianity (via positiva) and Natural Law (via negativa) are compatible as long as we follow Aquinas’ repetition of delivery unto caesar (natural law) and god (christianity). The problem arises when we seek to state scripture or dogma as other than wisdom that can be expressed in the natural law by the science. IN other words teaching and advising (christianity) is different from resolving conflict and deciding (natural law).
    I can see christian ethics surviving as as natural law (via negativa) combined with christian via positiva in legal prose. But we cannot solve the problem of differences in ‘authority’ between the fundamentalists (from god directly), traditionalists (The evidence of christian ethics is overwhelmingly positive), and scientists (it doesn’t matter how god exists because the natural laws and the laws of nature and christian ethics are the same.)
    Belief is not possible by more than 2/3 of the population. It requires early indoctrination, constant familial and social reinforcement, as well as genetics of trait agreeableness and higher empathizing that systematizing. So any unification of our people requires we express our rules in testifiable legal form – which is the tradition throughout history.

    Reply addressees: @ErectusRex @Aarvoll_

    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-25 19:18:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849893227366842370

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849888303715074331

  • Baiting into hazard isnt reciprocal

    Baiting into hazard isnt reciprocal.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-09 00:05:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843804971512541285

    Reply addressees: @_lucidreams_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843784933254541587

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @0brien84 @partymember55 @bdaystan1 @OkBloomer7 @slutriarch N

    RT @curtdoolittle: @0brien84 @partymember55 @bdaystan1 @OkBloomer7 @slutriarch Natural Law in our work refers to the aristotelian thru pres…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-08 05:06:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843518271192215833

  • We can only say that our work provides a means of continously suppressing the po

    We can only say that our work provides a means of continously suppressing the possible means of human invention of falsehoods, frauds, parasitism and conflict generation. We don’t promise utopia. We just promise that it is entirely possible to incrementally preserve a positive trajectory for ourselves and for mankind. As such we might be correct in that we will facilitate progress toward utopia, but if we did reach utopia, human behavior would destroy it as a consequence. We cannot end the struggle with nature without ending ourselves.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @earrylllison

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-27 00:05:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839456326231179264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839439572230693260

  • RT @TheMcMullan: @AutistocratMS @RollofNormandy @FromKulak @curtdoolittle (all l

    RT @TheMcMullan: @AutistocratMS @RollofNormandy @FromKulak @curtdoolittle (all large scale irreciprocites require enforcement from a large…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-25 22:28:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839069615521230994

  • RT @truthb4face: On the proper measurement and regulation of reciprocity and ext

    RT @truthb4face: On the proper measurement and regulation of reciprocity and externalities, link:
    https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1838685767524323645

  • Q: “Grok: Does philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle refer to natural

    –Q: “Grok: Does philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle refer to natural law as a legal system or as a system of decidability, or something else?”–

    Answer
    Curt Doolittle refers to natural law primarily as a legal system but with implications that extend into a system of decidability. Here’s a breakdown based on the information available:

    Legal System: Doolittle’s work emphasizes natural law as a framework for law that should be based on what is “correct” or morally justifiable through reason, aiming to guide human cooperation by reducing all rights to property rights and strictly constructing law from prohibitions on imposing costs that could lead to retaliation. This approach aims to create a legal system where laws are consistent with a scientific understanding of human behavior and cooperation, suggesting natural law as a basis for legislation, constitutional principles, and judicial decisions.

    System of Decidability: While not explicitly labeled as such, Doolittle’s philosophy involves creating a method or logic for deciding what constitutes law or truth. His mention of constructing arguments from first premises to ensure infallibility in legal and philosophical discourse points towards a system where disputes can be resolved through a logical, empirical process. This implies that natural law, in his view, serves not just as a legal code but as a method for deciding disputes or truths based on a set of foundational, universally applicable principles.

    Something Else: Beyond these, Doolittle’s approach to natural law could be seen as a philosophical and ethical framework for societal organization. His discussions often touch on broader themes like the nature of truth, the role of law in civilization, and critiques of contemporary political and legal systems. This suggests that natural law, for Doolittle, might also serve as a foundational philosophy for understanding and reforming various aspects of society, including education, governance, and even personal ethics.

    In summary, while Curt Doolittle views natural law predominantly as a legal system, his conceptualization also encompasses it as a system for deciding truths or disputes (decidability) and as a broader philosophical framework for societal reform and understanding.

    Reply addressees: @truthb4face

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:34:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833574854307811330

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833562641123709309

  • RT @HoppeQuotes: “The idea of immutable laws of justice, of natural law, has alm

    RT @HoppeQuotes: “The idea of immutable laws of justice, of natural law, has almost entirely disappeared from public consciousness. Law is…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 10:31:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833453201527386584

  • The Evolution of the Golden Rule – from Primitive Tribal Ethics to Political Ord

    The Evolution of the Golden Rule – from Primitive Tribal Ethics to Political Order

    (bookmark me)
    The evolution of the Golden Rule represents a progression of moral principles from simple reciprocity to more sophisticated concepts of justice and societal order.
    1. Golden Rule (Positiva Equalitarian – Slaves, Lower Class):
    • Phrase: “Do unto others what you wish done unto you.”
    • Origin: This is often attributed to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 7:12) and is a central tenet in many religious and ethical systems.
    • Analysis: This rule promotes positive reciprocity, encouraging proactive kindness and empathy. It reflects a moral expectation that individuals should act with consideration of how they themselves would wish to be treated. While this principle is universally accessible, it can be argued that it appeals more to those who are more vulnerable or powerless (e.g., slaves or the lower class), where mutual care is a survival strategy.
    2. Silver Rule (Negativa Equalitarian – Middle Class):
    • Phrase: “Do not unto others that which you would wish not done to you.”
    • Origin: This concept is often attributed to Confucius and is echoed in various forms across different cultures, including European traditions.
    • Analysis: The Silver Rule operates on the principle of negative reciprocity, which is a more restrained approach than the Golden Rule. By focusing on avoiding harm rather than promoting good, it emphasizes justice and fairness rather than charity or generosity. This principle aligns more closely with the values of the middle class, where stability and avoidance of conflict are prioritized.
    3. Aethebert’s Rule (Negativa Egalitarian – Upper Class):
    • Phrase: “Do not unto others what they do not wish done unto them.”
    • Origin: This is a reference to Anglo-Saxon legal principles, stemming from the laws of Æthelberht, one of the earliest Anglo-Saxon kings to codify laws in written form.
    • Analysis: This rule refines the Silver Rule by incorporating an understanding of others’ specific desires and autonomy. It requires a deeper level of empathy and consideration, reflecting the complexity of social interactions in the upper middle class. Here, the principle moves from generalized fairness to individualized respect, acknowledging the diversity of human preferences and the importance of respecting personal boundaries.
    4. Paine’s Revision:
    • Phrase: “The duty of man . . . is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by.”
    • Origin: Thomas Paine, a political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
    • Analysis: Paine’s revision integrates the Golden Rule with a sense of divine duty, linking personal morality with a broader cosmic order. This version is less about social class and more about universal moral obligations, emphasizing simplicity and the importance of both vertical (to God) and horizontal (to fellow humans) relationships. Paine attempts to elevate the principle to a universal duty rather than a class-specific guideline.
    5. Comparison:
    • Negative vs. Positive Reciprocity:The negative forms (Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule) are concerned primarily with justice, ensuring that individuals do not harm others and respecting the autonomy and desires of others. This is more aligned with legalistic or contractual relationships. The positive form (Golden Rule) pushes further into the realm of generosity, urging individuals not just to avoid harm but to actively do good. This form addresses sins of omission as well as commission, broadening the ethical responsibility of individuals.
    • Contextual Relevance:The Golden Rule is more suited to environments where proactive kindness is necessary for community survival (e.g., lower classes). In contrast, the Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule resonate more with those who have more resources and autonomy (middle and upper-middle classes), where the focus shifts from survival to maintaining social order and personal boundaries.
    Summary:
    The progression from the Golden Rule to Aethebert’s Rule and Paine’s revision reflects an evolution in ethical thinking from simple reciprocity to a more nuanced understanding of justice, respect, and duty. The positive form of reciprocity (Golden Rule) encourages active benevolence, whereas the negative forms (Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule) emphasize non-maleficence and respect for others’ autonomy, becoming increasingly sophisticated as they address the complexities of human interactions across different social strata.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-31 12:25:14 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1829857982529646627