8. What I presume you and others are reacting to is the complete discount of the solution to the prisoner’s dilemma and it’s vastly beneficial social consequences, simply because we do not limit Christian ethics to the interpersonal and prohibit it from the political.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with natural law and the only known via-positiva enhancement of it. (And the optimum advice (philosophy) for the weak, the dim, and the meek is to follow that strategy because they will do least harm.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 19:30:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837500763865088
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837499140661249
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a via-negativa science of what not to do. It is counter-intuitive, and non-obvious (and therefore unique) to EMPIRICALLY exhaust forgiveness of another INDIVIDUAL before determining that effort futile.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1312837499140661249
-
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with
5. As such a scientific statement of the Christian ethic is both compatible with natural law and the only known via-positiva enhancement of it. (And the optimum advice (philosophy) for the weak, the dim, and the meek is to follow that strategy because they will do least harm.)
-
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a vi
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a via-negativa science of what not to do. It is counter-intuitive, and non-obvious (and therefore unique) to EMPIRICALLY exhaust forgiveness of another INDIVIDUAL before determining that effort futile.
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 19:30:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837499140661249
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312837497261621249
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
3. This strategy is the optimum solution to the prisoners’ dilemma, and the optimum strategy for maximizing cooperation – and it is completely contrary to natural human instinct to favor family, clan, kin.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1312837497261621249
-
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a vi
4. This optimum strategy is not evident in the test of reciprocity which is a via-negativa science of what not to do. It is counter-intuitive, and non-obvious (and therefore unique) to EMPIRICALLY exhaust forgiveness of another INDIVIDUAL before determining that effort futile.
-
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so tha
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so that they can abandon reason in life (work blame reciprocal understanding of one another ) when all decidability (knowledge) consists of a spectrum.
Theology is for children, b/c of graceful failure
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so tha
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so that they can abandon reason in life (work blame reciprocal understanding of one another ) when all decidability (knowledge) consists of a spectrum.
Theology is for children, b/c of graceful failure
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-04 15:06:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312771198334504967
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312750542335041536
-
Well, again, that depends on the degree of suppression of reciprocity in the mar
Well, again, that depends on the degree of suppression of reciprocity in the market for suppression of irreciprocity we call the courts. Given that our jurists do not apply a uniform logic of the law (strict natural law), the market no longer functions to provide rule of law.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 @kenationalist_ -
Well, again, that depends on the degree of suppression of reciprocity in the mar
Well, again, that depends on the degree of suppression of reciprocity in the market for suppression of irreciprocity we call the courts. Given that our jurists do not apply a uniform logic of the law (strict natural law), the market no longer functions to provide rule of law.
Source date (UTC): 2020-10-01 18:03:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311728490107072513
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 @kenationalist_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311675186769403904
-
This is the function of The Natural Law: Suppress irreciprocity in display, word
This is the function of The Natural Law: Suppress irreciprocity in display, word, and deed, limiting us to survival by natural selection to reciprocity in display, word, and deed: markets in everything. @VDHanson (that’s the expression you’re looking for) https://t.co/LFHg3bu2AZ