Theme: Reciprocity

  • Value Judgements Are Opinions

    VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE OPINIONS To 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.

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    Morality = Reciprocity https://t.co/p6kxS8Eo53

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    Morality = Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/02/morality-reciprocity-2/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 01:00:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267621993832218625

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You 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.

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You 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 is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (recipr

    –“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle

  • “It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (recipr

    –“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle

  • Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity

    Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/02/can-you-relate-in-group-vs-out-group-to-morality-reciprocity/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 00:58:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267621643314171905

  • Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity

    —“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont

    Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is dis-utilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).

  • Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity

    —“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont

    Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is dis-utilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).