The Origin of Moral Foundations https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-origin-of-moral-foundations/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:54:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449572501360640
Theme: Reciprocity
-
The Origin of Moral Foundations
by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.
-
The Origin of Moral Foundations
by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-sovereign-is-above-earthly-powers-under-law-not-above-natural-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:52:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449050243403778
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).
-
The Natural Law Does Not Change Human Behavior, It Accounts for It, and Limits only Irreciprocity
Feb 4, 2020, 3:56 PM by Scott Strong The Natural Law doesn’t change human nature…it accounts for it. As for the diversity issue, that’s easy – less diversity, more homogeneity. We stop attempting to go against what humans do naturally…sort into groups with those who share our values and either trade if possible or war if threatened. Also, there may be many religions but we only know of one that is compatible with the law. The rest will be expunged and can continue lying themselves into an inbred hole elsewhere.
-
The Natural Law Does Not Change Human Behavior, It Accounts for It, and Limits only Irreciprocity
Feb 4, 2020, 3:56 PM by Scott Strong The Natural Law doesn’t change human nature…it accounts for it. As for the diversity issue, that’s easy – less diversity, more homogeneity. We stop attempting to go against what humans do naturally…sort into groups with those who share our values and either trade if possible or war if threatened. Also, there may be many religions but we only know of one that is compatible with the law. The rest will be expunged and can continue lying themselves into an inbred hole elsewhere.
-
Do Laws Expire Under P?
Feb 4, 2020, 11:06 PM QUICK DEFINITIONS: LAW – rules in a given political order NATURAL LAW – Reciprocity COMMAND – Rule by Degree LEGISLATION – A rule by decree of a legislative body REGULATION – Rule for enforcing legislation CONTRACT OF THE COMMONS – A contract between representatives on behalf of the people having force of law. FINDING OF LAW – record of decision made by a court for future reference. BODY OF LAW – the sum of all of the above. CONTRACT – an agreement under law insured by a court. A constitution describes process and procedure for the production of commons. All contracts must state dependencies, fulfillment criteria, an expiration date, termination clauses, means of restitution, and responsible parties. Under P-Law we may only make contracts of the commons, and findings of law. Regulations are processed as changes to the terms of the contract of the commons. As such all contracts of the commons expire. As such we should expect regular renewal of those contracts whose value remains in place – and regular termination of contracts of the commons and regulations that no longer apply – and a chain of terminated contracts of the commons and regulations that are dependent upon those terminated contracts of the commons.
-
Do Laws Expire Under P?
Feb 4, 2020, 11:06 PM QUICK DEFINITIONS: LAW – rules in a given political order NATURAL LAW – Reciprocity COMMAND – Rule by Degree LEGISLATION – A rule by decree of a legislative body REGULATION – Rule for enforcing legislation CONTRACT OF THE COMMONS – A contract between representatives on behalf of the people having force of law. FINDING OF LAW – record of decision made by a court for future reference. BODY OF LAW – the sum of all of the above. CONTRACT – an agreement under law insured by a court. A constitution describes process and procedure for the production of commons. All contracts must state dependencies, fulfillment criteria, an expiration date, termination clauses, means of restitution, and responsible parties. Under P-Law we may only make contracts of the commons, and findings of law. Regulations are processed as changes to the terms of the contract of the commons. As such all contracts of the commons expire. As such we should expect regular renewal of those contracts whose value remains in place – and regular termination of contracts of the commons and regulations that no longer apply – and a chain of terminated contracts of the commons and regulations that are dependent upon those terminated contracts of the commons.