VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE OPINIONSby Alain DwightSeptember 21 at 8:34 PM [T]o 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.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent
VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE OPINIONSby Alain DwightSeptember 21 at 8:34 PM [T]o 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.
-
It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity
It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/its-empirical-morality-reciprocity/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:32:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179856886939754496
-
It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity
MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou 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’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity
MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou 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.
-
“in-group vs out-group to morality?”
“in-group vs out-group to morality?” https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/in-group-vs-out-group-to-morality/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:28:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855858139832320
-
“in-group vs out-group to morality?”
—“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 disutilitarian 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).
-
“in-group vs out-group to morality?”
—“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 disutilitarian 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).
-
Do We Need to Be United?
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):
- Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
- Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)
This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).
-
Do We Need to Be United?
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):
- Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
- Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)
This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).