Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • The American electoral system makes us vote given our responsibility for the com

    The American electoral system makes us vote given our responsibility for the commons. If we restored property it would fix most. if we restored male head of household it would restore all.

    once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people.

    The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are oppportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsbility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities.

    Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 22:35:00 UTC

  • “CURT, ON IRELAND’S REFERENDUM. YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION?”— Well, you know, I

    —“CURT, ON IRELAND’S REFERENDUM. YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION?”—

    Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.

    .

    (I didn’t want to publish this, but … it’s my job, so I did.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 22:04:00 UTC

  • Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?

    It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

  • Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?

    It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

  • The Purpose of Stoicism(mindfulness)

    The purpose of stoicism(mindfulness) is to allow you distance from your impulses so that you may train them rather than be goverened by the chaos of them. The difference between buddhism and stoicism is action. Stoicism/dominance vs Buddhism/Submission. Which people will argue with me, but the evidence is the evidence. People need mindfulness to limit calculability (difficulty in in formation processing). We can construct it by bad means (islamic submission), ok means (buddhist meditation), adequate means (homogenous kin groups and rituals), or exceptional means (stoic self authoring and incremental successes in competition in the real world).

  • The Purpose of Stoicism(mindfulness)

    The purpose of stoicism(mindfulness) is to allow you distance from your impulses so that you may train them rather than be goverened by the chaos of them. The difference between buddhism and stoicism is action. Stoicism/dominance vs Buddhism/Submission. Which people will argue with me, but the evidence is the evidence. People need mindfulness to limit calculability (difficulty in in formation processing). We can construct it by bad means (islamic submission), ok means (buddhist meditation), adequate means (homogenous kin groups and rituals), or exceptional means (stoic self authoring and incremental successes in competition in the real world).

  • IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW? It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Em

    IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW?

    It’s actually pretty easy:

    1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies.

    2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity.

    3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of.

    4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct.

    So:

    0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.)

    1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’.

    2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity)

    3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs)

    4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality.

    And

    1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness)

    2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution

    3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment

    4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death.

    Ergo

    1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for.

    All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 14:55:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/how-white-women-use-strategic-tears-to-avoid-accountability???

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 19:22:00 UTC

  • “That’s a [gender here] problem”

    Curious. Men both consciously and unconsciously demarcate their responsibilities an interests by “that’s a woman’s problem”. In other words, women are better suited, more interested, and more able to solve that category of problems. Do women do the same thing? Do women demarcate their responsibilities by saying “that’s a man’s problem”? If so, on what?

  • “That’s a [gender here] problem”

    Curious. Men both consciously and unconsciously demarcate their responsibilities an interests by “that’s a woman’s problem”. In other words, women are better suited, more interested, and more able to solve that category of problems. Do women do the same thing? Do women demarcate their responsibilities by saying “that’s a man’s problem”? If so, on what?