Theme: Responsibility
-
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not mate
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption. We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip. Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity). But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful. This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim. It must be warranted. (BAM!) -
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not mate
William L. Benge
Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption.
We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip.
Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity).
But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful.
This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim.
It must be warranted.
(BAM!)
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-14 12:18:00 UTC
-
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not mate
William L. Benge Unwarrantable positions are not punishable if they are not materialized into the commons. Personally held opinions which cannot be constructed into a viable argument or claim are either premature or presumption. We can take from this the true nature of the popular habit of airing one’s opinion to peers: infantilism by gossip. Now, OTOH, if a group of persons is exploring a matter then contributions are transmitted and received by the same discretion (reciprocity). But these transmissions do not reach the level of published theory, or declared truth-claim. They’re exploratory. Many errors must be presented in the process of singling out the least erroneous, for the one most truthful. This discretion cannot be granted to a party declaring a truth-claim. It must be warranted. (BAM!) -
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocit
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. -
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocit
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort).
And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule).
Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation).
As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort).
Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions.
And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity.
Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example).
Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery.
Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means.
The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-13 22:47:00 UTC
-
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocit
Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. -
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are e
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are expendable. Humans are also expendable, but we do not want people who would expire humans among us. We talk via-positive about the victim, but the reason is to limit via-negative the predator.
We cannot cooperate with a dog. It is sentient, borderline conscious, and certainly not rational. And therefore it cannot possess or make use of ‘rights’.
So while we would not people among us who cause suffering to animals, and while we would not want our dogs to suffer, that is a question of constraining in-group behavior, not out-group defense.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 08:51:00 UTC
-
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are e
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are expendable. Humans are also expendable, but we do not want people who would expire humans among us. We talk via-positive about the victim, but the reason is to limit via-negative the predator. We cannot cooperate with a dog. It is sentient, borderline conscious, and certainly not rational. And therefore it cannot possess or make use of ‘rights’. So while we would not people among us who cause suffering to animals, and while we would not want our dogs to suffer, that is a question of constraining in-group behavior, not out-group defense. -
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are e
Rabbits are expendable. Chickens are expendable, Cats are expendable. Dogs are expendable. Humans are also expendable, but we do not want people who would expire humans among us. We talk via-positive about the victim, but the reason is to limit via-negative the predator. We cannot cooperate with a dog. It is sentient, borderline conscious, and certainly not rational. And therefore it cannot possess or make use of ‘rights’. So while we would not people among us who cause suffering to animals, and while we would not want our dogs to suffer, that is a question of constraining in-group behavior, not out-group defense. -
My answer to What are some unwritten moral laws?
My answer to What are some unwritten moral laws? https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-unwritten-moral-laws/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-03 01:02:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959592933178605568