If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others. If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions. If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual. We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups. We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to. It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional. And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science. And there is only one of them.
Theme: Responsibility
-
EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES ‘hate on’ (v. slang) To express hatred toward.
EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES
‘hate on’ (v. slang)
To express hatred toward.
‘hate’ v.
The feeling we experience towards those who betray us, steal from us, threaten us, harm us, and whom we desire to harm more so, even to the point of paying the high cost of altruistic punishment. (Hate evolved as the extreme retaliation against violations of reciprocity.)
‘anger’ v.
( … )
‘dislike’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others who betray us ethically or morally, by violating reciprocity, such that we seek to boycott all offers or opportunities to cooperate with them.
‘disapprove’ v.
The feeling we experience towards others who take unethical, immoral, actions by violating reciprocity by imposing costs upon others directly, ethically by informational asymmetry, or morally, by externality.
‘reject’ / ‘rejection’ v.
That feeling we experience toward others whose offers of cooperation are undesirable either directly, ethically by asymmetry, or morally by externality.
‘tolerate’ v.
( … )
‘negotiate’ v.
( … )
‘accomodate’ v.
( … )
‘cooperate’ v.
( … )
‘give preference’ v.
( … )
‘advocate’ v.
( … )
…
‘love’ v.
( … )
From bearing costs to punish(hate), to bear costs to advance(love).
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:32:00 UTC
-
HATING ON RELIGIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, AND GOVERNMENTS Religions, Philosophies, and
HATING ON RELIGIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, AND GOVERNMENTS
Religions, Philosophies, and Governments I will hate on all day long. You cannot choose your genes – only learn to act morally with them. And yes, it is costly to choose a new Religion, Philosophy or Government. But if you do not choose the costly, then you force the rest of us to pay the price of your poor choices. And then whether we hate your responsibility.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:27:00 UTC
-
La ley natural de los hombres soberanos
Domesticamos a los hombres con comportamiento primitivo y animal para convivir y sacar provecho
Los animales no tienen agencia, sólo obedecen a impulsos. Son incapaces de hacer contratos, sólo aprovechar las cosas que les son convenientes. Los animales no pueden resolver disputas y conflictos de manera honrada, sólo son capaces de inventarse excusas para su comportamiento. Los hombres actuamos con base a incentivos, si los incentivos que tenemos en nuestro entorno son capaces de reforzar conductas honorables, habremos de producir mejores hombres. Caso contrario, si los incentivos que nuestro entorno nos proporciona son negativos, los hombres sacarán lo peor de su naturaleza. Es por ello que los hombres que se comportan como bestias pueden ser castigados o sobornados para ser entrenados y domesticados. Si dicho entrenamiento fracasa, pueden ser abandonados a la intemperie, esclavizados, encarcelados, condenados al ostracismo reproductivo para que su piscina genética y estirpe se diluya y eventualmente desaparezca con unas cuantas generaciones, o incluso pueden ser asesinados. Si entrenamos a los hombres que proceden como bestias con propiedad en su totalidad, les enseñamos modales, ética, moralidad y ley, habremos creado incentivos para que los hombres produzcan lo mejor de si. Nosotros, los hombres civilizados trabajamos con nuestros semejantes: Nuestros padres, maestros, comisarios, policías, jueces, jurados, soldados, generales, constructores y reyes. El animal puede ser entrenado para ser una bestia, un esclavo, un siervo, un dependiente, un hombre liberto, un civil, un soldado, un aristócrata: Un ser humano. Entrenar a los hombres requiere sensibilidad, conciencia, razón, conocimiento y agencia. Pero cada grado de entrenamiento exige más del animal, y muchos no pueden completar ese tipo de entrenamiento y trascender de su estado bestial al humano. Y tal es el mundo que sólo hay pocos hombres y muchos animales, muchos humanos que se comportan como bestias en mayor o menor grado. Afortunadamente, muchos pueden ser domesticados. Y una vez que son domesticados, de la misma manera que domesticamos al caballo, la vaca y las ovejas, al hombre podemos ponerlo a trabajar para hacer cosas buenas, para sacarle provecho, para tener ganancias. La domesticación de los hombres es la ocupación más rentable de todas, excepto por una: El éxito de criar y entrenar a los humanos. Porque mientras un caballo, una oveja y un perro son bienes transitables, producir un hombre honrado es una industria altamente rentable. La educación fue diseñada para administrar a otros hombres, para poder gobernar territorios, parar poder crear ejércitos, producir bienes y servicios y poder tener una familia sana de manera exitosa. NO hay razón alguna para que no podamos retornar a nuestra profesión tradicional como hombres: GOBERNAR. Y no hay razón de que no podamos volver a enseñarle a los hombres a gobernar. ¿que debemos enseñar?
- Aptitud (fitness), cacería, deportes, juegos, guerra. – Para sobrevivir
- Economía, ética, Ley Natural, Contratos, Instituciones, Estrategias Grupales. – Por cuestiones de necesidad
- Leer, aritmética, contabilidad, matemática, programación, ingeniería, medicina, física. – Cuestiones básicas
- Estetica, Arte, Mitología, Literatura. – Complementarias.
Podemos desechar la psicología, sociología, religión y estudios políticos. La restauración es sencilla. Regresar a nuestra mayor y más grande industria y producto es fácil: GOBERNAR. Y si se fracasa, cazar a las bestias humanas que quedan, es la mayor de las recompensas. Esta es la Filosofía de la Aristocracia que enseñamos en el Instituto Propietarista.
-
La ley natural de los hombres soberanos
Domesticamos a los hombres con comportamiento primitivo y animal para convivir y sacar provecho
Los animales no tienen agencia, sólo obedecen a impulsos. Son incapaces de hacer contratos, sólo aprovechar las cosas que les son convenientes. Los animales no pueden resolver disputas y conflictos de manera honrada, sólo son capaces de inventarse excusas para su comportamiento. Los hombres actuamos con base a incentivos, si los incentivos que tenemos en nuestro entorno son capaces de reforzar conductas honorables, habremos de producir mejores hombres. Caso contrario, si los incentivos que nuestro entorno nos proporciona son negativos, los hombres sacarán lo peor de su naturaleza. Es por ello que los hombres que se comportan como bestias pueden ser castigados o sobornados para ser entrenados y domesticados. Si dicho entrenamiento fracasa, pueden ser abandonados a la intemperie, esclavizados, encarcelados, condenados al ostracismo reproductivo para que su piscina genética y estirpe se diluya y eventualmente desaparezca con unas cuantas generaciones, o incluso pueden ser asesinados. Si entrenamos a los hombres que proceden como bestias con propiedad en su totalidad, les enseñamos modales, ética, moralidad y ley, habremos creado incentivos para que los hombres produzcan lo mejor de si. Nosotros, los hombres civilizados trabajamos con nuestros semejantes: Nuestros padres, maestros, comisarios, policías, jueces, jurados, soldados, generales, constructores y reyes. El animal puede ser entrenado para ser una bestia, un esclavo, un siervo, un dependiente, un hombre liberto, un civil, un soldado, un aristócrata: Un ser humano. Entrenar a los hombres requiere sensibilidad, conciencia, razón, conocimiento y agencia. Pero cada grado de entrenamiento exige más del animal, y muchos no pueden completar ese tipo de entrenamiento y trascender de su estado bestial al humano. Y tal es el mundo que sólo hay pocos hombres y muchos animales, muchos humanos que se comportan como bestias en mayor o menor grado. Afortunadamente, muchos pueden ser domesticados. Y una vez que son domesticados, de la misma manera que domesticamos al caballo, la vaca y las ovejas, al hombre podemos ponerlo a trabajar para hacer cosas buenas, para sacarle provecho, para tener ganancias. La domesticación de los hombres es la ocupación más rentable de todas, excepto por una: El éxito de criar y entrenar a los humanos. Porque mientras un caballo, una oveja y un perro son bienes transitables, producir un hombre honrado es una industria altamente rentable. La educación fue diseñada para administrar a otros hombres, para poder gobernar territorios, parar poder crear ejércitos, producir bienes y servicios y poder tener una familia sana de manera exitosa. NO hay razón alguna para que no podamos retornar a nuestra profesión tradicional como hombres: GOBERNAR. Y no hay razón de que no podamos volver a enseñarle a los hombres a gobernar. ¿que debemos enseñar?
- Aptitud (fitness), cacería, deportes, juegos, guerra. – Para sobrevivir
- Economía, ética, Ley Natural, Contratos, Instituciones, Estrategias Grupales. – Por cuestiones de necesidad
- Leer, aritmética, contabilidad, matemática, programación, ingeniería, medicina, física. – Cuestiones básicas
- Estetica, Arte, Mitología, Literatura. – Complementarias.
Podemos desechar la psicología, sociología, religión y estudios políticos. La restauración es sencilla. Regresar a nuestra mayor y más grande industria y producto es fácil: GOBERNAR. Y si se fracasa, cazar a las bestias humanas que quedan, es la mayor de las recompensas. Esta es la Filosofía de la Aristocracia que enseñamos en el Instituto Propietarista.
-
Virtuous and Ethical Behavior Is Determined by Cost
Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm (full argument)(read it and weep. lol) —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”— Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion. 1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities. a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral) or b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral) OR 2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities. a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous) or b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral) 1………..DV……I 2………..CV……E Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not. 3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge, I have the choice of: Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical) OR I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical) OR I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical) So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES. 1……E……U 2……FE….U So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical. You see? The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical. See? It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically. QED Thus Endeth The Lesson.
-
Virtuous and Ethical Behavior Is Determined by Cost
Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm (full argument)(read it and weep. lol) —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”— Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion. 1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities. a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral) or b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral) OR 2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities. a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous) or b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral) 1………..DV……I 2………..CV……E Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not. 3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge, I have the choice of: Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical) OR I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical) OR I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical) So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES. 1……E……U 2……FE….U So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical. You see? The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical. See? It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically. QED Thus Endeth The Lesson.
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES” I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which
ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES”
I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I am extremely talented at being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I am extremely talented in the use of cunning violence while being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I have worked very hard to be a little scribbling hamster despite the brutality of my upbringing ( which was horrific by any account. )
In general, most of the problems you can solve by being an ass—-, a ruthless ass—-, and a cunningly violent ruthless ass—-, are not actually problems; but opportunities to let nature take its course while you drink coffee and watch the train wreck.
Personally I love being a hamster. I would rather watch and appreciate people, adore beautiful women, and savor the arts of words, craft, and creativity.
That said, there are good uses for being an ass—, ruthless ass—-, and cunningly violent ruthless ass—. We call that war.
But, the moral man need not be an ass, or ruthless, or cunning. He merely need speak the truth, demand it in return, and brook no imposition upon himself or others, and preform restitution to the best of his ability when he errs.
And to use cunning and violence without being an ass—, but a hero.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 15:00:00 UTC