Theme: Responsibility

  • DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM (ethics)

    DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM

    (ethics) (this is a very tight logical box and I will make it tighter yet)

    PART 1 : UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ———————————–

    I. All moral rules in all cultures are possible to translate into prohibitions that attempt to solve the fundamental problem of cooperation: the suppression of free riding; the involuntary transfer, extraction, or destruction of assets, while at the same time facilitating all cooperation that functions as a multiplier of productivity – leading to the division of knowledge and labor, and the constant reduction of costs from that division. We are not superior to cave men. We have just made everything infinitely cheaper through the division of knowledge and labor and the application of a host of technologies.

    II. Humans accumulate and defend many things, and they resent loss of them. They do so because they either must (life and kin) or because they have invested time, opportunity and effort in accumulating them. Cooperative Life cannot persist without these prohibitions.

    1) Life (time)

    2) Kin and Mates

    3) Relationships

    4) Territory

    5) Material Inventory

    6) Status

    7) Commons

    8) Norms, Myths, traditions, institutions.

    9) Plans, Beliefs, Recipes.

    III. Humans demonstrate vehement reaction to and prohibition of the following categories of involuntary deprivation of their assets:

    1) Criminal Prohibitions (Murder, harm, destruction, theft – physical extraction)

    2) Ethical Prohibitions (fraud, omission, interference – asymmetry of knowledge)

    3) Moral Prohibitions (privatization, socialization, free riding – absence of knowledge)

    4) Conspiratorial Prohibitions (rent seeking, corruption, extortion, protection, taxation)

    5) Conquest Prohibitions (war, displacement, immigration, religious conversion, cultural competition)

    IV. Variations in those moral rules are determined by a compromise between the following problems:

    1) the reproductive strategy of the gender, class and group.

    2) the structure of production (the economy).

    3) the structure of the family unit necessary in any given structure of production.

    4) the inheritance pattern once assets can be accumulated.

    5) the degree of outbreeding in the polity (the extent of the taboo on inbreeding)

    6) the metaphysical value judgements between man and nature that were determined during the formation of cultural norms out of feast celebrations in the ‘great transformation’ era.

    7) the genetic and cultural homogeneity or diversity of the local economy (Islands vs borders vs unlanded/diasporic vs gypsy/pastoral).

    V. ***All moral sentiments, in all societies, are reactions to the perception of changes in state of those assets as determined by the criminal, ethical and moral prohibitions. In all humans, in all cultures, in all civilizations.***

    PART 2: UNIVERSAL, PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ————————————

    I. Given that moral rules consist of the prohibition of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behavior, what remains is voluntary exchange of assets according to the group’s portfolio of moral and ethical rules.

    II. Trust. (undone)

    1) (transaction cost and velocity)

    2) Low trust societies prohibit only crime, high trust societies prohibit unethical and immoral transfers, and currently no cultures persist in prohibiting conspiratorial behavior since it is a consequence state function, and as yet we have no technology for suppressing state monopoly bureaucracy and corruption while preserving the state’s use in suppressing criminal, unethical and immoral behavior.

    III. Humans rely upon these necessary reductions in transaction costs to continue to expand productivity.

    1) Humans Signal their moral commitment with manners, language, and consumption (dress, possessions, etc).

    2) Humans demonstrate preference for association with those who use the same signals because those signals communicate lower transaction costs.

    3) Status Signals are cheaper with higher return in-group than out-group except at the extreme margins.

    (… more on transaction costs…)

    4) Urbanization appears to both decrease opportunity costs, and increase productivity by 15-20% (and all the bad things too) with every doubling of the population. People in urban areas move, as under the european monarchies, into neighborhoods ‘with their own’. This appears to ostracize the middle class to the suburbs.

    IV. Moral rules reflect necessary group evolutionary strategies.

    1) the group cannot survive local competition (not to mention, guns germs and steel) without a successful evolutionary strategy.

    2) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in their abilities, in the distribution of abilities, particularly verbal and spatial intelligence.

    3) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in the distribution of desirability for mating (symmetry, proportion and thickness of skin.)

    4) Groups demonstrate significant differences in the distribution of impulsivity and ‘malleability’. (Appears to be testosterone)

    5) Aggressiveness (Appears to be more complex than just testosterone).

    6) The distribution of verbal intelligence appears to heavily determine three factors:

    a) Morality since it rapidly declines under 95IQ.

    b) Trust and therefore economic performance for the same reason.

    c) Sufficient distribution over ~105IQ to concentrate productive capital a Pareto distribution (80/20) in the hands of those who can make use of property for group benefit.

    V. It is impossible to rationally adjudicate conflicts across different moral codes. (Which is why America is ‘coming apart’.) But it is ALSO necessary for groups to follow different in-group evolutionary strategies. Therefore it is not possible to morally construct large scale societies that consist of high trust economies. (As we see the Nordic states are small homogenous absolute nuclear family states that are highly outbred). It would have been possible in American had we not destroyed the Absolute Nuclear Family as a normative requirement for citizenship, political participation, and economic survival. But since we have the only solution is fragmentation or tyranny.

    However, if it is not possible to adjudicate moral rules across heterogeneous polities, without committing genocide, it is possible to adjudicate commercial exchanges between heterogeneous polities with different moral codes, since commerce between disconnected polities is constrained only by violence, theft and fraud, as well as prohibitions on conquest. While local polities and local interactions are ADDITIONALLY constrained by manners, ethics, morals, and prohibitions on corruption and conquest. And those local polities must be otherwise they would be rendered economically immobile by high transaction costs (Somalia).

    VI. Meritocratic societies (that suppress free riding) that practice assortative mating and the nuclear family appear to produce sufficiently eugenic reproduction that it is possible to keep ahead of malthusian constraints and genetic regression toward the mean. While equalitarian societies (with pervasive free riding) whether they practice assortative mating in extended families or not, and particularly if they practice inbreeding, cannot appear to defeat Malthus nor the pressure of regression towards the mean.

    VII. THEREFORE

    Assuming that dysgenic reproduction is undesirable (and I admit that this is a preference, but certainly a scientifically and evolutionarily arguable one), the purpose of political institutions is:

    1) To facilitate cooperation between groups for on means, but not ends, where the market cannot satisfy means or ends, because competition or privatization of commons would result in extraction from the commons or free riding on the commons.

    2) To facilitate redistribution for consumption but not for reproduction.

    3) To encourage a multitude of small populations with heterogeneous moral codes suitable to their reproductive and evolutionary strategies – each of whom can negotiate trade, and thereby compensate for their differences in ability and preference.

    4) To construct a single universal commercial code (which the anglo civilization has been doing by force of arms for 500 years) that enforces prohibitions on violence theft and fraud regardless of in-group preferences.

    5) To replace the natural corruption of political representation, monopoly bureaucracy, and arbitrary legislation, with rule of law, contract, insurer of last resort, and private provision of public goods via competing insurance providers.

    6) To facilitate relative equality WITHIN groups with the same evolutionary strategy (if they so desire it) but not ACROSS groups with different evolutionary strategies.

    AND IT FOLLOWS

    When you interfere with manners, ethics, morals, family structure, and production, if you are not INCREASING the suppression of free riding, you are damaging someone’s reproductive strategy and status.

    PART III : ETHICAL RULES

    PART IV : LANGUAGE (undone)

    ——————

    ( analogy to experience, operational statements, loading, framing)

    ( problem of complexity and necessity of compression)

    ( the difference between the necessary honesty of law and exchange and the utility of literary loading and framing)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 19:43:00 UTC

  • “HOMO MORALICUS” – ETHICAL AND MORAL STATUS MACHINES Did you ever notice that we

    “HOMO MORALICUS” – ETHICAL AND MORAL STATUS MACHINES

    Did you ever notice that we human beings don’t need formal logic, mathematics, special tools and equipment, to determine if we think that something is unethical or immoral?

    Did you every notice that we don’t need logic, science, tools, equipment or sophisticated devices to perceive changes in our status relative to one another? We are masters of the must subtle change.

    Unlike the social world, we need a lot of tools to be able to grasp the real world, and to reduce it’s complexity to some analogy to experience. But we don’t need any such tools to perceive vastly complex status cues and cheating or contribution to the social commons.

    Man is a moral animal. We evolved to sense moral and immoral behavior as contributing to or extractive from, our ability to reproduce. And it was an evolutionary necessity that we develop these moral and social intuitions – otherwise we could not distinguish parasitic from cooperative actions. And we would not survive.

    Can we sense the economy? No. We have invented the most amazing tool EVER- prices. Prices allow us to sense what we need to do to sustain ourselves by serving others.

    We will willingly pay very high costs to stop others from cheating. We will willingly pay very high costs to preserve our status – even resorting to committing suicide rather than experience that loss.

    We place higher priority on these things than we do on economics.

    Why?

    Because it’s reproductively more important that we do.

    Man is a moral creature BEFORE he is an economic creature.

    And anyone who states otherwise is very likely trying to cover for or justify, some criminal, immoral or unethical action.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-02 10:17:00 UTC

  • “Anyone who does not practice a trade must eventually become a scoundrel” — Spi

    “Anyone who does not practice a trade must eventually become a scoundrel” — Spinoza

    I don’t really understand why intellectuals feel that their work products should provide them with a means of support. In fact, the older I get the more convinced I am that you cannot produce honest work if you are paid for it. Science and Truth are not profitable endeavors but luxuries and labors of love.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 05:45:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM) Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statem

    HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM)

    Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statements may be categorized from strongest to weakest as:

    (a) Necessary for human cooperation (criminal prohibitions)

    (b) Beneficial for human cooperation (ethical and moral prohibitions)

    (c) Beneficial for human organization of cooperation (conspiratorial prohibitions.)

    (d) Contractual and assiting in cooperation (consensual)

    (e) Arbitrary and for the purpose of signaling cooperation (signals, and manners)

    (f) False (meaningless or inhibiting cooperation)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 05:46:00 UTC

  • **Basic rule of ethics: if you aren’t willing to insure it yourself then you sho

    **Basic rule of ethics: if you aren’t willing to insure it yourself then you shouldn’t have made the loan.**

    The govenrment had to insert all this risk into the economy in order to use the financial system as a distribution network for getting money into the hands of consumers.

    We don’t need to use a financial system to distribute money to consumers with loans.

    We can just DISTRIBUTE IT TO CONSUMERS.

    I’d rather fight for consumer’s spending than fight my government and corrupt bankers who exploit my people, and destroy my savings.

    I’d rather the average joe who doesn’t pay any substantial taxes had the same self interest in shrinking the government than I do as a taxpayer.

    I don’t like redistribution. But then, I like consumers to have money that I can capture a piece of – that I can COMPETE for.

    I like government abuse of me and my citizens, and government’s predilection for war, more than I dislike redistribution.

    I like that if we redistributed cash, then we wouldn’t be dependent upon immigration, and in fact, we’d have every incentive NOT to allow immigration except of highly talented people.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 13:01:00 UTC

  • THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST The spe

    THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST

    The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.)

    Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market.

    At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking.

    But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor.

    Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course.

    Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury.

    I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian.

    SPECIFIC TERMS:

    By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion).

    By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government.

    By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties.

    By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc.

    By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 08:08:00 UTC

  • Why Do So Many People In The Usa Have Guns?

    I own guns for the single purpose of resisting the government when necessary. I believe, without question, that it is a moral responsibility of every man to do the same.  I view those who do not do so, as free riders on the labor of others who make such moral commitments.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-USA-have-guns

  • Why Do So Many People In The Usa Have Guns?

    I own guns for the single purpose of resisting the government when necessary. I believe, without question, that it is a moral responsibility of every man to do the same.  I view those who do not do so, as free riders on the labor of others who make such moral commitments.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-USA-have-guns

  • ON MORALITY AND IDEAL WORLDS : IDEAL MEANS, NOT IDEAL ENDS 1) I think it is a ph

    ON MORALITY AND IDEAL WORLDS : IDEAL MEANS, NOT IDEAL ENDS

    1) I think it is a philosophical error (or at least naivety, and possibly profound arrogance) to think in terms of ideal worlds. I tend to think in terms of improving the world we live in, without causing externalities that negate the improvement. It is the latter part of that statement that changes philosophy from an interesting parlor game to one of consequence.

    2) I think the purpose of philosophy is to integrate expansions in scientific understanding into our current understanding of the world, such that we improve our ability to reason and act in such a way as to take superior advantage of the difference between our rate of change and the universe’s suite of constant relations.

    3) I think value claims are normative. In my work, I have found that if one looks at a) the structure of production

    b) the structure of reproduction (family)

    c) the class and status of the extended family

    d) the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the polity.

    e) the gender and generation of the individuals.

    That moral biases are predictable portfolios that reflect our reproductives strategies.

    4) I think we can agree on means but not ends. And if we could agree upon ends, we increase fragility and risk. But that said, it is non-rational to expect one group to sacrifice its reproduction for another group’s reproduction. And people demonstrate this universally in all polities (at least over time.)

    As such I see the only ‘good’ as creating sufficient prosperity, and maintaining it, so that we are all wealthy enough to obtain what we desire individually or in small groups, but certainly not en masse.

    And neither equality nor diversity assist us in this objective. And that is demonstrably empirical, and very difficult to refute without selective reasoning.

    If it stands that women are at maximum density in one sector or other the economy, then that is the optimum best for all, because any other arrangement, whether prohibited from their potential, or prohibiting some male from his potential, is detrimental to the fulfillment of all potentials.

    That is, unless, you feel one of the luxuries that we can afford, is false status signals. An that is a valid preference. It may be that we prefer to create certain false signals because we are wealthy enough to do so. The problem is in anticipating the externalizes (consequences) of such false signals. And whether one or many have the right to involuntarily cause others sacrifice for self benefit.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 08:59:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T HIT WOMEN. Sorry guys, but, yes, we all understand that women are pret

    YOU DON’T HIT WOMEN.

    Sorry guys, but, yes, we all understand that women are pretty much all some degree of crazy. But a far as I can tell it’s their right to be crazy. It may even be a necessity for them. But as long as they aren’t trying to pierce the surface of your body with a foreign object, you don’t hit them.

    Ever. Never ever.

    There are certain costs of doing business so to speak. Ignoring crazy is one of them. Remind women that your life is yours to live and that the only ‘good’ is one that suits both your interests according to your own priorities. There is no abstract good.

    The way it works is, that in the womb, we get brain damaged by the mother, as part of the process of turning off what is female and turning on what is male. What remains is what’s male. And yes, it takes us longer to mature because of that in-utero damage to our brains. We have to sort of ‘grow around’ it to compensate for the damage. In exchange we get to be not-crazy: factual and rational, and perfectly happy in a world with food, beer, and fire to stare at. They get stuck in their world of crazy, empathic, and irrational, so that they can understand children, and be maniacally driven to care for such annoying things as babies (and us).

    So you know, it’s just a cost of doing business.

    You don’t hit them. Ever. You walk away. You keep your own bank accounts, off shore it if you must. But you walk away. Believe it or not there are far more women in this world than men, and they need us more than we need them. ‘Cause we have much lower maintenance costs by our nature. Just how it is. The trend looks like about a third of men, and as much as forty percent will drop out of participation in the work force, and out of self sacrifice for society. (If we aren’t there already to some degree.)

    Let the market do its work.

    Better to be John Galt than a woman-beater.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-12 08:05:00 UTC