Propertarianism is as important an innovation over empiricism as empiricism was over rationalism, and rationalism over reason. (Really)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 17:11:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797124508951973888
Propertarianism is as important an innovation over empiricism as empiricism was over rationalism, and rationalism over reason. (Really)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 17:11:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797124508951973888
NO. MORALITY IS AS OBJECTIVE AS THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES
(propertarian basics)
No, moral decidability is perfectly objective. Pseudo-moral norms may or man not be in fact moral. Subjective moral bias, may or may not be in fact moral. But moral rules are not subjective. It’s that your moral intuitions consist of possible truths combined with, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and outright deceit.
Morality is a purely scientific discipline. The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate the various falsehoods from our imaginations and our speech.
We don’t like that morality is scientific, any more than we liked that science disproved our religious beliefs. But our moral intuitions and our moral beliefs are just as false as our assumptions about the religious statements and pre-scientific era assumptions.
If you think morality is subjective you are just as ridiculous as flat-earthers, and theological fundamentalists. There isn’t any difference except the excuses that you use. You just use different excuses.
So deal with it. There is very little difference between your presumption of moral subjectivity and moral dictate. Instead, morality is objectively scientific and we just lie a lot to get away with lots of falsehoods in this era like we did the past eras.
There is only one silver and one golden rule: Do nothing to impose a cost upon that which others have imposed a cost to create or accumulate. And therefore limit your actions to those that consist entirely of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities. The evolutionary function of morality is to aggressively prohibit the free riding in its various forms so that we preserve the incentive to cooperate, because with the expense of the human life form, it is only through cooperation in the production of calories in all their forms, that we defeat the dark forces of entropy, time, and ignorance.
That’s it. Morality is as scientific as are the physical sciences with the only difference being that because we possess memories, we are able to borrow and lend cooperative efforts across time. We have the ability to ‘calculate’ using memory by means that the universe cannot.
But otherwise we are not different from any other form of organized matter in the universe: we are bound by the physical rules of it. And those that disobey those rules are extinct, or out gunned, germ-ed, steel-ed, norm-ed, and institution-ed, cultured, and genetic-ed, by those what obey them more closely.
Period. End of argument. Social Science is SOLVED.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 17:10:00 UTC
So Natural Law provides decidability, and it is both moral and true. But moral arguments alone provide no decidability alone.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 17:09:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797124015957667842
Reply addressees: @carson_gross
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797122438857248769
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797122438857248769
And that we make moral decisions in the face of ignorance, and that we make scientific decisions w/ knowledge.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 16:25:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797113110406590464
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 Alternately, you can try to show me benefits to be derived from changing my dogma.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
Translated, I would say you are a good moral person, but moral and true are different things
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 16:25:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797113009109893121
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 Alternately, you can try to show me benefits to be derived from changing my dogma.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
This failure to scale is endemic in human thought and is the source of the confusion between the moral and true.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 16:24:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797112848644263936
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 Alternately, you can try to show me benefits to be derived from changing my dogma.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
I only state that just as one cannot apply economy of home to world, or newtonian phys to univ, you err in scope.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 16:23:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797112640803926016
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 Alternately, you can try to show me benefits to be derived from changing my dogma.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797101931911086080
(fyi:preciousness is a subjective value judgement, not a scientific one. you assert your preference as a truth.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 15:31:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797099406612955136
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797095554996203520
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 You said it was demonstrable that life is not precious. I await this demonstration.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797095554996203520
I try to find data that does not fit. All data fits.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 15:15:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797095384694788096
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797094560891600896
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 How have you tried to disprove this hypothesis?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797094560891600896
That’s a preference not a truth. It’s just a question of whether (a) it’s possible to afford, (b) consequences.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 15:14:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797095186576842752
Reply addressees: @DavidSamuelAuer @teerye21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797094975704104960
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidSamuelAuer
@curtdoolittle @teerye21 Their lives are. We must treat them with as much respect as we can while protecting society.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797094975704104960