(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Again, not arbitrary but subjective. I am not judging them they are judging themselves. Furthermore, I have repeatedly said that so long as no crimes have been committed, they are on equal moral ground. The hard-working industrialist has not committed any crime, the cheat and the theif HAVE. Whatever their moral pretensions might be, they are acting as amorally as any other predator or parasite.

(SG)

(desertrat)

Yes, subjective, dammit!

(SG)

(desertrat)

Whoa there! How is it anti-business to open my own business and compete with this cigar-chewing bastard? I've exposed myself in any number of ways in the past, but never as an "anti-business" person. I don't think all capitalists are "bad," and if there were two boatmen in this story and one not only a cigar-chewing bastard but a liar and a their, I would never put the honest bastard on the same level as the dishonest one.

(SG)

(desertrat)

Whence should spring the legal duties and obligations? Answer: from a rational and clear distinction between what is moral and what is amoral. Even the simplest of minds can see that if you act like a predator, you are not acting morally, since predators have no morals. Same goes for parasites. This distinction must be made first before any quibbling can begin about what is rational and coherent within the realm of true morality. There is nothing arbitrary or mystical about the distinction between the amoral animal and the moral man.

(SG)

(desertrat)

Well, that about sums it up. Aren't I something :)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Did Mozart commit more crimes than Hitler? Stalin? Mother Theressa, as far as I know, was just one of many simple minded intellectuals. Since I've repeated this refrain so often in my own words, perhaps the words of Lysander Spooner can make it clear,

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.

Crimes are those predations and parasitic acts by which a man's behavior is indistinguishable from the amoral acts of other animals.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

By the same token, what possible meaning can the concept of moral values have divorced from a set of legal duties? The two go hand in hand, the question is the proverbial chicken and egg. Do we choose a set of moral values and create laws to reflect those values, or do we choose a set of legal duties and allow everyone freedom to choose moral values of their own within that framework.

On the one hand, my point of view, the legal framework which prohibits animalistic aggressions and deceptions only, separates moral man from amoral animal. On the other hand, your point of view, a coherent set of moral values, if our brightest minds can ever agree on such a thing, will likely prohibit the exercise of certain behaviors regardless of whether or not they interfere with the moral autonomy of others simply because our wise men have decided that such things will lead to unhappiness.

(SG)

(desertrat)

I could be quoting from the Silmarillion and it wouldn't make the words any less valid. When a tiger attacks a man, the tiger is acting amorally and not morally. When a man attacks another man, that man in acting amorally and not morally. Legal duties can be summed up in in a single phrase, man should not act amorally with regards to other men. If this one law were upheld in a society, morality would have real meaning.

(SG)

(desertrat)

My point is that so long as they aren't amoral, they are moral beliefs. They are not really moral if the behavior they represent is amoral. Moral beliefs, such as, for example, it's "good" to steal and tell lies, are not really moral, they are amoral, animalistic, moral pretense only.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

(SG)

a) It's not aimed at you, only my students. b) I doubt if we differ in what makes us happy. c) You might learn something more coherent than Mr Spooner's lists! d) both a and b.

(desertrat)

I'll grant you that, but I'd like to tell you a little story about a very stupid man who once tossed one of Lysander Spooner's essays, "Vices Are Not Crimes," aside because he thought he knew everything about morality. Years later, he read another essay of his, "Natural Law," and another "No Treason." Those essays were so powerful that he decided to read the one he'd tossed aside so many years previous. He read that one and actually learned something.

(SG)

(desertrat)

You missed the point, which I hope is clear by now. The only way to live as peace with predators and parasites is by compulsion. It doesn't matter whether those predators and parasites are tigers or mosquitoes or men acting like tigers and mosquitoes. The compulsion is not to make men live according to some arbitrary moral principle but to force them not to behave amorally.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Why is it that people who disagree with what I have to say alway say something like that?

(desertrat)

I see no difference between predation whether it be on the part of a man or a jaguar. Again, what a person believes to be moral is entirely subjective whether it be indeed moral or NOT MORAL. For morality to have any meaning, a distinction must be made between moral behavior and amoral behavior.

(desertrat)

Well, when it comes right down to it, human nature is not likely to change because of anything you or I say. Humans will likely continue to act criminally, which is to say, amorally, regardless of how rational or coherent they believe their moral values are. The few who choose to behave as moral beings will continue to live among the masses of men whose behavior is really no different from animals, only man is a more dangerous predator and a more cunning parasite.

(SG)

(desertrat)

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain. Animals other than man act amorally. Nature is amoral. There is nothing moral about gravity, there is nothing moral about Boyle's Law, there is nothing moral about mathematics, there is nothing moral about the way one animal kills another to survive. Nature is amoral. The initiation of force, deception and all other forms of predation and parasitism are aspects of the amoral universe. When a man commits a heinous act, we call it immoral because the man "should" know better, but a bear that commits a similar amoral act is only following it's instincts. For morality to have any meaning, a clear distinction must be made between acts which are amoral and acts which are moral. True moral acts are "good" or "bad" subjectively only. Amoral acts are "bad" objectively.

So to answer your question, what is right, what is wrong? In moral society, for morals to have any meaning at all, it must be objectively "wrong" to rely on force or deception. Were it otherwise, there would be no morality at all. Reliance on force or deception annihilates the the very possibility of morality. It must be objectively "right" to deal honestly and voluntarily with other men. Whether there is any other objective determination of "right" and "wrong" remains to be seen. For all practical purposes, force and fraud are objectively "wrong" while all other determinations of "right" and "wrong" are purely subjective. All voluntary acts, all non-fraudulent acts must remain subjectively "right" and "wrong." As soon as any voluntary non-fraudulent act is considered objectively "wrong" and therefore prohibited by use of force all morality disappears and the relationship between the enforcer and the "moral" lawbreaker, protestor or "civil disobeyer" is purely amoral.

To act amorally, that is, to engage in force or fraud, is wrong because it eliminates any possibility of acting in accordance with one's individual moral beliefs.

Concerning those who profess to have moral beliefs which "justify" force or fraud, their morality is pretense, that is, not really moral at all but amoral, which is to say, a declaration of war upon others.

Concerning Hitler, his "morality" was not as valid as the moral views of others because his "morality" was not moral at all. He had, by declaring his pretentious moral values to be "right," declared war upon others.

(snip)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Well, you put your finger on it exactly. We haven't meant the same thing by the use of the term. I never said anything about "incapable of being judged." That was an assumption on your part. I said simply, amoral, completely separate from moral society.

(desertrat)

It makes little difference if the force or fraud is perpetrated by a man or an animal, it separates you from moral society, it puts you in a state of nature or a state of war. Obviously, it is every man's urgent need to judge this for what it really is, viz. an act of war in the same sense as a man living alone in the wilderness is at war with the predators and parasites.

(desertrat)

Nobody claims to be acting amorally, most people understand it only intuitively, that is, they just FEEL that it is wrong to be deceptive or resort to force for any reason other than in retaliation, they don't really understand why. He is more likely to claim that he's acting morally when, in fact, he has declared himself a predator or parasite and must be judged objectively as such and dealt with accordingly.

(desertrat)

On this we are agreed, his claims are irrelevant. We disagree, of course, on the use of the term "evil," since it implies morality which I maintain no longer exists when one person declares by his actions to be a predator or a parasite upon others.

(desertrat)

Ok, the "chicken and egg" was a poor analogy, perhaps "the cart before the ox" would be more appropriate, but I think we are more in agreement than at odds.

It is my assertion that moral society can't exist until a clear and objective distinction is made between morality an the amorality of nature. Once this distinction is made, we can begin our squabbling over what behavior is virtuous for man "as man" and what behavior is vicious.

(SG)

(desertrat)

This attests to my earlier allegation that you don't see what I mean at all. When I say, "act amorally," you read, "act immorally."

"What morals," you say? Any morals, I say. "Moral" morals and "immoral" morals alike. To live amorally is to live without any morals whether "moral" or "immoral." You seem to make as little distinction between the terms immoral and amoral as you make between subjective and arbitrary. How can we continue to discuss anything logically if you refuse to examine carefully the meanings you are attempting to communicate?

Let me try making a chart of sorts.

AMORALITY   MORALITY The laws of Nature The law of the Jungle Kill or be killed A state of war Amoral Nature Success/Failure Fortune/Fate Force Deception Predation Parasitism All Voluntary acts Free Will Freedom of Choice Moral/Voluntary Society Morality/Immorality "Good"/"Evil" "Right"/"Wrong" Honesty Persuasion Voluntary Exchange and Association   Crimes   Vices/Virtues

When the relationship between two individuals is purely voluntary, the two can be said to have a moral relationship. Their relationship exists entirely on the right side of the chart. As soon as one resorts to force, deception or any act associated with amorality, both individuals are necessarily removed to the left side of the chart.

(desertrat)

And I advocate objective laws NOT laws pertaining to virtue and vice, the determination of which is almost always subjective. On the other hand, the objectivity of the line between morality and amorality is almost as certain as the objectivity of mathematics.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Your incomplete vision is my fault entirely. I should never have said it is even POSSIBLE to force anyone to live morally. As soon as force rears its ugly head, a state of amorality exists. Morality is annihilated by force. Morality is annihilated by deception.

The Law of Morality is to live honestly and voluntarily with others. Whatever is honest and voluntary is moral whether it is considered "moral" or "immoral," whether it is considered "virtuous" or "vicious." A Moral Relationship exists between any two individuals if their actions place them on the left side of the chart above.

Any force, whether initiatory or retaliatory, removes all parties involved to the right side of the chart. To make a law other than one to prohibit force or deception, is to justify the initiation of force which removes all parties involved to a state of amoral nature, a state of war.

The enFORCEment of any law removes all parties involved into a state of nature, that is, a state of war. (The right side of the chart above.)

Moral codes are possible only on the left side of the chart which means that an objective and legal distinction between moral behavior and amoral behavior must first be made before any subjective distinctions between moral and immoral behavior or any real (that is, non-pretentious) moral code can be formulated with the ultimate end to facilitate man's pursuit of life liberty and happiness as a man. The ox must come before the cart.

Now, once the objective distinction between moral society and amoral nature has been made and we agree to live morally with each other, we can argue over whether it is possible that any particular vice or virtue is objectively such for man to live "as man," but I suspect we will come to no conclusions except in the areas where our subjective values are identical.

Thank you for the lengthy reply and I hope you will see that we agree more than we disagree. Further, as a form of disclaimer, although there are not likely any spelling errors in this post since I have a spell check feature, there may be grammatical errors and other errors in coherency due to my excessive fondness for Butterscotch Schnapps.

It's always nice, though sometimes frustrating, to find a person willing to debate the topic of morality. It's not something you can bring up at the end of a long days work when you and your coworkers are winding down and discussing the latest movies and sports scores. Whenever I actually find a person willing to debate, I get the impression that I'm lonely and desperate for some intellectual attention.

Vanity of vanities. Our discussion, whether or not it benefits either of us (I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express and clarify my own thoughts) will not likely change the rest of humanity or the rest of the world. The world and society are largely amoral. Nothing you or I say will deter the common thief or the common politician.

Our shared objective (hopefully) is to live morally with each other, teach others how to do the same so that we'll have some moral company, and deal with criminals, politicians and those who support "government" as we would deal with common predators and parasites.

John Goldthwaite