Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Oreoracle]

Sorry that I couldn’t get back into the discussion of Utilitarianism until now. Couldn’t be helped. As I said, last night, after thinking it through, the idea of a Utilitarianistic world - with rules - might make some sense. It seems that most people actually are motivated by the hope of happiness and pleasure.

I didn’t think I’d ever convince you.

But, there are some “moral absolutes”, regardless of where one thinks they came from. The first moral absolute is simple, “Do good, don’t do evil.” A second moral absolute is the “sanctity of life.” I use “sanctity” because I can’t think of a more secular sounding synonym. A third would be, “don’t steal”. For starters.

You’re theory sounds good in a uniform world, but as you said, some people break the tacit contracts involved in your theory. But I’ll get to that in a second. For now, I think “Do good, don’t do evil” would result in total pacifism if “the greater good” doesn’t count as just being a mass of pure goodness, which it of course isn’t.

Here, we will have to have some absolutes rules as well. The definition of a “right” is not all that difficult. A right is that benefit accorded between human beings precisely because it is reciprocated. I accord you a right to life, for example, because you accord me a right to life. I accord you a right to property precisely because you accord me a right to property. No different than the marketplace. I sell you a chicken; you pay me. I accord you a chicken; you pay me in kind, or, in something else that I will accept. This is the ultimate utility.

I remember, before I became a full-fledged utilitarian, I was in a philosophy forum. I used a definition of a good act that I had created which used “reciprocation.” One of the prominent members, a utilitarian, immediately called me on it. He asked me if I thought donating money to the impoverished in Africa was good. Of course, I said that it was. He then asked me if I thought that those people could reciprocate my kindness. It was then that I noticed my error. If we focus on one’s ability to reciprocate not just the kindness of letting you be, but of giving you things, the poor will always lose. Only the strongest survive, and we’re left with something like capitalism. We don’t want people to just have a right to privacy, but also of moderate wealth. At least I think so.

Before, I was talking about when a contract is nonexistent, but what if one is broken? Most people will tell you that it’s not only acceptable to use force when a contract is violated, but necessary. They make sure to qualify that by telling you to only use the “minimal amount of force.” But how is one supposed to reliably determine the amount of force that is acceptable, necessary, or even if force is needed in a given situation? If a woman is going to die due to pregnancy, is it acceptable for her to abort? If our country is invaded, how many enemy soldiers are we allowed to kill or imprison? Is the sanctity of life at all defeasible in the face of utility?

I guess the biggest problem is going to be getting this world changed over. Obviously, there are people on this planet who simply want others to die - kind of like the martian in the movie, Independence Day. The next problem is how to convert the politicians. It is the process of getting elected to public office that corrupts these folks. Although there might have been some deficiencies of character before they got involved in the system. Nonetheless, we will need to retain most, if not all, of the current politicians, as they know how things work on the macro level. It would simply take too long for newbies to come up to speed, and citizens would suffer greatly in the transition.

I agree. It would be a slow change.

It may be to your advantage to know that I am a noob in politics, as I am quite young (I’m a freshman in High School). If I say anything stupid in my next post, don’t be surprised.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Aren’t you looking at this backwards?

First comes a basic objective moral law which exists outside of you, me, utilitarians, and the rest of the human population. There is no “if” regarding morality’s existence. There is absolutely no arbitrarily anything. Have I missed something? I don’t understand why subjective reasoning is being used when the majority of previous posts demonstrated that subjective decisions are, for the most part, useless.

Yes! This is how we’ll “know” right from wrong at the level of morality, within the utilitarian framework.

There are some things that simply don’t lend themselves well to the scrutiny of “happiness” or “pleasure”. Not a problem. Thanks, Granny.

Oreo, are you OK with this?

jd

Hi JDaniel, you’ve been working

Would you mind elaborating on when we will know right from wrong at the level of morality, within the utilitarian framework? I reread the parts about moral absolutes and the definition of “right” in post 230. I’m just curious about the time frame. Maybe, the whole outline has to be in place before anyone can determine the time frame.
BTW have you checked your private messages recently? Is you box full?

Blessings,
granny

All human beings have a right to live.

 

[Oreoracle]

Suppose the majority were to gain tremendous happiness that could not be gained any other way than through the murder of me. Would you be willing to send out people to eliminate me for the “greater happiness?”

No. But I would be forced to consider it acceptable if another did, though.

“You agree that a problem in utilitarianism is that it does not address absolute individual rights, thus leading to communism and other ideologies that place the public good above the individual?”

No, I don’t. There are better ways, yes, but I wouldn’t call it a problem.

This is a simple question that can be answered with a yes or no. Is it acceptable to compromise individuals for the sake of the greater good, assuming the greater good could not reached any other way?

Yes.

How are you planning to figure out what inhabitants of Africa want in regards to carbon emissions?

Ask them, of course.

Is it permissable to compromise individuals for the sake of the greater good, assuming that the good could not be achieved any other way?

Again, yes.

 

[grannymh]

In order to clarify the debate, I will only address the key points of your post.

This is a simple question that can be answered with a yes or no. Is it acceptable to compromise individuals for the sake of the greater good, assuming the greater good could not reached any other way?

Is it permissable to compromise individuals for the sake of the greater good, assuming that the good could not be achieved any other way?

Either you are joking about yes or no – or – you have never had teenagers living with you.

Note: Oreoracle and JDaniel live at CAF so they are not in the teenage group I’m thinking about. .

 

[Oreoracle]

Would not there be “courts of rules” (like law) that guide us in the proper interpretation of what is the most beneficial? At 150 million adults, in this country, there has to be some system of rules dispensing and enforcement at the local level. Also, there would have to be some sort of police system. What’s your thoughts?

I was thinking that we could have laws and a police force as usual, but the court system would be different. The jury would not only be responsible for determining if someone is guilty or not, but whether their crime harmed the overall utility. If they did not cause, and didn’t intend to cause suffering, we should let them go with the charges dropped. If their action(s) and intentions were immoral, they should receive the full brunt of the punishment (the punishment being constructive, perhaps involving therapy). If they produced harm, but did not intend to, their punishment should be minor, because that is a case of incompetence, not immorality. This also leads to my opinion of capital punishment, if we get that far.

Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking. Although, that might be a little problematic. Different parts of this country have completely different ideas regarding their priorities. For example, the Northeast does not give a darn about fiscal responsibility in government, while the South and West care immensely about it. Would you suggest sectionalizing the country?

Possibly. In that case, we should be extra careful that we have the correct understanding of the hierarchies of each group involved, along with making sure that this is the opinion of the overwhelming majority.

This brings up a really good point: Would we adulate heroes? I mean, if a person is killed trying to defend the life of another, how would that be seen? It seems to me that we shouldn’t encourage such behavior. What are your thoughts?

We should certainly be careful with how we praise them. For example, we shouldn’t say “This man threw himself in the middle of the gunfire and saved these five people! Remember his virtuous act, that is what human dignity is all about!” We should instead emphasize the fact that he not only saved those five, but felt enough compassion to be willing to make such a sacrifice. We should point out what good could be accomplished if more people offered lesser sacrifices in everyday life. We emphasize the outcome and compassion, not the “human dignity”, which ironically causes people to become more selfish.

But, what about the “right to privacy”? The National Organization for Women will certainly put pressure on us to retain that “right”.

What is the extent of freedom offered by the right to privacy? I’ve heard that term used in multiple contexts.

You might be right; I did not even think about the economic system currently in place. What kind of problems do you expect?

I expect more of what we’re seeing now: the strongest surviving, the weak struggling. And it’s even worse than Marx said with his Proletariat Revolution. The middle class is suffering greatly, but not enough for any kind of uprising. The middle class is like a living animal stuck in a bear trap: in immense pain, but not enough to die or build up the strength to escape.

It’s clear to me, as I said earlier, that we need to have a standard amount of wealth that every working person is entitled to, and even some to those not employed.

I would like to answer this: Converting them to utilitarianism. We have to do business with them. There can’t exist two totally different concepts of defining international law. Whenever that occurs, wars happen.

I think the best way would be to set an example. As Singer suggests (I know, someone’s going to flame me for bringing him up), utilitarianism takes a concrete form politically when we donate to the poor, or allow more immigration. We could start a coalition with other countries to aid the poor around the world. That should demonstrate utilitarianism nicely.

 

[grannymh]

We should point out what good could be accomplished if more people offered lesser sacrifices in everyday life. We emphasize the outcome and compassion, not the “human dignity”, which ironically causes people to become more selfish.
.

Good point. :clapping:

 

[Sarpedon]

No. But I would be forced to consider it acceptable if another did, though.

Have someone else do the dirty work? Is this a double standard?

Ask them, of course.

How? Road trip across Zimbabwe?

Again, yes.

We have no common ground. If you think intrinisic inalienable rights do not exist, and that anyone can be killed, tortured, abused, exiled, etc. for the greater good, we have no common ground. You will say that you are personally opposed to such actions, but that you would not object if others did them and the utilitarian maxim was met. This is like saying you personally oppose evil but will not fight it. I would urge you to read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

 

[JDaniel]

I didn’t think I’d ever convince you.

You’re theory sounds good in a uniform world, but as you said, some people break the tacit contracts involved in your theory. But I’ll get to that in a second. For now, I think “Do good, don’t do evil” would result in total pacifism if “the greater good” doesn’t count as just being a mass of pure goodness, which it of course isn’t.

Let me drill down a bit more. “Do good and don’t do evil” is talking about acts that are purely good or purely evil, in the same sense that there are laws that are purely penal. A speeding law is an example of a purely penal law. If a policeman clocks me doing excessive speed, he may give me a ticket. The ticket causes me to have to pay a fine. No one was hurt; no one was made unhappy - except me, a little - and, since there were no other drivers in the vicinity, no one could be potentially hurt.

There are acts that are remote from the emotions of happiness and pleasure. An example might be, my earlier example of seemingly justifiable genocide. A rule that said, “Do good and don’t do evil” might force me, the King, to do a great deal more due diligence before undertaking armed aggression against the offending population. An example of pure evil might be, the taking of innocent life in the womb, on a large, mass-production type scale.

I remember, before I became a full-fledged utilitarian, I was in a philosophy forum. I used a definition of a good act that I had created which used “reciprocation.” One of the prominent members, a utilitarian, immediately called me on it. He asked me if I thought donating money to the impoverished in Africa was good. Of course, I said that it was. He then asked me if I thought that those people could reciprocate my kindness.

Your prominent member was dead wrong. What I defined was the reciprocation of a fundamental; a “right”, not, money or property. Granted, in your example, the poor come out on the bottom. But, everyone has plenty of “rights-dough”. There’s no shortage of it. Poor people are just as wealthy as rich people, with regards to rights-dough. It costs nothing to give and nothing to receive, at least in the vast majority of cases.

It was then that I noticed my error. If we focus on one’s ability to reciprocate not just the kindness of letting you be, but of giving you things, the poor will always lose. Only the strongest survive, and we’re left with something like capitalism.

How does capitalism do this? Is it like “financial natural selection?”

We don’t want people to just have a right to privacy, but also of moderate wealth. At least I think so.

So, you would allot a right to privacy to the population. And, would you allot a right to moderate wealth as well?

Before, I was talking about when a contract is nonexistent, but what if one is broken? Most people will tell you that it’s not only acceptable to use force when a contract is violated, but necessary. They make sure to qualify that by telling you to only use the “minimal amount of force.”

Like policemen are told to do today. Gotcha’.

But how is one supposed to reliably determine the amount of force that is acceptable, necessary, or even if force is needed in a given situation?

What’s your thinking. We could punish the policeman with equal force.

If a woman is going to die due to pregnancy, is it acceptable for her to abort? If our country is invaded, how many enemy soldiers are we allowed to kill or imprison? Is the sanctity of life at all defeasible in the face of utility?

Hugely contradictory here. This ties in with heroism, which I mention in another post herein. I mean, if we permit acts of heroism, resulting in the deaths of a heroes, should we not encourage selfless acts in the pregnancy situation, too? The deaths of heroes is taking the best of us away before their time.

I agree. It would be a slow change.

Yep, slow and rocky.

It may be to your advantage to know that I am a noob in politics, as I am quite young (I’m a freshman in High School). If I say anything stupid in my next post, don’t be surprised.

No problem. I’m old enough to be your dad, and you talk older than you are. You’re a formidable debater

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JDaniel, you’ve been working

Would you mind elaborating on when we will know right from wrong at the level of morality, within the utilitarian framework? I reread the parts about moral absolutes and the definition of “right” in post 230. I’m just curious about the time frame. Maybe, the whole outline has to be in place before anyone can determine the time frame.

We can still use some of the underpinning from the natural law, especially that 1st law and the golden rule. These are in us already.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I was thinking that we could have laws and a police force as usual, but the court system would be different. The jury would not only be responsible for determining if someone is guilty or not, but whether their crime harmed the overall utility. If they did not cause, and didn’t intend to cause suffering, we should let them go with the charges dropped. If their action(s) and intentions were immoral, they should receive the full brunt of the punishment (the punishment being constructive, perhaps involving therapy). If they produced harm, but did not intend to, their punishment should be minor, because that is a case of incompetence, not immorality.

What should be done with people who drink to excess? Especially ones who have been through treatment several times, at taxpayer expense, yet get out and drink to excess again. Also, what should be done with this latter type of person, if others are killed or maimed? Or, their families are killed or maimed?

I am sure you love your family. What if a criminal type - one who has been through the therapy, maybe several times - breaks into your house and tortures and kills your entire family? I know I’d want that person dead.

This also leads to my opinion of capital punishment, if we get that far.

A assume you are against it?

Possibly. In that case, we should be extra careful that we have the correct understanding of the hierarchies of each group involved, along with making sure that this is the opinion of the overwhelming majority.

But the big problem here is that what we should want is a completely homogeneous society, within our borders, of course. Otherwise, we’ll have competing large-scale motivations as well as the already overwhelming competition that already exists. We’ll have various sectors of the country working against other sectors, occasionally to the detriment of the whole.

We should certainly be careful with how we praise them. For example, we shouldn’t say “This man threw himself in the middle of the gunfire and saved these five people! Remember his virtuous act, that is what human dignity is all about!” We should instead emphasize the fact that he not only saved those five, but felt enough compassion to be willing to make such a sacrifice. We should point out what good could be accomplished if more people offered lesser sacrifices in everyday life. We emphasize the outcome and compassion, not the “human dignity”, which ironically causes people to become more selfish.

OK. I’ll go with that.

What is the extent of freedom offered by the right to privacy? I’ve heard that term used in multiple contexts.

Well, the “extent” is that this so-called right allows people to murder little boys and girls. We have to have some regard for the smallest and weakest among us, no matter how small or weak. Think about child abuse.

I expect more of what we’re seeing now: the strongest surviving, the weak struggling.

So, you see it as evolution and as natural selection. Is there a problem with these?

And it’s even worse than Marx said with his Proletariat Revolution. The middle class is suffering greatly, but not enough for any kind of uprising. The middle class is like a living animal stuck in a bear trap: in immense pain, but not enough to die or build up the strength to escape.

What do you think is causing this pain; who has the middle class stuck in a bear trap. We have to be specific so we can stop them and, perhaps, punish them.

It’s clear to me, as I said earlier, that we need to have a standard amount of wealth that every working person is entitled to, and even some to those not employed.

OK. You’re not in any way opposed to the re-distribution of wealth. Like the manifesto said, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” But, this certainly has flopped in all of the communist countries. China had to merge capitalism into its brand of communism in order to hang on.

I think the best way would be to set an example. As Singer suggests (I know, someone’s going to flame me for bringing him up), utilitarianism takes a concrete form politically when we donate to the poor, or allow more immigration.

Would you think that we should never set any limits on either of these? Where would you like to set the minimum wage?

We could start a coalition with other countries to aid the poor around the world. That should demonstrate utilitarianism nicely.

Well, we already have done that. UNICEF, for example. What is really interesting is that, if America takes its stuff and donates it using our own people, the stuff tends to get to the intended needy. Whenever we entrust our stuff to other entities, half of it disappears. See what I mean about international law?

jd

 

[Sair]

It seems that most people actually are motivated by the hope of happiness and pleasure.

If that is so, and if we cannot convert people to Catholicism fast enough, we can certainly appeal to these “emotions”. Heck, people are already driven by them anyway - that was what you were trying to get us to understand early in this thread, right?

But, there are some “moral absolutes”, regardless of where one thinks they came from. The first moral absolute is simple, “Do good, don’t do evil.” A second moral absolute is the “sanctity of life.” I use “sanctity” because I can’t think of a more secular sounding synonym. A third would be, “don’t steal”. For starters.

I wonder if it might not be more useful to speak of a values-based morality, rather than one based upon moral “absolutes”, or strict rules. Thus we have values that provide guidelines for how we ought to live, rather than rules that sanction some behaviours and condemn others. These would have to be community values as well as individual values,

For example, one value might be respect for life. This implies not only quantity of life but also quality. It is a value that does not preclude the taking of life, but requires that it must be done humanely, and for reasons that are in accord with the value of respecting life - whether it is a murderer executed for public safety, or a chicken to be used for food.

As far as a heirarchy of values is concerned, respect for life then becomes a useful base line, because it implies many other values that lead to an overall quality of life - such as respect for personaly integrity and property. Furthermore, shared values have the effect of drawing communities together, promoting ongoing awareness of morality, and making certain moral imperatives a lot easier to explain in the broader context of value, rather than just being against the rules.

 

[JDaniel]

I wonder if it might not be more useful to speak of a values-based morality, rather than one based upon moral “absolutes”, or strict rules. Thus we have values that provide guidelines for how we ought to live, rather than rules that sanction some behaviours and condemn others. These would have to be community values as well as individual values,

For example, one value might be respect for life. This implies not only quantity of life but also quality. It is a value that does not preclude the taking of life, but requires that it must be done humanely, and for reasons that are in accord with the value of respecting life - whether it is a murderer executed for public safety, or a chicken to be used for food.

As far as a heirarchy of values is concerned, respect for life then becomes a useful base line, because it implies many other values that lead to an overall quality of life - such as respect for personaly integrity and property. Furthermore, shared values have the effect of drawing communities together, promoting ongoing awareness of morality, and making certain moral imperatives a lot easier to explain in the broader context of value, rather than just being against the rules.

I like it. Oreo, what do you think? A values-based system should integrate with utility-based structures, right?

jd

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if it might not be more useful to speak of a values-based morality, rather than one based upon moral “absolutes”, or strict rules. Thus we have values that provide guidelines for how we ought to live, rather than rules that sanction some behaviours and condemn others. These would have to be community values as well as individual values,

For example, one value might be respect for life. This implies not only quantity of life but also quality. It is a value that does not preclude the taking of life, but requires that it must be done humanely, and for reasons that are in accord with the value of respecting life - whether it is a murderer executed for public safety, or a chicken to be used for food.

As far as a heirarchy of values is concerned, respect for life then becomes a useful base line, because it implies many other values that lead to an overall quality of life - such as respect for personaly integrity and property. Furthermore, shared values have the effect of drawing communities together, promoting ongoing awareness of morality, and making certain moral imperatives a lot easier to explain in the broader context of value, rather than just being against the rules.

Dear Sair,

From experience on other threads, I found it best to stay away from absolutes because absolute truth was constantly being misinterpreted… I like objective because it refers to a way of reasoning which is different than subjective.

You post is so well written far better than I could ever hope to. Thank you. I will adopt the idea that respect for life is a useful base line since most of us are in and out of doctor’s offices where base line is often the key. What do you think about this approach? I consider respect for life as an action toward a human being. Thus I like to say that the human life is… I also appreciate that you refer to exceptions. community values and individual values. Being a good steward of the earth is a community value.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant to be eternal life.

 

[Oreoracle]

Have someone else do the dirty work? Is this a double standard?

Being willing to do the dirty work is not a just quality–it is not necessary for goodness in character, or goodness in action. It is acceptable (or good) for me or others to do the dirty work, but it is not required. It’s like donating to charity; I appreciate it when people donate, but I don’t donate (yet). Would you consider that a double standard? I don’t see one.

Can I reverse your question? If the entire human population was in intense pain due to the existence of one 20 year old, would it be permissable to kill this person against their will to alleviate that pain? We’d be allowing the ruin of every other human’s life for a good 55-60 years if we did not.

How? Road trip across Zimbabwe?

Just fly there and hold a meeting.

 

[grannymh]

Can I reverse your question? If the entire human population was in intense pain due to the existence of one 20 year old, would it be permissable to kill this person against their will to alleviate that pain? We’d be allowing the ruin of every other human’s life for a good 55-60 years if we did not.
.

It must be Lent, because I can see someone doing the exact same thing, only this person did it willingly.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

I like it. Oreo, what do you think? A values-based system should integrate with utility-based structures, right?

jd

Right. It sounds good.
granny

 

[Sarpedon]

Being willing to do the dirty work is not a just quality–it is not necessary for goodness in character, or goodness in action. It is acceptable (or good) for me or others to do the dirty work, but it is not required. It’s like donating to charity; I appreciate it when people donate, but I don’t donate (yet). Would you consider that a double standard? I don’t see one.

So, my cold-blooded murder to make other people happy is analogous to donating to charity?

Can I reverse your question? If the entire human population was in intense pain due to the existence of one 20 year old, would it be permissable to kill this person against their will to alleviate that pain?

No. Physical pleasure is not the ultimate goal of man. It would be better for the whole world to suffer pain than for us to compromise the God-given rights of a single person. Each person has true value and dignity. It would be better for us all to suffer and still respect that dignity in each person than to resort to carnal survival tactics. We may suffer in this earthly life, but at least we will suffer as “brothers in arms” and not turn on each other like animals

Just fly there and hold a meeting.

Are you going to pay for millions of people to travel to the meeting place? Are you going to provide transportation vehicles? Do you have the logistics of housing and feeding lined up? What if people have different languages? Are you going to have a few doctors on call? Are you ready for Asia, with China and India?

Look, it’s not very easy to gather statistics on 6 billion people. Since your system is based on having those statistics, your theory is really hard to implement regardless of the truth of the theory.

 

[Oreoracle]

What should be done with people who drink to excess? Especially ones who have been through treatment several times, at taxpayer expense, yet get out and drink to excess again. Also, what should be done with this latter type of person, if others are killed or maimed? Or, their families are killed or maimed?

I am sure you love your family. What if a criminal type - one who has been through the therapy, maybe several times - breaks into your house and tortures and kills your entire family? I know I’d want that person dead.

A assume you are against it?

Here’s how capital punishment would work: first, by using the utilitarian axioms, we determine which actions are worthy of death, or which ones we cannot tolerate or moderate by fines, therapy, etc. When a person has commited a crime or crimes worthy of capital punishment, we forgive them…once. Once the judgement has been passed that their actions and intentions were immoral and that the act is worthy of capital punsihment, their one lifeline has been used up. They are to be imprisoned and sent to therapy, and are only released when the problem (of their intentions) is believed to have been fixed. The next time that they commit a crime worthy of capital punishment, it is safe to assume that the therapy does not work for them, and that they should be executed. The crimes would have to be gross displays of the violation of our right to life in order to be considered worthy of that, though.

As for the drunkards who cause minor problems, we can keep them in prison or under house arrest. And intoxication is not an excuse for misbehavior, so no one should escape punishment on the grounds that they were drunk.

But the big problem here is that what we should want is a completely homogeneous society, within our borders, of course. Otherwise, we’ll have competing large-scale motivations as well as the already overwhelming competition that already exists. We’ll have various sectors of the country working against other sectors, occasionally to the detriment of the whole.

I’m not sure how to deal with this. What I can say is that competition becomes more difficult in communist and socialist societies, because no one is extremely powerful due to equal or fairly equal distribution of wealth (correct me if I’m wrong).

Well, the “extent” is that this so-called right allows people to murder little boys and girls. We have to have some regard for the smallest and weakest among us, no matter how small or weak. Think about child abuse.

You’ve already heard my position on abortion, so you know that it is hard for me to swallow what you are saying. Should abortion never be allowed?

So, you see it as evolution and as natural selection. Is there a problem with these?

Yes, because those outside of the strongest “species”, if you will, get thrown aside like dirty laundry. This isn’t the maximization of happiness.

What do you think is causing this pain; who has the middle class stuck in a bear trap. We have to be specific so we can stop them and, perhaps, punish them.

Those responsible for perpetuating capitalism are the issue. I don’t think they should be punished, just relieved of their power, unless of course you consider that punishment.

Would America’s constitution have to be ammended to convert to socialism or communism? I think financial rights granted by the Constitution would contradict it.

OK. You’re not in any way opposed to the re-distribution of wealth. Like the manifesto said, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” But, this certainly has flopped in all of the communist countries. China had to merge capitalism into its brand of communism in order to hang on.

Didn’t most of those countries flop because they were ran by dictators who wasted the money warring with other nations (which is why they started the communism in the first place)?

If it’s absolutely necessary to mitigate the communism, we should do so.

Would you think that we should never set any limits on either of these? Where would you like to set the minimum wage?

I wouldn’t know the amount (I’ve never had a job ). But whatever you think it would take for the unemployed to be fairly content, healthy, and capable of getting back on their feet in society works for me.

Well, we already have done that. UNICEF, for example. What is really interesting is that, if America takes its stuff and donates it using our own people, the stuff tends to get to the intended needy. Whenever we entrust our stuff to other entities, half of it disappears. See what I mean about international law?

jd

How would you suggest that we convert them? I’m not so sure we can, now.

I like it. Oreo, what do you think? A values-based system should integrate with utility-based structures, right?

jd

Definitely.

 

[Oreoracle]

So, my cold-blooded murder to make other people happy is analogous to donating to charity?

In a way, yeah.

No. Physical pleasure is not the ultimate goal of man.

Who said it was just physical? The pleasure and pain is mentally conceived of. If I’m in pain for a good while, I’m going to be depressed.

Are you going to pay for millions of people to travel to the meeting place? Are you going to provide transportation vehicles? Do you have the logistics of housing and feeding lined up? What if people have different languages? Are you going to have a few doctors on call? Are you ready for Asia, with China and India?

Look, it’s not very easy to gather statistics on 6 billion people. Since your system is based on having those statistics, your theory is really hard to implement regardless of the truth of the theory.

We’re all human, it’s not that hard to deduce what most of us would want anyway. If all else fails, take a few thousand and sample their opinions. I don’t want to sound flippant, but it’s not that difficult to guess others’ opinions most of the time.

 

[Sarpedon]

In a way, yeah.

Comforting thought!

Who said it was just physical? The pleasure and pain is mentally conceived of. If I’m in pain for a good while, I’m going to be depressed.

By “physical” I mean of the world, not spiritual. Mental pleasure and pain can be considered “physical” in this sense. Allow me to repeat what I said with this clarification:

“No. Physical pleasure is not the ultimate goal of man. It would be better for the whole world to suffer pain than for us to compromise the God-given rights of a single person. Each person has true value and dignity. It would be better for us all to suffer and still respect that dignity in each person than to resort to carnal survival tactics. We may suffer in this earthly life, but at least we will suffer as “brothers in arms” and not turn on each other like animals.”

We’re all human, it’s not that hard to deduce what most of us would want anyway. If all else fails, take a few thousand and sample their opinions. I don’t want to sound flippant, but it’s not that difficult to guess others’ opinions most of the time.

hmm…

Here’s a statistic from rasmussen.com:

39% of adults think abortions are too easy to obtain, 18% think it is too hard, 25% think it is about right, and 18% are not sure.

From gallup.com

49% of Americans oppose civil unions, while 48% support such unions.

66% believe the death penalty to be moral, 27% think it is not moral, 5% think it is not a moral question, and 2% have no opinion.

It can be quite hard to deduce “what most of us would want” when majority percentage rates are around the 40-60% range. That is almost equally split, and thus their is not a significant “majority opinion” since the degree of majority is so small. Leading by 10% is a bit of a stretch in regards to being the “majority.”