Goddess Vs. Deus Ex-Machina

[CptSternn]

TS - So explain to me then, if I am missing this, how the taking of a human life is morally acceptable at any time?

Slán

Originally Posted by CptSternn

TS - So explain to me then, if I am missing this, how the taking of a human life is morally acceptable at any time?

Slán

I already have, a few pages back, which is the same time I covered the whole morality/pantheon/absolution shtick that you’ve been (mysteriously) proffering since. If you are going to bait me, please use a different bait than what I’ve previously set in mine own traps, eh?

[CptSternn]

No, what you have said is you feel religion legislates morality, I am saying morality is above relgion. If you go back to times prior to relgion, early man even knew on some level what theft was, was killing was. If you look at those types of acts outside the context of religion, then they are still immoral based on humanity itself.

I'm just trying to figure out why you think killing, theft, ****, etc. could at any point be considered moral.

You do so like making assumptions and inserting your words in place of what was actually said, that must make you feel somewhat superior? So how does one moralize a ****, a theft, and a killing? Everything is dependant on circumstance, and different versions of truth.

We have multiple versions of the truth, and they all become mired in human self awareness, which we in humble civility call our moral superiority. Does the lion debate the pros and cons of killing the gazelle? Does the gazelle cry foul at the unfairness of it all? Do we anthropomorphize our morality on the lion and condemn it for killing the gazelle, and empathize with the gazelle for being snatched away from life? We can even pass judgment on the lions of the world, and order their immediate and complete extinction, because they didn’t conform to our rigid moral doctrines.

Is the lion wrong for doing what it was made to do, the gazelle wrong to entice the lion to kill it, or are we wrong in the projections of our ideals?

Notice I say projection, not proliferation.

Now back to having multiple versions of the truth for a moment, because this is a really interesting concept. If morality were set in stone and never changing, then there would be no need for judiciary involvement. Everyone would know what was right and what was wrong, and anyone could punish wrong doers accordingly. The problem is, which I touched ever so light upon in an earlier post, we are very rarely giving a situation so clear. More than not we have to cipher through all the different versions, decide on one which holds the popular opinion, and go with it. Once a version decision is made our moral code is updated to reflect our new feelings in that particular instance. When another situation occurs bearing similarities to the other? We then have a new starting point to begin the whole deliberation process anew. The original moral decision does affect the new case, but it doesn’t necessarily decide the outcome.

So when is it ok for a self aware being to kill another self aware being? When one is threatened mortally, certainly. When one is acting in defense of another, yes. Where it gets gray is each person’s perception of what constitutes mortal danger, and what is considered applicable for defense.

A hypothetical. You have a rich country filled with raw materials, and you have a poor country which is dependant of the rich’s goods for its survival. One day the rich country decides to raise the taxes for the export of all goods to the poor country, and the poor country begrudgingly accedes. Two moths later the rich country decides to stop all export of goods to the poor country, even though the poor country was paying the outrageous tariffs. The rich country’s reasoning to the poor is they felt they needed to protect and safeguard their materials for future generations, even at the cost of the poor country.

The poor country decides to muster its people, and war against the rich.

Who is right, and who is wrong?

Or

Who is more right, and who is more wrong?

Hypothetical 2. A boy of sixteen is seduced by his attractive, 23 year old female teacher. He out weighs her by 100 pounds, is an intelligent young man capable of mature logic, but when the affair comes to light the woman is convicted statutory ****.

Who wronged who, and who righted what?

Hypothetical 3. A woman has worked for a large manufacture for 20 years. During that time she contributed to the company’s retirement plan, and at the end of her tenure should have had 500,000 dollars to apply toward her retirement. However, when she filed for her retirement it was discovered the company had stolen her monies to use for the acquisitioning of another company to expand their overall profitability. The woman takes the company to court, and the jury finds in favor of the woman for the return of the original 500,000 dollars, in addition they award her another 2 million dollars to send a message to all other companies practicing that type of behavior.

Who stole from who, and which is more wrong.

Lastly, I find your attitude toward this topic to be questionable, Slan, and highly suspect. You have in the past, after all, championed the hypothetical’s I just mentioned. We both know where and when, and I’ll not belittle you further by posting the links to the threads where you did. It’s sufficient for me that you have, and that you now question those original moralistic views.

You have embraced the gray, you just haven’t realized it yet.

[CptSternn]

TS - Grey? I'm the one arguing taking life is wrong period. No grey area at all. Your the one stating that Everything is dependant on circumstance, and different versions of truth.

I don't think that truth or circumstances has any effect in dictating what is or isn't moral. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong. No grey at all.

Your justification is your own, your truth is your own, but in the end the act is immoral whether you can justify it or not.



Slán (<= Irish for 'bye', commonly used in message greetings)

[WolfMoon]

So, what's Irish for 'I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay!' ?

Originally Posted by CptSternn

TS - Grey? I'm the one arguing taking life is wrong period. No grey area at all. Your the one stating that Everything is dependant on circumstance, and different versions of truth.

I don't think that truth or circumstances has any effect in dictating what is or isn't moral. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong. No grey at all.

Your justification is your own, your truth is your own, but in the end the act is immoral whether you can justify it or not.



Slán (<= Irish for 'bye', commonly used in message greetings)

Point, if you DID think killing was immoral you would devote yourself towards those ideas. You’d be communing with like minded individuals, eating granola out of the dirty anus of society, singing about free love and giving peace a chance. A part of you would even feel bad about the killing of plants for the continuance of your existence, and you would own at least one book on Breatheatarians, and would have tried to subsist (at least once) on just air and light.

The FACT you subscribe to fanatical organizations who routinely rely on terror to further your goals, who DO reduce a people to sub-human status to make the jobs of killing, ******, and pillaging easier on the conscious—the fact your moral codes (self admittedly) have allowed you to kill, and probably will again—gives a mild amount of credence to your hypocrisy.

And before you go wrapping the warm fuzzy of any pantheons about your shoulders, thus absolving you of any actions in the here and now, let’s call that bullshit. You use, as do many others, those precepts to suspend your canned morality, so you can abstain from the moral Left and go kill, ****, and pillage amongst the moral Right.

Just because Hypacronomous The Exalted will forgive you of that at a later date, send you off into the Elysian Fields with 40 virgins, the completed works of Rasputin, the Beatles’ St. Peppers on vinyl, and a case of O’Doul’s in the their after doesn’t mean Hypacronomous’ sister, Authenticititus The Pissed, won’t go hunt you down and hand you your ass.

And now we come back full circle to your so pious, live and let live moral anthem of the here and of late. A kinder, gentler...hail Sternn, so full of grace, who doth condemn all forms of the taking of life, which I from the here on dub his immaculate confabulation.

Green moons, yellow hearts…Slán.

[Asurai]

Originally Posted by TStone

So how does one moralize a ****, a theft, and a killing?

One does not moralize a **** or murder; they're simply wrong.

Now back to having multiple versions of the truth for a moment, because this is a really interesting concept. If morality were set in stone and never changing, then there would be no need for judiciary involvement. Everyone would know what was right and what was wrong, and anyone could punish wrong doers accordingly.

Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.

The problem is, which I touched ever so light upon in an earlier post, we are very rarely giving a situation so clear. More than not we have to cipher through all the different versions, decide on one which holds the popular opinion, and go with it.

Neither truth nor morality are subject to popular opinion. I would really hope that someone, in making moral decisions, doesn't simply go with what holds the popular opinion. Remember that opposing slavery used to be highly unpopular.

Once a version decision is made our moral code is updated to reflect our new feelings in that particular instance.

What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.

A hypothetical. You have a rich country filled with raw materials, and you have a poor country which is dependant of the rich’s goods for its survival. One day the rich country decides to raise the taxes for the export of all goods to the poor country, and the poor country begrudgingly accedes. Two moths later the rich country decides to stop all export of goods to the poor country, even though the poor country was paying the outrageous tariffs. The rich country’s reasoning to the poor is they felt they needed to protect and safeguard their materials for future generations, even at the cost of the poor country.

The poor country decides to muster its people, and war against the rich.

Who is right, and who is wrong?

The rich country (if, that term, you mean the businessmen of that country, since the governments of rich countries don't have the kind of arbitrary power that you mentioned) would be the one defending itself from force (since the poor one instituted the use of force), so they would be right and the poor country, wrong.

The poor country has no right to use force to obtain what they did not produce. Those goods were produced by the labor and capital of individuals in the rich country; whether the poor country needs them or not is irrelevant. If the rich country chooses to sell to the poor, then the poor has every right to purchase what it wants. If the rich country chooses to raise prices, then that's their right: the goods are entirely theirs by right of rights. If the poor country wants to buy the goods at that price, they may.

If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others. Since property is created only by labor and capital, claiming a right to the property of others (regardless of the reason or basis) would be claiming a right to the labor of others, whether they wish to give it or not. This is slavery by any definition of the word.

Now, speaking purely theoretically, the rich country shouldn't raise tariffs or cut off trade -- both of which are unwise choices (or evil, since only the government could make that decision -- not the individuals who produced and sold the goods in the first place), but disastrous in this case. Nonetheless, that does not give the poor country the right to enslave, regardless of the poor's need or of the sins of the rich's government.

Hypothetical 2. A boy of sixteen is seduced by his attractive, 23 year old female teacher. He out weighs her by 100 pounds, is an intelligent young man capable of mature logic, but when the affair comes to light the woman is convicted statutory ****.

Who wronged who, and who righted what?

An intelligent sixteen-year-old is more than capable of acting or not acting on his own consent and free choice. Unless the teacher physically forced him to have sex (unlikely), nothing wrong was commited.

No-one was harmed, and so the teacher was wronged in being punished.

(This only applies to the statuatory **** charge -- if the school itself had a policy against students' dating teachers, which is almost certain, then it has every right to dismiss the teacher. But that is not to say that she should be brought up on criminal charges.)

Hypothetical 3. A woman has worked for a large manufacture for 20 years. During that time she contributed to the company’s retirement plan, and at the end of her tenure should have had 500,000 dollars to apply toward her retirement. However, when she filed for her retirement it was discovered the company had stolen her monies to use for the acquisitioning of another company to expand their overall profitability. The woman takes the company to court, and the jury finds in favor of the woman for the return of the original 500,000 dollars, in addition they award her another 2 million dollars to send a message to all other companies practicing that type of behavior.

Who stole from who, and which is more wrong.

The company had a mutual, contractual agreement with the woman. In failing to honor its terms, and in stealing her money (assuming that it wasn't simply investing it, as banks do today), it commited a crime necessary of punishment. Awarding the woman's $500k back to her is simple justice, since the money is hers (again, assuming that the company wasn't simply investing the money in the same manner that banks today do), and some slight recompense would be just, but $2,000,000 is excessive.

The company stole from the woman, but the woman was awarded money which she did not earn. The company was more in the wrong by far, but the woman's acceptance of $2,000,000 did not restore her own money, but took money that was lawfully the company's. On that point, both commited some degree of wrong.

[Granny-like_the_apple]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

TS - Grey? I'm the one arguing taking life is wrong period. No grey area at all.

So I assume that taking the life of a woman who is in a persistant vegetative state, and has been for over ten years, would be wrong. She's still alive. So I assume you would be opposed to the following opinion on the issue, seeing as how it places a husband's right to end to life of his wife over the right of the parents to keep her alive and thinks that after a decade with no improvement, it's a-ok to pull the plug:

1. She has been this way for over 10 years. If she was going to recover, you think it would have happened by now. I think 10 years is more than enough time to show SOME improvement.

2. No one in the history of the world with her condition has ever recovered. There have been similar cases, but with the amount of brain injury she has, NO ONE has ever recovered.

And most importantly, I think a husband or wife should have more say so than the parents legally. In a similar situation, I think most woul like to think your soul mate can make the call, the person who you share your home, bed, and life with rather than the 'rents.

And for those who think the man is doing it for the money, medical history shows it was an accident, nothing more. Had he some way been implicated in the injury I'd say he might have alterior motives, but there has never been that accusation.?

I wonder who wrote this...

(I'm not at all trying to bring back up this issue, just trying to fracture Sternn's attachment to his shiny new high horse.)

[Granny-like_the_apple]

Originally Posted by Asurai

Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.

Totally agree.

What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.

I'll let T get this one.

If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others.

Finally, I can use a half-true situation instead of some whacked-out hypothetical! In Florida, after particularly bad hurricane seasons, many retailers of food, water, gas, and goods needed to rebuild homes, jack up their prices by as much as they think they can legally get away with. Now, these people's companies would not have survived if it weren't for the now-homeless people supporting their institutions over the years. I'll allow that some moderate mark-up is reasonable, albeit not a great moral position, but what about when stores start charging a $25 for a gallon of water? What about $100? What about $1000? What if stores simply refused to sell water and food? What if people died because of their price gouging? Could they be charged with murder? After all, they could reasonably expect that their refusal to sell neccesary things like food and water to hurricane-stricken people would kill some of them.

What if these people then stormed the grocery stores that had shuttered its doors? They would be completely in the wrong? They would be "enslaving" the store owners?

[Asurai]

Originally Posted by Granny-like_the_apple

Finally, I can use a half-true situation instead of some whacked-out hypothetical! In Florida, after particularly bad hurricane seasons, many retailers of food, water, gas, and goods needed to rebuild homes, jack up their prices by as much as they think they can legally get away with. Now, these people's companies would not have survived if it weren't for the now-homeless people supporting their institutions over the years. I'll allow that some moderate mark-up is reasonable, albeit not a great moral position, but what about when stores start charging a $25 for a gallon of water? What about $100? What about $1000? What if stores simply refused to sell water and food? What if people died because of their price gouging? Could they be charged with murder? After all, they could reasonably expect that their refusal to sell neccesary things like food and water to hurricane-stricken people would kill some of them.

If they refused to sell their goods, then they would go out of business. If they charged prices that most people couldn't pay, then they would go out of business. A business wants to stay in business, so it will therefore not refuse to sell its goods.

"A moderate mark-up," besides not being immoral, is necessary. Prices are controlled mostly by the law of supply and demand, at least when someone wants to stay in business. As the demand for those goods rises, while the supply remains the same -- lower than people would like ;-- the price of those goods naturally rises.

No, they could not be charged with murder by any legal standard, not condemned for it by any moral standard, no more than I could be charged with murder by not selling all of my possessions and giving to hungry people.

My solution to the now-homeless people: stop building your homes on sand. As Ravena tells me, about 90% of those that lose their homes during hurricanes are people who build their homes right on the beach. Those homes are regularly demolished, and the same people (with government disaster-relief aid) simply build their homes back on the same spot, where they're wiped out next hurricane season.

[Panther]

Originally Posted by Asurai

Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -

Yes you can. You can argue anything, as you're seeing now.

And there are as many versions of truth as there are people on hte planet to perpetuate it. I know for a fact that Cherry Mountain Dew is horrible, nasty, and vile. I have a couple friends who know for a fact that I'm insane and have no tastebuds because of this truth.

Truth is subject to how it is perceived. That's why finding a collective truth that might be an accurate representation of what happened in a situation is so difficult. Even if nobody lies, the stories will not line up exactly in any circumstances, yet every testimony given is the God honest truth.

[Asurai]

Well, after typing a probably too-lengthy response to this, I accidently closed out the window. So, here it is in brief (not that it makes much difference. Nobody ever wins these online arguments anyway.):

Originally Posted by Loy

Asurai-I love how you pull the "we beat the nazi's" as a "retort" against my assertion about the military. Especially when it was pointed out that 1-the nazi's were NOT the reason we went to war in the first place, 2-we had plenty of sympathisers/supporters of the Nazis (and Fascists) within our country before, during, and after the war

Regardless of the purity of our motives, we still removed the Nazis from power, just as we ended slavery in the United States although the Civil War had not been originally fought for that purpose.

Yes, we had Nazis here. So? They weren't in power, they weren't commiting genocide, and they weren't trying to take over the country by force. Or are you advocating that we suppress unpopular political parties?

However, as far as pushing the hegemon, we can speak about the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American war, the anti-Bolshevik "police actions" (during and directly after the fall of the Tsar Dynasty), our whole history with pre-commie China, the central/south Pacific islands, our entrance into the two big wars (do you really believe those reasons as being altruistic, or are you just whitewashing them to "defend" our history?)

I really don't give a damn about our reasons' being or not being altruistic. We went to war with Germany and Japan in Europe and the Pacific so that we wouldn't have to fight them in New York and California. In the process and as a result, we liberated millions of people from fascism -- tell them that we were extending our hegemony.

our many involvements in the Middle East and Central/South America throughout this century (Panama's is a VERY interesting history of exploitation on the US part, but there's also Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Peru

Terrorist states, dictatorships, and thugocracies are not entitled to protection by the rule of law. Particularly not when they violate our laws on a daily basis.

Panama. Yes, poor Panama. We built an evil canal, which evilly provided massive amounts of revenus, and then evilly handed it back to the government of Panama.

Guatemala. A communist revolution, in a bloody coup, usurped power from the legitimate government. We were at war with the communists, incase you don't remember. There were about a thousand American citizens in Guatemala at the time. Since they were caught amid the bloody purges that communists regularly perform, we decided to do what was necessary to protect them. Yes, the invasion went poorly, but it was perfectly justified.

Cuba. A communist dictatorship 90 miles from the United States acquired nuclear weapons, and it's an act of hegemony to attempt to remove the dictator who wanted us dead from power?

Haiti. The United States backed a rebel group that had legitimate claims against a horrendously corrupt government.

Africa. Sorry, but we abolished the slave trade. Of course, you may well be referring to the defensive actions known as the Barbary Pirate Wars as an act of hegemony.

Iraq. Riiight. We wanted their oil. That's why we immediately seized all of their oil fields after the invasion, which is why we're flooded with the stuff and can buy it for pennies a gallon.

Bosnia was screwed up, I'll grant you that.

I could also speak about how our military troops were used to kill off American citizens who wanted such outrageous things as decent wages, livable cities, and equal rights throughout our history.

I seem to recall frequent large riots being performed by those American citizens. I also seem to recall that, when the police couldn't control the riots and the military was sent in to restore order, those American citizens attacked and threw rocks at soldiers. Only an idiot throws rocks, which can do serious damage, at armed soldiers.


Good wages, good cities, and equal rights are great goals. I support them myself. But when their advocates advocate widespread violence. . . .

(In fact, the main argument for raising taxes in the begining of our country was to raise a standing army. Why did we argue to raise an army. To put down anti-elite rebellions such as Shay's Rebellion. And what caused Shay's Rebellion? High Taxes that caused many farm closures.)

Shay's Rebellion, actually, was caused by a recession, during which many farmers were unable to pay off their debts. According to the debt laws of the time, those who owed but did not pay were thrown in jail, and this was done to many farmers who didn't pay their debts. The farmers petitioned the government to print out masses of paper money under the mistaken assumption that this would lead to prosperity, which the government rightly refused to do. A few farmers, resenting having to actually pay back the money that they owed, decided to lead a rebellion, and a lot of other farmers who blamed the recession on the government joined in. That is to say, they commited treason. You fill in the rest.

Taxes? The tax rates in those days were the tiniest fraction of what we pay today, but you don't see us rioting and rebelling over having to hand 50% of our incomes to the government.

I also love how you're now speaking of pre-emptive actions as being morally justifiable. Maybe in your view of morality they could be, but I'm gonna go with a legal view here. Say somebody is threatening to harm me, and I kill him. Am I let go? Actually, I'd be charged with murder (killing somebody with malicious forethought), because no matter how many threats he makes towards me, I can't do shit unless he attacks me first.

You can, actually, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The rest of that statement was obvious. Unless the person was holding a knife to your throat when he made the threat, you would be charged with murder for killing him, since he hadn't actually resorted to force to violate your rights yet.

You can, however, inform the police of his threats, in which case they (and you) will act pre-emptively to prevent a murder by arresting and charging that person. Threatening death to someone is illegal for just that reason.

as a clarification, it was actually illegal for citizens in Nazi Germany to kill jews.....harm, attack, slander, yes all these were accepted, but to kill was only allowed so by the state.

I withdraw that comment of mine, then.

Does this mean that just because I'm an American I have to accept everything about this culture?

Of course not, but not shitting over it would be nice, as would showing a bit of respect to the reason why you're not living under a Japanese/German hegemony at the moment. Unlike the alleged American hegemony, they tended to be rather more violent to dissenters among their own citizenry.

As far as defending me, let me make it as clear as possible to you....nobody "defends" me, I defend myself. Whilst I do see a need for cops and the military, those needs are more for others who really don't understand the meaning of freedom.

People who need the military to defend them from dictatorship and invasion don't understand freedom?

See, as any sociologist will tell you, people, as a whole, need rules and regulations, not so much to protect them, but more as a way for self-identification. "I don't eat pork because I'm a muslim", "I don't celbrate Christmas because I'm Jewish"....there's plenty of other examples I could use.

True, but it's completely irrelevant to the preceding statement, that the military is for those "who really don't understand the meaning of freedom."

'Freedom' is the absence of government coercion to violate one's rights. Sociological-intellectual masturbation aside, that's all that it means.

But the point is this-nothing differentiates Americans from anybody else in the world, throughout history, in any signifigant way except for the rules we have.

That's somewhat like saying that nothing differentiates Bill Gates from myself in any significant way except the incomes that we make.

The rules that America has protect individual rights and limit government coercion -- that is, they establish freedom. That is what makes America entirely unique in the annals of history. No-one before us had done it, and to today few people understand it.

As far as protection....I have never called a cop to settle a dispute, since I found it more constructive (and interesting) to speak with the other person.

This is all well and good, but for dealing with criminals, I prefer someone who can throw them on their asses in jail.

I grew up in a military family. I grew up in military towns. I have plenty of friends who are military. However, I don't expect them to "defend this country" because I know (and they know, ultimately) that that's not what they're supposed to do.

That line is really getting annoying, as is your general confusing secondary consequences with primary causes.

I grew up in a military family, too. The vast majority of my relatives have been in the military. Their primary job is not to kill, which is why for nearly a decade the military was involed in no major conflicts. If the military existed only to kill, we would regularly be engaged in slaughtering people just for the sake of slaughtering them. But we're obviously not, particularly when you take into account that we try to limit casualities whenever possible through the use of smart bombs and accurate targetting.

I could also throw this your way by saying "if you're so gung-ho about the role of our miltary, why the fuck don't you join?", but then I'd have to laugh.

Because I plan on getting a college education before I apply to Officer Candidate School for the Army. It's required for that particular institute, after all.

[Asurai]

Originally Posted by Panther

And there are as many versions of truth as there are people on hte planet to perpetuate it. I know for a fact that Cherry Mountain Dew is horrible, nasty, and vile. I have a couple friends who know for a fact that I'm insane and have no tastebuds because of this truth.

Wait. You were never taught the difference between an opinion and a fact? Holy fuck, our schools are worse than even I thought.

Truth is subject to how it is perceived. That's why finding a collective truth that might be an accurate representation of what happened in a situation is so difficult. Even if nobody lies, the stories will not line up exactly in any circumstances, yet every testimony given is the God honest truth.

Truth is not subject to perception.

And you're wrong. Finding a "collective truth" is so difficult because people often mistake what they see. Regardless of who knows or doesn't know it, and regardless of how horrendously or slightly wrong people may be about a particular event, the fact remains that that event happened as it happened.

Example: people give incorrect testimony during a trial, and a person is convicted on that evidence. Later, it becomes learned that they were incorrect about what they saw, and that the convict was actually innocent. Would you argue that because they thought that they perceived him commiting the crime, their brainwaves actually altered reality so that he became guilty when they (mistakenly) perceived him to be guilty? That he did commit the crime in the past when they thought in the present that he had commited the crime?

There is one reality, one truth, and how a person perceives it is irrelevant.

The only alternative is: the law of identity is invalid; the different people perceived events which, although located in the same time and space, was different; and the different people exist in alternate dimensions from this one, while remaining able to communicate with and perceive each other. Each of these violates a fundamental rule of science.

Originally Posted by Asurai

One does not moralize a **** or murder; they're simply wrong.

I see you are substituting murder for the word killing, which implies your acceptance of the latter so let’s move on. I also see you have omitted theft, so again that insinuates you’re perfectly fine with that given the correct version of the occurrence. As for ****, this one is hard to validate, and I had a tough time coming up with a hypothetical where my morals would disagree with popular opinion, and had to stretch for statutory ****, which isn’t actually ****, except by popular opinion as to what CAN actually can constitute a ****. On the flip side, I would not look so kindly if the situation were reversed, if say it was a 23 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl. Notice I even change the maturity sense of the phrase? It’s not that I don’t think a 16 yr old girl isn’t mature enough to enter in relations with an older man, but that men have, inherently though the ages, taken advantage of the opposite sex and my morality would automatically call into suspect that man’s intentions.

Originally Posted by Asurai

Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.

True, and quit inserting natural laws in place of humanistic design. Even scientific laws and theories provide multiple versions of the truth. We can, for instance say that water boils at a constant temperature, but we also know that ONLY hydrogen with two parts oxygen containing other trace elements boils, and the temperature it boils at can be affected by altitude, composition of minerals, and any manner of unknowns. The version we use, or the rule of thumb is water boils at 212f, and 100c. If, as you contend, we followed scientific absolutes, then we would never have and could never find new improvements or discover new techniques. As for particle accelerators, there’s a design envisioned and pioneered by a great man who started out as a layman, and what Tesla first discovered as a portion of the truth (or the portion he could then see) continues to proffer new truths. Laymen and laywomen of the world unite, because we all begin our existence in the same murky pool of questioning.

Originally Posted by Asurai

Neither truth nor morality are subject to popular opinion. I would really hope that someone, in making moral decisions, doesn't simply go with what holds the popular opinion. Remember that opposing slavery used to be highly unpopular.

Both truth and morality are subject to popular opinion. What you really hope, and what really happens, are two entirely different things. Reality and morality are intrinsically linked to mortality, and a people will (for a time) side against their personal feelings to propagate a continuance of their lives and livelihood. I said it before, and I’ll say it again. You are only right when everyone else (the vast majority) thinks you are, and when they don’t you’re wrong. And if you don’t think truth and morality are subject to popular opinion…you really haven’t studied history, and you never read the newspaper.

Originally Posted by Asurai

What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.

Really? I find this line of reasoning most interesting. Anyone subscribing to this mode of thought is, in a sense, unsubscribing from the ergonomics of potential, and locking his or herself into a field of current knowns, with no hope of advancement. You see this type of behavior in fundamentalists, you know, fanatics…people who have been given a version of a truth and refuse to accept any other possibilities.

And let’s talk about the word truth. Linguistically, it’s a confusing fucking word. It has a lot of meanings, and most of them are dependant on the point of view of the person spreading them, and the person or persons accepting them. Just because someone says something is true, doesn’t make it so, and yet—it doesn’t make it an untruth. In the person’s mind, which proffers it, it is very true. In your mind it might be gravy over chocolate cake, making absolutely no sense what so ever. That doesn’t change the different versions, which do prosper amongst us, or the level of devotion those varying shades of truth incite in the populace.

To say there is only one truth is on the level of absurdity.

*NOTE* Truth need not be factual. A Fact, and a Truth, are two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Asurai

The rich country (if, that term, you mean the businessmen of that country, since the governments of rich countries don't have the kind of arbitrary power that you mentioned) would be the one defending itself from force (since the poor one instituted the use of force), so they would be right and the poor country, wrong.

The poor country has no right to use force to obtain what they did not produce. Those goods were produced by the labor and capital of individuals in the rich country; whether the poor country needs them or not is irrelevant. If the rich country chooses to sell to the poor, then the poor has every right to purchase what it wants. If the rich country chooses to raise prices, then that's their right: the goods are entirely theirs by right of rights. If the poor country wants to buy the goods at that price, they may.

If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others. Since property is created only by labor and capital, claiming a right to the property of others (regardless of the reason or basis) would be claiming a right to the labor of others, whether they wish to give it or not. This is slavery by any definition of the word.

Now, speaking purely theoretically, the rich country shouldn't raise tariffs or cut off trade -- both of which are unwise choices (or evil, since only the government could make that decision -- not the individuals who produced and sold the goods in the first place), but disastrous in this case. Nonetheless, that does not give the poor country the right to enslave, regardless of the poor's need or of the sins of the rich's government.

See, you are working in circles of black and white. You bring up capital, which helped produce the goods of the rich country, but that capital was raised on the backs of the poor country. I also made mention of rich in materials, but you must have skipped over that bit.

So the country, which is poor and dependant upon the goods of the rich country has an obligation to its people to ensure their welfare. They would be wrong not to try and secure those materials, and are even obligated to.

The rich country has every right to sell to whom it chooses, but since they have crated a dependency with the poor country, they are also obligated to bare in mind the poor coountry’s welfare, in respect to any actions and tariffs it might impose.

They also have the honored obligation of safeguarding their country’s resources, and when the poor country comes to war, are forced to retaliate.

Two countries enter, one country leaves. These are the rules for Thunderdome.

Originally Posted by Asurai

An intelligent sixteen-year-old is more than capable of acting or not acting on his own consent and free choice. Unless the teacher physically forced him to have sex (unlikely), nothing wrong was commited.

No-one was harmed, and so the teacher was wronged in being punished.

(This only applies to the statuatory **** charge -- if the school itself had a policy against students' dating teachers, which is almost certain, then it has every right to dismiss the teacher. But that is not to say that she should be brought up on criminal charges.)

Yes, but if the school did have a policy against dating the student body, then that is also mandated by morality. It doesn’t matter what you think (at this point) or what I think, the decision is in the hands of the majority, and what they think. We can disagree, but until we convince everyone (the great majority) that we are right, we are wrong.

Originally Posted by Asurai

The company had a mutual, contractual agreement with the woman. In failing to honor its terms, and in stealing her money (assuming that it wasn't simply investing it, as banks do today), it commited a crime necessary of punishment. Awarding the woman's $500k back to her is simple justice, since the money is hers (again, assuming that the company wasn't simply investing the money in the same manner that banks today do), and some slight recompense would be just, but $2,000,000 is excessive.

The company stole from the woman, but the woman was awarded money which she did not earn. The company was more in the wrong by far, but the woman's acceptance of $2,000,000 did not restore her own money, but took money that was lawfully the company's. On that point, both commited some degree of wrong.

See, again you are working in the black and white. The woman went to court on good faith that her monies would be restored, and they were. She did not ask for the additional two million, but a panel of her peers awarded it to her anyway, any you absolved them from any guilt. She is the most innocent of the bunch, and both the company and the jury are culpable. Both were right in what they perceived was the correct action, and were working from a version of their own truths, but the company no longer holds the popular opinion and is now wrong, whereas the jury is the popular opinion, and at that time is right, but that doesn't make them correct.

The woman, sadly to say, is the victim of differing truths and moral principals. She isn’t obligated to take the money and deposit it in her account. She can, for the sake of her principals, donate it to charity, anonymously give it back to the company, or she can keep it and call it manna from the gods.

Good thinking though, and aside from what my own truths dictate, I can follow your line of reasoning. You may not agree with anything I say, and I may disagree with most of what you say, but we can still discuss the merrits anyway. And that, more than anything else, is what it's all about.

[Asurai]

Originally Posted by TStone

I see you are substituting murder for the word killing, which implies your acceptance of the latter so let’s move on. I also see you have omitted theft, so again that insinuates you’re perfectly fine with that given the correct version of the occurrence.

I omitted theft for no particular reason, and I substituted 'murder' for 'killing' for no other reason than that killing is not always wrong, while murder is.

On the flip side, I would not look so kindly if the situation were reversed, if say it was a 23 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl. Notice I even change the maturity sense of the phrase? It’s not that I don’t think a 16 yr old girl isn’t mature enough to enter in relations with an older man, but that men have, inherently though the ages, taken advantage of the opposite sex and my morality would automatically call into suspect that man’s intentions.

Understandable, but I still disagree: no matter the circumstances, I treat someone as innocent until proven guilty regardless of sex, race, or any other factor.

True, and quit inserting natural laws in place of humanistic design.

That's my point: I don't recognize morality as being designed by humans, while you do. In my view, it simply is.

Both truth and morality are subject to popular opinion.

You are only right when everyone else (the vast majority) thinks you are, and when they don’t you’re wrong.

If I stated that 2+2=4, and everyone else in the world said that 2+2=5, I would be right and they wrong. If everyone else stated that freedom is slavery, they would be wrong. End of discussion.

You see this type of behavior in fundamentalists, you know, fanatics…people who have been given a version of a truth and refuse to accept any other possibilities.

You also see it in scientists and mathematicians.

And let’s talk about the word truth. Linguistically, it’s a confusing fucking word. It has a lot of meanings, and most of them are dependant on the point of view of the person spreading them, and the person or persons accepting them.

Yes, but that does not influence the world itself.

Words are not actual ideas, they are crude verbal representations of concrete ideas. Any confusion that results from them is the result of imperfectly mapping words onto concretes, and that confusion has absolutely no influence on reality.

To say there is only one truth is on the level of absurdity.

*NOTE* Truth need not be factual. A Fact, and a Truth, are two entirely different things.

From Webster:

fact, n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

truth, n.
Conformity to fact or actuality.

Truth and fact are perfectly synonymous. The only main difference is that a fact tends to pertain to a particular occurence or reality, while 'truth' is generally used to mean the sum of all facts.

See, you are working in circles of black and white. You bring up capital, which helped produce the goods of the rich country, but that capital was raised on the backs of the poor country. I also made mention of rich in materials, but you must have skipped over that bit.

So the country, which is poor and dependant upon the goods of the rich country has an obligation to its people to ensure their welfare. They would be wrong not to try and secure those materials, and are even obligated to.

The rich country has every right to sell to whom it chooses, but since they have crated a dependency with the poor country, they are also obligated to bare in mind the poor coountry’s welfare, in respect to any actions and tariffs it might impose.

Stating that someone is arguing in black-and-white is not a refutation.

What capital was raised "from the backs" of the poor country, was duly paid for and purchased by the rich country. And it's most often the wealthy that provide capital, which, in turn, tends to increase as prosperity increases.

I didn't notice the "rich in materials" part; did it apply to the rich country or poor country?

The rich country did not create a dependency. Unless we're talking about extremely high levels of government intervention (which I would not defend; I defend only capitalism), it did not point a gun at the poor and say, "Buy or die."

Note that I don't support the rich country's closing down the free market. That is contrary to the principles of free trade, and I believe that it should continue to provide whatever the poor country can purchase. However, theoretically, if it did so, the poor country has no right to those goods that it did not produce.

They also have the honored obligation of safeguarding their country’s resources, and when the poor country comes to war, are forced to retaliate.

Two countries enter, one country leaves. These are the rules for Thunderdome.

LOL. And perfectly true, applying also to the richer nation: it is obligated to defend its citizens' property from seizure. (Of course now that I reflect more, since it's showing a high degree of government intervention in private affairs, that government created the problem to begin with, and it most likely takes the form of a socialist dictatorship. In which case, it violates the rights of its own citizens and has no right to exist as such, and I'm sure that the entrepeneurs would love to see that government fall, in part so that they could continue to sell to the poor country. So it depends on whether the poor country is going to war to change the rich country's form of government, which would be great and good, or to seize its citizens' property, which would be irredeemable.)

It doesn’t matter what you think (at this point) or what I think, the decision is in the hands of the majority, and what they think. We can disagree, but until we convince everyone (the great majority) that we are right, we are wrong.

The majority is currently against gay marriage, abortion, and a great many other things which I'm sure that you're for. But I don't see you bowing your neck and saying, "Who am I to argue with society? I'll just go start voting for whoever's ahead in the opinion polls."

The woman went to court on good faith that her monies would be restored, and they were. She did not ask for the additional two million, but a panel of her peers awarded it to her anyway, any you absolved them from any guilt. She is the most innocent of the bunch, and both the company and the jury are culpable.

I have no idea how I forgot the jury. Sigh.... yeah, the jurors are culpable, and I messed up on this scenario.

Both were right in what they perceived was the correct action, and were working from a version of their own truths, but the company no longer holds the popular opinion and is now wrong, whereas the jury is the popular opinion, and at that time is right, but that doesn't make them correct.

At least, I messed up the scenario, but not following the same chain of reasoning that you indicate here. :-P

There are a few too many mental hurdles there for me. Being young and ideal, I don't accept the assertion that what is right isn't necessarily what's correct.

Good thinking though, and aside from what my own truths dictate, I can follow your line of reasoning. You may not agree with anything I say, and I may disagree with most of what you say, but we can still discuss the merits anyway. And that, more than anything else, is what it's all about.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Asurai

edited.

Nicely done

[Asurai]

TStone: Re the hurricanes. I then, again, withdraw those statements of mine, with the following exception:

If I own a business, I have no obligation to sell anyone anything at any price. Of course, I would prefer to stay in business.

Consumers have no right to consume, only to buy what is offered for sale if they can afford it. But $25 for a gallon of water (does it get so high? I've only seen about $10 for a gallon during bad storms here) is absurd: it didn't cost near that to package and market a gallon of water.

True, and quit inserting natural laws in place of humanistic design.

Originally Posted by Asurai

That's my point: I don't recognize morality as being designed by humans, while you do. In my view, it simply is.

Have I said humans created morality, or morality created we humans? I don’t remember, but I’m apt to disagree with either assumption, depending on my mood and what everyone else is saying.

Originally Posted by Asurai

If I stated that 2+2=4, and everyone else in the world said that 2+2=5, I would be right and they wrong. If everyone else stated that freedom is slavery, they would be wrong. End of discussion.

You’re starting to get it. If you said 2+2=4, and everyone else believed 2+2=5, then 5 it is. It doesn’t mean it’s really 5, just that everyone is giving 5 when you give them two 2’s. If you were to give someone only 4 when they gave you two 2’s, then you would be cheating them, and likely get pummeled for it, because everyone believes it’s 5. I’m sorry to say that 2+2=5 until you can convince everyone it is really 4. Much the same with the world once being flat, the burden of proof is on the minority to become the majority.

Originally Posted by Asurai

You also see it in scientists and mathematicians.

I don’t believe you do. I think I covered this earlier, and it was a pretty good example I gave (if I do say so myself, and I am) that science and mathematics are much more open to possibilities, are actually founded upon what-ifs, and very open to redefining previous truths.

Originally Posted by Asurai

Yes, but that does not influence the world itself.

Words are not actual ideas, they are crude verbal representations of concrete ideas. Any confusion that results from them is the result of imperfectly mapping words onto concretes, and that confusion has absolutely no influence on reality.

Actually, words are ideas. That’s all they are. Noam Chomsky demonstrated this better than I ever could. And I would disagree with your association of crude verbal representations, and will.

Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth.

By using the word truth in place of opinion and in lieu of fact I try to impart a sense of right to someone else’s thought process. And we see, in the loose terminology, there can be and is a difference between truths and facts. A truth doesn’t have to have something in actual existence, to exist. A fact, on the other hand, does. A fact has to have happened, a truth just has to be perceived as being capable of happening, or probable, or accepted by the general population.

On crude verbal representation? I’d say words (oral and written) were a form of psychic aptitude. I say to you water, and you can instantly associate (most of the time) the appropriate ideas to understand my meaning. Your interpretation will (and should) differ from mine as to what actually constitutes water, but you have a really good idea about what I’m talking about, and can impart your own thoughts and experiences on the subject, and even add to my own definition of what it is. I wouldn’t call that a crude representation, I’d call that an ever expanding and unending, beautiful concept.

Originally Posted by Asurai

Stating that someone is arguing in black-and-white is not a refutation.

No, but the rest (after that part) was the supportive argument, meant to reinforce the original statement.

Originally Posted by Asurai

What capital was raised "from the backs" of the poor country, was duly paid for and purchased by the rich country. And it's most often the wealthy that provide capital, which, in turn, tends to increase as prosperity increases.

I didn't notice the "rich in materials" part; did it apply to the rich country or poor country?

The rich, which coincidently, was why they were rich. Rich in materials. They had the means (provided by the poor country as well as their own citizens) and materials (provided by themselves) to produce the goods. In this hypothetical world these are the only two countries in existence. One is positioned in a fertile, lush land, the other in an arid waste land.

Originally Posted by Asurai

The rich country did not create a dependency. Unless we're talking about extremely high levels of government intervention (which I would not defend; I defend only capitalism), it did not point a gun at the poor and say, "Buy or die."

It did, because this is my world, and the gun was in the form of resources owned by the rich country, which the poor country needed to survive (think water, timber, foodstuffs.)

Originally Posted by Asurai

Note that I don't support the rich country's closing down the free market. That is contrary to the principles of free trade, and I believe that it should continue to provide whatever the poor country can purchase. However, theoretically, if it did so, the poor country has no right to those goods that it did not produce.

It doesn’t, unless the rich country creates a dependency. Over years of dependency the poor country would have become acclimated to the rich’s generosity, their population would have expanded beyond what their lands could support, which only occurred because of the rich’s trade. [/quote]

[quote]They also have the honored obligation of safeguarding their country’s resources, and when the poor country comes to war, are forced to retaliate.

Two countries enter, one country leaves. These are the rules for Thunderdome.

Originally Posted by Asurai

LOL. And perfectly true, applying also to the richer nation: it is obligated to defend its citizens' property from seizure. (Of course now that I reflect more, since it's showing a high degree of government intervention in private affairs, that government created the problem to begin with, and it most likely takes the form of a socialist dictatorship. In which case, it violates the rights of its own citizens and has no right to exist as such, and I'm sure that the entrepeneurs would love to see that government fall, in part so that they could continue to sell to the poor country. So it depends on whether the poor country is going to war to change the rich country's form of government, which would be great and good, or to seize its citizens' property, which would be irredeemable.)

Actually, I wasn’t working with a government. Just the mass mob mentality. I was really trying to separate politics from economics, which IS an impossibility, but my world my rules :}

Originally Posted by Asurai

The majority is currently against gay marriage, abortion, and a great many other things which I'm sure that you're for. But I don't see you bowing your neck and saying, "Who am I to argue with society? I'll just go start voting for whoever's ahead in the opinion polls."

See, I think that’s where I lose you. When I say the majority rules, or you’re right when everyone else thinks you are, and when they don’t you’re wrong, I’m veering away from truths and stating a fact. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the majority, I think I have stated it IS your responsibility to convince them otherwise when you do disagree, but until you win popular opinion, the population will perceive you as being wrong.

Both were right in what they perceived was the correct action, and were working from a version of their own truths, but the company no longer holds the popular opinion and is now wrong, whereas the jury is the popular opinion, and at that time is right, but that doesn't make them correct.

Originally Posted by Asurai

At least, I messed up the scenario, but not following the same chain of reasoning that you indicate here. :-P

Simply put, the company thought it was doing the right thing by borrowing (they had intended to replace it) from her retirement to strengthen the company, and the jury thought it was doing the right thing by sending a message to any other company thinking of following the other company’s practices. The truths being what each side believed to be in the best interest of all concerned, not necessarily the correct action.

Originally Posted by Asurai

Hear hear!

For sure.

Originally Posted by Asurai

TStone: Re the hurricanes. I then, again, withdraw those statements of mine, with the following exception:

If I own a business, I have no obligation to sell anyone anything at any price. Of course, I would prefer to stay in business.

Consumers have no right to consume, only to buy what is offered for sale if they can afford it. But $25 for a gallon of water (does it get so high? I've only seen about $10 for a gallon during bad storms here) is absurd: it didn't cost near that to package and market a gallon of water.

Ha! Nothing like a good catastrophe to bring out the dregs of society. Water going for 25 a gallon? Easily, especially in the more isolated, harder hit areas. And what is laughable (if one were inclined to laugh at such shit) is much of the goods being sold at those gouged prices are donations, earmarked as disaster relief to the needy. These items mysteriously show up in seedy merchants hands, and they in turn sell it to the populace at the astronomical prices. It’s all rather fucking sad, but for every bitch and bastard there are a thousand saintly humans going about, cutting down limbs for free, taking ice to their neighbors, sharing generator electricity, giving food, giving shelter...yeah, there were good times too.

[Granny-like_the_apple]

Originally Posted by Asurai

If they refused to sell their goods, then they would go out of business. If they charged prices that most people couldn't pay, then they would go out of business. A business wants to stay in business, so it will therefore not refuse to sell its goods.

It's certainly possible that store owners would be afraid of opening of their doors to a mob, scared of their wares being stolen. Or they could just want to keep all the food and fresh water to themselves, their families, and their friends.

"A moderate mark-up," besides not being immoral, is necessary. Prices are controlled mostly by the law of supply and demand, at least when someone wants to stay in business. As the demand for those goods rises, while the supply remains the same -- lower than people would like ;-- the price of those goods naturally rises.

It's "necessary" according to the rules of market-based economic theory, not morality. I am quite familiar with the theory of supply and demand, some might say too familiar, but this isn't a discussion about economic theory.

No, they could not be charged with murder by any legal standard, not condemned for it by any moral standard, no more than I could be charged with murder by not selling all of my possessions and giving to hungry people.

That's not an equivalent situation-you as a private citizen may not have any special obligation to provide other people with amenities like food, water, tools, etc. If you owned the only grocery store on an island with its only bridge to the mainland and its one port destroyed, and you refused to sell things for less than a king's ransom, you would be charged with something, because I'm pretty sure raising prices beyond a certain level after a natural disaster is illegal. And if, as a result of commiting this crime, people die-voila, manslaughter charges. (I have no idea if this actually happens or could happen, but I can't find anything logically wrong with it. Of course, I am vain.)

Do you still believe that there is no moral standard under which a person acting in this way could be condemned?

My solution to the now-homeless people: stop building your homes on sand. As Ravena tells me, about 90% of those that lose their homes during hurricanes are people who build their homes right on the beach. Those homes are regularly demolished, and the same people (with government disaster-relief aid) simply build their homes back on the same spot, where they're wiped out next hurricane season.

I hope you don't actually think that's a "solution." That's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Groan, I know, I know.)

If people stopped building/buying oceanfront property here, the economy of South Florida would completely collapse. We rely a great deal on tourism, and tourists come here mainly for the beach. And homes aren't "regularly demolished." Notice I said "after particularly bad hurricane seasons"-those don't come around often. Last season's four strong hurricanes in a row were a total rarity, and even more so the fact that some of them went pretty deep onto the mainland. Hurricane Andrew caused some of the worst damage in the US's recorded history. Usual hurricane seasons don't wreck houses. I've slept through hurricanes.

But we could move this scenario away from Florida (which a minor idol of mine has suggested we should just nuke for all the damn trouble it causes) and take it to Southeast Asia, after the tsunami. They couldn't expect to be hit by that thing. I can't imagine how price gouging wasn't widespread after that, when these tons of people with their homes wiped out and not exactly the deepest pockets were trying to survive. No moral standard with which to criticize the price gougers? I can't believe that. Market-based economics is not, or should not, be the highest factor in considering the morality of an act.

[Panther]

Originally Posted by Asurai

Wait. You were never taught the difference between an opinion and a fact? Holy fuck, our schools are worse than even I thought.

I used a more lighthearted example than the others were giving to break the monotony. I could have pointed out how suicide bombers know they're going to heaven to kick it with their god when they do what they do, but everyone else thinks that they're the soul of evil; but I would rather attempt to keep it semi-lighthearted.

Truth is not subject to perception.

Everything that a human being experiences is. If we could see a situation from every possible angle, and know every intimate detail of everything that happened to us and around us, our heads would explode before we learned how to sit up on our own.

And you're wrong. Finding a "collective truth" is so difficult because people often mistake what they see. Regardless of who knows or doesn't know it, and regardless of how horrendously or slightly wrong people may be about a particular event, the fact remains that that event happened as it happened.

Yes, but what is taken as truth is the misperceptions and various other observational shortcomings. We can never know the absolout truth of any situation, ever, even if we witness it ourselves.

Example: people give incorrect testimony during a trial, and a person is convicted on that evidence. Later, it becomes learned that they were incorrect about what they saw, and that the convict was actually innocent. Would you argue that because they thought that they perceived him commiting the crime, their brainwaves actually altered reality so that he became guilty when they (mistakenly) perceived him to be guilty? That he did commit the crime in the past when they thought in the present that he had commited the crime?

What that person said and believed was the truth to them. No, the events did not alter, but what they know as true was what they testified. All we know as human beings is what we percieve. That is the ony truth we ever have.

There is one reality, one truth, and how a person perceives it is irrelevant.

What good does that truth do then? Yes, events happenthe same for everyone, but that doesn't matter, because not everyone perceives them to happen the same way.

The only alternative is: the law of identity is invalid; the different people perceived events which, although located in the same time and space, was different; and the different people exist in alternate dimensions from this one, while remaining able to communicate with and perceive each other. Each of these violates a fundamental rule of science.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that truth to you is not nessisarily truth to me, regardless of what actually happened. Say you're joking around with Tstone, and call him a name. The truth that you have is that you're joking around. The truth that I have might be that you're being an ass. The event doesn't change, but our personal ideas of truth are wildly different. While you have a better grasp of the actual event than I do, being able to see more angles than me, you still don't know the whole truth, because you can't see from the eyes of all the people who read this hypothetical post (Note: I am not in anyway sayign tha you wouild ever call Tstone, or anyone else, a rude name. I just needed an example). All that we have is our own personal truths based on what we know, which is based on what we perceive.

Our ideas of truth are based on our perceptions.

Originally Posted by Granny-like_the_apple

That's not an equivalent situation-you as a private citizen may not have any special obligation to provide other people with amenities like food, water, tools, etc. If you owned the only grocery store on an island with its only bridge to the mainland and its one destroyed, and you refused to sell things for less than a king's ransom, you would be charged with something, because I'm pretty sure raising prices beyond a certain level after a natural disaster is illegal. And if, as a result of commiting this crime, people die-voila, manslaughter charges. (I have no idea if this actually happens or could happen, but I can't find anything logically wrong with it. Of course, I am vain.)

Excellent point. I missed this idea completely in my original rebuttal, and I thank you for offering it. Aside from the additional costs of transporting goods; the logistics of moving the goods over secondary routes, the fuel and manpower needed to accomplish that, the mark up should not exceed 15% (and that’s being liberal) of the fair market value. Any gross markup of goods, above the percentage of tolerance for fair market value, is criminal and punishable in my state.

It’s ethically wrong to price gouge, which the courts (in my state at least) have decreed. Morally it’s thievery on a grand scale. It’s one thing to have someone sneak into your house while you’re away and steal you blind, it’s quite another to be robbed by someone standing before you, smiling, passing small talk about when the electricity will be back on.

In the right circumstances I can see the population rising up against that type of behavior, and imposing its most sever penalty. A hand for a hand, an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and all that jazz

Err.

My bad, that’s already happened :}

[Granny-like_the_apple]

Originally Posted by TStone

Excellent point. I missed this idea completely in my original rebuttal, and I thank you for offering it.

Thanks, and you're welcome. (There should be an all-purpose word or phrase for that-it's so awkward.)

Any gross markup of goods, above the percentage of tolerance for fair market value, is criminal and punishable in my state.

That's what I thought, but I was too lazy to look it up, and didn't want to get caught in saying it was definitely so.

[Asurai]

Originally Posted by TStone

You’re starting to get it. If you said 2+2=4, and everyone else believed 2+2=5, then 5 it is. It doesn’t mean it’s really 5, just that everyone is giving 5 when you give them two 2’s. If you were to give someone only 4 when they gave you two 2’s, then you would be cheating them, and likely get pummeled for it, because everyone believes it’s 5. I’m sorry to say that 2+2=5 until you can convince everyone it is really 4.

They can believe what they want. 2+2=4; that's an absolute fact that is and will always be true, regardless of how many people believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by Panther

Everything that a human being experiences is [subject to perception]. If we could see a situation from every possible angle, and know every intimate detail of everything that happened to us and around us, our heads would explode before we learned how to sit up on our own.

Reality is not contigent upon human experience, so that entire example is invalid.

We can never know the absolout truth of any situation, ever, even if we witness it ourselves.

Omniscience is not a necessary standard. Whether we know it or not, that absolute truth exists. Blame our lack of godhood rather than a lack of absolute reality.

What that person said and believed was the truth to them. All we know as human beings is what we percieve. That is the ony truth we ever have.

Just because I think that something is true, it is not necessarily so. Regardless what you, I, or 6 billion people believe happened, one certain thing happened independent of us. Now you're not even arguing that there isn't an absolute reality; you're simply saying that there is, but we can't know it.

We can. 2+2=4, now and forever. I can demonstrate and prove it any number of ways. A triangle cannot have two right angles; I can demonstrate and prove it in any number of ways, as many times as you like. That rock is not a pillow; I can demonstrate and prove it in any number of ways, as frequently as you like. I'll prove it today, I'll prove it tomorrow, and I'll prove it on February 3, 2056 -- and these will still remain absolutely true.

What good does that truth do then? Yes, events happenthe same for everyone, but that doesn't matter, because not everyone perceives them to happen the same way.

Irrelevant. A lunatic's view of reality is not a standard. The good that that truth does, is science: science rests upon the axiom that reality exists the same for everyone, and that things can be observed, tested, and proven. Adding oxygen to iron will result in rust; it will not at another time result in water. Inhaling pure carbon dioxide for an extended period of time will result in death; it will not at another time result in comic-book super powers.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that truth to you is not nessisarily truth to me, regardless of what actually happened. Say you're joking around with Tstone, and call him a name. The truth that you have is that you're joking around. The truth that I have might be that you're being an ass.

That would be an opinion. The truth would be that, for whatever reason and for whatever perceived effect, I called him a name.

Our ideas of truth are based on our perceptions.

Yes, of course. But truth exists independent of our perceptions, and because it exists, and because we perceive only that which exists, we can know absolute truth. The angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees, and any high-school student is capable of learning that absolute truth as truth (as fact), not as arbitrary perception.

Originally Posted by Granny

It's certainly possible that store owners would be afraid of opening of their doors to a mob, scared of their wares being stolen. Or they could just want to keep all the food and fresh water to themselves, their families, and their friends.

Right. So? It's their food and their fresh water: if they want to keep it to themselves and their families, they can.

I am quite familiar with the theory of supply and demand, some might say too familiar, but this isn't a discussion about economic theory.

But it is. We're discussing a business transaction, a sale, and the level of prices involved. That falls within the sphere of economics.

That's not an equivalent situation-you as a private citizen may not have any special obligation to provide other people with amenities like food, water, tools, etc.

A businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee. There is no difference between my property and the property of a businessman, except that he has more of it.

A sign displayed by most businesses says, truly, "This is my establishment. I reserve the right to refuse service."

If you owned the only grocery store on an island with its only bridge to the mainland and its one port destroyed, and you refused to sell things for less than a king's ransom, you would be charged with something

More than that, I would go out of business. Once the disaster were over, someone else would take advantage of the fact that I'm an asshole to start a grocery store, and the citizens of the island would naturally refuse to buy anything else from me, since I had tried to screw them over. On a small island like that, I would lose 100% of my customers. In short, it's not good business.

Or more likely, the government would temporarily declare a state of emergency and, on those grounds, order me to lower my prices or face unpleasant consequences. Price-hiking is, of itself, not illegal, I believe; only during a state of emergency. (Feel free to correct me.)

Anyway, a businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee, so his property is his.

It'll never be done, but here's my ideal solution to price-hiking: any business wanting to do business on that small island has to sign a contract to the effect that he will not raise prices in the event of being cut off from the mainland or of hurricanes. Since it controls the prices, socialists are happy; since it's a voluntary contract rather than forced control, capitalists are happy. Mostly.

Originally Posted by TStone

Have I said humans created morality, or morality created we humans? I don’t remember, but I’m apt to disagree with either assumption, depending on my mood and what everyone else is saying.

TStone, for that line alone, I just have to love you.