Couldn't edit my post, so did the next best thing and added another.Stas Bush:
C, vain insults don't change the fact that I'm right. I don't know if anarchist morons (because there are smart anarchists, no shit) who "viewed this thread" on your end really even understand the points which are made.
There are plenty of people below even your intellectual caliber on this site- I'm trying to avoid the effects of implicit argument ad populorum.
You can't "justify" the claim that survival of your own species is good (which is nothing but a word we made up for describing things we like, things that are beneficial for us)? Is it that hard? You realize that the destruction of the species equals also your own destruction. A self-destructive impulse of that magnitude is definetely psychotic. Practicality does not say what is good. The example I made, killing other people for food is not good if food's plentiful (and we consider it a crime), but at times of severe hardship we might actually look the other way.
'Good' and 'evil' reflect core ideas of the mind, not 'mere' concepts (like a word such as 'empire')- the words we use could be different, but any human would have them.
You are appealing here to another alleged good- my own destruction- and another alleged bad- psychosis. Again, you can't establish these alleged good and bad things as good or bad.
Finally, if you are appealing to what ordinary people see as good or bad rather than what is good or bad then we've been arguing different things the entire time. I was never arguing about what ordinary people think of morality.
See - this is what I was talking about. Abberations from the norm are destructive to the species. Easter Island was basically such a scenario in miniature. Unless you're perfectly fine with your self-destruction, I see no reason to subscribe to a system of morality like this.
So is there an objective scientific observation that would demonstrate normative behaviour (avoiding suffering) as counterbeneficial to the species or not? I'm a bit dissappointed. All caps are the very definition of lame. And why not care, anyway? The objective observer is still human, is he not? There is a difference, of course, but Einstein and a stupid person would cry in agony all the same if their hand catches fire. Since the reaction is similar, I simply consider this a part of the norm, and I consider equal or very similar reactions to be at work here.
1- It's just another form of emphasis, one level 'above' bold type. I was trying to put particular emphasis on the point.
2- Appeal to empathy (which you have not established), and a flawed one anyway as humans feel in a very similiar way to animals.
3- I've already refuted the idea of benefit to the species being good.
Nationalist != objective observer. The example just does not have any consistency. So who should be convinced of the reasonability of my stance, the objective observer or a nationalist, who's clearly holding a subjective position?
I would consider an objective observer to be one who is correct on all relevant factual points. Their moral views don't come into it. Going into more detail- if you're going to call a nationalist an unobjective observer for his moral feelings, why not do the same for a so-called objective observer who displays moral feelings themselves? Your only recourse is an appeal to the norm or appeal to an arbitrary principle.
Rape instincts (and many instincts in general) are no longer a part of the norm for quite a while, see "sentience". They are counterbeneficial to the species as it stands now. But of course, it would be rather stupid to argue that rape is evil in a pack of the human ancestor apes, don't you think?
Rape has been in the same posistion it always has been- a part of the male breeding instinct and stigmatised by society at the same time. I also see nothing stupid about claiming rape is evil in a pack of ancestor apes, particularly given that.
To use more examples of my point- genocide, imperialistic warfare, hereditary stigmatisation of a genetic group with no real genetic disadvantages etc.
I am not sure I'd want to put a moral system which is not based on anything observable on equal basis with anything. That's a sky pixie system. What if the sky pixie tells us to commit to self-destruction, like Easter Island? C. S. Lewis might have fun for a while, but I don't find that reasonable at all. Materialist viewpoints don't work like this. And materialism is the only sound philosophical current - I guess you'd disagree, but why would it even matter?
Moral Communalism, as I'm establishing here, is also based on nothing.
On matters of fact, yes materialism (if I understand what it is right) is the only sound philosophical current. But all your attempts to derive morality from it fail as you cannot put your first principle on sound footing.
Something like that is enforced in modern societies. Western nations disallow violence to occur (see police), there are whole nation-states institutions for mutual help (formalized even) and people are encouraged to treat each other as fellow citizens. Not as brothers, but certainly as people working together for a mutual goal, colleagues if you wish. Maybe you hate it, but you're not in Somali yet to my knowledge.
I don't have the money to head to Somalia or any actual anarchic world region.
Anyway, as you admitted that's not brotherhood. If you're accusing me of inconsistency I will point out that violence comes under the 'human rights' category, making the part under question from Moral Individualism the issuing of taxes (which at the moment I don't pay) plus a few minor things (which I do object to if that's your point).
Well, if real anarchy doesn't work the way you like, too bad for you C. I mean, would you also call a gang on your block a "government" if there's no national government anymore? And if so, where does government start? Maybe there's no anarchy at all. A family is often a form of government as well by your standards. And if most people enjoy your 'totalitarianism' and have fun on the internets and relax, sure this makes it good from a practical viewpoint. I'm not sure you can prove the existence of an "objective good", not in a scientific way at least, so why even care?
My whole point was that Moral Individualism and Moral Communalism can't establish first principles and so are on equal levels. I was then going to go into why a person might consider being a Moral Individualist instead of a Moral Communalist.
Anarchy is the absence of government or some other coercive ordering power- hence the Amish are not anarchic (nor is the middle of the desert- if I commited murder there I would be punished soon after I was found out). You may claim it is implausible, but that's a very different argument from talking about 'real' anarchy.
I've already discussed your matter of 'praticality'- which derives into several claims of what is good, all which lack establishment.
Yeah, thanks for comparing me to one of the materialist philosophers whose works I enjoy. And of course I can justify that if I'm sticking to my materialism. How can you justify the opposite? By appealing to a sky pixie? Sorry, but while matter and the species are observed, just like their behaviour is, a sky pixie is imaginary and cannot be observed by science. Call me back when God can be observed.
You cannot derive from "Humans instinctually want the survival of the species" that "The survival of the species is good."
Karl Marx was almost anti-empirical in his attempts at observations- nobody could seriously call him a scientist despite his claims to being scientific. On factual matters you may be different, but on moral matters you've proved you aren't.
Call me back when God can be observed. Or, you know, investigated using the scientific method and not found being just a fantasy.
I never said Moral Individualism was objectively true- only saying it should be on an equal basis with Moral Communalism. I was going to do this not by building the case for Moral Individualism up, but by tearing the case for Moral Communalism down.
Uh... religion? Primitive tribes have very primitive forms of religion. Which are also easily explained. And they are pretty utilitarian when you think about the level of knowledge that they have. I am not sure honour codes and honour killings are non-utilitarian either. In the absence of government and police utilitarian outcomes have to be ensured somehow. Honour code is a primitive form of formalized social rules, and honour killings in the absence of police serve as means of enforcement of the social rules. The rules themselves arise to increase the survival potential of the tribe.
I'm not sure if you're using the proper definition of 'utilitarian' (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) or a definition of 'utilitarian' based on the survival of the species here. By the former idea your claim is ludicrous- honour killings to enforce arrainged marriages cause massive suffering for women. By the latter you face problems of human nature (people often psycologically refute to do the utiltarian thing), failures to adjust (some tribes rapidly modernise under pressure, others don't), and so on.
You still haven't refuted my point about idealists- if utiltarianism is so basic, how come so many people, including ordinary people, reject utiltarianism?
I am not sure I even want to use the terms "good" or "bad". There's nothing that is objectively good or bad. There are, however, objectively beneficial and counterbeneficial things for the survival of the species. Unless you'd want to challenge the survival of species as beneficial by invoking God, there's no real argument against that.
If there's no objective good or bad, Moral Communalism cannot claim any supremacy over Moral Individualism- hence you lose.
Um... if you want to leave society completely (even one which does not qualify as a government - Somalia's armed gangs hardly qualify as one, I'm sorry) you still have that option. Go to the depth of the Amazon and become a lone hermit, don't interact with any societies, not even ones without government (e.g. tribes). Perfect. This does not occur. I guess people want to live inside a society.
First there is the question of if people should have to live away from others to live without society. The second problem, and the more important one- if I commit a murder or some other serious crime, I will be punished as I am still under the jurisidiction of the state. They may even kick me out for interfering with wildlife.
There's no such thing as objective good. If you're too stupid to realize that... But between matter and fantasy I pick matter.
There probably isn't- hence I win. Thank you for playing.
I'd say go for it, but you haven't identified that reason.
I'm saying that since it doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it, it would be justified for scientific purposes anyway to try and figure out the reason and correct it- additionally for better justice in society.