Thread: Is Force Ever Justified?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Look it up!

Moralism - "denial of alternative systems of valuation".

Note, that there are at least two contexts, to that word "denial". Yes? Hmm....

My aversion to it? I got my own way of doin' things, thank you very much. Don't need your system of valuation, got my own. Simple enough concept, yes?

I have trouble understanding you tendency to lump any shared moral code under the heading of 'Moralism,.

Savagery might be defined as the state of a group of people with little or no shared social code.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I have trouble understanding you tendency to lump any shared moral code under the heading of 'Moralism,.

Savagery might be defined as the state of a group of people with little or no shared social code.

GONGgggg...... you lose.

(j/k)

Look, this is gonna be hard to explain, but... I'll give it a shot.

You, seem like a smart person, you'll probably understand this.

In the quote above, you said two ENTIRELY different things.

First, you said, "shared moral code".

Then, you said, "shared social code".

So, which is it? Let's be precise -

Here's my claim: "morality", belongs to the individual. Just like feelings, thoughts, and perceptions. "Morality", is one of the real time processes that occurs EXACTLY in the singularity at t=0, relative to the human brain. In other words, it's a "decision" - a "choice" we make.

The statement "we believe", is an oxymoron. It's non-sensical. There's no such thing as "we believe". Belief, like morality, belongs to the individual.

So, now, if you want to start talking in terms of "shared codes", THEN, I submit, we're dealing with an entirely different concept - CONSENSUS.

That, is something VERY different from "we believe".

I mean, so, from my standpoint, any time I hear someone saying "we believe", I consider that the person has VOLUNTARILY given up their right to individual choice. And THAT, is stupid. In my opinion, of course.

Now - I've studied "human belief" a bit. From several different angles. Psychology, religion, brain function, anthropology.... politics.... and, I find, that there are certain very simple principles which when observed, preserve ones' right to self-determination.

And really, all it amounts to, is a rigorous processing of the "tree of belief", starting at the top with the fundamental assumptions, and traversing down into the leaf nodes.

But, people... um... we tend to be "loose" with our language, yes? So, you know, where are the places to look for low-hanging fruit, where lots of like-minded people hang out together? Well.... how about political party platforms? There's a good one - full of "we believe", right? How about, churches? Full of "we believe", right? See? And so, what you end up with then, is almost like a statement of faith. Your party platform ends up sounding like the Nicene Creed or something.

All right - so - that's POINT ONE.

Point two, is this: a "shared" model, is something quite different from moralism, in most cases. A "shared" model, presupposes that the people are in agreement in the first place. Yes? Well, moralism represents the opposite situation: one which the principals are "not" in agreement. So, that word "denial" that's in the Webster's definition, usually ends up carrying both connotations, because "first" you get the denial to oneself, and then because of human nature, you get the denial to others.

Moralism is a very evil thing. Or at least, it "can" be. One of the more pernicious scenarios, is the version of moralism that results in clobbering people over the head with one's beliefs. A slightly less pernicious scenario, might be spending public money on one's personal beliefs. An even less pernicious scenario, might be arranging a family situation according to one's sense of "entitlement". But all these things, are destructive in some way, ultimately.

I kinda hear you suggesting or intimating that moralism might be a "good" thing, but, I think, the words you're using, you and I have a different concept of what we're talking about. I don't seek to disparage any "agreement" that arises from commonality among people. Certainly not! But the POLITICAL point would be, such agreements have to be entered into voluntarily, and shouldn't be coerced. Yes?

So, that's kinda my take on "moralism", is that it usually carries with it some element or connotation of "coercion".

In many cases, "moralism" is even "economic" in nature - for instance, the valuation of certain piece of property, or a certain good or service. Um, something simple - the FLOOR. Okay? YOU, may think my floor is for walking on, so, when you come into my house, you want to walk on my floor. So, I tell you, NO, the floor's not really for walking on - it's actually part of a very sensitive computer setup and all these cables are holy, so only THAT PART OF THE FLOOR THERE (points to the walkway) is for walking, and all the rest is for computers.

So now, if you go trampling on my cables, after I've asked you not to, that would be a form of "economic moralism", from my viewpoint. That is to say, it's a "denial of an alternative system of valuation". See?

Is this making sense? I hope I'm explaining this well enough - I'm tryin' to pass an entire model to you all at once, so... hopin' I'm providing at least the essentials.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Hint: Government itself is by its very nature force.

Read up on governing dynamics. It goes a little further than just a head of state. Just a hair though.