FW: Will the real Jason Carter stand up?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>POOBAH

>I realize you are tired so you must have missed it Jason. The reason to

>follow a moral code is that it enables complex societies to exist, and

>ensures your ability to thrive in those societies. That is plenty of

reason.

CARTER
No Poobah, I was very much awake when I wrote the above. You seem to have
missed the philosophical underpinnings of my statement. Who cares if complex
societies exist or not? Not everyone is a pragmatist, so your reason will
not satisfactory to them .

Unless you are asserting that it is objectively "good" for complex societies
to exist (which would defeat your whole point), you have provided no binding
reason  for the individual to follow of a moral code (unless he is a
pragmatist).

POOBAH
Jason, when are you actually going to actually respond to your opponents
arguments rather than repeating your assertion over & over again like a
broken record?

Let me try again for the upteenth time.
1) Current theory suggests that cooperative strategies may evolve out of
selfish strategies in certain scenarios, because cooperation is in a selfish
entity's long-term self interest. Enlightened self-interest. This theory is
backed up both mathematically and by observation, both in the human & animal
world. That is the "rational reason" for acting "morally" (I am using the
term very loosely). You asked for a rational reason, you have been given
one. Now you want a philosophical reason. Why is a philosophical reason
important?
2) Complex societies, once again, are in the enlightened self-interest of
the participants. Unless you are one of those
y2k-survivalist-luddite-fundamentalists, I am sure you realize the benefits
to you personally that a stable, advanced, secure society provides. Thus, it
is in each individuals' long-term best interests to support a stable complex
society. This is as "objectively good" as things get, at least as I have
seen demonstrated.
3) If someone is not a "pragmatist" as you say, and is more interested in
their short-term gain rather than their long-term gain, then current theory
suggests there are good reasons for me, you & the rest of society to without
cooperation from this individual, and eliminate this threat. There are good
mathematical (read rational) reasons to do this. Intuitively, such a person
threatens the cooperation established in 1 & 2 above.
4) I have no idea what you mean by "binding reason" so I can't say whether I
have provided one or not. As I said, I see no evidence of objective
morality, buy can explain cooperative behavior without it.
5) Even if I grant your entire argument, my response is still "So what?" At
best you have proven that "objective morality" would be a nice thing to
have; you haven't proven its existence. This, as I have harped on & on, is
the fallacy of the undesirable consequence. Let me pose it again, even if
you are able to prove that lack of objective morality results in an ethical
quagmire, in what way has that proven the existence of objective morality?
In other words, I see no basis for the philosophical underpinnings of your
argument.

Jason, until you actually respond to these points, there is quite simply no
point in going on. I have made these points over & over. You have never
responded to them. You assert the existence of objective morality, and have
given no evidence of its existence. So we are forced to choose between
cooperative behavior that can be demonstrated by observation & mathematics,
or between your nebulous objective morality which you can neither define nor
demonstrate, but for which you assert dire consequences if we don't accept
it.

Which do you think is the rational position?

• Previous message: FW: Will the real Jason Carter stand up?
• Next message: FW: Will the real Jason Carter stand up?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]