FW: Will the real Jason Carter stand up?

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

POOBAH
I realized I missed some of Jason's lies & deception when I responded, so I
thought I'd better clean up the loose ends. I would not refer to his post so
harshly that except for the fact that his statements that follow are nothing
but blatant mischaracterizations & question begging.

POOBAH
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.

CARTER
What this translates to is: If someone does not agree with my philosophical
premises (ie. survival and society are good things), then we are to elimate
those persons.

POOBAH
That's a mischaracterization and I'm pretty sure you know it. What I said
was that we should cooperate with someone so long as they cooperate, and
withhold cooperation if they don't. I said nothing about forcing others to
agree with my philosophical premises. I simply said that if you cooperate
with me, I will cooperate with you. If you don't, I will withhold
cooperation from you. In extreme cases, I will endeavor to make sure that
you are not able to prey on anyone else. When I said "eliminate threat,"
that is what I referred to, and I spoke of that in previous posts. The fact
that you assumed thought control & death penalty I think speaks more of you
than of what I was talking about. I personally am strongly opposed to both
coercive measures for victimless crimes and the death penalty, and in favor
of freedom of thought & expression whenever possible. I doubt you could say
the same.

Yes, I think that is a much better morality than the "turn the other cheek"
and it is certainly a better morality than we'll let you fry in hell because
you didn't understand baptism/communion/trinity/resurrection properly, or
divine genocide justified by actions partaken by four-hundred-year-old
ancestors. And if you were remotely honest with yourself or us, you would
realize that it is the basis of your morality and that of the vast majority
of your Christian brethren.

POOBAH (past)
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.

CARTER
It is not the explanation that is important. I can explain it by saying that
aliens instilled within us cooperative genes. This is just as much a viable
theory as yours.

POOBAH
Another lie & mischaracterization. First of all, your alien "theory"
explains nothing (just like your objective morality assertion), whereas if
you actually bothered to study actual science you would realize that
cooperative theories based on game theory explain quite a lot of behavior
seen both in the human and animal world. Further, demonstrations have been
done to show how cooperation can arise & "dominate" more selfish
populations.

For instance, why do you suppose that normally benign & helpful intestinal
bacteria turn "bad" & contribute to sepsis when there is an abdominal
injury?

Do some basic reading before you dismiss... of course I realize learning can
be dangerous since it could lead you away from your faith.

CARTER
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
<snip>
By "binding", I mean morals that are duty; a code of action that is
applicable to all people, and should not be broken. This is only possible by
way of the metaphysical.

POOBAH
Well this is stacking the deck and begging the question. If it is only
possible "by means of metaphysical," then of course there is no physical
reason for doing so. But I have never said there was. What I have said is
that such considerations are unimportant. Why don't you address that point?

In other words, what you are saying is that without absolute morality you
have no absolute moral reason for an individual to follow a moral code.
That's profound! You may think you're being clever, but have you actually
thought this through, or are you trying to confuse everyone with your shifty
use of language (or have you just confused yourself)? Once again, before I
can accept such an argument, you'll have to demonstrate that such "binding
reasons" are necessary to explain morality (and before that, that they
exist). I have given many reasons why they are not. What reasons have you
given to say they are?

• 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 ]