Morality: Its source/authority/enforcement

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is the following reasonable? If so/not, why?

Source: Morality is inherent only among non-innocent creatures--that is those with full self-awareness.

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter in order to enable the exercise of our moral free will with complete autonomy, any moral code must be its own universal authority. From prehistory forward, moral authority has progressed from the family/clan, through religious taboo and finally to government law. We can use government corruption as an excuse to undermine that law and regress back to a more local chaotic anarchy where might makes right; or we can rationally determine a universal simple/limited moral code that governs human interactions alone.

Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

I meant non-standard not because it excludes the prohibitions of scripture but because it makes no mention of kindness or compassion. People can suffer terribly without having their rights infringed. Doesn't your morality say anything about helping them?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

I meant non-standard not because it excludes the prohibitions of scripture but because it makes no mention of kindness or compassion. People can suffer terribly without having their rights infringed. Doesn't your morality say anything about helping them?

No, because, for one reason, charity is a judgement call, and in my system, it falls under the category of individual virtue which is subject to social pressure and conscience only. Same for intervening if someone else's rights are being violated. All that sort of thing comes under the heading of Enlightened Self-Interest where general good order (the purpose of morality and virtue) benefits by taking action and leading by example. If those actions are mandated, it quickly fosters their abuse.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to post 12 by ThePainefulTruth]

OK, so by "morality" you mean the prohibition of the infringement of the rights of others, presumably as enforced by the state. It explicitly doesn't include acts of charity, altruism and other "arguably virtuous behaviour" and only covers that for which the state should legislate.

It would seem, then, that for you there's no such thing as a moral action, since your idea of morality only prohibits. It would be literally impossible to do the right thing, only to refrain from doing the wrong thing. For this reason you really shouldn't use the word "morality" because that already means something and you're redefining it in a way that makes communication with everyone else difficult.

One other question - you say that intervening when the rights of another person are violated also falls outside the scope of morality. In what sense, then, would morality be the prohibition of violating another's rights? What sense does prohibition make if there's no intervention?

"Arguably virtuous behaviour" does, of course, inform the actions of the state in areas such as welfare, education, economic policy, healthcare and foreign aid. Even if you want to deny that such questions are moral ones and view them instead in terms of a social contract or enlightened self-interest it makes little sense to say they can't or shouldn't be legislated for.

[ThePainefulTruth]

OK, so by "morality" you mean the prohibition of the infringement of the rights of others, presumably as enforced by the state. It explicitly doesn't include acts of charity, altruism and other "arguably virtuous behaviour" and only covers that for which the state should legislate.

Exactly. It's surprising how few people make it that far. And by extension, it follows that the source of all immorality isn't money, power, fame, sex etc., it's a legal/moral double standard.

It would seem, then, that for you there's no such thing as a moral action, since your idea of morality only prohibits. It would be literally impossible to do the right thing, only to refrain from doing the wrong thing. For this reason you really shouldn't use the word "morality" because that already means something and you're redefining it in a way that makes communication with everyone else difficult.

I've already addressed that. The definition of morality is so screwed up and loaded down with religious/politically correct baggage, it's unusable as it stands. We can either clean it up or come up with a new word for what "morality" should mean. The third option is to continue on this subjective path we're on which makes a reasoned approach impossible.

One other question - you say that intervening when the rights of another person are violated also falls outside the scope of morality. In what sense, then, would morality be the prohibition of violating another's rights? What sense does prohibition make if there's no intervention?

Enforcement of morality is a government function under the law--with it's agents being the only ones who are commissioned to enforce it. Voluntary intervention, or enforcement if you will, isn't mandatory, but it behooves us all to aid such victims for the example that enlightened self-interest provides. The same principle applies as to why we volunteer to be in the military to defend ourselves against large scale aggression. Once you volunteer, though, your enforcement becomes mandatory.

"Arguably virtuous behaviour" does, of course, inform the actions of the state in areas such as welfare, education, economic policy, healthcare and foreign aid. Even if you want to deny that such questions are moral ones and view them instead in terms of a social contract or enlightened self-interest it makes little sense to say they can't or shouldn't be legislated for.

All of those areas you mentioned, with the possible exception of the gray area of foreign aid, would be much more efficiently handled without inefficient and often corrupt government bureaucracies. Corruption always ensues when you set the government to be it's own watchdog--as we are seeing now in the US. Graft and vote buying inevitably ensue. The answer to all crises inevitably becomes "more money" rather that changing government policy.

There is no perfect safety net, but look around the world. The most crushing poverty inevitably accompanies the most corrupt governments. I don't understand why most people don't see that a dictatorship or oligarchy of an elite is just the worst example of the concentration of power, and is nothing but national socialism (e.g. NAZI).

This may appear to be tangent, but it's where following a thread of morality will always lead, government being necessary to it's enforcement.
___________________________________________

Now I have a question for you. How important is liberty? I consider it one of the four rights that define what morality is and shows what rights government is supposed to protect: Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-Defense.

[Unhand Me Sir]

All of those areas you mentioned, with the possible exception of the gray area of foreign aid, would be much more efficiently handled without inefficient and often corrupt government bureaucracies. Corruption always ensues when you set the government to be it's own watchdog--as we are seeing now in the US. Graft and vote buying inevitably ensue. The answer to all crises inevitably becomes "more money" rather that changing government policy.

I'm unsure whether you're suggesting that government should provide education, health care, economic control etc more efficiently or stop trying to provide them in the hope that they would happen spontaneously. And even your ideal rights-defending government faces the question of who guards the guardians.

There is no perfect safety net, but look around the world. The most crushing poverty inevitably accompanies the most corrupt governments.

It's certainly hard to hold your leaders to account if you're struggling to find your next meal or lack the education and resources to do so. Bevan was right when he said that freedom is the byproduct of economic surplus.

I don't understand why most people don't see that a dictatorship or oligarchy of an elite is just the worst example of the concentration of power, and is nothing but national socialism (e.g. NAZI).

Hello Mr Godwin.

Now I have a question for you. How important is liberty? I consider it one of the four rights that define what morality is and shows what rights government is supposed to protect: Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-Defense.

It's a rather vague and loaded term, especially when you start spelling it with a capital L. Every ideology describes its end product as freedom. I'll assume you mean the absence of constraints on individual behaviour.

Obviously that's important. I don't envy those who live in China or Saudi Arabia. Here in the UK I rarely run up against anything I want to do but an legally not allowed to. This is good and I try not to take it for granted.

Let's take a few issues as examples. I regard taxation as a good thing even though it might be said to violate individual liberty, provided it's reasonably well used. I would be happy to pay more tax if I thought it was likely to increase what you might call societal health - compare Scandinavia to the rest of Europe to see that this correlates closely with levels of personal taxation.

Then there's drug laws. I take a pragmatic view on this. If the evidence suggests that legalisation would reduce ill health, deaths, violence, poverty and other associated bad stuff then I would support it. If the evidence suggested the reverse then prohibition would be justified. I think the evidence probably speaks against restrictions, but my point is that maximising other outcomes should be the goal and in some cases it legitimately trumps questions of liberty. I'd happily forgo the right to gamble online if restrictions meant fewer people ruined their lives by doing it.

I hope that gives you some sense of where I'm at.

[ThePainefulTruth]

All of those areas you mentioned, with the possible exception of the gray area of foreign aid, would be much more efficiently handled without inefficient and often corrupt government bureaucracies. Corruption always ensues when you set the government to be it's own watchdog--as we are seeing now in the US. Graft and vote buying inevitably ensue. The answer to all crises inevitably becomes "more money" rather that changing government policy.

I'm unsure whether you're suggesting that government should provide education, health care, economic control etc more efficiently or stop trying to provide them in the hope that they would happen spontaneously. And even your ideal rights-defending government faces the question of who guards the guardians.

Education is probably the best example of why we shouldn't have government schools. We kept throwing more and more money at it over the last 50 years with diminishing results and a crushing bureaucracy/regulation; not to mention fostering lesson plans favorable to big government socialism. Health care is really only getting started with Obamacare, but it's by far the biggest avenue to government intrusion and control possible--with medicare/caid showing how government meddling can become the biggest single cause of rising medical costs.

As Thomas Sowell has said, "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."

And the Fed as a "quasi"-government institution is a joke, what with the President and Senate controlling who's put on the Board. It should be regulated in a manner similar to utilities.

There is no perfect safety net, but look around the world. The most crushing poverty inevitably accompanies the most corrupt governments.

It's certainly hard to hold your leaders to account if you're struggling to find your next meal or lack the education and resources to do so. Bevan was right when he said that freedom is the byproduct of economic surplus.

Just the opposite, look at the US. We had leaders and citizens who fostered freedom, and protected the one right that provides for economic freedom and prosperity, property rights. The Chinese finally started realizing that just before the turn of the century. And as property rights increase, other freedoms will eventually follow--with the class warfare crowd kicking and screaming all the way.

You can provide inmates in a prison with food and education, but what good does it do them in jail.

I don't understand why most people don't see that a dictatorship or oligarchy of an elite is just the worst example of the concentration of power, and is nothing but national socialism (e.g. NAZI).

Hello Mr Godwin.

???

Now I have a question for you. How important is liberty? I consider it one of the four rights that define what morality is and shows what rights government is supposed to protect: Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-Defense.

It's a rather vague and loaded term, especially when you start spelling it with a capital L. Every ideology describes its end product as freedom. I'll assume you mean the absence of constraints on individual behaviour.

No. As I've already said, the government's job is to enforce morality only. Freedom is the lack of control through legislation of virtue, not morality. Or as I've often defined freedom: It's the right to be as dumb as you want...on your own dime.

Obviously that's important. I don't envy those who live in China or Saudi Arabia. Here in the UK I rarely run up against anything I want to do but an legally not allowed to. This is good and I try not to take it for granted.

Let's take a few issues as examples. I regard taxation as a good thing even though it might be said to violate individual liberty, provided it's reasonably well used. I would be happy to pay more tax if I thought it was likely to increase what you might call societal health - compare Scandinavia to the rest of Europe to see that this correlates closely with levels of personal taxation.

Taxation via an income tax is outright theft, not to mention being a completely uncalled for invasion of our personal lives, which enables control. And asset forfeiture (the government here can confiscate cash in quantities greater than $10,000 for no reason, using the "virtuous" war on drugs as an excuse) is outright economic tyranny. Sales tax and tariffs are the only legitimate forms of taxation.

Then there's drug laws. I take a pragmatic view on this. If the evidence suggests that legalisation would reduce ill health, deaths, violence, poverty and other associated bad stuff then I would support it. If the evidence suggested the reverse then prohibition would be justified.

RE: my definition of freedom above. Would you advocate alcohol Prohibition?

I think the evidence probably speaks against restrictions, but my point is that maximising other outcomes should be the goal and in some cases it legitimately trumps questions of liberty. I'd happily forgo the right to gamble online if restrictions meant fewer people ruined their lives by doing it.

That's an argument for theocracy. I'd be for government public service announcements against stupidity, but then they'd have to spend a good portion of that effort exposing the evils of big government socialism.

I hope that gives you some sense of where I'm at.

Yes, I used to be a socialist, until I finally realized that it always degenerates into a bunch of elites seeking ever more power to establish and maintain a moral/legal double standard for itself. Always.

Ben Franklin paraphrased: Those who trade too much liberty for security, will inevitably loose both.

[Unhand Me Sir]

Education is probably the best example of why we shouldn't have government schools. We kept throwing more and more money at it over the last 50 years with diminishing results and a crushing bureaucracy/regulation; not to mention fostering lesson plans favorable to big government socialism.

I'm guessing that this isn't because you think educational outcomes would be better without government schools but because parents who don't manage to get an education for their child without help are being "dumb on their own dime."

And it looks as if socialism is another of those words you have your own personal meaning for - it's not a word many people would apply to current US arrangements.

Health care is really only getting started with Obamacare, but it's by far the biggest avenue to government intrusion and control possible--with medicare/caid showing how government meddling can become the biggest single cause of rising medical costs.

Bizarrely, the US government spends more per capita on health care than just about any government on the planet and people still need to pay for insurance. European governments spend less and provide universal free care. There's no doubt that something in the US is being done very badly.

Just the opposite, look at the US. We had leaders and citizens who fostered freedom, and protected the one right that provides for economic freedom and prosperity, property rights. The Chinese finally started realizing that just before the turn of the century. And as property rights increase, other freedoms will eventually follow--with the class warfare crowd kicking and screaming all the way.

You do tend to move the goal posts. You started by claiming that government corruption causes poverty and you've now shifted smoothly to claiming that defending property rights increases prosperity.

For all the "freedom," compared to Western Europe the US has 2-3 times the rates of premature death, illiteracy and poverty. Hardly world leading stuff, although presumably those who fall by the wayside are "dumb on their own dime."

You can provide inmates in a prison with food and education, but what good does it do them in jail.

Having your basic needs met is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political freedom.

Taxation via an income tax is outright theft, not to mention being a completely uncalled for invasion of our personal lives, which enables control. And asset forfeiture (the government here can confiscate cash in quantities greater than $10,000 for no reason, using the "virtuous" war on drugs as an excuse) is outright economic tyranny. Sales tax and tariffs are the only legitimate forms of taxation.

Because they take no account of the ability to pay, sales taxes are the least progressive form of taxation and the one most weighted to subsidy of the already rich by the poor - though I guess that would be expected in a state who whole purpose was to defend the current distribution of assets.

RE: my definition of freedom above. Would you advocate alcohol Prohibition?

No I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that the state has a duty of care which is balanced against considerations of individual liberty. Like most real life situations it's complex and neither point automatically trumps the other.

That's an argument for theocracy.

Clearly another word you use in an innovative way.

Ben Franklin paraphrased: Those who trade too much liberty for security, will inevitably loose both.

There's a distinction between the freedom from and the freedom to. Liberty conceived of merely as non-interference is a very limited idea.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Education is probably the best example of why we shouldn't have government schools. We kept throwing more and more money at it over the last 50 years with diminishing results and a crushing bureaucracy/regulation; not to mention fostering lesson plans favorable to big government socialism.

I'm guessing that this isn't because you think educational outcomes would be better without government schools but because parents who don't manage to get an education for their child without help are being "dumb on their own dime."

Nice try.

And it looks as if socialism is another of those words you have your own personal meaning for - it's not a word many people would apply to current US arrangements.

Is that because it isn't socialism, or because there are so many people in denial, or because they want to use the government to rob the rich so they can give it to them. Of course all government is a form of socialism, which is why I usually append "big government" to it.

Health care is really only getting started with Obamacare, but it's by far the biggest avenue to government intrusion and control possible--with medicare/caid showing how government meddling can become the biggest single cause of rising medical costs.

Bizarrely, the US government spends more per capita on health care than just about any government on the planet and people still need to pay for insurance. European governments spend less and provide universal free care. There's no doubt that something in the US is being done very badly.

So many of the supposed "good country's", which aren't that great (or even debilitating if you look close enough through the leftist haze), are subsidized by US subsidization via our defense and foreign aid spending.

You do tend to move the goal posts. You started by claiming that government corruption causes poverty and you've now shifted smoothly to claiming that defending property rights increases prosperity.

Not defending property rights is the number one source of immoral corruption. It's source of the double standard used to break down the door.

For all the "freedom," compared to Western Europe the US has 2-3 times the rates of premature death, illiteracy and poverty. Hardly world leading stuff, although presumably those who fall by the wayside are "dumb on their own dime."

See my last. And I reject your assumptions anyway. If the UN is the source, you can chuck them with last nights garbage.

You can provide inmates in a prison with food and education, but what good does it do them in jail.

Having your basic needs met is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political freedom.

What more do the "beneficiaries" of the welfare state have unless they procure it through illegal means?

Taxation via an income tax is outright theft, not to mention being a completely uncalled for invasion of our personal lives, which enables control. And asset forfeiture (the government here can confiscate cash in quantities greater than $10,000 for no reason, using the "virtuous" war on drugs as an excuse) is outright economic tyranny. Sales tax and tariffs are the only legitimate forms of taxation.

Because they take no account of the ability to pay, sales taxes are the least progressive form of taxation and the one most weighted to subsidy of the already rich by the poor - though I guess that would be expected in a state who whole purpose was to defend the current distribution of assets.

You mean re-distribution of assets.

RE: my definition of freedom above. Would you advocate alcohol Prohibition?

No I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that the state has a duty of care which is balanced against considerations of individual liberty. Like most real life situations it's complex and neither point automatically trumps the other.

Then how do you decide what to do? And for the last 85 years, since the repeal of Prohibition, freedom has been in a steady retreat.

That's an argument for theocracy.

Clearly another word you use in an innovative way.

What, government by the rule of God? How would you use it?

Ben Franklin paraphrased: Those who trade too much liberty for security, will inevitably loose both.

There's a distinction between the freedom from and the freedom to. Liberty conceived of merely as non-interference is a very limited idea.

[/quote]

Yes, it's a slippery slope, which is what he was saying, and again, what we've been seeing for the last 85 years.

[Mr.Badham]

It's funny how conservatives love the quote; "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". But when it comes to government they would never say; "Government isn't corrupt, people are corrupt".

No to them, "Government" is corrupt. By that rationale, "Guns" kill people.

Money is important!!!!!! Conservatives and liberals alike must understand that. The market is important!!!!!! Conservative and liberals alike must understand that.

The market is not moral, and neither is government. Honesty is the only way things are going to get better. Companies need to disclose how much money they make and how much their managers are making and the same goes for governments.

I'm not free to choose a good company to work for if I don't know everything about it. Otherwise, I have to make guesses.

Freedom is a funny word. I'd like to be free to beat up my boss when I don't like the way he talks to me. But the government has made laws against that, so I need laws to protect me from him too.

Detroit is a literal wasteland, but a conservative dream

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's funny how conservatives love the quote; "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". But when it comes to government they would never say; "Government isn't corrupt, people are corrupt".

I would, and have said it, often. Some people turn their heads the other way when it comes to integrity and corruption if an official is (or isn't) offering enough to buy their votes. Other times voter corruption comes in the form of lazy apathy and intentional ignorance in response to emotional, demagogic manipulation. Ultimately, it's always the people's fault.

No to them, "Government" is corrupt. By that rationale, "Guns" kill people.

One doesn't have anything to do with the other. The other truism is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. You want to take away the right for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves for reasons I don't think I'll ever understand.

Money is important!!!!!! Conservatives and liberals alike must understand that. The market is important!!!!!! Conservative and liberals alike must understand that.

The market is not moral, and neither is government. Honesty is the only way things are going to get better. Companies need to disclose how much money they make and how much their managers are making and the same goes for governments.

I agree with all of that, and public companies (the vast majority and the largest are public) already disclose their earnings. So what do you think the problem is? An objective definition of honesty and morality.

I'm not free to choose a good company to work for if I don't know everything about it. Otherwise, I have to make guesses.

You just haven't looked, likely because you don't know how. Our schools avoid economics, which after reading and math, is probably the most necessary area for education. But that doesn't fit with a manipulative population.

Freedom is a funny word. I'd like to be free to beat up my boss when I don't like the way he talks to me. But the government has made laws against that, so I need laws to protect me from him too.

Like I said, freedom is the ability to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime. And, what protection from your boss are you talking about? Like I've also said, the source of all immorality is a legal/moral double standard, which applies to you and him equally. But that means, he has the right to fire you, and you have the right to quit.

Detroit is a literal wasteland, but a conservative dream

Yeah, 50 years of corrupt liberal Democrat tax and spend government had nothing to do with it. Which is it? Are the people ultimately responsible or not? You can't have it both ways. Detroit used to be one of the most beautiful cities in the country.