Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

An absolute standard for morality

12 views
Skip to first unread message

bas...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 10:04:38 AM8/15/24
to Individualist Movement
This debate has persisted since the earliest Greek philosophers. There have also been many conversations on the topic on libsa googlegroups (search for absolute).
Why is an "absolute" standard of morality viewed as important? If I have a morality that works for me and others in my circle, is that not enough?

We are used to a couple of absolute standards - of temperature, of speed, of energy quanta. Death seems to be pretty absolute, there are very few well documented cases of long dead people returning to life. Can we use the permanence of death to suggest an opposite absolute standard - the opposite of death is life? Do we have any evidence for additional  alternative states? Deep coma, artificial intelligence, altered states of consciousness perhaps. 

I think that an absolute standard of morality could be behaviour which preserves life and prevents death.  This should be true for any lifeform anywhere in the universe.

Thus, policies that bring about involuntary death (such as Aztec sacrifice, warfare, murder) can be regarded as universally, absolutely, immoral.

Sid Nothard

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 10:24:08 AM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

We do have an objective standard of morality:

 

Conscious actions that purposely benefit people and society are moral.

Conscious actions that purposely harm people and society are immoral.

 

Sid Nothard

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/741dc8e1-0699-40f2-9615-867c850a597an%40googlegroups.com.

Peter Voss

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 10:26:14 AM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Yes, a rational (even scientific) approach to morality is the only way
https://medium.com/@petervoss/rational-ethics-38b0b59fff4e

Peter Voss | CEO, Chief Scientist | pe...@aigo.ai | 424-335-9579 | www.Aigo.ai
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001301daef1e%2465e5d770%2431b18650%24%40mweb.co.za.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 10:39:42 AM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I'm sure to the Aztec it would have been immoral to NOT make those sacrifices and thus invoke the wrath of the gods upon the entire population, or whatever they believed would happen if they didn't.

We can certainly consider their approach to be immoral, to us, but who are we to judge another society's culture and beliefs ? Maybe we could, but we certainly could not take any action against it...

... so an absolute morality in this case would mean nothing practical. It would be merely criticism voiced from our couches where some of us sit munching on the boiled skins of other sentient beings.

Just as we can look with disgust at the Aztec practices of human sacrifice, so too can others look at us and condemn our consumption of pork chops and tuna sandwiches and dinosaur slop.

S.


--

Sid Nothard

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 11:05:23 AM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Just a pity for those who had their hearts ripped out.

Roland Giesler

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 1:05:40 PM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 16:39, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure to the Aztec it would have been immoral to NOT make those sacrifices and thus invoke the wrath of the gods upon the entire population, or whatever they believed would happen if they didn't.

We can certainly consider their approach to be immoral, to us, but who are we to judge another society's culture and beliefs ? Maybe we could, but we certainly could not take any action against it...

... so an absolute morality in this case would mean nothing practical. It would be merely criticism voiced from our couches where some of us sit munching on the boiled skins of other sentient beings.

Just as we can look with disgust at the Aztec practices of human sacrifice, so too can others look at us and condemn our consumption of pork chops and tuna sandwiches and dinosaur slop.

How does this absurd standpoint fit in with the right of an individual to choose and determine the course of his own life and to defend himself against those wishing to relieve him of that privilege?  The Aztecs could believe whatever they wanted to, but human sacrifice to appease the gods sounds pretty much like Klaus Schwab and his chronies' "greater good" philosophy, where the individual is just a cog in the wheel and individualism has no real meaning.

As much as I can choose to intervene when someone attempts to take someone else's life when I'm present, I would have had the right to stop an Aztec human sacrifice (of course provided I had the physical means to enforce the resistance against the sacrifice).  

 

S.


Op Do. 15 Aug. 2024 om 08:04 het bas...@gmail.com <bas...@gmail.com> geskryf:
This debate has persisted since the earliest Greek philosophers. There have also been many conversations on the topic on libsa googlegroups (search for absolute).
Why is an "absolute" standard of morality viewed as important? If I have a morality that works for me and others in my circle, is that not enough?

We are used to a couple of absolute standards - of temperature, of speed, of energy quanta. Death seems to be pretty absolute, there are very few well documented cases of long dead people returning to life. Can we use the permanence of death to suggest an opposite absolute standard - the opposite of death is life? Do we have any evidence for additional  alternative states? Deep coma, artificial intelligence, altered states of consciousness perhaps. 

I think that an absolute standard of morality could be behaviour which preserves life and prevents death.  This should be true for any lifeform anywhere in the universe.

Thus, policies that bring about involuntary death (such as Aztec sacrifice, warfare, murder) can be regarded as universally, absolutely, immoral.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/741dc8e1-0699-40f2-9615-867c850a597an%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 1:24:29 PM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Or those born during the black plague or just before the 2nd world war or basically any time before 1950.

I think we often see much more human control in things than what really exists. We personify too much.

Aztec sacrifice culture is probably more appropriately considered a force of nature than an act of man.

S.


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 1:26:08 PM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
... so... might makes right ?

;-)

S.


Charl Heydenrych

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 3:53:13 PM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

Since when is there a difference between an act of man and a force of nature? Since eating from the tree in the middle of the garden?


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 15, 2024, 5:52:16 PM8/15/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I'm still stuck on "absurd standpoint"... I thought I lost my touch, but no, I've still got it. If you're not called absurd at least once a week, you're living inside the box. ;-)

Nice to hear from you again Charl. Speaking of ancient ancestors, it turns out I am also a descendant of Katrijn van Bengaal, so we are family, in the slightly narrower sense of the word.

S.

Dewald Katzke

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 2:07:49 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Obvious is it not?

Your morality vs my morality..

You have a bigger stick, therefor yours wins.. At least for now. 

Roland Giesler

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 3:50:21 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 19:26, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
... so... might makes right ?

Come on!  That is not what I said and you know it.

However, you can believe something is correct course of action, but if you don't have to the means to do it, it remains an idea only.  That goes for situations where the state takes people's individual right away too.  The means can be a sheer number of people in opposition, or could be the threat of a firearm or other weapon, or is could be a persuasive argument among others.

 

Colin Phillips

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 4:13:44 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
So... might might make right, but might might not make right also.  It might or might not depending on whether it is the right might or merely a mighty right.  Righty Tighty Mighty Righty


bas...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 4:55:24 AM8/16/24
to Individualist Movement
How did you get to this trite remark from the previous discussion?  This is a discussion about how things ought to be. It is not a post-game review. Ethics and history are distinct and separate subjects. 
When an alien supreme being asks the council of the libertarians how the aliens ought to behave when subduing earth, which ethical rule would you recommend? Preserve life, or Might makes right?

Gabri Rigotti

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 6:44:16 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
We either go back to the "red tooth and claw" of natural selection or we go forward with the HCR (Harm Consent Rule) and utilise the NoU (Nature of Us) which replaces the NoH acronym (Nature of Humans) ...

NoU is more Saffer like ... 😅 ... And rolls easier on the tongue ...

Regarding aliens, and in as much I have reservations about Ayn Rand, being naturally altruistic leaning, at DNA level, why the fuck should we worry about the aliens and what they think?

Sure the Aztecs might be considered a "force of Nature" and going beyond our anthropomorphic bias, yes, they could be part of Nature.

(Mel Gibson's Apocalyptico movie is well worth watching as a reality check).

But why should we care about that if it us us now against the "red tooth and claw"?

Not far away from here millions of conscripts were dragged to their death and mutilation and trauma thanks to the "red tooth and claw" and the conscription of WW1?

For those who died and survived horribly disabled thanks to might is right and Man being a part of Nature so all good with Man being just a force of Nature, there is/was no solace.

Ironicslky, the victims on both sides sang each others songs during the lull of the trench of warfare, they were so close ... Never mind the famous Christmas soccer game ...

It is very possible today to discover and unpack any number of attributes of us, as individuals or as collectives, sample these attributes, derive their mean and standard deviation, and rank them in order of priority and establish an ethics and morality that Trevor Watkins's Harm Consent Rule can plug into, as a better alternative to the Non Aggression Principle, the NAP, that the American libertarians use and in its nebulous boiler plated version of Robert Nozick's futile failed thesis, managed to get even a salt of the earth character like J D Vance going in the wrong direction about libertarianism ...

We are chasing our tails and will be bitten by reality be it by the violence of might is right or by the asbestos fibres spewed into the air by the gung ho "anarcho capitalists" who think they can do whatever they please ...

No, as a species 95% of us will have a threshold after which we will get cancer from asbestos fibres due to man made densities breaking this threshold ... Just as a knife in the belly will.have us meet our Angry God oft forgiving and merciful. 

The free market is not do as you please in red tooth and claw mode ... Then one may as well consider the worst predators of history, the Mongol Hordes, as virtuous.

In the meantime whilst we chase our tails and mantra that Orange Man is Bad like the American libertarians do, and their Reason magazines do, we are getting "bitten" as Stephen would say, by the reality that the Wokists and the other coercive collectivists wearing Che Guevara T Shirts and waving The Little Red Book, are shoving it up deep inside of us ...

I will take the HCR any day over speculation about the aliens and their feelings ...

Die tyd is NoU! voordat one is heeltemaak befok ... en dit is naby, very naby ...

😊


 






Gabri Rigotti

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 8:14:48 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Errata  Ironically, the victims on both sides sang each other's songs ... 😅 ...
--

" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "

—Anna Hazare

Gabri Rigotti

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 9:53:36 AM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Given errata and clumsy phrases at times as I scribbled on my cell phone in mid August heat in this inferno I have reposted the original email:

The choice is binary, we either go back to the "red tooth and claw" of Natural Selection or we go forward with a sophisticated concept  like the HCR (Harm Consent Rule) and utilise the NoU (Nature of Us) which replaces the NoH acronym (Nature of Humans) ...


NoU is more Saffer like ... 😅 ... And rolls easier on the tongue ...


Regarding aliens, and in as much as I have reservations about Ayn Rand, being naturally altruistic leaning, at DNA level, why should we worry about the aliens and what they think?


Sure the Aztecs might be considered a "force of Nature" and going beyond our anthropomorphic bias, yes, they then could be considered part of Nature.


(Mel Gibson's Apocalyptico movie is well worth watching as a reality check if we want to consider this route).


But why should we care about that if it is  us , now against the "red tooth and claw"?


Not far away from here millions of conscripts were dragged to their death and mutilation and lifelong trauma thanks to the "red tooth and claw" and the conscription of WW1?


For those who died or survived horribly disabled thanks to might is right and Man being a part of Nature so all good with Man being just a force of Nature, there is/was no solace.


Ironically, the victims on both sides sang each other's songs during the lull of the trench of warfare, they were so close ... Never mind the famous Christmas soccer game ...


It is very possible today to discover and unpack any number of attributes of us, as individuals or as collectives, sample these attributes, derive their mean and standard deviation, and rank them in order of priority and establish an ethics and morality that Trevor Watkins's Harm Consent Rule can plug into; as a better alternative to the Non Aggression Principle, the NAP, that the American libertarians use and in its nebulous boiler plated version of Robert Nozick's futile failed thesis, managed to get even a salt of the earth character like J D Vance going in the wrong direction about libertarianism ...


We are chasing our tails and will be bitten by reality be it by the violence of might is right or by the asbestos fibres spewed into the air by the gung ho "anarcho capitalists" who think they can do whatever they please ...


No, as a species 95% of us will have a threshold after which we will get cancer from asbestos fibres due to man made densities breaking this threshold ... 


Just as a knife in the belly will.have us meet our Angry God oft forgiving and merciful. 


The free market is not just do as you please in red tooth and claw mode ... Then one may as well consider the worst predators of history, the Mongol Hordes, as virtuous.


In the meantime whilst we chase our tails and mantra that Orange Man is Bad like many American libertarians do, and their Reason magazines too, we are getting "bitten" as Stephen would say, by the reality that the Wokists and the other coercive collectivists wearing Che Guevara T Shirts and waving The Little Red Book, are imposing on us and shoving up deep inside of us ...


I will take the HCR any day over speculation about the aliens and their feelings … all due respects to Stephen.


Die tyd is NoU! voordat one is heeltemal befok ... en dit is naby, very naby ...


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 12:53:32 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
There is some nuance, for sure. Not all acts of god are equal - I would rather be struck by lightning than to slowly tire until I sink and drown in the open ocean. I would rather live in a system where I am dictated and prescribed to by democratically elected politicians than by highly decorated military officers after a coup. What I was trying to point out is that morality is not absolute, just like no power is absolute. I would prefer to have less of both, but appreciate that in practice we can merely minimize how much we are controlled and dictated to, whether by meat-based medal stands or by aztec priests or by moral absolutist cult members. We can never really be completely free and, looking at history & the average man, maybe that's a good thing.

S.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 12:55:07 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Ha ha ! Thanks Colin ! That is both the funniest and the deepest response I've seen in a long time. Well done !

S.


Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 1:10:44 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Well, I think the comment directly follows "As much as I can choose to intervene when someone attempts to take someone else's life when I'm present, I would have had the right to stop an Aztec human sacrifice (of course provided I had the physical means to enforce the resistance against the sacrifice)." since that is clearly a substitution of one person's morality with another person's morality using force.

What ethical rule would I recommend ? Well, I think I recommended it and apparently it was absurd, but let me repeat and rephrase, in case it was not clear. I would say, act in accordance with your nature and inclinations, then we'll see how the chips fall. Yes, I am a real Libertarian - I do not like imposing rules on anyone, not even ones based on so-called morality or a supposedly absolute code of ethics. I will not prescribe.

Adam Smith thinks friends and family will nudge us towards good behavior. Bob Altemeyer thinks a third of us will oppress the other two thirds. Marx and Engels said this will result in the upper crust oppressing the working class. HG Wells and JM Keynes say it doesn't matter because in the long run we're all dead. Darwin suggests that Human 2.0 will replace us. Game theory suggests a tit-for-tat strategy will prevail.

I'm curious to see who is right. Right now my money is on Rapoport & Axelrod.

S.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 3:28:29 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
It sounds like you don't totally trust the free market, and with good reason - it consists of people, after all. Those same people I just said are dangerous and volatile. But I think there is a difference between individuals and their nature, vs. society and the nature of markets.

S.


Gabri Rigotti

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 3:53:41 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I actually trust the free market fully Stephen 😊 ... but the genuine one, not the faux version one that is the leg up for the asbestos producer to acquire his lamborghini and the villa by the sea ... whilst others are being morphined to make their last cancer ridden moments less of Hell ...

Spewing asbestos into the air, just because one can, at a high enough threshold to induce cancer in others would violate the no harm without consent rule. 

If a genuine libertarian/individualist society is one in which none can initiate the use of physical force against others aka violence, and physical force can only be used in self defence and only against the specific targets performing violence or intending to perform violence, then we actually have by default the Harm Consent Rule in operation and the economic manifestation of such a society is then the genuine free market ...

So the free market is actually, and can only be, the genuine free market ... anything less than this may be a market but not the free market ...

As you say there are "dangerous and volatile" individuals out there who will do whatever they believe they need to do to secure their ends, and often they may describe themselves as "champions" for the "free market", but they are not.

Often capitalism and the free market are considered as interchangeable, the same thing, but almost entirely they are not.

The free market is not a "bolt on thing", like ok, I am China and now we will use capitalism and the free market to advance Mao's Little Red Book.

Unfortunately, however, it is considered a "bolt on thing", and most schools of economics in the West see it this way too.

Ok, we are a socialist democracy (like many EU nations are) but we will use capitalism and the free market to secure our socialist democracy.

I am not so sure, and stand by to be corrected, that the Austrian School or the Chicago School did not see it as a "bolt on thing" to the political orders they sought to promote.

As a bolt on, it is the economic cart before the ethics and morality horse ... 






Stephen van Jaarsveldt

unread,
Aug 16, 2024, 4:39:42 PM8/16/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
That's an interesting observation - a lot of people think that a free market, or more correctly just a market, is a choice or a policy option or a system, when in fact it is the default state in the absence of those policy & system choices. It is what remains when you remove all the other stuff... it's not a bolt-on.

The problem is still a) some people will do bad things, b) you guys are saying the solution is a code of ethics and d) I'm saying bad people will spit on your code of ethics, so f) you either i) relax and see them as a force of nature or ii) make use of force. Those appear to be the only options. No ?

S.


Sid Nothard

unread,
Aug 17, 2024, 2:49:50 AM8/17/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

But I pointed out that there IS an absolute standard of morality as I pointed out.

 

I people violate those principles by force it in Not moral even when they claim to be doing for the common or greater good

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 6:53 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: An absolute standard for morality

 

There is some nuance, for sure. Not all acts of god are equal - I would rather be struck by lightning than to slowly tire until I sink and drown in the open ocean. I would rather live in a system where I am dictated and prescribed to by democratically elected politicians than by highly decorated military officers after a coup. What I was trying to point out is that morality is not absolute, just like no power is absolute. I would prefer to have less of both, but appreciate that in practice we can merely minimize how much we are controlled and dictated to, whether by meat-based medal stands or by aztec priests or by moral absolutist cult members. We can never really be completely free and, looking at history & the average man, maybe that's a good thing.

 

S.

 

Op Vr. 16 Aug. 2024 om 01:50 het Roland Giesler <roland...@gmail.com> geskryf:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 19:26, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Image removed by sender.

... so... might makes right ?

 

Come on!  That is not what I said and you know it.

 

However, you can believe something is correct course of action, but if you don't have to the means to do it, it remains an idea only.  That goes for situations where the state takes people's individual right away too.  The means can be a sheer number of people in opposition, or could be the threat of a firearm or other weapon, or is could be a persuasive argument among others.

 

 

 

;-)

 

S.

 

 

Op Do. 15 Aug. 2024 om 11:05 het Roland Giesler <roland...@gmail.com> geskryf:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 16:39, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

~WRD000.jpg

Sid Nothard

unread,
Aug 17, 2024, 2:56:52 AM8/17/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com

The free market (and I mean one in which there is no political interference) is the most efficient means for the distribution of scarce resources.

You may not like many of the players, but you can be sure that they are all acting in their best interest, and thus they are obliged to co-operate

With the other players if they wish to get be best for themselves.

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 10:39 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: An absolute standard for morality

 

That's an interesting observation - a lot of people think that a free market, or more correctly just a market, is a choice or a policy option or a system, when in fact it is the default state in the absence of those policy & system choices. It is what remains when you remove all the other stuff... it's not a bolt-on.

 

The problem is still a) some people will do bad things, b) you guys are saying the solution is a code of ethics and d) I'm saying bad people will spit on your code of ethics, so f) you either i) relax and see them as a force of nature or ii) make use of force. Those appear to be the only options. No ?

 

S.

 

 

Op Vr. 16 Aug. 2024 om 13:53 het Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com> geskryf:

I actually trust the free market fully Stephen 😊 ... but the genuine one, not the faux version one that is the leg up for the asbestos producer to acquire his lamborghini and the villa by the sea ... whilst others are being morphined to make their last cancer ridden moments less of Hell ...

 

Spewing asbestos into the air, just because one can, at a high enough threshold to induce cancer in others would violate the no harm without consent rule. 

 

If a genuine libertarian/individualist society is one in which none can initiate the use of physical force against others aka violence, and physical force can only be used in self defence and only against the specific targets performing violence or intending to perform violence, then we actually have by default the Harm Consent Rule in operation and the economic manifestation of such a society is then the genuine free market ...

 

So the free market is actually, and can only be, the genuine free market ... anything less than this may be a market but not the free market ...

 

As you say there are "dangerous and volatile" individuals out there who will do whatever they believe they need to do to secure their ends, and often they may describe themselves as "champions" for the "free market", but they are not.

 

Often capitalism and the free market are considered as interchangeable, the same thing, but almost entirely they are not.

 

The free market is not a "bolt on thing", like ok, I am China and now we will use capitalism and the free market to advance Mao's Little Red Book.

 

Unfortunately, however, it is considered a "bolt on thing", and most schools of economics in the West see it this way too.

 

Ok, we are a socialist democracy (like many EU nations are) but we will use capitalism and the free market to secure our socialist democracy.

 

I am not so sure, and stand by to be corrected, that the Austrian School or the Chicago School did not see it as a "bolt on thing" to the political orders they sought to promote.

 

As a bolt on, it is the economic cart before the ethics and morality horse ... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 9:28 PM Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

It sounds like you don't totally trust the free market, and with good reason - it consists of people, after all. Those same people I just said are dangerous and volatile. But I think there is a difference between individuals and their nature, vs. society and the nature of markets.

 

S.

 

 

Op Vr. 16 Aug. 2024 om 07:53 het Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com> geskryf:

Given errata and clumsy phrases at times as I scribbled on my cell phone in mid August heat in this inferno I have reposted the original email:

 

The choice is binary, we either go back to the "red tooth and claw" of Natural Selection or we go forward with a sophisticated concept  like the HCR (Harm Consent Rule) and utilise the NoU (Nature of Us) which replaces the NoH acronym (Nature of Humans) ...

 

NoU is more Saffer like ... Image removed by sender. 😅... And rolls easier on the tongue ...

Image removed by sender.

~WRD000.jpg
image001.jpg

Stephen vJ

unread,
Aug 17, 2024, 11:14:23 AM8/17/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Sure, but what good does that do ? So now it's easier for you to mark violators with a big red A ? You want to toss repeat offenders into a volcano ? What does the criteria help if you can measure people by it... and then what ?

Stephen.

On Aug 17, 2024, at 00:49, Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



But I pointed out that there IS an absolute standard of morality as I pointed out.

 

I people violate those principles by force it in Not moral even when they claim to be doing for the common or greater good

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 6:53 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: An absolute standard for morality

 

There is some nuance, for sure. Not all acts of god are equal - I would rather be struck by lightning than to slowly tire until I sink and drown in the open ocean. I would rather live in a system where I am dictated and prescribed to by democratically elected politicians than by highly decorated military officers after a coup. What I was trying to point out is that morality is not absolute, just like no power is absolute. I would prefer to have less of both, but appreciate that in practice we can merely minimize how much we are controlled and dictated to, whether by meat-based medal stands or by aztec priests or by moral absolutist cult members. We can never really be completely free and, looking at history & the average man, maybe that's a good thing.

 

S.

 

Op Vr. 16 Aug. 2024 om 01:50 het Roland Giesler <roland...@gmail.com> geskryf:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 19:26, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

<~WRD000.jpg>

Stephen vJ

unread,
Aug 17, 2024, 11:18:48 AM8/17/24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Exactly. Tit-for-tat winning the game theory strategy challenge should be no surprise to those who read Wealth of Nations. I wish more people would read Theory of Moral Sentiments, because Adam Smith is just as good in his first publication where he explains how morality is shaped automatically by society, as if by an invisible hand.

Stephen.

On Aug 17, 2024, at 00:56, Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



<image001.jpg>