dalem

So you're going to tax them for polluting because pollution is Bad. You gonna give them a tax break for producing the things we use to enrich our lives?

-dale

Praxus

Appeals to emotion are invalid.

barrowaj

That's not an equivalent analogy. Profit is the reward to produce things that are useful. If what companies produced wasn't valuable, people wouldn't buy it. But when they pollute the environment, we all have to pay. And not just us, but our children and their children, etc.

barrowaj

I'm not appealing to emotion. I'm saying that if you got out into the real world, you would understand how things work.

dalem

Overall industry produces goods and services that enrigh our lives, our childrens' lives, etc. Why not reward them for that?

-dale

dalem

Why retreat to the Lefty position of "you don't agree with me therefore you are not as knowledgeable as me"? Maybe Praxus knows the real world just fine and comes to a different conclusion about it than do you. Ever think of that?

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

Yes.

You misquote. The real line is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You only do yourself a disservice through rudeness. I am dissapointed that you act this way. It lowers my esteem of you.

I believe there is no god. Many other people also believe this. Can you offer a secular, legal justification for your ideas.

Besides, my idea is not to take away peoples rights.

Praxus

Yes, you are. If I were put into that situation, the laws of nature would not suddenly and irrevocably morph around me. The only thing that would possibly change is my emotional response to people's grief. It therefore is an appeal to emotion.

Praxus

1
Premise 1: Morality is a code to live by.
Premise 2: Man must first live, before anything else.
Conclusion: The basis of morality is man's life.

2
Premise 1: To live, men must be moral.
Premise 2: Associating with other moral people is moral
Conclusion: Joining in a society to associate with such people is moral.

3
Premise 1: Joining into a society with other moral people is moral.
Premise 2: To live, man must be left free, by other men, to be moral.
Conclusion: Men needs certain protections against other men, so that they may be moral.

barrowaj

That's not what I implied at all. I said if he went to the hospital and talked to veterans, he would learn that most of them get by off of social security payments. Its not a "lefty" position at all. Its just stating the facts.

And as for pollution, you tax it because it is an externality to the market. Pollution is a cost borne by everyone, and not solely by the polluter. By taxing pollution you internalize the cost to the polluter, and he now has incentive to reduce pollution. The good of products that companies produce, on the other hand, is accounted for by the market. If products weren't good, then people wouldn't buy them. That's the incentive to make good products.

Bulgaroctonus

One could define morality as a code for behavior.
I'll agree that if man is to do anything, he has to be alive.
It seems you think morality should be based on common human experience, a sort of 'pragmatic morality.' Is this correct?

I am not moral, and I am alive. Hitler was not moral, and he was alive. Genghis Khan was not moral and he was alive. Morality is not a condition for life. Things like oxygen are conditions for life. This is a flawed premise.
This premise is false. Being in close proximity to people does not entail any moral action. One could just as easily associate with people to go whoring and drinking. I'll stick with Sartre, "Hell is other people."
Your conclusion can't hold up because its premises are false.

You've basically taken your second conclusion and plugged it in here. So this is not true for the reasons I listed above.
No, man does not have to be free at all to live. Witness the grinding slavery of the American South and the ancient world. Life is a very basic criteria; the cells of the human body need no spiritual or moral nourishment. The human body needs calories, oxygen, and certain minerals to continue.

You might say that morals are essential for a person's emotional health (only a majority of people), but that is something different.

I think this conclusion is stronger than most you have made. I can think of counterexamples to your exact wording, but I agree with the idea behind the conclusion. However, this conclusion does not directly follow from premise 1.

Praxus

The moral is that which preserves and enhances your life qua man.

I said, that being with other moral men, is moral. That is to say it enhances your life qua man (through the philosophical, scientific, emotional, and economic advances that come via society). I never claimed that it makes you act moral, only that itself is moral.

So then you must admit, everything you say "can't hold up".

Not just to live, but to live as a man. A being free to use his own reason to pursue his own happiness. The life of a slave is not worth living, as it destroys all of your values and makes a human life impossible.

Bulgaroctonus

Morals can enhance ones life, but they do not enhance everyone's life. Also, morals do not preserve life. Shrewd calculation and prudent choices can preserve life. Morals are nice for a lot of people, but they are certainly not a requirement for the preservation of life.

This isn't true either. You know I can just keep on thinking of counterexamples for all of this stuff. One could be with other moral men, but still be immoral (i.e. secretly stealing from all the monks). To make to statement true, you have to add that one has to be with moral people and be moral. But then the statement becomes a tautology, and we see that we don't need other men to be moral.

You said: "Premise 2: Associating with other moral people is moral"
You did claim that associating with moral people is a moral action, you can't then say that such association entails no moral action on our part. By definition, one is committing a moral act (i.e. acting morally) by associating with moral people, if you stipulate that associating with moral people is moral.

I'll be more in favor of an argument that says that morals are often beneficial or useful, thats fine. But I won't accept many of the absolute moral statements that you are making.

How is associating with moral people a moral act? Anyway, I think we might devolve into semantics soon.
What? Everything I've ever said? I don't understand this. RIght now, I won't be admitting that everything I say "can't hold up." Haha.

So you forced to redefine living as 'living with dignity'? What if a man desires immoral goals, such as glory and violence in battle?

Bulgaroctonus

I see you have edited your last post. You added the following to the end:
Yes, the life of a slave is not very nice. It does destory many values, but it does not make human life (which, again, is a bare minimum) impossible. It makes things like dignity and enjoyment of life very difficult, if not impossible.

Praxus

That is what I am defining morals as! So yes, they are a requirement for the preservation of a human life. You are applying some contorted conventional view of morality to what I am saying. I do not believe in altruism or violent whim worship.


I never said that we need other moral men to be moral. I said that to be with other moral men is moral (it is a moral thing to do). I am not saying that it will make you more moral (which it may very well do).

I'll be more in favor of an argument that says that morals are often beneficial or useful, thats fine. But I won't accept many of the absolute moral statements that you are making.

They are productive and benevalent, ergo they will enhance and extend your life.

You believe we lack free will, you yourself recognize the contradiction, and your wondering what I'm talking about.