"Free will was given to man by god."

[henry quirk]

Quirk's Golden Rule: Leave me be, or else.

Henry what if , heaven forfend!, you get an operable brain tumour?

I go to the doctor.

The doc and me consider my options.

Then I proceed with whatever option I've chosen.

Then I pay my bill.

[Walker]

As for "The Golden Rule," I think honesty requires us to realize that it's not nearly universal (Randians, Nihilists, Libertarians, Nietzscheans, as well as every proponent of any kind of tribalism deny it), and manifestly does not summarize the totality of morality (some moral precepts from some traditions go beyond it). So I don't think it is actually "workable" for a whole lot of people, even though I would personally say it's right for me and you, provided we don't merely stop there.

Golden Rule … Wiki

"The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BC), according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions".[2] The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets (1754-1790 BC).[citation needed] 143 leaders of the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic".[3][4] According to Greg M. Epstein, it is "a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely", but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.[5] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule


According to this, the Golden Rule is common.

[Immanuel Can]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
According to this, the Golden Rule is common.

Well, this is totally wrong.

What's more, you can see it's wrong, if you consider any one of the examples I already gave you. The GR is nowhere near universal. Wiki's just out to lunch on that. It's ignoring the facts in order to perpetuate a common prejudice.

[Belinda]

Henry, a brain surgeon is trained at public expense. There is no way the apparatus of universities, teaching hospitals, and professional qualifications could exist but for the fact society is individuals organised to be more than they could be if socially isolated for one another.

Your surgical operation does not exist as a simple quid pro quo. A modern civilised society is very complex. I agree every individual should be as independent and self sustaining as possible. Also it's good for everybody concerned when there is a measure of competition for resources so as to make people try harder to produce better stuff and services.

Your freedom such as it is is relative to the freedom of some others you may compare yourself with.Nobody is free from causes and effects of causes. You have been nurtured to believe certain personal liberties are yours as of right. The feudal system in medieval Europe had very rigid class boundaries between one individual and another, and most individuals were sort of slaves to their masters. Until Magna Carta even rich barons were not free from the king's demands.

[Walker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
According to this, the Golden Rule is common.

Well, this is totally wrong.

What's more, you can see it's wrong, if you consider any one of the examples I already gave you. The GR is nowhere near universal. Wiki's just out to lunch on that. It's ignoring the facts in order to perpetuate a common prejudice.

The Golden Rule is as much an objective statement of physics, of physical inevitability, as it is a prescription for ethical behavior.

In other words, one cannot do other than love another as oneself. One who loves the world just a little bit loves oneself just a little bit. It’s a direct correlation, a natural causation. False love of the world is false love of oneself. In traffic the road rager who curses other drivers also rages against himself, or herself.

[henry quirk]

"Henry, a brain surgeon is trained at public expense."

No doubt some are. Not sure what that has to do with me goin' to one, consultin' with one, payin' out of my pocket to safely remove a tumor. My transaction with the doctor stands apart from the public expense. And, about that public expense: If I had my way, taxpayers wouldn't be footin' that bill. Also, some doctors put themselves into debt in large, long-term, ways to pay for their education. Just throwin' out the simplistic a brain surgeon is trained at public expense as though that's the long and short of it is disingenuous.

#

"There is no way the apparatus of universities, teaching hospitals, and professional qualifications could exist but for the fact society is individuals organised to be more than they could be if socially isolated for one another."

And yet each and every one charges heftily. For all that public funding, students still gotta pay. So, that public funding, obviously, ain't cuttin' the mustard. Mebbe fewer schools with more reasonable expectations is the direction we ought to head in.

The solution, of course, is remove the public funding and let these institutions, like water, find their proper level.

#

"Your surgical operation does not exist as a simple quid pro quo."

For me it does. I'm sick, I go to the doctor, I get diagnosed, I get treated, I pay my bill.

#

"Your freedom such as it is is relative to the freedom of some others you may compare yourself with."

No, my freedom is a clear function of my self-ownership. The civilization or barbarism I live in makes that self-ownership, and the freedom extending from it, easier or harder to express but no circumstance creates or negates my self-ownership or freedom. As for comparisons: I make none.

#

"Nobody is free from causes and effects of causes."

Where did I say we were, B? I never said that. You mistake me for some other nimrod, or you're projectin' your issues onto me. No, in the numerous conversation we've had, my fundamental assertion has never been that I'm free from causality. I assert simply that I'm a cause, not an event; a person, not meat, a free will, not determined link.

#

"You have been nurtured to believe certain personal liberties are yours as of right."

Jeez, why do I waste my time with you? I say this...

The individual owns himself wholly, no exceptions. The individual has an inviolate right to his life, his liberty, and his property. An individual's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit in part or whole when he knowingly, willingly deprives another of his life, liberty, or property without obvious just cause.

...and you dismiss it all as personal liberties. And, adding insult to injury, you excise my own motivations and declare me the mere beneficiary of nuturing.

Thanks for nuthin', B.

#

"The feudal system in medieval Europe had very rigid class boundaries between one individual and another, and most individuals were sort of slaves to their masters. Until Magna Carta even rich barons were not free from the king's demands."

Irrelevant to my point...which you either willfully ignore, or simply incapable of gettin'.

[Immanuel Can]

The Golden Rule is as much an objective statement of physics, of physical inevitability, as it is a prescription for ethical behavior.

It's decidedly not. Not unless you imagine, somehow, that unfairness or injustice simply do not exist, and that everybody gets exactly what's coming to them, every time, and "physics" guarantees it.

In traffic the road rager who curses other drivers also rages against himself, or herself.

Maybe. But the pedophile who destroys dozens of young lives...does he molest himself? The rapist who destroys women...does he rape himself? The embezzler who bulges his bank account with the money of others...is he stealing from himself? And the mass murderer who fills the killing fields with skulls...is his skull among them?

There is no such physical law. Moral law is not like physical law. Physical laws cannot be violated without immediate consequences. But moral laws are often violated, and without immediate consequences...or even with ill-gotten rewards attending, as in the above cases.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

The solution, of course, is remove the public funding and let these institutions, like water, find their proper level.

Above is only a small bit of your post which is well argued as usual and I haven't time to comment on all you wrote.

I chose that quote as it shows pretty clearly right- wing politicians are optimistic about human nature. Either they are optimistic about human nature or they are self seeking liars, and Henry is not one of the latter.

My stance is pessimistic about human nature ; if men did not organise themselves into reasonably permanent cooperative endeavours for moral and practical purposes, they would be both inefficient and brutal. Henry probably agrees with this Hobbesian point of view. I guess Henry and I disagree about the amount of individual freedoms . Arguments about Free Will and determinism are rationalisations of optimistic or pessimistic personalities.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess Henry and I disagree about the amount of individual freedoms . Arguments about Free Will and determinism are rationalisations of optimistic or pessimistic personalities.

Your view is actually quite pessimistic, Belinda...and Henry's is, if anything, more optimistic.

Things like Determinism and Collectivism hold out no hope for wisdom emerging from individuals. People are, in their view, stupid and sheep-like, to the point of self-endangerment, utterly incapable of realizing their own interests apart from the wisdom of the collective (Collectivism), or else hopelessly in thrall to prior forces (Determinism) and thus unpossessed of any freedom at all.

Yet for some reason, Collectivism thinks the collective of the sheep has more wisdom than the individual sheep, and Determinism thinks that it can argue about free will with entities that (by its own supposition) can have none!

Now, Henry -- unless I miss my guess -- thinks that an individual has some hope. He may not always make the right choices, but at least when he's not part of a collective mob, the dangers and consequences of his own bad choices will be visited upon him, and thus provide a feedback loop that can teach him to be more wise; and the good choices he makes will similarly reward him, and teach him wisdom. But his successes and failures will not be visited by force on other people, magnified by the power of The Collective.

Henry sees people as flawed but capable of learning to handle their freedom. That's the most optimistic view a reasonable person can actually have. It's actually more pessimistic to hold that the individual simply cannot be trusted, cannot be made the arbiter of his own best interest, and must be paternalistically mass-managed by the rest of the sheep, or that he really has no freedom at all anyway.

[henry quirk]

"if men did not organise themselves into reasonably permanent cooperative endeavours for moral and practical purposes, they would be both inefficient and brutal."

The question: is this organizing self-organization or tyranny?

A tyranny, a dictatorship, has the advantage when it comes to efficiency. Mostly, it requires just the simple application of the Big Stick. And tyranny is just so damn easy. Why navigate the idiosyncratic agendas of individuals when the lot can be made to wear the labels of cog or meat (citizen: legally recognized ward/resource of the State).

[henry quirk]

I guess Henry and I disagree about the amount of individual freedoms . Arguments about Free Will and determinism are rationalisations of optimistic or pessimistic personalities.

Your view is actually quite pessimistic, Belinda...and Henry's is, if anything, more optimistic.

Things like Determinism and Collectivism hold out no hope for wisdom emerging from individuals. People are, in their view, stupid and sheep-like, to the point of self-endangerment, utterly incapable of realizing their own interests apart from the wisdom of the collective (Collectivism), or else hopelessly in thrall to prior forces (Determinism) and thus unpossessed of any freedom at all.

Yet for some reason, Collectivism thinks the collective of the sheep has more wisdom than the individual sheep, and Determinism thinks that it can argue about free will with entities that (by its own supposition) can have none!

Now, Henry -- unless I miss my guess -- thinks that an individual has some hope. He may not always make the right choices, but at least when he's not part of a collective mob, the dangers and consequences of his own bad choices will be visited upon him, and thus provide a feedback loop that can teach him to be more wise; and the good choices he makes will similarly reward him, and teach him wisdom. But his successes and failures will not be visited by force on other people, magnified by the power of The Collective.

Henry sees people as flawed but capable of learning to handle their freedom. That's the most optimistic view a reasonable person can actually have. It's actually more pessimistic to hold that the individual simply cannot be trusted, cannot be made the arbiter of his own best interest, and must be paternalistically mass-managed by the rest of the sheep, or that he really has no freedom at all anyway.

Close enough:

[Belinda]

"if men did not organise themselves into reasonably permanent cooperative endeavours for moral and practical purposes, they would be both inefficient and brutal."

The question: is this organizing self-organization or tyranny?

A tyranny, a dictatorship, has the advantage when it comes to efficiency. Mostly, it requires just the simple application of the Big Stick. And tyranny is just so damn easy. Why navigate the idiosyncratic agendas of individuals when the lot can be made to wear the labels of cog or meat (citizen: legally recognized ward/resource of the State).

The reason western nations "navigate the idiosyncratic agendas of individuals " is western nations underwent a scientific enlightenment which followed upon the Renaissance of Greek humanist culture. The reason, Henry, is historical. Democracy began in ancient Athens and was revived and extended in early modern and modern Europe.Not every nation in the world had an enlightenment . The USA was originally a European colony and was formed from enlightenment ideas.
Your libertarian idea of individual freedoms suited the early days in America when central rule was impossible for people exploring and exploiting the unknown lands.

Ontic Free Will is a religious dogma for the useful purpose of social control then and, to a large extent, now.

[Immanuel Can]

Democracy began in ancient Athens...

Not including barbarians, slaves, and women, of course...and with no rationale for ever including them. So no human rights.

Rather limited "democracy," wouldn't you say?

Not every nation in the world had an enlightenment .

"The Enlightenment" was merely a self-congratulatory term placed on themselves by the same people who were alive at the time of things like the Baconian revolution in science. These were also the French Revolution and Terror contemporaries.

So this was a rather ambiguous "enlightening," woudn't you say?

Ontic Free Will is a religious dogma...

It's advocated by many secularists (for example, "enlightenment" folks) and by some but not all "religious" ones, each for their own reasons. And it's practiced by everyone, even those who profess skepticism in it, every time they try to present a rational argument to "change someone else's mind." Because absent free will, no such thing is possible.

Rather limited "religiousness," wouldn't you say?

[Sculptor]

"Free will was given to man by god."

Free will was given by man to God.

A gift, not possible to bestow.

[henry quirk]

"Ontic Free Will is a religious dogma for the useful purpose of social control then and, to a large extent, now."

So I'm indoctrinated to believe I'm free or that I have or am a free will so that I can be controlled.

That there is some cunning shit.