Why Be Moral?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is more critical with 'without the species, tribe and collective' the individual and individuality will not survive rather the other way round.

I suggest you go out into the woods and explain that to a badger, a bear, or a lynx and come back to tell us how it worked out for you.

Team versus Independent Individual[s]: Collectivists version (for those suffering from throw-back, not-quite-human-yet genetic disorder).

Say there are 100 sacks [10 kg or 25 lbs] of goods to move 5 meters away to a store.
There are 5 men [all same abilities] available to move the goods, therefore each man will have to carry 20 sacks of goods.
Now consider this if you are the supervisor fighting for time;
1. Would it be faster if 5 men were to move the goods individually i.e. each carry 20 sacks to the store,
or
2. The 5 men standing side by side and passing the 100 sacks from one to the next person to the store.
Experiments has shown method 2 is more faster than method 1 due to synergy,
i.e. Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts - wiki.

Team versus Independent Individual[s]: (Human version)

There are 100 25 lb. sacks of goods to move 5 meters to a store.

While 5 collectivist stand around trying to decide the best way to manually move the bags as a team, because that's the way it's always been done. A fully human individual who does not do things just because that's what everyone else does, can think for himself, and does not depend on, "studies," done by academics who have never done anything original in their lives, invents a wheel barrow and moves all 100 bags by himself, while the five laborers complain when they lose their job.

Strawman again.

Don't be silly and expect me to go into the details.
In my 'say' example, it has to be presumed, the people are well verse into what they are supposed to do. The example assumed everything else is the same, except the difference between the team-players and the individualists.

The team players are expert in team-building competence.

The individualist are competent in carry the goods but stuck with individualism.

7 Studies That Prove People Work Better in Teams
https://medium.com/the-crossover-cast/7 ... a87137fbc9

There could be exceptions for individual performance but they are an exception not the general norm.

I can understand your point if you compare being independent to being a parasite on others, but teamwork [collective effort] will always prevails over individuality as evident with the emergence of Synergy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

RCSauders,

From your posting I gathered you have been brainwashed promoting Ayn Rand ...'

Why do you insist on presuming things about which you have no knowledge at all, especially about what you think others know and think. I've studied Ayn Rand, I've studied, John Calvin, I've studied hundreds of philosophers and often quote them when what they wrote is well expressed. But I do not accept anyone as authority on any subject and certainly not Ayn Rand, and I do not promote anyone else's views.

But I will say this. I have not read a single critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy that ever begins to understand what it is. I have read the entire corpus of Rand's works (except some of her journals which ARI (the Ayn Rand Institute) has suppressed. The quotes you gave are typical of those who are totally ignorant of what she actually wrote and expressed.

I will accept this criticism.
I agree my reference to third party views are not that reliable as compared to reading Ayn Rand's work directly by oneself.

Nevertheless, I will continue to do so in this case since I am not going to waste time reading the full corpus of Rand's work because Rand has no philosophical status/standing within the Philosophical Community as compared to say Kant [one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times].

However I will appreciate if you can point to me the exact reference [s] in Ayn Rand's work where the views and mine are wrong, so I can pin point to the problem and not search the whole haystack.

If we were to abstract the principles involved within this current fight with COVID19 pandemic, it will be exactly like how I have formalized the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I'm certain that is true.
Most of the world is driven by ignorant paranoia, irrational fears, and gullibility. My friend, we are all going to die, sooner or later, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You know you have the life you have now, why not live that life as well as you can. You cannot possibly know there will any life in the future and all your worrying about saving future generations may be totally wasted.

Surprise you agree with me? A hasty oversight perhaps?

Are you aware, DNA wise ALL humans are 'programmed' and suppressed not to have a constant conscious fear death?
Anyone who has a severe fear of death is a mental case, i.e. Thanatophobia, and should seek psychiatric help.
However the the suppression of the fear of death leaks unconsciously and drive the majority of people to seek consonance via theism for their salvation.
I have strove to manage the above via various strategies sourcing mainly from Buddhist philosophy and practices.

But while we are managing life for equanimity, we as concerned citizen cannot be indifferent to the existing problem of evil that is emerging all over the world.
This is why we need be moral within an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and do our best optimally.

[Age]

Because, in your entire post you never used the word, "concepts," and I'm not a mind reader.

I did not have to, especially considering it was you who has defined 'percepts' and 'concepts'.

I had not used those words until responding to your post here. Even after I used those words, you equivocated, and used the word, "perceive," for two different concepts, that is, two different meanings.

As I pointed out and said earlier; You are NOT reading the actual words that I have written. The actual words I wrote can be clearly seen in my next quote, which you posted here.

I used the word 'perceived' and NOT 'perceive', like you are assuming here and making out I did.

The reason you are seeing contradictions, which are really not there at all, is because you are NOT reading the actual words that I use, say, and write.

See, if you MISS just one letter in what I write, then you to easily misconstrue or misinterpret what I am actually saying and meaning. If you MISS just one letter, then you can take what I actually said out of context and thus totally misunderstand what I am actually saying, and meaning, which can be clearly SEEN in our discussions.

You do the same thing here:

I distinguished between the 'information, which is fed through the five senses of the body, or 'directly perceived' (percepts)' from the 'already stored, and/or shared, knowledge, or 'what we perceive' (concepts).

You have used the word, "percieve," in the first instance to mean direct conscious perception, what is seen, hear, felt, smelled, or tasted, but have use the word, "perceive," in the second instance with a totally different meaning, that which one knows or thinks, which is by means of concepts.

I did NOT do this at all. As it is clearly SEEN that I used the word 'perceived' instead of 'perceive'.

Besides you misrepresenting me on just that, you have also completely misrepresented me on what I actually mean. I do NOT mean what you are assuming and saying I meant.

It is not possible to, "perceive," (see, hear, feel, taste, or smell) concepts. The confusion comes from the fact that, in everyday language, the word perceive is used to identify two totally different things: the first being direct conscious perception, the second how one thinks, evaluates, or regards things. You have confused these two meanings.

I have NOT confused these two meanings. You have assumed and are now believing that I have.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

1. To become aware of (something) directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing: "We could perceive three figures in the fog."
2.To regard or consider; deem: an old technology that is still perceived as useful; "a politician who is perceived to be a dissembler."

It is exactly what you have done here:

For example: A new born human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste ONLY what actually exists, and ONLY 'that'. Whereas, a much older human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste absolutely ANY THING, which the 'you' (the person) inside assumes or believes exists, and ONLY 'that'.

Confusing this is EXACTLY NOT what I have done here.

You are confused about what I actually said and meant because you are perceiving what I have said and meant with and from your already pre-held preconceptions and prejudices.

You are doing the EXACT thing that I have been pointing out.

Perception, in philosophy, pertains only to direct conscious perception.

There is absolute NO word in so called "philosophy". There is also absolutely NO word in so called "philosophy" where its definition and meaning is FIXED and UNCHANGEABLE. Words just NEVER work like that.

No amount of experience or knowledge changes how one sees, hears, feels, smells, or tastes thing.

I KNOW, and this is EXACTLY what I HAVE SAID, which can be clearly SEEN, that is; IF you read the actual words I wrote. This can also be completely UNDERSTOOD, that is; IF you ask clarifying questions BEFORE you make assumptions and jump to conclusions, which are, by the way, obviously WRONG and DISTORTED.

A concept is the identification of some existent. For example, the concept indicated by the word, "apple," means the kind of fruit one sees we all call an apple. When a young boy looks at an apple and calls it an apple and when a botanist looks at an apple and calls it an apple, they both see exactly the same thing and mean that same thing when they call it an apple. The boy's little knowledge about an apple, and the botanist's extensive knowledge about apples does not change how an apple is perceived (they both perceive the apple in exactly the same way) and does not change what either means by the word apple. All of the botanist's knowledge is ABOUT apples, and none of that knowledge changes either how an apple is perceived by the botanist or what he means by an apple.

You CHANGING my use of the words 'new born human baby', and replacing them with the words 'young boy', who already knows the english language word "apple" only shows your deceiving and detracting away tactics from what I have OBVIOUSLY clearly wrote and spoke about. Trying to portray a sense of me not understanding you only SHOWS and REVEALS your deception and attempts to fool "others" here.

Until you understand this simple epistemological fact, there is really no more to discuss on this issue.

What you are saying here is clearly already understood, by me. It is a very SIMPLE FACT, which was KNOWN years ago. But, obviously, what I am saying goes way deeper and way beyond just the simpleness of what you are saying.

If you ever decide to delve deeper and further into understanding more and anew, then I await your clarifying questions. Until then I suggest just being happy remaining with that, what I call "in the dark ages, "understanding". That already gained known knowledge of yours obviously is nothing new at all.

[Immanuel Can]

It is the same with secular morality.
The absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice, but the absolute moral standard can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Nope. It cannot be done.

And this phrase "can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning" is nothing but a colossal, verbose bluff. First of all, it's in passive voice, grammatically, which allows the sayer to weasel on the question of the doer of the action. Secondly, the term "empirical evidence" does not tell us anything about WHAT evidence you think you have, so it weasels again. Then the phrase "philosophical reasoning" provides no syllogism that reasons philosophically.

So you've done nothing there but make a bald assertion of a thing you cannot actually do, and definitely do not do with that phrase.

As I had argued, within Morality [Pure] we justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning the absolute ideal of the Highest Good.

You keep saying this.

But you can't list the empirical evidence you think justifies morality, and tell me what the absolute ideal of the Highest Good is. We don't have what you are claiming we have.

Prove me wrong, if you think I am: just list these "empirical evidences" you think give us morality, and tell me what "the Highest Good" is, so we can all aim at it.

If you can't, then you're just talking about what you WISH we had, but we do not have.

The highest Good is the preservation of the human species optimally as evident empirically.

Nope. That can easily be defeated. Easily.

If (as secularism assumes) we are simply the byproduct of evolutionary processes, then it is Survival of the Fittest that has got us this far. Survival of the Fittest is a process that requires the frequent death of the weak and unfit, and the reproduction of the strong. So it makes death a good thing. The survival of all individuals would be actively bad.

Moreover, it isn't even the whole race that any of us has an interest in preserving. For if I am in "the middle of the pack," then achieving my own success under terms of Survival of the Fittest is the way I serve the evolutionary process. I can take no thought for the weak...and indeed, do a disservice to the process if I do. Rather, I am only to strive to be the strong, and let as many die as may, that I may rise. And if I die, then I have failed my 'mission' of becoming the strongest. So I must take no thought for any other, if that thought impairs my survival. I must not worry about this nonsense of "the Race" while my own race is yet being run.

It's every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost. And there, it begins and ends.

But even if a man should come to me and say, "But it might serve your interests best if a bunch of us survive," the right answer, evolutionarily, is, "It serves my interest that YOU think so. And it serves my interest that OTHERS think so too. But it does nothing but harm my own prospects if I imagine I owe you anything from that. If I die, all is lost. So keep believing in your foolish 'good of mankind,' and I will continue as I am, thank you very much."

It is the necessity of such a stipulated standard that will drive every gold miner and producer to improve on their quality and purity to improve on the existing quality if they have not done so.

Nope. It will not "drive" anything. Greed for gold or desire for success will "drive" the smelter. The standard will only let him know once his own "drive" has achieved what he is "driven" to desire. The standard does not create either the desire or the action of smelting.

Let say,
the absolute Moral Ought is,
"no human shall kill another human"

But that isn't true. So we can't "say" that without being arbitrary, and, in fact, wrong.

First of all, people (empirically speaking) kill all the time. You need an "ought." But you aren't going to be able to get one from any reference to empirical situations ("is" situations) and you certainly don't have one in this case. People DO kill.

Secondly, it's not at all true that killing is always bad. If a man breaks into another's house, with the aim of stealing his possessions, harming his children and raping his wife, and the man fights back, and in the course of the struggle kills the home-invader, he's not a murderer...he's a hero.

• the absolute Moral Ought is,
  "no human shall kill another human"

Who says this "ought" of yours? Only you.

Human beings DO kill each other. Human beings even LIKE to kill each other -- especially rivals for resources, enemies, and malefactors. Some humans even like it for entertainment, as the Roman Colosseums were full of screaming crowds of death-lovers.

On what basis do you prove to them they're wrong to do so?

It there is no absolute moral standard, people will accept 400,000 homicides per year as the norm and would not be bothered to do anything about it.

So? Worriers over overpopulation would even have to say that is a good thing. In fact, they would have to say that MORE people need to die.

All humans are also "programmed" for improvements over any existing state.

Doubtful. But even if true, who "programmed" them? Their "program" will be no more important than the name of the one who created that program. And if, as per secularism, the "program" is just a product of accidental forces, why should we listen to it? Why should it not be like other "programs" -- like our "program" for violence -- that you say we ought to conquer?

As you will note from the above, you are always a few step behind because your thinking is shallow and narrow as evident. [This is not ad hominen but stating the facts].

Heh. Still ad hominem. You really don't have any idea what ad hominem means, do you?

Here's a guideline for you: anytime you say "You think X because you are Y," you are ad hominem. It's ad hominem not because it's not true, but because it's irrelevant.

It's like saying, "You're only saying that because you're a woman." It doesn't matter that it's a woman speaking. Whether she's a woman or not will not decide whether or not what she has said is true. Her being a woman won't turn a truth into a lie, or a lie into a truth. It's the truth of her idea itself that will decide.

Insults are not arguments.

[henry quirk]

absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice

Poppycock.

I exist and it's, for example, absolutely unnatural for me to be owned by another.

More generally, it is absolutely unnatural for a person, for a human being, to be owned by another.

So: there's your absolute moral standard (ownness), existing naturally, perfectly possible in practice.

[Impenitent]

absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice

Poppycock.

I exist and it's, for example, absolutely unnatural for me to be owned by another.

More generally, it is absolutely unnatural for a person, for a human being, to be owned by another.

So: there's your absolute moral standard (ownness), existing naturally, perfectly possible in practice.

upon reaching a certain age perhaps...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

>insert favorite<

[henry quirk]

absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice

Poppycock.

I exist and it's, for example, absolutely unnatural for me to be owned by another.

More generally, it is absolutely unnatural for a person, for a human being, to be owned by another.

So: there's your absolute moral standard (ownness), existing naturally, perfectly possible in practice.

upon reaching a certain age perhaps...

-Imp

What's love, er, age got to do with it?

[Impenitent]

absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice

Poppycock.

I exist and it's, for example, absolutely unnatural for me to be owned by another.

More generally, it is absolutely unnatural for a person, for a human being, to be owned by another.

So: there's your absolute moral standard (ownness), existing naturally, perfectly possible in practice.

upon reaching a certain age perhaps...

-Imp

What's love, er, age got to with it?

children are not "strictly" owned by their parents, but they are almost effectively...

-Imp

[Walker]

upon reaching a certain age perhaps...

-Imp

What's love, er, age got to with it?

children are not "strictly" owned by their parents, but they are almost effectively...

-Imp

Not when a parent refuses to be hung with the petard of kindness and decency. Tough Luv.

[henry quirk]

upon reaching a certain age perhaps...

-Imp

What's love, er, age got to with it?

children are not "strictly" owned by their parents, but they are almost effectively...

-Imp

Parenting (good or bad) doesn't negate owness, any more than employment, or marriage, or out & out slavery.

[henry quirk]

Nuthin' negates ownness, but many acts can violate it.

[Walker]

Nuthin' negates ownness, but many acts can violate it.

Teaching children civilized behavior in the language they understand in their stage of development is not one of those acts.

[henry quirk]

Nuthin' negates ownness, but many acts can violate it.

Teaching children civilized behavior in the language they understand in their stage of development is not one of those acts.

No, that's sumthin' that enhances (through recognition) ownness.

[RCSaunders]

There could be exceptions for individual performance but they are an exception not the general norm.

I'm only interested in the exceptional. Ants, herd animals, and those creatures who have not thrown off the influences of their DNA/RNA may work well in teams, but human beings only excel as individuals.

Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made, more or less, in the order listed: the use of foxglove (digitalis) for treating heart arythmias; Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass; Volta's electric battery; Dalton's atomic theory; refrigeration; steam locomotive; stethoscope; Faraday's electric motor; photography; internal combustion engine; Ohm's law (electricity); Avogadro's (gas) law; Faraday's electrical generator; first enzyme, diastase, isolated; refrigerator; all plants are made of cells proven; Goodyear's' vulcanization of rubber; chemical fertilizer; anesthesia; Helmholtz law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics); absolute zero defined; Bessemer steel making process; oil drill; lead acid battery; Pasteurization; vaccination; Mendel's basis for genetics; dynamite; periodic table; Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism; electric lights; telephone; Tesla's induction motor; Edison's phonograph; Boltzmann's statistical definition of entropy; Röntgen's x-rays; Thomson's electron in cathode rays; cathode ray tube (oscilloscopes, TV); automobile; Tesla's radio; diesel engine; magnetic tape recorder; air conditioner; neon lamp; Arthur D. Little's rayon cellulose ester; electrocardiograph (EKG); heavier-than-air powered flight; triode amplifier; washing machine; cellophane; bakelite: cracking process for gasoline; Bohr model of the atom; helical structure of DNA; stainless steel; neoprene, nylon; microwave radar; jet engine; computer; transistor; Shannon's information theory; nuclear power reactor; laser; integrated circuits; communications satellites.

With the exception of the helical structure of DNA, the transistor, and the Wright Brothers, of course, these discoveries and inventions were all accomplished by individuals, often in the face of great collective and popular opposition. Every one of these are ideas that make the world we take for granted in the West what it is. Not only is every convenience and luxury we enjoy the direct result of these discoveries and inventions, our very health and longevity would be impossible without them.

In the entire history of the world every advance in civilization, every gain in knowledge, and every improvement in the human condition has come solely through the efforts of independent individualists. They and they alone are the creators, innovators, and discoverers of the world. These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative.