D-Light

There is no logical "right" and "wrong" when it comes to competing sentiments and preferences. That's the problem with the very notion of objective morality. Objective morality is as inherently self-contradictory as subjective facts. Asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing moralities is like asking "Who's right?" to the question of competing sentiments over flavors of ice cream. As to the utility of morality, if you're a people farmer, it works great for controlling the masses and getting them to do what you want them to do without using force or the threat of force. Morality reduces the overall cost of ownership tremendously. If you have egalitarian sentiments, morality serves as instruction in behavior that promotes a society founded upon the specific moral standards the moral system is based upon. Morality can serve to unify the people, reducing or minimizing any conflict born of competing self-interest that is out of harmony with the goals of those who control society, whether those people are the community as a whole, a group of oligarchs, a monarch or dictator, or any other form of government. To paraphrase myself, Morality is Government.

There's something I don't understand about this discussion. It seems that there's a disconnect when it comes to principles that makes no sense to me, so perhaps someone can explain to me what I'm missing. A woman makes a series of mistakes in High School resulting in pregnancy and a child. Apparently she chose to keep and raise the child. That's all we know. So all we can do from here is suggest a principled course of action or a dogmatic one. I favor the principled approach. What principles govern the situation? A parent has a responsibility for the physical safety and physical, psychological, and emotional well-being of the child. A parent has a responsibility for the mental stimulation and intellectual, emotional, and ethical education of their child. Single parents, especially young, inexperienced, uneducated, and unprincipled parents generally do a bad job at parenting a child as compared to parents in long-term, healthy, committed relationships. It seems to me, then, it is a very responsible thing for a young single parent to seek out a virtuous man to help her raise her child. Such a man must be financially able to support or at least measurably contribute to the support of the family. Such a man must NOT be a danger to the safety and security of the woman or her child. Such a man must be ready, able, and willing to make a long-term commitment in raising a child that is not their own biological offspring as if that child were their own biological offspring. The real question then is: Is the OP such a man. Can he truly claim to be such a man? If so, and if she is such a woman, then there is nothing wrong with pursuing such a relationship; in fact, it would be highly beneficial to all involved. Unfortunately, however, this is generally not the typical situation. Typically, the young single mother does not have the intelligence or wisdom to identify the best man for her to be with (as evidenced by the existence of the child). Typically, she will make a series of similar mistakes as she experiments in order to obtain the wisdom she needs and ought to have received from wiser friends, parents, family members, books, etc. Typically the type of men such a woman will attract are not ready, able or willing to be parent to the child. As a general rule, this pairing is a bad idea, simply based on the general tendencies of the people involved in such demographics. However, if both persons are not typical, the general rule would not apply.

You know there's value in listening to alternative viewpoints rather than isolating oneself inside a proverbial echo chamber.

Yes. Multiple times, and listened to the audio book multiple times. I am currently working on a comprehensive critique of his book, including what I consider to be the missteps in his reasoning.

There are two kinds of "right and wrong" in common usage. The first type is what might be termed logical, descriptive, or predictive existential truths. These are characterized by declarative statements such as "This is a cat." and predictive statements like, "If dropped, It should land on it's feet." The second type is what might be termed "moral" or "ethical" non-existential sentiments or judgements. These are characterized by declarative statements such as, "It is wrong to hurt cats." or imperative statements like, "One should not do that." Existential truths are objective, that is to say, their qualities are not determined by the observer. Non-existential truths, on the other hand are rational truths which are abstractions of existential truths, mathematics, and logic. Non-existential truths describe the relationships between existential entities and non-existential concepts, such as the existential entity of an actual cat and the concept of "cat" including the terms used to reference it (such as cat, felis domesticus, pussy, kitty, etc.), its taxonomic classification, etc. Non-existential truths also describe the relationship between two or more non-existential concepts, such as "All domesticated cats are felines." or "2 + 2 = 4". There are also non-existential non-truths which nevertheless describe the relationships between existential entities and the individual observer or claimant, or describe the relationships between non-existential concepts and the individual observer or claimant. These relationships are called sentiments, preferences, and judgments. Because these relationships with existential entities or non-existential entities are dependent upon the observer or claimant, they are subjective. The positive, neutral, or negative quality of a particular sentiment or preference is an expression of the relationship between the subject, observer, or claimant and the existential entity, abstraction, action, or behavior. An example of a preference being expressed is, "I like cats" or "I hate swimming." We clearly observe the relationship between the subject or claimant "I" the existential entity or action "cats" or "swimming" and the expression of sentiment "like" or "hate". An example of a sentiment being expressed is, "Sunsets are beautiful." In the expression of a sentiment, the subject or claimant is implied--the one expressing the sentiment is the subject or claimant in the relationship. Moral and Ethical sentiments are NO DIFFERENT than aesthetic sentiments such as an expression of beauty or utility, or desirability. There exists an implied relationship between the observer/claimant who is making the sentimental assertion or judgement, and the existential entity or action. A less ambiguous expression of sentiment is, "I believe sunsets are beautiful". A less ambiguous expression of moral sentiment would be "I believe noone should murder." If you wish to persist with the notion that moral sentiments are somehow uniquely different from all other expressions of sentiment, you will be abandoning reason and logic and engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading. Morality is subjective. There is no getting around it, and yet, DSayers, you have tried by appealing to nature and asserting that morality is defined by consent. I believe that FOR YOU, and many others, morality is in fact defined by consent, or more precisely, you define immorality by the absence of consent. What you have done is simply expressed your sentiment for consent. You have essentially said, "To act without consent is wrong." To express the statement by explicitly stating the implied relationship, it would read, "It is my sentiment that, 'To act without consent is wrong.'" There are no objective, universal ethical or moral absolutes; there are only subjective, sentimental ethical or moral preferences. You suggest that if there were an objective, universal rule, then we would not need to depend upon the popularity of a moral sentiment. You have suggested that subjective morality has let to the sanction of what today is considered heinous atrocities. What you have not demonstrated, however, is how things would actually be any different if morality were popularly regarded as an objective, universal rule as you suggest. Such a belief has not succeeded in preventing any of these horrible atrocities of the past. In fact, precisely the opposite is true, the belief in an objective, universal rule proclaimed by the God of the Christian Bible is precisely what allowed rape, the sanction of slavery, and the killing of people accused of witchcraft. The problem which began apart from reason cannot be solved by reason alone. There must be an appeal to the sentiment of the masses. The public sentiment for such atrocities as rape, assault, and murder, and theft must change. The problem is not a lack of objective, rational ethics; the problem is an individual lack of sentiment which motivates action toward those ideals. The solution is not educating the reason of mankind, the solution is educating elevating the sentiment of mankind from vice to virtue... from destructive selfishness to cooperative self-interest, from violence to persuasion, from frustration to perseverance, from fear and anxiety to curiosity and confidence, from despair to hope.

I do not see how my argument using my definitions fails to infinite regression. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how my argument using the definitions I have provided fails as you have suggested. Clearly we have a difference of definition when it comes to the terms morality and ethics. The definitions I use are etymologically derived from the term from the Latin word "moralis" which is defined as "the proper behavior of a person in society", and ethics from the greek word "ethos" which refers to the nature, disposition, habit or character of the individual or group.

Not stated so explicitly, but is it inaccurate?

as Societal Government is to Self-Government/Anarchy. Definitions used: Morality - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are imposed upon the individual or group by an external authority through force, deception, or coercion, or as a requisite condition for association. Ethics - the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for behavior that are self-imposed by the individual or group. Government - control of the mind. Societal Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise imposition of decision-making control by force, deception, or coercion over the mind (and therefore the behavior) of others. Self-Government (v) - the assertion or otherwise exercise of decision-making control over one's own mind (and therefore one's own behavior). Morality is anti-virtue as it is coercive at best, compulsory at worst. Ethics on the other hand are the advancement and practice of virtue at best, and the absence of vice at worst.

A long-term relationship with someone acting as your personal therapist is almost never a good idea. While there is certainly a deep level of disclosure that occurs in a therapeutic relationship, it is seldom bi-directional which leaves the therapist in a position of power and the one undergoing therapy in a vulnerable position. Add to this the problem of professional ethics... a therapist should never become personally involved with their patients for precisely this and other reasons such as the fact that the relationship is inherently codependent and may never evolve to a healthy interdependent relationship. Such a relationship will also leave the therapist in a potentially vulnerable position professionally because of this breech of ethics (if they are a licensed and credentialed therapist). While there certainly is much to be gained from a relationship where mutual deep disclosure occurs, it should be bi-directional for any intimate personal/non-professional relationship if it is to be healthy and last. My non-professional opinion is strongly against proceeding with a personal relationship... take that for what it's worth.

While I agree that arguing over the "kindest way" to treat the slaves does not address the issue of the immorality of slavery; until a practical and workable non-violent solution to the problem of societal slavery is put forth, that seems to be the most humane course of action. On the other hand, perhaps doing so would forestall the inevitable decay (as the election of Trump may have just forestalled), thus forestalling the inevitable revolution leading to the potential for an anarcho libertarian society.

Wouldn't the best solution (outside of the obvious voluntaryism/anarchy) to the problem of democracy with such a split demographic be to push the power back down to the local level? Make the National Government more Federalist in nature and practice, and do the same with the states, so the local counties, boroughs handle the vast majority of government functions?

Says who? Does the criminal consent to the punishment he receives? What about the baby receiving a circumcision? Both of these are considered moral by the majority of society, even though the individual participants do not agree. The NAP may be the standard that you use for ethical behavior, it is the standard I use; but the majority of society do not. The majority of society do not consider morality to be defined by the NAP, but rather by the commonly agreed upon social norms of behavior... making things like taxation, incarceration for the possession or usage of plants or herbs without permission, and the murder of foreigners in their own lands who resist the interests of our fellow countrymen's corporations or their allies abroad. Such people being "liberated" from their homes and possessions certainly don't give consent, but most in America consider those aggressions to be moral, and the soldiers "just obeying orders" to be moral as well.

How can voting be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it? I can understand how one can consider it out of harmony with the NAP or unprincipled or unethical according to the libertarian standard of ethics or right and wrong, but immoral? Somebody help me out here.

Don't forget Nancy consulting the Psychic-Astrologer!

Indeed.

Not an argument. The amount of material Ann Coulter has written about this subject does not validate any of the claims unless the material itself is likewise valid and sound, which you have failed to demonstrate. This is nothing more than a gratuitous appeal to authority. To make an argument, you would need to demonstrate that what Donald Trump said about the causes and solutions to violent crime and the breakdown of society are in fact correct. Leaving aside the subjective moral judgments about whether one should hold onto hate and rancor for the perpetrators of violent crime, you would need to prove that Donald Trump was correct on each and every one of the following points I have lifted from his Opinion piece printed in the Times (and reprinted elsewhere): I'll simply ask you to defend each and every one of his assertions which you claim are 100% correct: 1 - The suffering and death (of muggers, rapists, and murderers) will cause other potential muggers, rapists, and murderers to think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence. 2 - If the punishment of criminals is strong enough, the attacks on innocent people will stop. 3 - The Police need to be able to deal violently with criminals without fear of retaliation or recourse from accusations of "police brutality" in order to effectively deal with this level of violence. 4 - A primary cause or contributor to the violence, muggings, rape, and murder in society is the amount of pandering by society to the "criminal population". 5 - The Death Penalty and a Police force unshackled from threats of public sanction for acts of police brutality will make New York City safer than their absence. If any one of these points Donald Trump made are incorrect, your assertion is 100% false in regard to Donald Trump's 100% correctness. If on the other hand, you were merely indicating his political stance was 100% RIght (as opposed to 100% Left), or you meant that Donald Trump was 100% correct about one particular point you neglected to specify, and you then prove that point, then I'll accept your clarification. After such an accomplishment, you will then need to show how such a position is not in fact in contradiction to what Stefan has said about the causes of crime and criminal behavior in society, and the effectiveness of a more violent and brutal police force in quelling violent crime (especially including violent crime on the part of the State, unless of course you maintain that the anyone the State considers to be its enemy is categorically incapable of being a victim of crime (i.e., the existence of opposing moral categories)).

He was not 100% right. To suggest that he was 100% right is to suggest that what Stefan has said is at least 25-50% wrong or more. Fear of punishment and repercussions is not what keeps people from engaging in wanton and selfish acts of theft and violence. Fear of punishment and repercussions only makes the person more selective in their choice of victims (the weakest and least cared about members of society that are still worth preying upon), and take greater steps to ensure their avoidance or escape from punishment. The threat of punishment is the way of the Bully, appeasement the way of the bullied. Prevention, mutual respect, cooperation for mutual benefit, dialogue, engagement... these are the only ways to end violence. Yes, in the end, they will not work against those intent on victimizing or exploiting others, and for such not even the threat of self-defense is sufficient. On the other hand, they are far more effective tools on the rest of society, with the capability of transforming adversaries into allies, and rivals into partners. Bully or be bullied is the false dichotomy presented and pursued by those who have not yet resolved their childhood traumas. Taming the bully through friendship, respect, and understanding is the course of those who seek to move beyond their childhood traumas into a peaceful, productive, mature, and healthy relationship with others.

Actually, the pain of withdrawal is the very reason why most addicts stay on the drug instead of kicking it. The reason why most do not stay off the drug is why most graduate to it from less harmful drugs -- lack of connection with others. Essentially, drug addiction to narcotics is a coping mechanism for, among other things, social isolation. It is the primary reason for persistent alcoholism, and the reason why 12-step programs which reinforce healthy social behaviors are successful in keeping people sober. Granted, it depends greatly on the adherence to the 12-step program as any participant will readily admit. There are very few who actually adhere to all 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous who engage in alcoholic behavior again. The problem with statism is that you're dealing with an entire nation, almost half of which (or more) are heavily dependent upon the state. Getting such individuals to give up state dependency cold-turkey will be as ineffective as prohibition. People will find a way to become dependent upon a new state as soon as the old one is destroyed. It is the reason why when a nation falls to anarchy, it is almost immediately replaced by local warlords and chieftains who assume power and control under the auspices of providing order and stability, when in truth, the majority of the time, it is simply opportunism to become the new slavemaster. The slaves must first develop the mindset of free men, or when anarchy comes suddenly and swiftly, they will run to any who will promise a familiar whip to the terror of possibility of having to face annihilation or death from an unfamiliar or foreign one. (For example, the foreign invader who merely seeks land and other natural resources and has no interest for someone else's slaves.

It would be very informative to gather further information about early childhood exposure to members of other races and how members of such races were perceived by the child's family members, peers, and other authority figures which tend to help the child identify their ingroup.