Cloning Embryos

[Realist]

A religion is about the supernatural, and to the extent that morality is supernatural, I suppose you could claim that Rational Morality has some elements of a religion. However, unlike the current religions, it helps the people of the world instead of harming them.

[old_man_killer]

Realist, OK, that answered the first half, but what about the last part?

[Realist]

Yes. Well, as I said, it will be culturally enforced rather than politically enforced. Only the adherents to the principles of Rational Morality will be allowed in the government, and in the transitional phases a number of steps may or may have to take place to convert the culture. But in general, in the ideal state, rational morality is accepted because it makes sense and is the basis of the culture, not because people are forcing you through violence.

[old_man_killer]

Yes. Well, as I said, it will be culturally enforced rather than politically enforced. Only the adherents to the principles of Rational Morality will be allowed in the government, and in the transitional phases a number of steps may or may have to take place to convert the culture. But in general, in the ideal state, rational morality is accepted because it makes sense and is the basis of the culture, not because people are forcing you through violence.

OK, but now you are describing what could construed as a "brain washed" society, or at the other extreme, a Communistic society. Not a Communist society which is in fact Socialist, but Communistic in its exclusions.

[Realist]

No, culture influences all of our views already, I just want to change this culture. Are we "brainwashed" into our Western ideals, or Christian ideals, etc.? Not really, its just the culture to which we might belong. It'll be the same way here. People can think freely, but the culture is one which is based on Rational Morality.

[old_man_killer]

Yes. Well, as I said, it will be culturally enforced rather than politically enforced. Only the adherents to the principles of Rational Morality will be allowed in the government,

Sorry, I caught this after I had posted before, doesn't this contradict itself? By excluding those who don't follow Rational Morality from government office, then aren't you pressuring people "politcally" to conform? This is very simular to what Hitlers Nazi party did.

But I think I can see a little of what you are trying to achieve. Correct me if I am wrong (OK, like I had to worry about that :p ) but it seems that you are attempting to pul little bits and pieces from every form of government and actually a few concepts from some religions to form this more perfect "culture". Discarding what you feel were the parts that caused problems.

Then one final question, would there be no room for people to believe in thier God or Savior? Would prayer be banned? (OK that was two)

[TheBlazedAce]

Realist, I really don't understand how you can speak of maximizing happiness, yet you don't see that our basic morals are logically sound. Assuming everyone will want to maximize happiness it just makes sense to derive some rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to a happier world overall.

If no one killed anyone else do you not agree overall the world would be a happier place?

If no one stole from anyone else do you not agree overall the world would be a happier place?

If no one cheated on their spouses do you not agree overall the world would be a happier place?

etc.

If it does make so much sense why is it inherent and not logically based on the principle that increasing overall happiness is the goal.

[old_man_killer]

Blazed, that is the glitch in the system. We have those basic morals now.

Don't kill, it's wrong, but yet many thousands of people (not even touching abortion or the like) are killed by other people. What is there to prevent this? Maximizing happiness? Some murders were done because it maximized someone else happiness, or at least when they were alive they stifiled someones happiness. (Lacy Peterson murder as an example)

Don't cheat on your spouse, Come on, I have a better chance convincing Realist to be an alter boy than you do getting people to stop cheating.

Not stealing? there are different levels of stealing, some of which people are convinced is OK, taking office supplys or shop lifting from Wal-Mart (What the heck, they got billions)

What is in it for the average shmoe to make him want to "toe the line"?

[TheBlazedAce]

That's not my point OMK. I said that this is for overall maximum happiness. I'll take cheating as the easiest one. If you cheat on your spouse it's a moment of happiness, maybe a few hours, maybe even weeks, but when they find out it ruins their life and a lot of times yours, not to even get into how this affects children! This system achievers the maximum overall happiness. I'm saying this moral system is provably true. I'm not saying that it should be used as the basis to argue the moral system to everyone, but saying that all morals are inherently true is an even less persuasive method of convincing others to follow it.

Edit: One person's happiness is obviously weighed less then the happiness of many.

[old_man_killer]

Edit: One person's happiness is obviously weighed less then the happiness of many.

Aha: I was wondering who would be bringing up Vulcan Philosophy! :D

Or to put it, "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one"

As for the rest of you post, sorry, I misinterpreted the direction you were taking.

[TheBlazedAce]

Aha: I was wondering who would be bringing up Vulcan Philosophy! :D

Or to put it, "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one"

As for the rest of you post, sorry, I misinterpreted the direction you were taking.

It still depends where and how you use this philosophy. Killing one man to save two is unjustified in my eyes. Just try to remember that I base my logic off of a whole lot of rules/laws/morals that I've already proven to myself , not just one. Just to be clear if you want to ask what base all these laws are proven off of it's probably reason: logical conclusions based on experiances I've had and experiances others have told me (same thing as reading it somewhere else).

[old_man_killer]

It still depends where and how you use this philosophy. Killing one man to save two is unjustified in my eyes. Just try to remember that I base my logic off of a whole lot of rules/laws/morals that I've already proven to myself , not just one. Just to be clear if you want to ask what base all these laws are proven off of it's probably reason: logical conclusions based on experiances I've had and experiances others have told me (same thing as reading it somewhere else).


That can still be somewhat subjective. Factoring in different personalities, emotional thresholds etc. My experiences may be different than yours, which may cause different degrees of grey areas concerning morals and such. What I may find disgusting and wrong may not be so to someone else. Though I agree that there needs to be a benchmark of what is morally exceptable and what isn't. As you said, we have those morals now, unfortunately they are unenforceble and can be interpreted in different ways. Take the 1950's and TV and whats on TV now, leaving religion out of the arguement for a moment, I think we can both agree that TV was more wholesome in the 50's right? Why, we had a higher moral benchmark than we do now. At the trend we are following now, it won't be 20 years when anything and everything will be allowed on TV. How do we stop it? Or for the broader picture, how do we stop the widespread moral decay of our society in general? Who will be the judge or what is right and what is wrong? Who will make the decision concerning Killing, Rape, theft, Assault, Molestation, Poverty and the whole encyclopedia of evil that brings nothing but pain and heartache to people everyday. It's nice to talk about a utopian form of "culture" that would eliminate these things and everything would be happy and joyous, but lets face it, reality bites. Yes we have the laws,but that doesn't make people conduct themselves morally. I believe our very own freedoms are whats destroying us as a people. And unless we become a more restictive culture, I don't see any change if people are left to thier own devices. For me, my beliefs, My religion is an answer just as Realists Moral Rationalism is his answer.

[Realist]

OMK,

By excluding those who don't follow Rational Morality from government office, then aren't you pressuring people "politcally" to conform?

If they want to help lead the country, they have to have the right ideas about how the country should be run. This only makes sense! Why do we want people with bad ideas in the government? They’ll just get in the way of the important arguments, over what is the best way to implement ideas of Rational Morality.

Democracy is an inherently arbitrary system. You are rewarded for how well you can be elected, not for how well you can run the country. A rational government, a meritocracy, is much more sensible. People are rewarded for how well they can help the country in running it, not for how many people like them.

This is very simular to what Hitlers Nazi party did.

And every other one party state in history (which is most of them, by the way). No need to compare me to Hitler.

Correct me if I am wrong (OK, like I had to worry about that ) but it seems that you are attempting to pul little bits and pieces from every form of government and actually a few concepts from some religions to form this more perfect "culture". Discarding what you feel were the parts that caused problems.

Not exactly. I’m trying to think of the best system based on my rational ability, and I’m willing to use historical evidence to accomplish this. But I do not consider my beliefs a religion, nor is my ideal government like any other government ever on this planet.

Then one final question, would there be no room for people to believe in their God or Savior? Would prayer be banned? (OK that was two)

Yes, and no. As long as people come to their God ideas and prayer on their own in the context of the culture of Rational Morality, it is part of their individual freedom and completely allowed (though if they abandon rationalism they will be excluded from government). What will not be allowed is organized religions like Christianity which spread irrationalism from parent to child. But if Christianity suddenly rose up organically from inside a Rational Moral culture which had discarded any Christian influences, it would be allowed for everyone who came to that belief on their own—again, personal freedom. Personal freedom is allowed, but not freedom to stupefy your children or other people; and no group freedoms are protected.

[Realist]

Blazed,

Realist, I really don't understand how you can speak of maximizing happiness, yet you don't see that our basic morals are logically sound. Assuming everyone will want to maximize happiness it just makes sense to derive some rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to a happier world overall.

Yes, it would, and that’s why I believe in Rational Morality. However, just because it is true that if everyone followed these ideas everyone would be happier, doesn’t mean that any individual following these ideas will make himself happier in every single case. Its not logical to sacrifice something from yourself to help another person; its simply not. Deriving morality from reason alone has been a constant problem for moral philosophers, and every one has failed. Try to prove morality.

We’ve got to accept that rationalism is useful as a tool, not as a fully consistent philosophy. We’ve got to accept certain precepts without reason just because not accepting them would be too harmful to our societies and accepting them to the maximum will create a vastly improved world. In other words, we’ve got to accept a basic morality on intuition—in other words, on faith.

If no one killed anyone else do you not agree overall the world would be a happier place?

Yes, but why is it better for the individual who kills the other person not to kill him, if killing him would gain him some sort of major gain? What advantage is there for the individual not to steal if one can steal without getting caught (and some people can)? We are all better off if no one steals, but the stealer is better off if he does steal and no one else does.

If it does make so much sense why is it inherent and not logically based on the principle that increasing overall happiness is the goal.

Because logic != sense. Logic is very formal and sometimes counterintuitive. The objective reality often doesn’t make any “sense.”

[Realist]

Blazed II,

Killing one man to save two is unjustified in my eyes.

As I see it, with no other conditions known, killing one to save two is worthwhile. Two lives is more valuable than one; letting two live will create more happiness than killing one creates unhappiness.

[Realist]

OMK II,

For me, my beliefs, My religion is an answer just as Realists Moral Rationalism is his answer.

The problem is, your religion isn’t actually an answer—it isn’t stopping any of the problems. In fact, it is increasing many of them (I would say it is one of the.), as I have demonstrated in earlier posts. How do you propose to use your religion as a solution when it has failed so far?