The KGB Oracle
Posted By: Stubs If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 01:28 PM
This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine yound intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an athiest to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

Seeing as this was broadcast back in 1965 I am sure some of you have seen it before. However, I hadn't and felt like sharing it with you all in case you also had not.

I believe I know who/what Mr. Harvey was talking about back then and I think that unfortunately the situation has only degraded since this broadcast.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 04:46 PM
Clearly, more Jesus is the only solution to all our problems.
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 08:45 PM
Muahaha, sorry about the delay, apparently i missed some redtape i had to go through and so after my initial post i was unable to make any more political posts. The situation is now happily resolved.

Sini, while I understand that after reading this you would walk away with the opinion that it calls for 'more Jesus', i think that it really is just calling for more morality.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 09:24 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
i think that it really is just calling for more morality.
BINGO! But Sini thinks that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is Jesus speak for "WORSHIP MY GOD OR BURN IN HELL!" He can't see that every moral law/idea can be simplified to that simple statement, and has nothing to do with religion.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:13 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
it really is just calling for more morality.


How would you go about quantifying what is more (or less) moral?
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:28 PM
Bonus question, what kind of problems should we attempt to solve with morality?
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:48 PM
How about the economy for one? Is it moral to say you're helping the economy by taking my hard earned money and giving it out to undeserving people and companies.

How about billing higher taxes as the way out of our economic woes. Anyone that took high school economics and has some common sense knows that taxes can only ever affect the economy in a negative way.

Or, to simplify my answer, how about our president and branches of government stop lying through those teeth. Lying is immoral. Lets start there. :D
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:51 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Bonus question, what kind of problems should we attempt to solve with morality?


Yes the progressive way to bash down what they don't like and make people feel bad about what they believe.
Keep asking questions without giving any solutions.
Keep telling us that morals are not how we should live our lives but how we judge who is wrong.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:52 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
How about the economy for one? Is it moral to say you're helping the economy by taking my hard earned money and giving it out to undeserving people and companies.

How about billing higher taxes as the way out of our economic woes. Anyone that took high school economics and has some common sense knows that taxes can only ever affect the economy in a negative way.

Or, to simplify my answer, how about our president and branches of government stop lying through those teeth. Lying is immoral. Lets start there. :D




NEVER EVER ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS. ONLY MAKE STATEMENTS.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:54 PM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
NEVER EVER ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS. ONLY MAKE STATEMENTS.
Now now, let's cut Stubs some slack. He hasn't been posting here long enough to know the rules about feeding the troll. :D
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 10:58 PM
I'm bored at work Helemoto. I have an hour to kill and I really liked this speech. So if I can argue my point on here a little, whether or not its like arguing with a brick is irrelevant. It will refine my argument for future use. Besides, im bored.
Posted By: Derid Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 11:11 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
I'm bored at work Helemoto. I have an hour to kill and I really liked this speech. So if I can argue my point on here a little, whether or not its like arguing with a brick is irrelevant. It will refine my argument for future use. Besides, im bored.


Welcome to the political forums.

I see you have the right attitude. ^_^
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/07/13 11:17 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Stubs
I'm bored at work Helemoto. I have an hour to kill and I really liked this speech. So if I can argue my point on here a little, whether or not its like arguing with a brick is irrelevant. It will refine my argument for future use. Besides, im bored.


Welcome to the political forums.

I see you have the right attitude. ^_^


Thanks, lol. Board warrioring is in my nature. Just now instead of Shadowbane politics it's US politics. Sometimes im not sure which is more pointless and Shadowbane is a dead game. Still someone has to stick up for what this country is and should be....even if it's just in a backroom guild forum.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 01:24 AM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
How about the economy for one?


Moral economy. I am afraid Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels tried to do just that and it didn't quite work out. I am surprised you would advocate communism and wealth redistribution so brazenly.

Not that free market is any better, its principles dictate you have to take profits where available above anything else. Taking a moral stance to not take profits would be at best seen controversial and get you sued by shareholders. Imagine Wall Mart CEO admitting it is immoral to intentionally keep workers from full time so the company could profit from not paying for Obamacare. Can you say fired?
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 01:25 AM
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
NEVER EVER ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS. ONLY MAKE STATEMENTS.


Helemoto, while your statement made me laugh out loud, I am curious if Stubs can think more than one move ahead.

For you not engaging is a very solid strategy. I strongly recommend you never answer any political questions, because you can end up engaging in a discussion, and, oh the horror, inadvertently consider implications of your political convictions. We can't have that. You might find out that FOX nether fair nor balanced. This is like finding out Santa Clause is not real - it can shake your world.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:01 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
you can end up engaging in a discussion, and consider implications of your political convictions

With a real person this is true, unfortunately Sinibot ver 1.0 isn't capable of reason or understanding any more than your cell phone is.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:03 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Originally Posted By: sini
you can end up engaging in a discussion, and consider implications of your political convictions

With a real person this is true, unfortunately Sinibot ver 1.0 isn't capable of reason or understanding any more than your cell phone is.


Lets not piss on my grave this early in the debate.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:04 AM
You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:12 AM
It means that you are going for ad hominem attacks and not even participating in the discussion. This conversation with Stubs might end up interesting, but you are all too keen to turn this thread into a shouting match.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:12 AM
keep=keen?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:18 AM
I've scoured the interwebs and I can't find that phrasing anywhere. Perhaps you should start a wiki link and give yourself credit for making it up.

For the record I laid out for you exactly and concisely the formula for determining if an action is moral or not and you chose to ignore it so that you could try and steer the conversation in a direction where you could ridicule the opposition as small minded god people.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:20 AM
Keen

Quote:
keen
adj
1. eager or enthusiastic


Keen on doing something means that you like doing it.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:25 AM
Once again you've ignored the post of substance and are hung up on my attempt to understand your post.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:27 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
It means that you are going for ad hominem attacks and not even participating in the discussion.


Let me know what was not clear about above explanation. Ad Hominem is Latin and means personal attacks.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:33 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Once again you've ignored the post of substance and are hung up on my attempt to understand your post.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 03:25 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
For the record I laid out for you exactly and concisely the formula for determining if an action is moral or not.


I will be charitable in interpreting your incoherent ramblings and assume that you refer to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as your 'formula'.

How do you go about making a moral determination if you have no idea, and could not know, what it is like when it is "do unto you"?

For example, how would a heterosexual married man would know what it is like to be discriminated against as a homosexual man? How would an ivy league, silver spoon CEO would know what it is like to have to work for minimum wage, have no other choice but to, and still live below poverty line?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 03:59 AM
If you're too simple minded to understand that you don't do anything, nor expect the government to on your behalf, to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you, then I don't know how to help you.

For instance, the heterosexual man doesn't want someone making decisions about him based on his hair color, so he should be able to understand that it is immoral to discriminate base on anything other than merit.

Your other example makes no sense as there is nothing immoral about being poor or wealthy, so you're going to have to do better with your supposition.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 02:48 PM
Quote:
you don't do anything, nor expect the government to on your behalf, to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you


Falling back on your usual bugaboos already?

Again, morality is not a good way to govern or solve anything but moral problems. What charities or causes you should support is a moral question, but our fiscal or domestic social policy are not.

Problem with a simplistic "do onto others" approach is that it implies that you exercise clear judgment, have access to all the relevant information and can impartially evaluate any situation. To further simplify this - our moral code is buggy. We rationalize, we act from bias, we favor in-groups, and we assign different importance to otherwise similar consequences based on a huge number of factors.

Here is another example for you:

We all like nice houses. I would like for someone to give me a zero-down mortgage for a house I am not qualified and could not afford if prices drop. My friend Bob, is a nice person, so I will use my position as a lending officer in the bank to give him such mortgage. I am sure he would do the same to me. Doing so doesn't harm anyone, I am sure he will pay it off eventually, after all house prices keep going up and up.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/08/13 09:56 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Quote:
you don't do anything, nor expect the government to on your behalf, to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you


Falling back on your usual bugaboos already?

Again, morality is not a good way to govern or solve anything but moral problems. What charities or causes you should support is a moral question, but our fiscal or domestic social policy are not.

Problem with a simplistic "do onto others" approach is that it implies that you exercise clear judgment, have access to all the relevant information and can impartially evaluate any situation. To further simplify this - our moral code is buggy. We rationalize, we act from bias, we favor in-groups, and we assign different importance to otherwise similar consequences based on a huge number of factors.

Here is another example for you:

We all like nice houses. I would like for someone to give me a zero-down mortgage for a house I am not qualified and could not afford if prices drop. My friend Bob, is a nice person, so I will use my position as a lending officer in the bank to give him such mortgage. I am sure he would do the same to me. Doing so doesn't harm anyone, I am sure he will pay it off eventually, after all house prices keep going up and up.


All your arguments come down to morals as a liberal democrat progressive it is the bases of your thinking.
All your arguments come down to one moral "its not fair".
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 01:17 AM
Hele, I can't help but read your posts in zombie voice, but instead of "brains" you are moaning "Foooooox".
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 01:38 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Hele, I can't help but read your posts in zombie voice, but instead of "brains" you are moaning "Foooooox".


I cannot even remember the last time I saw anything on FOX other then Family Guy or the Simpsons.

Once again you deflect with the FOX new argument makes you look stupid. Congrats on typical leftist tactics, keep telling a lie until everyone believes it.
You are the one that cannot seem to think for yourself, most of your post are of extreme progressive talking points.

I on the other hand type what I think without going to check with my masters first as some do here.( I mean you)
I understand that having a thought not rubber stamped by whatever websites you have in your favorite list is hard for you to comprehend.
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 12:35 PM
Wow. Totally sorry for disappearing after starting this. Had stuff to do and wasn't bored :P

Anywho, Sini man, I gotta say I don't remember saying anything about a moral economy. So im not sure how you put those together. I said we should all try to act morally. We could start by not lying.

Like lying to people telling them that higher taxes helps the economy. Since, like i said...if you went to high school and graduated you know is a false statement. Taxes are a necessary evil, but they should be kept as low as possible as to minimize their impact on the health of the economy.

Telling the people that taxes are good and more taxes are better, just so you can take that money and redistribute it via government programs and calling it progress is a lie. Its more like armed robbery.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 03:17 PM
Stubs, re-read this. Ask questions if you don't understand.

Originally Posted By: sini

To further simplify this - our moral code is buggy. We rationalize, we act from bias, we favor in-groups, and we assign different importance to otherwise similar consequences based on a huge number of factors.
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 04:27 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Stubs, re-read this. Ask questions if you don't understand.

Originally Posted By: sini

To further simplify this - our moral code is buggy. We rationalize, we act from bias, we favor in-groups, and we assign different importance to otherwise similar consequences based on a huge number of factors.


Sini, reread this, ask questions if you don't understand. Because I certainly understand that morality is itself fluid. However, I think all can agree that LYING is IMMORAL, yes or no?

Originally Posted By: Stubs
Wow. Totally sorry for disappearing after starting this. Had stuff to do and wasn't bored :P

Anywho, Sini man, I gotta say I don't remember saying anything about a moral economy. So im not sure how you put those together. I said we should all try to act morally. We could start by not lying.

Like lying to people telling them that higher taxes helps the economy. Since, like i said...if you went to high school and graduated you know is a false statement. Taxes are a necessary evil, but they should be kept as low as possible as to minimize their impact on the health of the economy.

Telling the people that taxes are good and more taxes are better, just so you can take that money and redistribute it via government programs and calling it progress is a lie. Its more like armed robbery.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 07:10 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
However, I think all can agree that LYING is IMMORAL, yes or no?


No. Examples: Unknowingly lying. Lying to save someone's life.
Posted By: Brutal Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 07:47 PM
First, you can't "unknowingly lie" except by the most general definition of the word, and that's clearly not what Stubs is referring to.
Second, it's easy to justify something by saying "well I'd do it to save someone's life" because that just paints you as a hero and glosses over whatever you've done. Doesn't make it any less immoral. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? Maybe you don't believe in all that hoo-haa.

Of course, each person's definition of immoral may vary, since what we consider moral is based solely on what we have been raised to believe as such. I guess I could see how the younger generation could have a very skewed sense of morality given what saturates entertainment these days combined with the absurd lack of familial structure and discipline. But I dare say that this is more or less exactly the future that Paul Harvey warned us about.
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 07:48 PM
Its still immoral. Unknowingly lying isn't lying. To lie you have to make a choice to. Lying to save someone is still lying. At least we now know you don't think lying is wrong.

Quote:
Of course, each person's definition of immoral may vary, since what we consider moral is based solely on what we have been raised to believe as such. I guess I could see how the younger generation could have a very skewed sense of morality given what saturates entertainment these days combined with the absurd lack of familial structure and discipline. But I dare say that this is more or less exactly the future that Paul Harvey warned us about.


Basically. That's why I was all lik, "seem familiar?" when I posted the speech.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:00 PM
So, Brutal, this is more Jesus thread after all? Or is this knee deep in the snow thread? Perhaps both.
Posted By: Brutal Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:04 PM
I never mentioned jesus, or religion at all. Wait let me re-read what I wrote. Nope, no religion. Agnostic btw.

If your parents did not provide you with any base of morality while they raised you, then you would understandably have no idea what I'm talking about. I would not fault you for that, but I would expect you to believe that I'm not simply spouting bullshit and respect the fact that many of the people of my generation were raised in a similar manner.

edit: knee-deep in the snow. Yes, "back when I was a boy.."
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:12 PM
I fully expect this to go over everyone's head.

You can never be justified in believing that the moral claim is true. Moral claims imply motivation internalism, and it is demonstrably false. Additionally, the mere fact of moral disagreement and need for moral judgment implies moral relativism. Feel free to ignore this and pontificate your faux moral superiority.
Posted By: Brutal Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:18 PM
I'm not trying to claim moral superiority, except to say that there must be some universal moral code in order for society to function. Historically, that moral code has been that some things, lying for instance, are wrong. If you are of the belief that a universal code of morality is wrong, or impossible, then you are advocating a world where every person can do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, with only rule of law to stop them. The problem with that is that the law can only go so far before it becomes that universal moral code, except then it's an enforceable method of control, at which point people would become slaves to it. As long as there are laws, there will be men and women writing and enforcing them, and that means that there will always be imperfections and motives. Laws without morality are simply the tools of tyranny.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:26 PM
Universal moral code implies universal right and wrong, or outside observer - GOD. You promised this thread wasn't about more Jesus :(
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:28 PM
Posted By: Brutal Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:28 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Universal moral code implies universal right and wrong, or outside observer - GOD. You promised this thread wasn't about more Jesus :(



What the fuck? You don't need some magical outside observer to have right and wrong! WE are the outside observers observing each other.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:39 PM
Think about this carefully - if universal moral code exists, then such code implies that there are Absolute Right, Absolute Wrong, otherwise there would be multiple moral codes all equally valid. This in turn implies that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, e.g. GOD, and mere humans are not capable of such absolutes.
Posted By: Brutal Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:52 PM
All rights and wrongs are not absolute. Taking what I said two posts ago, these are ideas that would have to be agreed upon, and they would likely evolve over time. For the past three centuries, we here in the US have agreed that certain things are right and wrong. Sure, a lot of those moral imperatives come from the (vast) majority of religious people, but the fact remains that majority rules and those are the rights and wrongs they've agreed upon. If we simply abandon morality rather than try to help it evolve to our current environment while still keeping it sane and effective, then we've doomed ourselves to the absolute rule of law, and don't fuck with judge dredd.
Posted By: Stubs Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 08:53 PM
Edited because Brutal said it better, lol Judge Dredd.


Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 11:00 PM
If you concede that right and wrong are not absolute, then they turn into majority rule. US is a Republic, not majority rule, as such laws should not be based solely on morals.

Ether way - getting back to original premise, that more morals somehow going to solve all our problems. How do you see it happening when you can't even define morals other than tyranny of the majority?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/09/13 11:11 PM
You derive great pleasure in poopooing the ideas of others, but you bring nothing constructive to the argument.

What do you propose Sini? Or, is Derid right in asserting that what you really want is the same as most leftists, a tyranny of the "elite." Since, after all, you know better than the poor masses of ignorant folks you claim to represent.

Originally Posted By: Sini
Problem with a simplistic "do onto others" approach is that it implies that you exercise clear judgment, have access to all the relevant information and can impartially evaluate any situation.
For the most part, I trust other humans to make sound decisions. What's your plan?
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/10/13 01:04 AM
Bring nothing constructive? Are you just throwing random acquisitions to see what sticks? Try perjury and fornication next time.

As to rest of your post - you are like Jack-in-the-box, popping out with the same response every time. As of late, no matter what we are talking about it is blah blah elite, blah blah left, blah blah constitution. You used to be curious about ideas, now you just spew dogmatic garbage. What happened?
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/10/13 01:13 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
For the most part, I trust other humans to make sound decisions. What's your plan?


I know that people, myself included, are not rational. I try to understand this irrationality so I can avoid it or use it to my advantage. I know that world and our lives are largely random, unfair and that any moment I can go rags from riches and not see it coming. I have been poor, and I have lived in a places where freedoms don't exist - as such I know privilege you take for granted is anything but.

My plan is working toward more fair society, because I know how fleeting my place at the top is and I can see and remember what it is like to be at the bottom.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/10/13 01:53 AM
You still haven't said how you get there. Additionally, defining your "fair society" is no different from defining a moral society.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/10/13 02:08 AM
How would I get there? Clearly, with more Jesus!

Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/10/13 03:37 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
How would I get there? Clearly, with more Jesus!


Originally Posted By: sini
Bring nothing constructive? Are you just throwing random acquisitions to see what sticks? Try perjury and fornication next time.

As to rest of your post - you are like Jack-in-the-box, popping out with the same response every time. As of late, no matter what we are talking about it is blah blah elite, blah blah left, blah blah constitution. You used to be curious about ideas, now you just spew dogmatic garbage. What happened?


You know, no one has said anything about religion or Jesus, except you...

You've still not answered.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/11/13 05:03 PM
For people still capable of independent thought:

There is a concept of Moral Luck. Example demonstrating moral luck - you put one bullet into a revolver, spin it, point at someone and pull the trigger.

Outcome A: Revolver fires, killing your target.
Outcome B: Revolver does not fire, your target lives.

If you analyze outcomes on moral level, most people would agree that A is more morally wrong than B. At the same time you have to admit that chain of events was exactly the same, and actions taken were the same.

The problem is that moral judgments assigned based on factors under our control, but it is possible to demonstrate that in large number of particular cases we judge people for things that are not entirely in their control.
Posted By: Derid Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/11/13 05:13 PM

You should read up on "moral hazard". Ron Paul talks about this quite a bit.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/11/13 05:20 PM
I am familiar with the concept, it is adequately covered by "buggy morals" explanation.

Fundamental problem with all these negative outcomes is that moral agents perceive their own actions as morally-neutral. They don't see themselves as "bad people" by rationalizing their actions away.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 11:00 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
For people still capable of independent thought:

There is a concept of Moral Luck. Example demonstrating moral luck - you put one bullet into a revolver, spin it, point at someone and pull the trigger.

Outcome A: Revolver fires, killing your target.
Outcome B: Revolver does not fire, your target lives.

If you analyze outcomes on moral level, most people would agree that A is more morally wrong than B. At the same time you have to admit that chain of events was exactly the same, and actions taken were the same.

The problem is that moral judgments assigned based on factors under our control, but it is possible to demonstrate that in large number of particular cases we judge people for things that are not entirely in their control.

Serious question:
I've always just called this luck not "moral luck." What is the reasoning behind applying the term moral to this scenario?

FYI it is never morally justifiable to "play" with someone's life as suggested in your scenario. Whether you kill the person or not, putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger is not something to be done for kicks. Because the chance exists (a relatively large one at that) to randomly take a life for no reason, the actions, regardless of outcome, are immoral.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 03:11 PM
Quote:
FYI it is never morally justifiable to "play" with someone's life as suggested in your scenario.


Agreed, but you also have to admit that there are various level of morally wrong. You can't say that both stealing bread to feed a starving child and going on a killing spree are the same kinds of wrong.

As such, "play" and kill, and "play" and not kill would produce different wrong types.

Here is better example:

You stole money from your employer, but when you got home you had a change of heart.

Option A: You returned and put money back before anyone noticed.
Option B: On the way to return money you were arrested by police that was alerted about theft.



Originally Posted By: Kaotic

I've always just called this luck not "moral luck." What is the reasoning behind applying the term moral to this scenario?


Moral luck is luck, but when applied to concept of morality it adds implications that we often assign moral judgment for something moral actors have very little control.

Moral judgment implies that moral actor intentionally did something, but in many situations this is not the case!
Posted By: Longshanks Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 04:29 PM
Sini's "Moral Luck" example is not the best, because the action is inherently immoral in most people's mind (i.e. Playing Russion Roulette).

The classic example is:

You & I both run a red light, I get pulled over & receive a ticket for my action. You happen to strike & kill a pedestrian who though it was safe to cross the street. You are charged with manslaughter.

Our actions were exactly the same, we both ran a red light ... but the outcomes & punishments were very different.

Most people will view your action as "less moral" than mine, because of the outcome ... even though, as a matter of fact, our actions were identical ... we both ran a red light & both received punishment for our actions.

Thus the idea of "Moral Luck". Seems, I had it in this scenario & you did not ... of course the pedestrian happened to be very unlucky as well.

My suggestion is that when engaging in a conversations such as this, with someone who has with no religous belief, use the term "Ethics" rather than "Morals" ... describe things as "Unethical" rather than "Immoral". These are terms they can relate to & neutralizes the conversation from all that is "God", or "Jesus" related ... most of the time, without them even realizing it.

After all, Ethics, is just a secular term for the age-old concept of Morals. It can be quite comical & I often crack myself up interchanging the two terms depending on who I am talking to.
Posted By: Longshanks Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 04:40 PM
Ah ... a better example Sini, but still too locked into the "immoral" concept, as theft is construed by most people of faith to be immoral.

Hmmmm .... I might say:

As an employer, I trusted you with the cash drawer ... it was very "unethical", not too mention illegal, for you to seal from the cash drawer.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 08:40 PM
Originally Posted By: Longshanks
Sini's "Moral Luck" example is not the best, because the action is inherently immoral in most people's mind (i.e. Playing Russion Roulette).

The classic example is:

You & I both run a red light, I get pulled over & receive a ticket for my action. You happen to strike & kill a pedestrian who though it was safe to cross the street. You are charged with manslaughter.

Our actions were exactly the same, we both ran a red light ... but the outcomes & punishments were very different.

Most people will view your action as "less moral" than mine, because of the outcome ... even though, as a matter of fact, our actions were identical ... we both ran a red light & both received punishment for our actions.

Thus the idea of "Moral Luck". Seems, I had it in this scenario & you did not ... of course the pedestrian happened to be very unlucky as well.

My suggestion is that when engaging in a conversations such as this, with someone who has with no religous belief, use the term "Ethics" rather than "Morals" ... describe things as "Unethical" rather than "Immoral". These are terms they can relate to & neutralizes the conversation from all that is "God", or "Jesus" related ... most of the time, without them even realizing it.

After all, Ethics, is just a secular term for the age-old concept of Morals. It can be quite comical & I often crack myself up interchanging the two terms depending on who I am talking to.


Not really the same thing.
One person got a ticket the other got a ticket and manslaughter charges.
They both did the same thing up to a point.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 10:07 PM
Yes, "they both did the same thing up to a point". Shouldn't they also receive the same moral judgment?
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/12/13 10:12 PM
Thank you both for clarifying the position. I still think the term "moral luck" is a misnomer.

In each of these scenarios someone did something wrong or immoral. The only difference in them is the consequences. It is no less wrong to run a red light if you don't get a ticket than if you do. Killing someone as a consequence of you running the light is an additional act and judged independently of the traffic violation. i.e. you get a ticket for running the light, and jail time for the homicide. I don't understand the idea of considering these events the same.

The idea of interchanging morals and ethics is just semantics. The word moral is used in the definition of ethics, and ethical is given as a synonym for moral. If anything ethics is the more subjective of the two since most people can agree on what is right and wrong, but often differ on what is good and bad. I've always referenced ethics as more like unto law. As in, ethics are the codification of a set of morals, like definition 2.

Definition of MORAL
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Definition of ETHIC
1
plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2
a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
Originally Posted By: sini
you also have to admit that there are various level of morally wrong. You can't say that both stealing bread to feed a starving child and going on a killing spree are the same kinds of wrong.
I agree

Originally Posted By: sini
As such, "play" and kill, and "play" and not kill would produce different wrong types.

Here is better example:

You stole money from your employer, but when you got home you had a change of heart.

Option A: You returned and put money back before anyone noticed.
Option B: On the way to return money you were arrested by police that was alerted about theft.
For me both of these are equally wrong or equally immoral, only the consequence for the wrong action is different.

Originally Posted By: sini
Moral judgment implies that moral actor intentionally did something, but in many situations this is not the case!
So, in Longshank's scenario the driver didn't intentionally kill a person. However, I don't hold that murderer (perhaps killer is a better word since murderer usually implies intent) in the same esteem I do a guy who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer. For the car driver, I feel sorry for him and the victim. For the asshole with a hammer, I think he should get the chair. That's moral judgement to me. One guy must pay for the consequences of his actions as prescribed by law, the other is a piece of shit who doesn't deserve to go on breathing.

Still not sure I'm understanding the nuance here.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 04:14 AM
Originally Posted By: sini
Yes, "they both did the same thing up to a point". Shouldn't they also receive the same moral judgment?


Only for the same offence.
As one did not kill anyone then they in this story get a ticket.
The other that killed someone gets a ticket and manslaughter charges which a judge or jury will determine the judgment.
Posted By: Longshanks Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 03:43 PM
Kaotic ... the interchanging of the terms is simply an exercize I use when discussing topics with those aethist types who can't get past the religous aspects of Morality.

In my experience, inserting the term Ethics instead moves the discussion past their fixation, that is all.

"Moral Luck" was a philisophical idea put forth by Bernard Williams.

The "luck" part of this scenario it is about the fact the action was the same but through factors outside of the control of the driver (i.e. a pedestrian crossing), the outcome was different. Some people would view both the driver & pedestrian as "unlucky" in this situation, or "at the wrong place at the wrong time".

The scenario paints the penalties in such an extreme way to illustrate the "Moral" aspect of the concept.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:13 PM
First you have to believe in luck. As it is not a physical thing that you can not touch or prove means it is not real.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:22 PM
We can substitute and use term uncertainty. The conclusion is still the same - whenever you assign moral judgment you could be judging circumstances and not the person's actions. This cannot be explained from within absolute morality point of view.

All of these examples hopefully lead you to a conclusion - our morals are uncodified and often arbitrary extra-judicial laws.

My personal opinion is that morals are vestigial leftovers of religions dogma, as such they should be treated akin to Sharia law - with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:28 PM
Specific examples that irk me are sexuality and marriage laws. "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman" is a basis for all discrimination against sexual minorities. Instead of channeling conversation into rational and more productive Darwinian fitness we have "god hate fags" hysteria.

As to Longshanks' point on morals and ethics - you can't interchange these terms. Ethics are subset of Morals, where Not Ethics portion contains all kinds of religious junk that has nothing to do with rational concepts of right and wrong.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:37 PM
Ok, "moral luck" is philosophical word games designed to discredit the idea that there is a right and wrong. Got it.

Originally Posted By: sini
Specific examples that irk me are sexuality and marriage laws. "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman" is a basis for all discrimination against sexual minorities. Instead of channeling conversation into rational and more productive Darwinian fitness we have "god hate fags" hysteria.

As to Longshanks' point on morals and ethics - you can't interchange these terms. Ethics are subset of Morals, where Not Ethics portion contains all kinds of religious junk that has nothing to do with rational concepts of right and wrong.
Two questions:
1. How does homosexuality fit into a Darwinian world?
2. How do you "rationally" define right and wrong?
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:51 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Ok, "moral luck" is philosophical word games designed to discredit the idea that there is a right and wrong. Got it.


No, you didn't get it. Moral luck does not prove or disprove the idea that there is a right or wrong, only that there is unique correct right or wrong for any given moral judgment.

Mathematical analogy: You have an equation (moral dilemma). Moral absolutism says there is only one solution, and we can always solve it. Moral luck demonstrates that our solution does not always solves for the right variable (you are solving for X, but got value of Y without realizing it). Moral nihillism we can never be sure that our solution is correct answer. Moral relativism says there are multiple answers. Moral objectivism says that for a given space of X and Y we can solve the equation and know the right answer.

/Morals 101
Posted By: Sini Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 05:53 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic

1. How does homosexuality fit into a Darwinian world?


It reduces reproductive fitness.

Quote:
2. How do you "rationally" define right and wrong?


Measurable outcomes. Right produces net benefit and wrong produces net loss.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 06:10 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
No, you didn't get it. Moral luck does not prove or disprove the idea that there is a right or wrong, only that there is unique correct right or wrong for any given moral judgment.
Oh no, I got it.
Originally Posted By: sini
Homosexuality reduces reproductive fitness.
So, perhaps you can see how to a person with the drive to propagate the species, someone who lacked that drive would be aberrant.

Originally Posted By: sini
Right and wrong are defined by measurable outcomes. Right produces net benefit and wrong produces net loss.
From a moral luck standpoint, how can you ever know if an action is right or wrong before it is committed?
Posted By: Derid Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 07:00 PM
Originally Posted By: sini


Measurable outcomes. Right produces net benefit and wrong produces net loss.


Net benefit and loss are themselves subjective, if you buy this you implicitly buy wholesale into moral relativity.

Furthermore, it is a relativity not grounded in any particular constant but rather self aggrandizing justification for any particular opinion.

Just FYI.
Posted By: Daye Re: If I Were the Devil - 01/13/13 10:15 PM
"you put one bullet into a revolver, spin it, point at someone and pull the trigger."

And everyone is ok with that . . . . as long as the gun wasn't a scary black military looking one :D

*sorry, I just had to*


Actually, consequences of the aforementioned actions aside, why should the morality of the entire thing rest upon the consequences of the action ? I would think any who think this way are missing the bigger picture.

The question isn't did someone die because of the action, rather, what the hell put the action in motion to begin with ?

Both outcomes are just as f*cked up considering neither party knows what the outcome will be until that particular moment in time passes. While one will be physically lethal, the other will be psychologically devastating as well. While one party knows the outcome is not certain, the other pretty much believes they're about to die.

From my perspective, regardless of the outcome, the act is morally f&cked.
© The KGB Oracle