ILovePhilosophy.com

think this is a good distinction, but I don't think this is exhaustive. Take something like math:

For the purpose of economics its a great distinction. The math is fairly simple addition and subtraction.

Distraction? We aren't the only species on the planet with a capacity to quantify and those other species ain't running right out to establish a currency of exchange. Maybe it has a lot to do with that human idea of ownership.

Counting is pretty rudimentary. And the fact a few culture came up with it independently is your argument? Several cultures are also credited with singular advancements in it's application. How does that help your argument of capitalization of things we can not even own. If the system is one of exchange then who or what are we exchanging with for the natural resources? Who gave them to humans to do with as we wish? Who bought the rights to foul the water and the air and who was it paid too?

Carleas, you sure do a fine jig around the issue.

Can ethical values be priced?

So, yes, I don't like it (our monetary system). And yes it exists, and for every now there is, I have to figure out a way to live with it. Selling out or costed out of living, either way.

If you like it, you are at an advantage in it.

Someone judging your every idea whether it has economic merit. Me being forced to judge my own ideas, by a merit that lacks in judgement. They are good. OK. They came into my head of their own volition. They grow like weeds.

So yeah, WE made it about money. Given me, how can I be happy about that?

I think you're asking about something that has a lot more clout then morals. I thing morals are learned, and as such they do have a price.

I feel like I was born with ethics, they aren't mine to sell. Sucks to be me cause I think they would be worth a lot, if only I could figure out how to sell them.

Have been milling it over. Ground fairly fine. I'll concede, assuming a monetary system; everything has a price.

Are morals things?

Do you ever really get to the morals or does it get exchanged for the money first?

Carelas, You have likely a better guess then I.

Thanks, You offered a thought I felt like I wasn't wasting my time thinking it.

A valuable question.

Sorry I think I reaped a bit of what you have sowed. Nature grows it. :shrug: I am a foraging animal.

If I appreciate it does that make it OK? Or do I owe you?

I always liked the idea that willpower is the only thing in the universe capable of travelling the path of most resistance.

It's an aphorism but one that, I think, forms the basis of moral beliefs. Profit, on the other hand, often follows the path of least resistance.

Can everybody afford to be moral always at all times? Does morality collapse? Does it hyperinflate or deflate away overtime?

How much does it cost to live the good life? Can everybody afford the cost or price of morality equally? Is morality a monetary luxury?

How does one live the good life in the global behavioral sink?

Zero_Sum wrote:Can everybody afford to be moral always at all times? Does morality collapse? Does it hyperinflate or deflate away overtime?

How much does it cost to live the good life? Can everybody afford the cost or price of morality equally? Is morality a monetary luxury?

How does one live the good life in the global behavioral sink?

These are good questions.

Behind them, you've got 1) Is Capitalism compatible with morality? and 2) Is modernity compatible with morality?

And then

3) Is humanity compatible with morality?

How does morality intersect with your life and what does it mean?

How do we live moral lives?

There is a push and a pull.

Xunzian wrote:

Zero_Sum wrote:Can everybody afford to be moral always at all times? Does morality collapse? Does it hyperinflate or deflate away overtime?

How much does it cost to live the good life? Can everybody afford the cost or price of morality equally? Is morality a monetary luxury?

How does one live the good life in the global behavioral sink?

These are good questions.

Behind them, you've got 1) Is Capitalism compatible with morality? and 2) Is modernity compatible with morality?

And then

3) Is humanity compatible with morality?

How does morality intersect with your life and what does it mean?

How do we live moral lives?

There is a push and a pull.

Fair enough, what's your response to the questions?

My answer to my Q1 is "no" which basically answers your questions (or creates a null set). Capitalism is incompatible with morality.

Modernity is trickier. That's basically MacIntyre's whole thing and I'm a big fan of MacIntyre. Which necessarily leads to a resounding "yes" on whether morality is compatible with humanity.

Morality intersecting with life is a process, so answers aren't easy but it flows from cultivating your virtue and your humanity. Tu Weiming talks about learning to be human. That's morality intersecting with your life. Which leads to "how do we live moral lives" which is "Bit by bit. Day by day." There are times when you have to make real, hard, distinct moral decisions but almost all moral decisions are more processed based. It's that inevitablism that you can change. You are Samwise, not Frodo. You are a gardener. I mean, unless you aren't, but those heroes often have that same inevitablism to them as well because what got them into a position of power is a track already set for them.

So, figure out what track you are on and where it is going. What does that track look like for you and for other people?

^^^If a person can't afford to be moral does morality ever become useless or a form of entrapment? Can morality become oppressive? Better yet, what happens when a person cannot live up to certain moral expectations imposed on them by others? Is it ever alright to defy such forms of morality or rebel against them especially if they go against people's own personal moral beliefs? When is justifiable or alright? Who gets to decide?

You are reifying morality.

I mean, even Aristotle thought that being a slave was immoral. Granted, that's how he justified slavery. Fighting for your freedom can be very moral. That's how most freedom fighters work. Revolutionaries traditionally haven't been nihilists. That's a bourgie disease.

Xunzian wrote:You are reifying morality.

I mean, even Aristotle thought that being a slave was immoral. Granted, that's how he justified slavery. Fighting for your freedom can be very moral. That's how most freedom fighters work. Revolutionaries traditionally haven't been nihilists. That's a bourgie disease.

Fighting for freedom yes, but today's morality is all against fighting or conflict, isn't it?

Today's morality is all about working, laboring, buying, earning, and serving your time in order to achieve freedom, where if that's the case, what does that say about current perceptions of freedom or morality? [In many cases today you can do all of that working hard and still remain unfree. Why? Because all outcomes are rigged against you by others.]

No, you mistake me from years past, I'm no longer a nihilist like my youth. I absolutely believe in morality however the one I believe is a higher one which seeks to destroy and eradicate the slave morality of authority that permeates all across the planet currently over entire societies everywhere. I believe in a master kind of morality in all sense of the word coinciding with that word freedom that everybody these days takes advantage of abusing. I also don't believe freedom is possible at all until the current social order is completely destroyed which I salivate and day dream about almost daily in the creation of an entirely new social order in its replacement.

No, it isn't. Why on Earth would you think that? Nobody is preaching that version of morality.

Xunzian wrote:No, it isn't. Why on Earth would you think that? Nobody is preaching that version of morality.

No? Are you sure?

Yes. I mean, excepting the Amish and some other extreme religious minorities.

Are you ex Amish?

There is what I like to call natural freedom and morality in contrast to unnatural freedom or morality. Natural freedom and morality is innate that people are born with naturally while the other is a socio cultural construct. In the socio cultural construct model of morality or freedom both are commodifications that revolve around socio economic, monetary, and occupational status.

The fact that you have to earn, buy, or labor towards having any freedom at all in order to have some sort of a semblance in acquiring moral agency shows just how much of an illusion it all really is. It's not based upon anything that is real, natural, or even tangible, it's based upon an ideal often enough controlled by others to subjugate people.

It isn't real or genuine, this reduces human existence or freedom to economic output. Is freedom and morality solely dependent on economic output or activity? Well, that's not real, natural, or genuine. That sounds like a prisoner dilemma where a prisoner is put into a position forcefully to bargain for their entire existence or life. If the prisoner cannot afford anything they cannot afford freedom and interacting morally with others becomes an absurd notion, a luxury they cannot afford. How is one to act morally if they themselves don't even have the luxury of freedom? The fact that others subject the prisoner to their moral ideals while they have no freedom and cannot afford to be moral themselves becomes equally absurd. This insanity breeds hostile immoral people and is a majority of the time the root of all immorality or at least a very large part of it. This is something unfortunately all the moral theoreticians of today seem to be at a loss with and I find that puzzling because it really isn't a hard thing to understand.

It is a slavish carrot and stick model....that's what this thread is about, right? Do you support that?

In some ways this unnatural freedom and morality imposed on the world is actually immorality disguised as being morality which becomes very insidious.

Most people of course don't question or criticize it where instead they accept it as a mere given which explains quite a bit about the sad state of affairs in post modernity on human beings.

I think it was a mistake to reduce all human interactions materially based upon economic materialism yet here we are today. Economics should of never came to where it is now dominating all of humanity but since it does very perversely as it does currently it will undoubtedly be the very thing that unravels post modernity itself which we are witnessing now in real time. I give it a few more decades or less depending on a variety of variables...

Economics fails to account for all the various human complexities, desires, and aspirations, because of that failure economic materialism will also fail inevitably.

I'm gonna go all '00s and answer inline because we agree except for where we don't.

I'll make a concession to modern posting styles though.

tl;dr: Anarcha-primitivism is awesome and real. Primitive abundance is a thing. Agriculture is a tragedy. But we aren't going back, so the question isn't "what could have been?" instead it's "what's next?"

Zero_Sum wrote:There is what I like to call natural freedom and morality in contrast to unnatural freedom or morality. Natural freedom and morality is innate that people are born with naturally while the other is a socio cultural construct. In the socio cultural construct model of morality or freedom both are commodifications that revolve around socio economic, monetary, and occupational status.

I mean, part of me agrees with this. Part of me thinks this reads like Toblerone Triangle's attempt at trolling where he gave himself a psychotic break.

The fact that you have to earn, buy, or labor towards having any freedom at all in order to have some sort of a semblance in acquiring moral agency shows just how much of an illusion it all really is. It's not based upon anything that is real, natural, or even tangible, it's based upon an ideal often enough controlled by others to subjugate people.

No disagreement. Greek philosophers recognized that slaves made their circle jerk possible. It is no accident that the shi class in China was also the philosopher class. Etc. Capitalism accelerates the problem but it doesn't originate with capitalism.

It isn't real or genuine, this reduces human existence or freedom to economic output. Is freedom and morality solely dependent on economic output or activity? Well, that's not real, natural, or genuine. That sounds like a prisoner dilemma where a prisoner is put into a position forcefully to bargain for their entire existence or life. If the prisoner cannot afford anything they cannot afford freedom and interacting morally with others becomes an absurd notion, a luxury they cannot afford. How is one to act morally if they themselves don't even have the luxury of freedom? The fact that others subject the prisoner to their moral ideals while they have no freedom and cannot afford to be moral themselves becomes equally absurd. This insanity breeds hostile immoral people and is a majority of the time the root of all immorality or at least a very large part of it. This is something unfortunately all the moral theoreticians of today seem to be at a loss with and I find that puzzling because it really isn't a hard thing to understand.

One of my favorite books is Revolutionary Suicide by Huey Newton. Have you read it? If you haven't, you should. If you have, meditate on Brother Huey vs Brother Bobby. I'm 100% on team Huey but I've also broken bread with Brother Bobby. Living a life of loud desperation is cool, but what does it get you?

It is a slavish carrot and stick model....that's what this thread is about, right? Do you support that?

I don't. That's why I said your questions were good.

In some ways this unnatural freedom and morality imposed on the world is actually immorality disguised as being morality which becomes very insidious.

The natural vs unnatural distinction is where TT went crazy. You've got the right idea but you reify things.

Most people of course don't question or criticize it where instead they accept it as a mere given which explains quite a bit about the sad state of affairs in post modernity on human beings.

I think most people do, but the metaphor you are looking for is the broken tool.

I think it was a mistake to reduce all human interactions materially based upon economic materialism yet here we are today. Economics should of never came to where it is now dominating all of humanity but since it does very perversely as it does currently it will undoubtedly be the very thing that unravels post modernity itself which we are witnessing now in real time. I give it a few more decades or less depending on a variety of variables...

Agreed. But that's why this topic is proactive. John Smith's big innovation was to crib from Hume and separate "is" from "ought" and try to describe the "is". That's the invention of Capitalism. He also provided solutions to what he saw since the "is" stood in contrast to his "ought".

Economics fails to account for all the various human complexities, desires, and aspirations, because of that failure economic materialism will also fail inevitably.

Economics is an "is". You are talking about an "ought".

Now, economics is actually closer to an "ought". It has it's own totally perverse incentives and is super broken. But it has also conquered the world. Debsian inevitablism is fine and very on brand for a frustrated American Midwesterner. But Debsianism is also a massive fucking failure. Leninism, Maoism, Juche, fuck man, even Kampucheaism and Hoxhaism had entire countries behind them and internationalist movements. Debsianism is an absolute failson. Personally, I blame the millennialism you are exhibiting here for that failure.

Xunzian wrote:I'm gonna go all '00s and answer inline because we agree except for where we don't.

I'll make a concession to modern posting styles though.

tl;dr: Anarcha-primitivism is awesome and real. Primitive abundance is a thing. Agriculture is a tragedy. But we aren't going back, so the question isn't "what could have been?" instead it's "what's next?"

Zero_Sum wrote:There is what I like to call natural freedom and morality in contrast to unnatural freedom or morality. Natural freedom and morality is innate that people are born with naturally while the other is a socio cultural construct. In the socio cultural construct model of morality or freedom both are commodifications that revolve around socio economic, monetary, and occupational status.

I mean, part of me agrees with this. Part of me thinks this reads like Toblerone Triangle's attempt at trolling where he gave himself a psychotic break.

The fact that you have to earn, buy, or labor towards having any freedom at all in order to have some sort of a semblance in acquiring moral agency shows just how much of an illusion it all really is. It's not based upon anything that is real, natural, or even tangible, it's based upon an ideal often enough controlled by others to subjugate people.

No disagreement. Greek philosophers recognized that slaves made their circle jerk possible. It is no accident that the shi class in China was also the philosopher class. Etc. Capitalism accelerates the problem but it doesn't originate with capitalism.

It isn't real or genuine, this reduces human existence or freedom to economic output. Is freedom and morality solely dependent on economic output or activity? Well, that's not real, natural, or genuine. That sounds like a prisoner dilemma where a prisoner is put into a position forcefully to bargain for their entire existence or life. If the prisoner cannot afford anything they cannot afford freedom and interacting morally with others becomes an absurd notion, a luxury they cannot afford. How is one to act morally if they themselves don't even have the luxury of freedom? The fact that others subject the prisoner to their moral ideals while they have no freedom and cannot afford to be moral themselves becomes equally absurd. This insanity breeds hostile immoral people and is a majority of the time the root of all immorality or at least a very large part of it. This is something unfortunately all the moral theoreticians of today seem to be at a loss with and I find that puzzling because it really isn't a hard thing to understand.

One of my favorite books is Revolutionary Suicide by Huey Newton. Have you read it? If you haven't, you should. If you have, meditate on Brother Huey vs Brother Bobby. I'm 100% on team Huey but I've also broken bread with Brother Bobby. Living a life of loud desperation is cool, but what does it get you?

It is a slavish carrot and stick model....that's what this thread is about, right? Do you support that?

I don't. That's why I said your questions were good.

In some ways this unnatural freedom and morality imposed on the world is actually immorality disguised as being morality which becomes very insidious.

The natural vs unnatural distinction is where TT went crazy. You've got the right idea but you reify things.

Most people of course don't question or criticize it where instead they accept it as a mere given which explains quite a bit about the sad state of affairs in post modernity on human beings.

I think most people do, but the metaphor you are looking for is the broken tool.

I think it was a mistake to reduce all human interactions materially based upon economic materialism yet here we are today. Economics should of never came to where it is now dominating all of humanity but since it does very perversely as it does currently it will undoubtedly be the very thing that unravels post modernity itself which we are witnessing now in real time. I give it a few more decades or less depending on a variety of variables...

Agreed. But that's why this topic is proactive. John Smith's big innovation was to crib from Hume and separate "is" from "ought" and try to describe the "is". That's the invention of Capitalism. He also provided solutions to what he saw since the "is" stood in contrast to his "ought".

Economics fails to account for all the various human complexities, desires, and aspirations, because of that failure economic materialism will also fail inevitably.

Economics is an "is". You are talking about an "ought".

Now, economics is actually closer to an "ought". It has it's own totally perverse incentives and is super broken. But it has also conquered the world. Debsian inevitablism is fine and very on brand for a frustrated American Midwesterner. But Debsianism is also a massive fucking failure. Leninism, Maoism, Juche, fuck man, even Kampucheaism and Hoxhaism had entire countries behind them and internationalist movements. Debsianism is an absolute failson. Personally, I blame the millennialism you are exhibiting here for that failure.

I'm not an anarchist anymore either, don't support anarcho primitivism. The anarcho nihilist of yesteryear went away a few years ago where all of that has become past history of my youth. You've been gone a long time Xunzian, let us just say that in my deep ideological evolution I have evolved into an authoritarian social idealist.

What's next? Total destruction, chaos, and social upheaval where we'll be lucky if anybody survives this global cataclysm of events.

No, we can't go back although part of me perhaps some leftover of my youth wishes we could go back to a more idyllic primitive landscape where life was basic, primal, and simplistic.

No, what I am talking about is the breakdown of complex societies largely from within with some external environmental factors also to be sure. For me the future of civilization is self destruction through numerous variables where I am all about its rebirth and changing dynamics from its ruins. Future societies built out of the ashes of former ones. I believe currently we're at the late stages of this transformation that will in effect blossom into all of that.

For me this will happen through world war, economic collapse, societal breakdown, artificial intelligence, automation, resource depletion, or through a combination of all simultaneously.

All I know is that economic materialism by itself is incapable of supporting freedom and morality, some may call me a moral idealist or whatever but I truly believe in that. To be sure my sense of morality is a bit unorthodox in that it differs quite a bit from the majority of people.

A majority might find my own morality repulsive and perhaps vulgar.

I am always interested in Asian cultures because I must admit my ignorance and lack of knowledge concerning them. I find eastern philosophies interesting. For instance I was reading up a few months ago on a Chinese philosophy known as a kind of legalism where I found its position on human nature to my liking. I believe it is called Fajia with such individuals like Han Fei and Xunzi.

What was the shi class?

Capitalism of course exacerbates problems but you're right they have existed even before capitalism and dwells into the topic of human nature itself. It's not just capitalism of course exacerbating the problems but industrialization and technology also. World changes too fast for human beings to adapt to which causes problems and in order to maintain this changing environment more demands are compounded onto human beings. It is all a recipe for disaster.

I've never heard of this book revolutionary suicide, I'll have to look into that as it sounds interesting.

Who is this TT that went crazy? You keep saying I reify things? What is that suppose to mean?

Broken tool?

I don't think John Smith could fathom his creation evolving into the oligarchic crony capitalism that it is today run by international lunatics.

Economics might of conquered the world but I would argue it is also in the process of destroying it too.

Well it's a good thing as a socialist I don't expound the Marxist variety, I will say this to the day I die, we live in a post capitalist and communist world. While I have disdain for communism I believe moderate socialism is more favorable over capitalism. I support a mixed economy.

I really hope you're not some boomer that wants to explain how worthless millennials are because I have heard enough of that garbage for a small lifetime already.