[ExI] morality

[Keith Henson]

Re this topic, I am reminded of a statement by a hardcore objectivist
(think over-the-edge libertarian).  Given a choice, say by space
aliens who really had the power, he would pick saving his life over
the rest of humanity dying.

This struck me as profoundly wrong, not moral.  I suspect our sense of
what is moral has been shaped by evolution in the context of
Hamilton's rule.



On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:11 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/2023 15:17, Brent Allsop wrote:
>
> How does the platinum rule breakdown (sic)(you really mean "break down". This confused me for a while!) when anyone is a masochist? Unless you are pointing out that the pleasure the masochist receives from damage to their body is incorrectly temptingly wired (damn whatever God wired them that way;) and not what they truly want?
>
>
>
> I must admit, the platinum rule does assume that people are responsible for themselves, and have the ability to decide if what they say they want is what they truly want, is what is best for them, etc.
>
> Too many formulations of morality seem to take the attitude that people should be 'made' to be happy, etc., that this is something that is imposed on them from outside.
>
> The case of a masochist is a good example of this. Who are you to judge that a masochist doesn't or 'shouldn't' want to be a masochist? That's up to them. The platinum rule doesn't break down for masochism, it holds up extremely well, in fact it highlights the essential difference between it and the golden rule.
>
> Using the golden rule is no better than basing your morality on what someone says that some god/s say/s, with the assumption that said god/s know/s what's best for everyone, regardless of what the individuals that make up 'everyone' think or want. It is, quite simply, tyranny.
>
> To me, morality should be something that comes from you, not from someone else. So it's not about 'making people' happy, or whatever, it's about letting them be happy (or whatever they want to be).
>
> The point is that the golden rule is about how you think you should treat people, the platinum rule is about how they think they should be treated (or, more importantly, how they think they should not be treated). As I said before, this has it's limits. I can't claim that you are being immoral because you refuse to give me all your money if that's what I want. That's why I combine it with the Wiccan Rede. I can claim you are being immoral if you lock me up in a cellar and beat me 'for my own good' for being gay, or ginger or a vegetarian or whatever else might be contrary to your values.
>
> Billw wrote:
> "So you are saying that to be moral, I have to find out what other people want and give it to them. Nope. Won't work."
>
> No, it's not up to you to find out what other people want (unless you want to, or you want to give them something that they'll like. Naturally, in that case, some research is warranted).
>
> It's up to you to do whatever you want to do, only checking first that it won't harm anyone else (and by harm, I mean actually harm, not offend or hurt their feelings. This is not an excuse to prevent people from telling Irish jokes).
>
> In order for people to follow a moral code, they first have to be capable of taking responsibility for their own feelings and other mental states. You have the right to be offended, but you don't have the right to demand that nobody offends you. You have the right to be upset that someone doesn't respect you, but you don't have the right to demand respect (which is something that has to be earned).
>
> The platinum rule, unlike the golden rule, just means that you don't impose your own values on other people. When Jesus decides to do something nice for Mo, and cook him dinner, then yes, he should first find out whether Mo likes corned beef hash (as that is what Jesus wants to cook). That just makes sense. The golden rule leads you to buying your wife a bowling ball for an anniversary present.
>
> "The Wiccan Rede apparently is just a statement of the writings of John Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty'"
>
> Yes it is. It's a good, concise summary of probably the most important idea in there.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat