Nova Andromeda wrote:--:... basis of a set of rules must be simple ... even if the rules derived from them are not."
-In other words we agree that the final system of rules may not be simple.
In any truly moral system, it can't be - because the rules would have to account for every possible case. However, every possible case can't be known in advance, so. . .
This is actually the origin of the common distinction between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". It is necessary to know both the code and the basis that the code was developed from.
--"Your system is much too complex to be useful as a basis."
-You will have to explain why this is because it is not so complex that it cannot be understood or used to derive law.
Nova, not to be overly immodest, but if Mike and my brains start to melt before we get all the way through, then it's a fair bet that what you have is too complex.
I would describe what you have as an attempt at
justifying a basis, not as a basis itself (what I think your basis is, we'll get to below).
--"You define "equitability" as the only core truth ..."
-This is strawman. I do not define equitability as a core truth, I show that it is best one can obtain when dealing with sufficiently intelligent and truly rational entities whose power falls within a certain range. Failer to accept this leads to power struggles which I have shown is not the best way to obtain one's goal.
And hence, the basis of your system is to enable each entity to engage in the pursuit of its goals, without undue advantage being given to any entity. In other words, the basis is that the system should be equitable (fair to all), and what you have written is the justification for why equitability is a desirable thing.
--"... equitability without sympathy is not moral either. "
-Only as defined by your system of morality. That type of reasoning is circular.
As Mike already said, a system of morality can only truly be judged by its consequences. However, I can tell you now that the flaw in your system - the flaw Mike is pointing out when he says that it lacks any recognition of sympathy - is that it leads to an attitude of "and may the Devil take the hindmost". It doesn't take into account the entities emotional well-being, and so forth. And so, to make it clear, the simplest means is to add 'sympathy' or 'avoiding unnecessary suffering' to the desirable bases.
--"... concepts of sympathy and a sense of fairness (ie- equitability) are virtually universal to worldwide moral codes."
-You of all people should not use shameless appeals to the majority...
Actually, appeals to the majority are legitimate in this case. Why? Because it is an example of an emergent phenomena. The reason appeals to the majority are usually fallacious is because the majority's opinion often comes from a single or a small number of misinformed sources. If the majority is possibly misinforned, then their opinion is useless as the basis for an argument.
The thing about the emergence of sympathy and a sense of fairness as the basis for moral and legal codes, is that it happened again and again, in lots of different places, rediscovered by people all over the world, at many different times in history. And
that is what makes the univerality of these two concepts significant - that they are fundamental to the organisation of humans into effective, cooperating, groups.
--"No, I'm saying that complex systems lose you in the detail, when they really devolve from one or two basic assumptions (just as yours does)."
-You are still beating up on a strawman. My starting premise is that there are intelligent entities with goals that cannot be accomplished using their own power. The idea of equitability is derived from that analysis. My system is not just dogma and legalise and only stupid people would believe it is (perhaps that is where my "ridiculous strawman" came from). If it can be shown that equitability or any other conclusion I have arrived at does not follow from the basic premises (i.e., the nature of intelligent entities which have a goal and lack the power to accomplish said goal) then the system would have to modified or discarded entirely.
Yes. Hence my opinion that what you have is a justification for the basis, not the basis itself.
--"I have stated no `system' at all ..."
-However, you are confined by your basis. I don't need to know all the details. Your system is one based on "... sympathy and a sense of fairness." If I show the basis itself is flawed then your system must be flawed as well.
Again, correct. Once again, we confront the concept of justifying the basis. Somewhere earlier in this thread I listed the three things that, for me, justify the use of "sympathy and a sense of fairness" as the basis for a moral code. The interesting thing is, though, that it isn't necessary for someone else to agree with my
justification for that moral basis, in order to agree with the
moral basis itself.
When all is said and done, the justification simply
doesn't matter. It may be a useful tool for persuading someone that a particular basis is valuable or worthwhile, but it adds nothing to the basis. And it is from the basis that the moral code can be derived.
--Rant on legalism.
-You have hopeless confused the subject here. I'm not working backwards from the rules to the moral basis of the rules. In addition, I have not simply assumed the rules are correct and moved on from there.
True on both points - I think, in calling it a moral system, Mike has mischaracterised what you wrote. However, that doesn't mean I agree that what you have is a moral basis either.
As you yourself say as your second point above, what you have is an attempt at justifying a particular moral basis. Unfortunately, you have put the cart before the horse, in not specifying what the basis actually is before attempting to justify it. I've tried that, and it doesn't work - what happens is you implicitly assume a basis and start trying to justify
that rather than discovering some fundamental self-evident moral basis. In this case, the basis you appear to have chosen is equitability.
--"... the effectiveness of any system can and should be judged by observation rather than philosophical debate."
-Who said otherwise? Sounds to me like you would simply like skip any debate about your basis. Indeed you would like to take those observations and judge them under your system using your criteria for what is good and what is bad. However, you have yet to show that your criteria are better than mine. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Your criteria are derived from a basis defined as sympathy and fairness. My criteria are derived solely from observation, logic, reason, and the existance of any type of goal. My system attempts to maximize an entity's abilities to accomplish its goal regardless of the nature of goal. Your system attempts to enforce sympathy and an assummed idea of fairness. It is therefore limited to people who have goals consistant with sympathy and fairness. Everyone else will be in conflict with your system (e.g., anyone who doesn't want to be forced to be sympathetic). The resulting conflict means fewer entities will be able to accomplish their goals under your system than under my system. This makes your system inferior IMO.
Actually Nova, your system assumes that every entity should be equally entitled to pursue its goals, and then proceeds to justify why a common acceptance of that basis is valuable from the point of view of each individual entity within the system.
I can (and have) done the same for "sympathy and a sense of fairness", by assuming that it is the goal of each entity to achieve an 'enjoyable life' for itself and for its descendants. The thing with that system, is that it seeks to minimise the interference between entities by ensuring each entitiy treats the others as that entity would want to be treated.
--"And if you think that sympathy and a sense of fairness "cannot be defended on its own merits", then you have taken a left turn from reality and found yourself in the Twilight Zone."
-You have taken that quote out of context. The system I was referring to was one in which a basis is simply defined according to the desire of the designer. In your case it is "sympathy and a sense of fairness." It could just as easily be serving God.
-You have yet to show why everyone must accept sympathy and fairness as a sufficient basis. The problem is that as soon as you do sympathy and fairness are no longer the basis are they? In fact, once you do defend them you will probably end up with an analysis similar if not equivalent to mine.
And hence, you reveal that what we are truly discussing is the
justification for the moral basis, rather than the moral basis itself.
And the point is, if people agree on the basis, then the
justification doesn't matter. There can be as many different justifications as there are people (and in fact, it is entirely possible that the justifications may
outnumber the people), and it
still won't matter. The only use for the justifications is to convince people who don't already agree with the basis - and, since humans have an instinctive belief in the idea of "sympathy and a sense of fairness", the intellectual arguments generally aren't required.
--Whatever happens with this debate the only way I lose is if it turns into a flame war and I don't gain any useful feedback...
Can't argue with that!
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
