Nova's system of morality.

[Nova Andromeda]

--In this thread I would like to discuss my system of morality (here after just sys). The goal being to expose any problems with that sys and either fix them or anhilate the sys entirely.

A.--First let me start with some assumptions.
1. There are entities with sufficient intelligence and control over themselves to understand and conform to the sys.
2. Some of the #1 entities can interact with each other.
3. Some of the #2 entities have goals.
4. Some of the #3 entities lack the power to accomplish their goals without assistance from other entities.
-Currently, I'm using a broad definition of power. When I say power to do something I mean the entity can do something assuming the intelligence of the entity has decided to do it.
5. Some of the #4 entities understand a few additional things:
-They must enlist the help of other entities (see condition A4).
-An entity that satisfies condition A1 understands it must be willing to use its power ensure equitable interactions with other entities that satisfy condition A1. In general, this is true because it is generally less favorable to force an inequitable interaction and be hindered by the full power of another entity than to agree to an equitable interaction.
-The most favorable interaction that can be hoped for is an equitable one when power is lacking and the opposing entity understands the rule just previous.

B.--Now let me outline the basics from which the sys is derived.
1. The sys must be designed to maximize the ability of an individual entity to accomplish its goals. This assumes the entity lacks sufficient power to accomplish those goals via its power and can interact with the entities described under condition A5 above.
-This means freedom must be maximized by sys or it will be inferior to a similar system where freedom is maximized. This is true since an entity's freedom within the sys is strongly related to an entity's power to accomplish its goals.
-This provides the motive for entities to operate within the sys.
2. The sys is general and should cover the interactions of all entities that meet certain criteria. Those criteria are: the entity must comprehend the sys, the intelligence of the entity must have sufficient control to conform to the sys, the entity must have a goal, the entity must lack sufficient power to accomplish its desired goals on its own.
-If the entity cannot comprehend the sys it cannot make decisions consistant with the sys.
-If the entity doesn't have sufficient control to conform to the sys then the issue is mute.
-If the entity has no goal it has no motive to conform to the sys and it will therefore only conform to the sys by chance. This is due the fact that the purpose of the sys is to allow an entity to accomplish its goals.
-If an entity has sufficient power to accomplish its goals it has no motive to conform to the sys. This leads to the conclusion just previous.
3. The sys must be equitable for all entities described under condition A5 (see A5).

C.--The sys must be equitable and maximize individual freedom (section C). It follows that for any two A5 entities the changes due to the interactions between those entites must be kept equal to the extent possible. The entities must also be albe to abridge their right to this equality if they so desire.
-For interactions outside the control of either entity each entity has the primary right to leave the interaction such that each
entity profitted or lost equally. If that is not possible each entity must have a weighted chance to profit or lose based on how
much each entity stands to profit or lose. They also have the right to a minimum total profit minus lose.
-For interactions under the control of at least one of the entities each entity has the primary right to minimize the
interaction. In addition, each entity has a primary right to a percentage of any profit, and are responsible for a percentage of
any lose equal to its percentage of control over the interaction. Furthermore, an entity may not force any interaction that may
result in loses it cannot afford. The assesment of profit and lose must exclude consideration of anything that is supernatural
(with respect to the entities involved).
-If these rights are abridged without the informed agreement of the entity acted upon that entity has the primary right to take
by force what was taken from it, the cost of the use of force, and an additional amount equal to the amount taken times the
projected ratio of success to failer of the action of the entity that abridged the primary rights. This minimizes "total war" in case of conflict.
-Of course, the entities also have the primary right to the informed abridgement of their own rights.

D.--The sys must be equitable and maximize individual freedom for larger groups of A5 entities. It follows that the purpose of gov. should be to minimize the total cost due to the forced abridgement of section C rights (when I say forced I mean there is literally no choice in the matter).
-Interactions between entities may be constant and on going and often force the partial abridgment some individuals' rights.
-If this is the case then the equitable thing to do is minimize the total cost of the abridgements over the entire population.
-This means whether you abridge one right or another for x or y number of individuals depends heavily on the circumstances. This complexity is a result of the complex nature of reality.
-It should be noted that an entity must agree to be subject to a gov. before it can be considered part of that group of entities that gov. controls. If the entity does not agree the gov. should be treated as one entity representing the entities under its control in relation to the other entity.


Please stay on topic and only post useful replies. One liners like "I agree" or "I believe x, y, or z" are useless and distract from the discussion. Use logic and reason to add to or detract from this post.

[Nick]

Haven't fully read parts C & D yet (nothing obvious on a quick skin through, though).

At some point I should try rephrasing the whole thing to see if I'm actually tracking you properely :>

A.--First let me start with some assumptions.

To summarise: There exists a society of self-aware, self-motivated individuals who recognise that they can most readily attain their own goals through mutually benficical interactions with other members of society.

B.--Now let me outline the basics from which the sys is derived.
::snip::
2.
::snip::
-If the entity doesn't have sufficient control to conform to the sys then the issue is mute.

Nitpick - I'm assuming you mean 'moot' (as in, not applicable, since the opportunity to apply the sys never arises)

::snip::
-If an entity has sufficient power to accomplish its goals it has no motive to conform to the sys. This leads to the conclusion just previous.

I don't think this is quite far-reaching enough. There are at least two situations where an individual with sufficient power to enforce an agreement may choose not to:

1. Opportunity for retaliation and/or poisoning of future interactions. The dominant party may be able to enforce an agreement _now_, but may not be certain of their ability to cope with future retaliation. Alternately, they may simply be trying to save themselves the grief of coping with resentment further down the line (i.e 'the carrot often works better than the stick')

2. Uncertainty of future relative status. The current dominant party may not always _be_ the dominant party. We live in an uncertain world, and misfortune is always a possibility. Individuals who have used their dominance to impose their will are unlikely to find much sympathy when things turn sour. In this way, attempting to engage in mutually beneficial agreements (even while sufficiently dominant to enforce a particular agreement) is a hedge against disaster.

As I said, I didn't make it all the way through parts C & D (it's late), so no comments on them yet.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Thanks for the input Nick. I thought I would get more response in this thread, but am not getting it for some reason. At any rate I appreciate the feedback.

--"To summarise: There exists a society of self-aware, self-motivated individuals who recognise that they can most readily attain their own goals through mutually benficical interactions with other members of society. "
-I would leave out the society since it necessitates a great many pre-existing interactions and agreements.

--You are correct I meant moot.

--"I don't think this is quite far-reaching enough. There are at least two situations where an individual with sufficient power to enforce an agreement may choose not to:"
-The first situation means that the entity doesn't actually have enough power to accomplish all its desired goals (I guess I should point out that all these goals are actually "sub goals" of a more general goal).
-The second situation has the same problem as the first except that the lack of power comes from a lack of information.

[LordShaithis]

The reason you only got one reply, and why "I don't care" is tied for first in the poll, is that this is too much reading for not enough payoff. I'll try to liven it up.

FUCK YOU TREKKIE SHITLICK CUMTARD!!! RELIGION SUCKS!!!

There we are.