Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[Morality Games]

Right, but then you're probably just playing some kind of moral game on us to justify the most pernicious, and destructive philosophies. You sir, have made a poor choice of a forum name if you intended to be taken seriously on matters as important as this.

I am a pragmatist.

Pragmatism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

'Morality games' is a play on Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept of 'language-games', whereby words (any by extension all spoken / written language) potentially represent an infinite variety of meanings and knowing which one is meant in particular depends on the context the word is applied in.

To elaborate, functional understanding of which meaning a word represents in a particular circumstance depends on the situation (or context). For example, "Fire!" can mean either, "Shoot the enemy soldier!" or "There is a flame, right over there!"

Moreover, words are only understood to have those meanings in the first place because of the convention of being associated with particular objectives. The word 'fire' could actually refer to that objective we call 'water', but that is not a 'rule of thumb' that developed in the language-game of English-speaking cultures.

In analogical terms, 'morality games' refers to my rejection of act-based approaches to morality (deontology) in favor of context-based approaches. My position that an act can only be understood as moral, amoral or immoral in light of the situation it is committed in (although this is not exactly moral relativism, as features common to humans in general are just as important a consideration as the norms of one's cultural context).

[Milton Bradley]

There is no room for pragmatism in the pursuit of liberty, or truth.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley There is no room for pragmatism in the pursuit of liberty, or truth.

Sure there is. The fact that you make no room for pragmatism is a symptom of your fanaticism.

[Domino]

The only problem I have with pragmatism is that it is so often synonymous with compromise, and some things ought not be compromised. Taking a practical approach to things is generally a good idea, but, in some cases, morality demands that we attempt the impractical. If pragmatism allows a person to balk when the going gets tough, then it's really just a handy excuse to refrain from straining oneself.

I guess I'd say there's a right way and a wrong way to be a pragmatist. Like all tools, it has its uses, and it has its failings.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Milton Bradley There is no room for pragmatism in the pursuit of liberty, or truth.

This attitude would be a symptom of those destructive philosophies (cough, ideologies) you were talking about. I wonder how long you even studied the philosophy before making such a judgment.

The only problem I have with pragmatism is that it is so often synonymous with compromise, and some things ought not be compromised. Taking a practical approach to things is generally a good idea, but, in some cases, morality demands that we attempt the impractical. If pragmatism allows a person to balk when the going gets tough, then it's really just a handy excuse to refrain from straining oneself.

Not about 'compromise' so much as dissolving imaginary fictions to resolve conflicts. Like other humans, pragmatists only compromise when we feel we have to, and while that might be more frequent on the whole than other people, I would contend it is only because we are quicker to realize when fighting has become unproductive and can only produce harm for all parties involved if it continues. I will say this for myself: I never compromise on a point I feel should be painfully obvious.

Moreover, although I don't speak for all pragmatists, my interpretation is that the philosophy does not discourage revolutionary thought or action per se but rather encourages people to work with what materials are available.

Revolutions (synonymous with the tough goings and impracticalities you are talking about) are fine as long as there is a sizeable chance they are going to work and accomplish something worthwhile (healthiness, joyfulness, loveliness, affection, creativity, intelligence, excellence in general, etc) -- the 'sizeable chance' (potentiality) counts as 'available material'.

I would also argue it is best positioned to evaluate (and possibly show respect) to other ways of thinking, as it recognizes the worth of ideas on basis of what they contribute to enhancing the human condition (which arguably is all that really matters when you back to the original point of any way of thinking).

[Milton Bradley]

Some things do not deserve to be debated, like freedom vs. slavery, or truth vs. lies.


I stand be my statement that there is no room for pragmatism when discussing truth, or liberty.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Some things do not deserve to be debated, like freedom vs. slavery, or truth vs. lies. I stand be my statement that there is no room for pragmatism when discussing truth, or liberty.

I thought debating was a good way to discern truth from lies.

I try to keep my 'versus' down to a minimum, since that kind of mentality sets itself up to embrace a lie, illusion, or some other kind of deception.

freedom vs. slavery

If you were born into a noble family in Ancient Greece and somehow acquired a compassionate streak, then perhaps you would feel compelled to free your family's slaves upon ascending to the rank of master of the house.

Of course, in doing so, you would immediately economically cripple yourself, probably fall from political prominence as a result, lose your guards from inability to pay, and thereby become (along with your family, and especially your eldest son) a target for families (probably of a less savory sort) who are in ancestral feuds with yours.

Then you can factor in how your slaves, who are likely foreigners and thereby not elligible for citizenship and legal rights, (the general rule among Ancient Greek city-states) will lack the resources and experience to survive out in the world, and will either become criminals as a result (and thereby be in constant threat of capture and execution) or else fall back into poverty and be sold back into slavery to pay off their debts. Their new masters could be less fair than yourself, and probably, since compassion toward the lower classes is a rarity amongst nobles.

Or, on the other hand, you could just feed them well, give them some comforts and entertainments to make up for the hard labor, see to it their children get married, etc. Note that nobles who took care of their slaves in this fashion generally received much affection (and by extension loyalty) in return.

It appears keeping them in slavery is the better choice, since it is what allows for the most prosperity across the board, and freeing them accomplishes nothing most humans would be induced to consider good if they experienced it themselves.

You could attempt to reform the system, although that would be like walking into a fundamentalist church and telling everybody they need to stop being Christian -- what I mean is, the products of such an endeavor would be equable with what you would get for that kind of approach.

What I am trying to say is there is context you are brought into when born in the world (the-world-as-it-presently-is), and while people should always try for social progress, the harsh reality is that you will be constrained by the nature of the context you find yourself in. So, you should, "do what you can with what cards are in the deck," or, "make use of what materials are available."

In contrast to the complexity of this contextualism, your approach probably appears simple, incapable of explaining the nuances and particulars of phenomena like slavery and freedom.

[lsbskins1]

In a philosophical world of absolute freedom versus absolute slavery there would be no debate. If the choice is slavery of the kind practiced in the US previous to the civil war, there is no real debate, but when you start defining slavery as having to pay taxes, there is lots of room for debate, because then you start confusing the accepted and cultural definition of the term slavery to suit your ideological stance. So what YOU would define as beyond debate really is not beyond debate when you ask the average citizen. And when you start talking about shooting at people because they do not agree with your definitions, who's the one who is willing to go the crazy extremes to further a cause?

[Morality Games]

And I would argue that the morality of slavery depends on large part on your context (the circumstances surrounding your existence), as freeing all your slaves at once in the wrong time and place could lead to very negative experiences across the board and would ultimately contribute to the excellence of no single person or their community.

And when you start talking about shooting at people because they do not agree with your definitions, who's the one who is willing to go the crazy extremes to further a cause?

. . . has he actually done that?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Morality Games And I would argue that the morality of slavery depends on large part on your context (the circumstances surrounding your existence), as freeing all your slaves at once in the wrong time and place could lead to very negative experiences across the board and would ultimately contribute to the excellence of no single person or their community.

So because you've backed yourself into a corner with your - lol - morality games, you are now forced to take the position that enslaving another human being is sometimes good for them.

Remind me again of the problem with using absolutes in some cases?

[Morality Games]

So because you've backed yourself into a corner with your - lol - morality games, you are now forced to take the position that enslaving another human being is sometimes good for them. Remind me again of the problem with using absolutes in some cases?

How have I backed myself into a corner and who said enslaving people is good? You seem to have a problem paying attention.

Although I think enslaving people would be alright if the only alternative was putting prisoners of war (including women and children) to torture or death (which was a common alternative to slavery in those days). Letting the citizens of a defeated city roam free was often considered unacceptable on the chance they would seek revenge in later generations.

Anyway, either stop talking or explain how the following account of things is wrong.

If you were born into a noble family in Ancient Greece and somehow acquired a compassionate streak, then perhaps you would feel compelled to free your family's slaves upon ascending to the rank of master of the house. Of course, in doing so, you would immediately economically cripple yourself, probably fall from political prominence as a result, lose your guards from inability to pay, and thereby become (along with your family, and especially your eldest son) a target for families (probably of a less savory sort) who are in ancestral feuds with yours. Then you can factor in how your slaves, who are likely foreigners and thereby not elligible for citizenship and legal rights, (the general rule among Ancient Greek city-states) will lack the resources and experience to survive out in the world, and will either become criminals as a result (and thereby be in constant threat of capture and execution) or else fall back into poverty and be sold back into slavery to pay off their debts. Their new masters could be less fair than yourself, and probably, since compassion toward the lower classes is a rarity amongst nobles. Or, on the other hand, you could just feed them well, give them some comforts and entertainments to make up for the hard labor, see to it their children get married, etc. Note that nobles who took care of their slaves in this fashion generally received much affection (and by extension loyalty) in return. It appears keeping them in slavery is the better choice, since it is what allows for the most prosperity across the board, and freeing them accomplishes nothing most humans would be induced to consider good if they experienced it themselves. You could attempt to reform the system, although that would be like walking into a fundamentalist church and telling everybody they need to stop being Christian -- what I mean is, the products of such an endeavor would be equable with what you would get for that kind of approach. What I am trying to say is there is context you are brought into when born in the world (the-world-as-it-presently-is), and while people should always try for social progress, the harsh reality is that you will be constrained by the nature of the context you find yourself in. So, you should, "do what you can with what cards are in the deck," or, "make use of what materials are available." In contrast to the complexity of this contextualism, your approach probably appears simple, incapable of explaining the nuances and particulars of phenomena like slavery and freedom.

If you can come up with a counter that is at least remotely feasible, then maybe I'll take you seriously from now on. If it is, "Slavery is bad because it is bad and freedom is good because it is good and you are evil for thinking about this kind of stuff and I am good for not thinking at all," then please spare me.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morality Games And I would argue that the morality of slavery depends on large part on your context (the circumstances surrounding your existence), as freeing all your slaves at once in the wrong time and place could lead to very negative experiences across the board and would ultimately contribute to the excellence of nobody.

In this statement, I assume you mean that if Jimmy The Nose (a fictional "gangster" for this construct) has been running a slavery ring and one day figures, "Screw it, I would rather sell smack, " and just up and "frees" all the people he had been holding in bondage without anyone making arrangements for housing and feeding and educating and employing them, then that would be more harmful to them because they would be dead within a short period of time and effectively no more free than they had been when he was "providing" for them as a master. Would this be your point? Or, would you be making the point that in some time and place, slavery would be a good option for both master and slave simply in and of it's own nature?

...but then, this is not really topical...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games I thought debating was a good way to discern truth from lies.

Some truths are already well established. You people act as if each, and every well established truth should be hoisted atop the chopping block.

Quote by: Morality Games I try to keep my 'versus' down to a minimum, since that kind of mentality sets itself up to embrace a lie, illusion, or some other kind of deception.

Alrighty then...

Quote by: Morality Games If you were born into a noble family in Ancient Greece and somehow acquired a compassionate streak, then perhaps you would feel compelled to free your family's slaves upon ascending to the rank of master of the house. Of course, in doing so, you would immediately economically cripple yourself, probably fall from political prominence as a result, lose your guards from inability to pay, and thereby become (along with your family, and especially your eldest son) a target for families (probably of a less savory sort) who are in ancestral feuds with yours. Then you can factor in how your slaves, who are likely foreigners and thereby not elligible for citizenship and legal rights, (the general rule among Ancient Greek city-states) will lack the resources and experience to survive out in the world, and will either become criminals as a result (and thereby be in constant threat of capture and execution) or else fall back into poverty and be sold back into slavery to pay off their debts. Their new masters could be less fair than yourself, and probably, since compassion toward the lower classes is a rarity amongst nobles. Or, on the other hand, you could just feed them well, give them some comforts and entertainments to make up for the hard labor, see to it their children get married, etc. Note that nobles who took care of their slaves in this fashion generally received much affection (and by extension loyalty) in return. It appears keeping them in slavery is the better choice, since it is what allows for the most prosperity across the board, and freeing them accomplishes nothing most humans would be induced to consider good if they experienced it themselves. You could attempt to reform the system, although that would be like walking into a fundamentalist church and telling everybody they need to stop being Christian -- what I mean is, the products of such an endeavor would be equable with what you would get for that kind of approach. What I am trying to say is there is context you are brought into when born in the world (the-world-as-it-presently-is), and while people should always try for social progress, the harsh reality is that you will be constrained by the nature of the context you find yourself in. So, you should, "do what you can with what cards are in the deck," or, "make use of what materials are available." In contrast to the complexity of this contextualism, your approach probably appears simple, incapable of explaining the nuances and particulars of phenomena like slavery and freedom.

No no no, you don't get to be the benevolent Master enslaving others through no fault of your own, whos noble desire is to free the slaves, you are the guy implying there can be any moral justification for enslaving others in this century.


So don't lecture me about hypotheticals when we are very clearly discussing contemporary circumstances, and the erosion of liberties today.


Debate is nice, in it's place, but clearly you have to disregard many well established "truths" to feel there is any room for negotiating my freedom.

[Morality Games]

In this statement, I assume you mean that if Jimmy The Nose (a fictional "gangster" for this construct) has been running a slavery ring and one day figures, "Screw it, I would rather sell smack, " and just up and "frees" all the people he had been holding in bondage without anyone making arrangements for housing and feeding and educating and employing them, then that would be more harmful to them because they would be dead within a short period of time and effectively no more free than they had been when he was "providing" for them as a master. Would this be your point? Or, would you be making the point that in some time and place, slavery would be a good option for both master and slave simply in and of it's own nature?

Well, not exactly representational of some of the things I am trying to show, but it does capture the most important point, which is that the act of freeing slaves is not necessarily a moral one -- whether or not it was moral depends on whether the reasoning behind the act was sound, and that depends on all parts of the situation that can be associated with the act.

[Morality Games]

No no no, you don't get to be the benevolent Master enslaving others through no fault of your own, whos noble desire is to free the slaves, you are the guy implying there can be any moral justification for enslaving others in this century.

I guess you are willing to prove it? I know nothing I have said can be easily construed in that light. I think I get to be "that guy" because it was obviously who I have been the whole time. That accusation doesn't make any sense when you stack it against what I have been talking about, which sort of reinforces what I was saying about how ideologies like libertarianism distort mental processes.

So don't lecture me about hypotheticals when we are very clearly discussing contemporary circumstances, and the erosion of liberties today.

That statement can be construed as a concession to my contextualism, as it acknowledges time and place are important considerations when talking of what is moral and what is not.

Debate is nice, in it's place, but clearly you have to disregard many well established "truths" to feel there is any room for negotiating my freedom.

After what Isbskins1 has said, I am afraid of how you define freedom.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 In a philosophical world of absolute freedom versus absolute slavery there would be no debate. If the choice is slavery of the kind practiced in the US previous to the civil war, there is no real debate,

Agreed.

Quote by: lsbskins1 but when you start defining slavery as having to pay taxes, there is lots of room for debate, because then you start confusing the accepted and cultural definition of the term slavery to suit your ideological stance.

Again, mostly agreed.

Quote by: lsbskins1 So what YOU would define as beyond debate really is not beyond debate when you ask the average citizen. And when you start talking about shooting at people because they do not agree with your definitions, who's the one who is willing to go the crazy extremes to further a cause?

Well, when one side assumes that each liberty that has already been recognized by government can be renegotiated, yes, some of us will inevitably revert to the Second Ammendment to defend what we have legally established to be a "right of the citizen". We see this as one of those "inconvenient truths" that is non-negotiable, as many of the other truths you are so willing disregard in your attempts to undermine The Constitution of The United States.


My side of this situation still has legal, and moral justification. Yours rests upon the erosion of existing laws, deregulation of existing rules, and a government overstepping it's bounds with predatory, and coercive tactics.

[Morality Games]

Well, when one side assumes that each liberty that has already been recognized by government can be renegotiated, yes, some of us will inevitably revert to the Second Ammendment to defend what we have legally established to be a "right of the citizen". We see this as one of those "inconvenient truths" that is non-negotiable, as many of the other truths you are so willing disregard in your attempts to undermine The Constitution of The United States. My side of this situation still has legal, and moral justification. Yours rests upon the erosion of existing laws, deregulation of existing rules, and a government overstepping it's bounds with predatory, and coercive tactics.

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you took yourself less seriously.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games I guess you are willing to prove it? I know nothing I have said can be easily construed in that light. I think I get to be "that guy" because it was obviously who I have been the whole time. That accusation doesn't make any sense when you stack it against what I have been talking about, which sort of reinforces what I was saying about how ideologies like libertarianism distort mental processes.

No, you were the one attempting to engage in moral relativism by suggesting there was some benevolent motivation for your "historical lesson" about slavery.

Quote by: Morality Games That statement can be construed as a concession to my contextualism, as it acknowledges time and place are important considerations when talking of what is moral and what is not.

Look, you're the one that dumped their purse out on the table, and is having trouble defending your statements.


I do not wish to engage in the debate about historical slavery, or how you think it may be justifiable. I am specifically talking about the erosion of my own liberties, and how that applies to these discussions.

Quote by: Morality Games After what Isbskins1 has said, I am afraid of how you define freedom.

I only seek to ensure my Constitutionally protected freedoms.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games Maybe people would take you more seriously if you took yourself less seriously.

The problem with that attituse is that people with my philosophy know that if Goerge Washington was in their shoes, he would probably be raising an army by this point, so I do not consider myself unreasonable.


I seek for my government to honor ratified documents, nothing more.

[Morality Games]

No, you were the one attempting to engage in moral relativism by suggesting there was some benevolent motivation for your "historical lesson" about slavery.

It can't be moral relativsm if I think there are certain standards that apply at any time, which I obviously do on basis of the content of my post -- a moral relatavist would say that reasons, acts, and outcomes are all relative, whereas I am suggesting that the outcome would always have to be something which contributes positively to human experience in the long run (or, if no outcome is good, then the least negative) in order for the act to be considered moral.

Look, you're the one that dumped their purse out on the table, and is having trouble defending your statements. I do not wish to engage in the debate about historical slavery, or how you think it may be justifiable. I am specifically talking about the erosion of my own liberties, and how that applies to these discussions.

So far I haven't had to defend my statements. I've had to defend that I have not said what you are accusing me of saying, and I certainly am not struggling, as it is painfully obvious from actually reading my post that I have not said what you are accusing me of saying.

And I think any act is justified if better alternatives are impossible to accomplish under the present conditions, which again is quite clear from the content of my post.

The problem with that attituse is that people with my philosophy know that if Goerge Washington was in their shoes, he would probably be raising an army by this point, so I do not consider myself unreasonable. I seek for my government to honor ratified documents, nothing more.

Where exactly is the root of your morality anyway? If is the Constitution, then doesn't that mean any legally made alteration is acceptable? If it is some concept of human nature, then shouldn't you be talking about that more than the Constitution?