Haha!  Justin that map of world economic freedom is a joke.  However I am going to prefer to leave it alone for the moment to see if Socialist Swine can live up to his name to explain why.  If not away it goes if I get at.  I normally wouldn’t bother with a tangent like this but seeing as my own political philosophy takes many of its own cues from socialism I feel a need to defend it.

So if we could determine what is morally correct by what is most perceivably correct in the sociological, biological, chemical and physical realms of this world could we agree on an absolute set of moral values?

Not that I think you suggested this, Bo$$, but theo’s question is a good one (not the first time I’ve agreed with you, theo, at least about the questions we should be asking).  There is no humanly achievable absolute moral code that can be logically and scientifically defended.

Theo and I both have transrational answers to this dilemma, but there the resemblance ends.  Theo’s answer is the Bible; mine is doing the best we can, remaining flexible and humble in the face of necessary imperfection.

Of course, there’s stuff about being flexible in the Bible, too- the people who wrote it may have been deluded, but at least some of them weren’t idiots:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

This is Paul’s admittance of the imperfection of all law and the necessity for flexibility (in my humble godforsakenatheistdarwinist opinion).  If only more Christians took this to heart, and devoted more energy to making the world a better place for all of us, instead of making meanspirited attacks on gays and other religions.  Of course, it goes without saying that some Christians are on the forefront of the fight against injustice.

Oh, and Justin- I checked out the “map of economic freedom”, and while I agree with the superiority of free markets in some ways, the enthusiastic pursuit of laissez-faire capitalism has been a major factor in:

-environmental destruction.  For one small example: here in Austria the transit of goods across the country has increased tremendously since joining the EU, for instance yogurt produced in Germany sent to Italy to be packaged, back to Germany to be distributed, some of it sold back to Italy, crossing Austria three times- this sort of idiocy is a result of the new free market.  Not that “socialist” countries are innocent of environmental destruction- far from it.  But we can and must afford to do better for our grandchildren.

-the increase of the gap between the rich and the poor, a major factor in terrorism.  When markets are entirely governed by money, most of it goes into the pockets of the already-rich and/or powerful.  Sure, the Third World countries engaging in trade with the West have more cash, but the peasants don’t see much of it.  Uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism leads to child labor and other abuses of economic power.

The “map of economic freedom” has some good points, for instance about the futility of using war to achieve peace. But the homeless in the US might not be thankful for the “economic freedom” they enjoy, which the “welfare states” of Canada and most of Europe deny them.  Of course, there are problems with welfare, and with any system that attempts to mitigate the problems of capitalism.  And free markets do have many advantages.  But human rights and the environment must be respected, and that means some controls are necessary, because we’re not angels.

Oh, and Justin- I checked out the “map of economic freedom�, and while I agree with the superiority of free markets in some ways, the enthusiastic pursuit of laissez-faire capitalism has been a major factor in:

We may be in more agreement than you think. I posted it as a follow up to reinforce my free market argument against protecting our domestic steel industry. I do not think it is completely deterministic.

-environmental destruction.  For one small example: here in Austria the transit of goods across the country has increased tremendously since joining the EU, for instance yogurt produced in Germany sent to Italy to be packaged, back to Germany to be distributed, some of it sold back to Italy, crossing Austria three times- this sort of idiocy is a result of the new free market. Not that “socialistâ€? countries are innocent of environmental destruction- far from it.  But we can and must afford to do better for our grandchildren.

1. I generally agree with you about the environment. Economists talk about external costs - costs that fall upon neither the buyer nor the seller. External costs are one of the few areas in which government regulation is a good thing and the environment is the most striking example.

2. Having said that, I was in East Germany in 1991 and the most striking thing about the place was the filth. That is because when the public collectively owns something no one wants to step up and take “ownership” of it. Anyone who has ever bitched about their roommates being slobs can vouch for that. John Stossel has a good article about how this applies more generally.

3. As to the example you reference: one of the problems with cars is that they each have a tiny motor making them go. Rather than having 100 million tiny engines it would be more efficient to have a few dozen or hundred large power plants making energy out of oil. The beauty of price theory is that if it is cheaper to produce good by shipping it to a large factory halfway across the world a couple times then it is to assemble it locally then that is the most efficient, most environmentally friendly solution. Of course, that assumes that the government has properly assessed the external costs of damage to the environment from transportation with the proper market-based regulations. Central planners can at best only be approximately accurate at best.

A more likely reason why this behavior happens: Australia ranks very high in the map of economic freedom, but even the freest economies in the post New Deal era have heavy tax burdens. It is likely that the business lobbied to have an obscure tax deduction for overseas production slipped into the last budget. As a believer in laissez-faire economics I would address that by eliminating the corporate income tax. There is no other tax that even comes close in creating bizarre, distortionary behaviors by business.

-the increase of the gap between the rich and the poor, a major factor in terrorism.  When markets are entirely governed by money, most of it goes into the pockets of the already-rich and/or powerful.  Sure, the Third World countries engaging in trade with the West have more cash, but the peasants don’t see much of it.

Property rights are probably the root cause of the departure between liberals and conservatives on economic matters. If I were a corrupt wealthy person in the third world I would try to increase my wealth by buying and selling politicians and bureaucrats. If I could use my wealth to seize assets, force peasants off their land with illegal contracts, invest and rely on local authorities to guarantee my loans I could make a lot of money. Power corrupts.

Here is an example from the United States: zoning laws have emerged in wealthy neighborhoods and they have emerged in order to keep poor people out. That is why if you buy a house in an affluent suburb you aren’t legally allowed to tear it down and build low-income apartments for the poor. Even if a developer thinks he could make money that way, he still isn’t allowed to do so. Similarly, a pair of poor people might not be able to afford a quarter acre lot but they might be able to split it and each achieve the dream of buying a house. But zoning regulations specify a minimum lot size of a quarter acre and only the affluent can move in.

If the government simply did not have the power to make these decisions then the rich would have their hands tied. The only way they could make money would be by investing it. That would be good for the people who are invested in, and the people who get jobs from that investment.

By contrast, liberals want to increase the size and scope of the government, which means that wealthy people and businesses can buy even more power from politicians.

Originally posted by zilch:
There is no humanly achievable absolute moral code that can be logically and scientifically defended.

Why not?  Certainly if we made it subject to empirical methods it could work.  For simple example, as far as we can tell we perceive we have free will so actions that take away another person’s free will would be considered wrong.  Kidnapping, rape and murder are now absolutely wrong until someone can prove that we don’t have free will.  An ethical system like this could be extrapolated a long ways if we took from what is known about humanity through sociology, anthropology, psychology, biology, chemistry, and physics.  Complaints?

You all will not believe how I came across this thread…lol. I was actually searching for nutritional information on a Quiznos salad I ate for lunch when I stumbled across this site. Now why my search engine even took the time to include this thread in my search results puzzles me still, yet after carefully reading through the many and various post and opinions thus stated on this tread and its topic, I was lead to write my perspective on the matter.

In general a lot of excellent points were made in this thread thus far. Some I had absolutely no prior knowledge of while yet others I was all too familiar with. In any case my perspective is uniquely my own and does not seek to impose itself on anyone. It’s just a brief personal observation of my human experience, thus far, as a Black-Christian-Gay man (can anyone say oxymoronic?) in these United States of America.

I am not sure where to begin on the whole “Culture War(s)� thing. But in regards to the whole “Christian� thing, I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed with the way some of my fellow Christians are behaving. On the one hand they try and trumpet Love, Peace, and Acceptance to/of the masses. Yet on the other hand (more times then not) do the very things that utterly destroy such ideals and aspirations prematurely. Needless to say this is not an easy topic to remedy simply because we are talking about people who, for the most part, believe they are doing what is right (like all well meaning and kind hearted individuals typically do). However the problem comes when these same Christians forget how and why they are Christian in the first place.

The only commandment Christ left for his church (aside from Loving God) was to Love our Neighbors as ourselves. In theory very simple stuff, but in practice seems to be one of the most difficult, for one reason or another, thing to grasp in these modern times (one would think we would have progressed a little since the dark ages). I think the best way to approach any individual (or organization, and or party affiliation, etc.) “…Who has a form of Godliness, but denies the power there of,� is by engaging them on the personal level/road that lead them to where they are in life, and their faith, right now. Meaning reemphasize the fact that no one is born a “Christian�. It’s not a race or ethnicity, but a lifestyle and choice one makes and adopts to live. Likewise if God in Heaven (for those of course who believe or profess to believe in him), whom holds all power and knowledge and is everywhere at one time, Loves and respects humanity enough not to violate its individual human will (regardless of race, religion, ethics, sex, or what ever else you can think of by reason he has not struck the whole earth dead because no one seems to be listening to him anymore anyway), then why on earth would we (i.e. the Christian Church) do the opposite of God? The modern Christian Church needs to fall back in Love with its first Love and not these false ideals and standards they believe justify them and make them “pure� and “right� before God. Because the Bible is very clear that there is nothing we can do to justify ourselves. It is by they grace and mercy of God alone that we are saved. And when last I checked, Christ died 2,000 some odd years ago for “All Sins�. And I was only born some 24 years ago. So if he died for “All� sins then, then I think that word all would most definitely encompasses us “Gays� and those who chose to get abortions and “All� other sins we Christians seem to be getting all messed up over these days.

With that tid-bit said (and I apologize for the length of this post), I believe that one of the biggest problems facing the U.S. today is its lack of an identity. Rather, the U.S. has forgotten why and what made it a great nation in the first place. It was not our many and various industries, natural resources, greatly amassed wealth or technological advantage. Nor was it our great armed forces, air superiority, or the Twinkie. What made and will continue to make our country great (if we stay true to this ideal and find our way back to it) are our people. The many diverse and unique citizens that make up this great land. The moment all of the aforementioned advantages and accomplishments (in addition to mass market media and extremely profit hungry institutions) replaced that fundamental cannon, was the same moment our nation began to fall (and has been falling ever since). I am not sure if that exact moment can be pinpointed or blamed on a single individual or administration, but what is important is that we seek to remedy that great wrong. And boycotting a company because it refuse to infringe on individuals personal freedoms is not the right way.

As mentioned before there are many more import endeavors and causes the Christian Church (and in particular the American Family Organization) can get upset with and involved in more vehemently. There is no reason why any one (man woman or child) should be going to bed hungry. There is no reason why everyone can’t have a decent place to live and work in a country like this. There is no reason why a child should be able to graduate from high school and only read at a 3rd grade level. These along with many other fundamental problems can only be addressed if the focus of our nations success and future well being is redirected inward back on its people; truly its greatest asset. No matter the package, sexual orientation or personal choice(s) in life.

In all I hope more dialogs like this continue to be discussed and brought to the public light so that we as citizens (not just citizens of this great land but citizens of the world) can do our small part to make our corner of the world a better place. Opinions and points of view aside… Change always begins from the inside out. It’s about time we do our part. If for no other reason then to challenge those who blindly dissolve the very fabric of liberty they perpetrate as protecting.

Respectfully,

My humble opinion…lol

T.D.

Justin- I too suspect (from other posts as well) that our positions are not that far apart.  I’m still not convinced of the ability of the free market to deal with environmental issues, however.

Rather than having 100 million tiny engines it would be more efficient to have a few dozen or hundred large power plants making energy out of oil.

Yes, but we don’t have that technology yet.  And there are good reasons to produce and consume locally besides the reduction of emissions: the increase in traffic, and the concommitant building of roads, the noise, the danger (lots of previously quiet roads in villages here now have trucks roaring through, to avoid paying highway tolls).

The beauty of price theory is that if it is cheaper to produce good by shipping it to a large factory halfway across the world a couple times then it is to assemble it locally then that is the most efficient, most environmentally friendly solution. Of course, that assumes that the government has properly assessed the external costs of damage to the environment from transportation with the proper market-based regulations.

A big assumption indeed.  What, pray tell, are “proper market-based” regulations?  The only ones I know about firsthand, being a resident of Austria, are the ones imposed by the EU, which have led to the transit situation I mentioned, and also degradation of other environmental standards.  If by “market” you mean “profit for business”, then I see black, because that’s the situation that we have, and environmental protection is not sufficient when it depends upon the goodheartedness of business.  Of course, the goodheartedness of governments is not always to be trusted either.  The environmental destruction by the Soviets and Chinese (and just about everyone else) is sobering too.  Another problem is that it’s notoriously difficult to put a price on environmental destruction.
There are no easy solutions here.  The only way we have made, and can make further progress against environmental destruction, is by making it simply unthinkable, at all levels: personal, business, and governmental.  Sort of like religion.  And if profits are cut by observation of standards, so be it.

Slavery in America was also governed by “market-based regulations”.  Should the government have refrained from taking action?  Lots of people lost money when it was outlawed.  You did say “proper” market based regulations, and I assume you would consider slavery “improper”.  But what’s proper and improper cannot depend upon the free market alone- we’ve seen where that leads.

Welcome to SEB, aclearchannel!  Oxymoronic indeed!  Yes, I agree with what you find good about America and the Christian Church.  If there’s any simple answer to all of our problems, or at least a motivation to seek solutions, it can only be Love.

And theo-

Zilch:  There is no humanly achievable absolute moral code that can be logically and scientifically defended.

Theo: Why not?  Certainly if we made it subject to empirical methods it could work.

Short reply: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."- H.L. Mencken

Long reply: well, I’m not going to give a long reply, because it would be too long.  But the short long reply is that what’s good and bad is always going to be moot, because there’s your good, and my good, and Bozo the Clown’s good, and they’re not all the same.  Of course, there’s a lot of overlap- pretty much everyone agrees that murder is bad, and food is good.  And it’s out of this overlap that we try to build society, using morals, religion, laws.

Absolutes, however, do not obtain.  Partly because people will never agree about what’s good and bad, and partly because even when they do agree, how to achieve it is often an intractable problem.  For instance: say we agree that alcoholism is bad.  What do we do?  Merely forbidding alcohol didn’t work very well, did it?

Not simple, this business of being human.

Don’t be sucked in by the Never-Lovers.  Aloof cynicism might be sexy to some, but it kills civilizations…

Absolutes, however, do not obtain.  Partly because people will never agree about what’s good and bad, and partly because even when they do agree, how to achieve it is often an intractable problem…

Actually, what we have seen over the millenya of civilization is that, with enough communication, consensus does happen.  “Never” is such a strong, absolute term.

I believe in progress, and most importantly, that Reason creates unity.

A Consensus of the majority is not only possible, it happens all the time.  For example, i think on a national level there is a very, very, very large consensus against incest or, say, recreational cannibalism, or that the Khmer Rouge-esque penal system isn’t morally or economically sound.  The consensus on these issues was not achieved over-night, but mostly due to increased communication between humans.

Incest and recreational-cannibalism might seem like simple issues with which to arrive at common agreement.  But, this has not always been the case—until humans started living in fairly large groups.  Thus, the spark of exponential communication on an issue.

It might seem that consensus will “never” be achieved on such things as economics, social-regulation, or environmental-industrialization vs conservation.  But, as our civilization communicates more and in greater and greater quality, these issues shall become relative non-issues.  Arguements (don’t be such spelling-fundamentalists) to the contrary are very, very weak, examining history.

The future belongs to those that dis-believe in Never, and that teach their offspring likewise. 

The purpose of grammar and spelling is communication, not some fundamentalist excersize to stay within the lines.

rob, you apparently did not read my whole post. I also said:

Of course, there’s a lot of overlap- pretty much everyone agrees that murder is bad, and food is good.  And it’s out of this overlap that we try to build society, using morals, religion, laws.

When I said “people will never agree about what’s good and bad”, perhaps I was unclear.  I meant that there will never be complete agreement, not that there will never be any agreement.  But given what I said about overlap of agreement, I would say that you are not justified in pigeonholing me as a “Never-Lover” (sounds pretty awful- whatever that is, I’m sure I don’t want to be one).  That’s what I would characterize as quote-mining, or at least being rully picky.

Tit for tat:

The purpose of grammar and spelling is communication, not some fundamentalist excersize to stay within the lines.

I agree.  But I assume you mean “exercise”.

When I said “people will never agree about what’s good and badâ€?, perhaps I was unclear.  I meant that there will never be complete agreement, not that there will never be any agreement.

I do believe that, one day, there will be “complete agreement” about what is “good and bad”, which i would describe as this:  Understanding The Nature of Truth.  Truth has identifiable attributes.

I believe that, one day, absolute communication between humans will be possible.  The web, global media stations, and things as simple as fiberoptic and wifi are merely the nascent foundations to this massively interconnected society—a type of social structure that will ultimately generate absolutely true communication between individuals. 

When that happens i think you’ll then see a civilization wholly dedicated to the endevour of understanding Truth’s attributes, from the farmer to the scientist to the artist.

But given what I said about overlap of agreement, I would say that you are not justified in pigeonholing me as a “Never-Loverâ€? (sounds pretty awful- whatever that is, I’m sure I don’t want to be one).  That’s what I would characterize as quote-mining, or at least being rully picky.

I understood, and read, your text.  I don’t “mine quotes” or any other “troll"-like behavior you might assume/conditioned to see.  As detailed above, i disagree.  Perhaps you didn’t fully appreciate the depth with which i disagree with your text. ;-]

Absolute communication, without any mittagation or distortion, between human beings will one day be possible.  This communication struction will dove-tail into a Reason-centric, science-based civilization where uniform understanding is possible.

Perhaps i needed to drive my point more clearly home.  Truly, being a Never-Lover is a bad, old thing, and ultimately a thing of ancient, backwards eras in our history.  Take some comfort in what is possible.

I do believe that, one day, there will be “complete agreementâ€? about what is “good and badâ€?, which i would describe as this:  Understanding The Nature of Truth.  Truth has identifiable attributes.

We’ve had this conversation before.  All I can say is, whatever in the blue-eyed world gives you this idea?

Humans are not that simple.  Good and bad are not that simple.  That’s our curse- and our blessing.

Well, it’s hard to post after Zilch said almost everything that came up in my mind to post!  Grr!

Though I did manage to find a lot to comment on, apparently…

First, a digression (back to the original topic):
Not sure what article you meant, theBo$$?  But I saw the points about Ford’s support of gay organizations on that site.  My comment was more about Ford’s environmental stuff (which I’ll just come out and say I haven’t read about in a long time--though I consider their hybrid a welcome attempt to try and siphon money off where Toyota and Honda pioneered), and also just the general perception of Ford as a small town, down home, uncle Bob sorta company.  It’s a pleasant surprize.

Second, my morality:
I’m with Zilch on this one.  The best tactic is to try our best--to treat situations individually as much as possible, to learn as much as possible, to consider carefully as much as possible before deciding.  To respect each party involved.  I don’t believe that anything is inherent, so all we can do is try to be happy and healthy.  To treat others as we’d like to be so treated, and to explore our freedoms in such a way only limited by their infringement upon others’.

Rob, your ‘complete agreement’ is not only impossible, it’s dangerous.  One thing consistently demonstrated by ethnologists studying cultures--in vastly differing situations all over the world--is that there is no such thing as culture.  The only ethnological absolute is that generalizations are impossible--defining a cultural norm is always thwarted by individual choice, no matter how small, large, connected, or isolated their society may be.

When such attempts at generalization are made, especially with a goal of ultimate agreement at the end, disaster strikes.  If you think I’m kidding or overreacting, think again.

In its beginnings, anthropology was dominated largely by rich, white people who never left their own countries.  They basically sat around in their armchairs, making up theories for how evolution and culture worked, with some grand white utopia at the end of it all.  They began by assuming that non-whites would, when exposed to white society for a long period of time, begin to change skin color and language and culture automagically.  Evolution worked on a scale in which white society and appearance was the ultimate goal of every living human, and that the completion of this goal would lead to happiness and peace.

Obviously, this was not true, and anthropologists gradually came to realize their mistakes and that generalizations of behavior are impossible.  Sadly, they did not realize this soon enough to prevent the race concept and its support of slavery, not soon enough to prevent the oppression of indigenous peoples, and not soon enough to stamp out the rise of eugenics which egged on such wonderful things as the Holocaust.

Certainly, I am not ranking you with these things.  Please do not take my message that way, because I think that you honestly have the best interest of people at heart, and you seem to have a lot of hope for humanity--I think these are both wonderful things, things for which I also strive.  But my point is that in every generalization, there is a loophole.  Generalizations made with even the best of intents (such as your Truth) have some darker side--something they’re overlooking.  In a very fundamental way, and this is perhaps the only thing we can be sure to see in every human, we are each of us different.  Maybe only slightly, but to deny that difference is to underestimate humans.  How can we act for peace and happiness when we don’t understand their idiosynchratic nature?

I can only justify your complete agreement by placing it in the realm of the religious--along with Heaven, Nirvana, and the other great gigs in the sky.

Yes, but we don’t have that technology yet.  And
there are good reasons to produce and consume locally
besides the reduction of emissions: the increase in
traffic, and the concommitant building of roads, the
noise, the danger (lots of previously quiet roads in
villages here now have trucks roaring through, to avoid
paying highway tolls).

I brought up cars to help understand the strange
behavior of the German yogurt industry. There are two
ways that it could have emerged in its current form. 
The first is that having a centralized processing plant
in Italy brings efficiency gains that more than offset
the transportation costs. But you are correct to be
skeptical, I am too.

A big assumption indeed.  What, pray tell, are
“proper market-basedâ€? regulations?  The only ones I
know about firsthand, being a resident of Austria, are
the ones imposed by the EU, which have led to the
transit situation I mentioned,

I would certainly not hold up the EU as having proper
market-based regulations! Much like property rights, the role of government regulations are where liberals and conservatives diverge. Liberals believe that government regulations can reign in the abuses of corporate power, whereas conservative believe that regulations are the means to corporate abuses.

Suppose that the yogurt processing plant in Italy fell on some hard times. Layoffs might happen, perhaps the whole plant would be shut down. Regional politicians started to get concerned because that plant provides a lot of jobs. So they get together with the plant owners and start lobbying. They get some subisidies and tax breaks in order to “save jobs.” With the tax breaks and subsidies it is now actually cheaper to ship your milk from Germany to Italy for it to be turned into yogurt. The yogurt facilities in Germany did not have such aggressive policians and lobbyists so they just quietly went under.

There is another way this could have happened. The dairy industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries because of the chances that the milk will spoil. You end up with literally thousands of pages of legal regulations to comply with about sanity, transportation, pasteurization, and inspections. Complying with these regulations is expensive and forces you into large economies of scale. I’m sure many readers of this blog are familiar with issues around organic food and small farming. For the most part they can’t compete with the big guys - not because they can’t make a quality product for a low price - but because the agricultural regulations are tailored towards large farms. This happens in every industry; it is not unique to agriculture. It may be the case that a factory that complies with the necessary safety regulations for processing dairy has to be a large factory, so the industry has to follow a model in which people ship their milk from neighboring countries.

Or alternately, the factory in Italy lobbied regulators to have a clause put in the regulations that favors choosing their factory over others. The solution is not to make government larger and more opaque. That just makes it easier for businesses to keep a low profile while perverting the system.

Slavery in America was also governed by “market-based
regulationsâ€?. 

Actually slavery wasn’t. Even ignoring the basic human rights aspect of slavery, (and let us recognize that human rights are not things granted by the government, they are areas of our life in which the government is not allowed to touch) the south ultimately had to pass laws to prevent slaves from buying their freedom because too many were doing so. There were also laws to prevent owners from simply freeing their slaves. In a free market capital resources end out where they can be most profitably used. For example, an owner could make more money from a skilled slave than an unskilled field hand. But that also required investing in the slaves training, and to have to establish some sort of partnership and compensation. The more skilled the slave the more bargaining power he got. That meant he could make more money. Ultimately he would buy their own freedom, so Southern states passed laws to stop this trend.

Slaves could be bought and sold but slavery did not follow free market principles. It took government regulations over who could buy and sell slaves (namely, white people) to keep the practice going. It is another example of how government interference amplifies the power of the wealthy.

transportation, pastuerization, and inspections. Complying with these regulations is expensive and forces you into large economies of scale. I’m sure many readers of this blog are familiar with issues around organic food and small farming. For the most part they can’t compete with the big guys - not because they can’t make a quality product for a low price - but because the agricultural regulations are tailored towards large farms. This happens in every industry; it is not unique to agriculture. It may be the case that a factory that complies with the necessary safety regulations for processing dairy has to be a large factory, so the industry has to follow a model in which people ship their milk from neighboring countries.

Or alternately, the factory in Italy lobbied regulators to have a clause put in the regulations that favors choosing their factory over others. The solution is not to make government larger and more opaque. That just makes it easier for businesses to keep a low profile while perverting the system.

Slavery in America was also governed by “market-based regulationsâ€?. 

Actually slavary wasn’t. Even ignoring the basic human rights aspect of slavery, (and let us recognize that human rights are not things granted by the government, they are areas of our life in which the government is not allowed to touch) the south ultimately had to pass laws to prevent slaves from buying their freedom because too many were doing so. There were also laws to prevent owners from simply freeing their slaves. In a free market capital resources end out where they can be most profitably used. For example, an owner could make more money from a skilled slave than an unskilled field hand. But that also means investing in his training and have to establish some sort of partnership and compensation. The more skilled the slave the more money the acquired. Ultimately they would buy their own freedom, so Southern states passed laws to prevent this trend.

Slaves could be bought and sold but slavery did not follow free market principles. It took government regulations over who could buy and sell slaves (namely, white people) to keep the practice going. It is another example of how the wealthy and powerful can use the government to keep the disenfranchised down.

shana, I must have been channeling you…
I’ve noticed, however, that sometimes you channel me, but do I complain?

Another thought, from Raymond Smullyan:

What makes you so sure that self-consciousness about right and wrong does not in fact lead to more wrong acts than right ones? Do you honestly believe that so-called amoral people, when it comes to action rather than theory, behave less ethically than moralists? Of course not! Even most moralists acknowledge the ethical superiority of the behavior of most of those who theoretically take an amoral position. They seem to be surprised that without ethical principles these people behave so nicely! It never seems to occur to them that it is by virtue of the very lack of moral principles that their good behavior flows so freely!

-from Is God a Taoist?.  The speaker here is God.

I would have to agree with zilch and shana.  Throughout history, various cultures have had practices that many would feel are “wrong"- state sanctioned sacrifices, incest, infanticide, cannibalism, etc… So far, only the anthropocentric viewpoint has been brought forth, adding the rest of the earth’s species (even discounting those organisms who have only ganglionic groups or less as opposed to a brain) shows that what is “good” or “bad” is relative.  What if there is extraterrestrial life?  How likely would it be that they would share (generalized) human values?  If you go one further step and look at values from the Universe (or the quantum level), what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things what happens to an individual organism or even a whole species?  One of my favorite song lyrics is :
“Turn the earth to sand/ And still commit no crime...”

Rob, your ‘complete agreement’ is not only impossible, it’s dangerous.  One thing consistently demonstrated by ethnologists studying cultures--in vastly differing situations all over the world--is that there is no such thing as culture.  The only ethnological absolute is that generalizations are impossible--defining a cultural norm is always thwarted by individual choice, no matter how small, large, connected, or isolated their society may be.
...
I can only justify your complete agreement by placing it in the realm of the religious--along with Heaven, Nirvana, and the other great gigs in the sky.

Human perception and thought is reducable to one organ in the body.  If you connext each human’s brain to the other, through technology (sorry, Heaven’s got nothing to do with this, Shana), then yes, absolute-communication is entirely possible.

Never fall in love with concept of Impossibility
That love shall truly fail you, especially when science and technology are involved.

Human perception and thought is reducable to one organ in the body.  If you connext each human’s brain to the other, through technology (sorry, Heaven’s got nothing to do with this, Shana), then yes, absolute-communication is entirely possible.

Being able communicate absolutley does not necessitate absolute agreement on what is “good” or “bad”.

Originally posted by warbi:
Being able communicate absolutley does not necessitate absolute agreement on what is “good� or “bad�.

Are you sure?  Closed societies always seem to be able to agree on moral values from what I can tell.  Native American tribes, African tribes, Nazis, Communists, etc. are all examples of closed societies that agreed for the most part within their society what is morally acceptable.  So if humanity began to see itself as a world society wouldn’t we eventually be able to agree on moral issues in the process of world utopia?

Originally posted by zilch:
Absolutes, however, do not obtain.  Partly because people will never agree about what’s good and bad, and partly because even when they do agree, how to achieve it is often an intractable problem.  For instance: say we agree that alcoholism is bad.  What do we do?  Merely forbidding alcohol didn’t work very well, did it?

Because we live in a pluralistic society does not mean we should give up on the absolute moral code necessary to develop a world utopia.  We can not argue with the empirical so we must make it our basis for deciding our morals.  So we agree that alcoholism is bad.  Let’s assume their is an empirical reason for coming to this conclusion e.g. statistics of increased medical risks and general bad behavior associated with it).  We can deduce that we will not reach a utopia any faster if we choose something self destructive to ourselves and the people around us.  What we do as individuals is look at the evidence against becoming an alcohlic and decide we would prefer utopia to the possible effects of alcohol because it is in our own best interest.

We do nothing to make laws banning it but simply help people to realize it is in their own best interests not to choose it.  I don’t know how the truth commercials have done at affecting public opinion of smoking, but I have noticed a significant decrease in use amongst my own peers from middle school to college.  In my home county smoking has recently been banned in all public buildings and restaurants.  On my college campus no one is allowed to smoke within 25 feet of the entrance to any building on campus.  I believe utopia is an achievable goal if we realize we are a world society dependent on each other for own well being.

Theo, we’ll start with the Communists.  You have Marxists and Stalinists at two poles and others in between.  That is one reason the Communists never win big elections in Spain- they are too fractured.  Even within closed societies, there will be some disagreement and aberrant individuals.  If you are going to base your ethics on certain logical reasoning whose logic will you use?  Plato’s, Marquis de Sade’s, Kant’s, Rousseau’s, Nietzsche’s, Hobbes’s, Christainity, Buddhism?

Being able communicate absolutley does not necessitate absolute agreement on what is “good� or “bad�.

I, along with legion, believe you might be very wrong.  We’re not the first to disagree on this question, however.  There are whole philosophical schools and entire, lifelong academic wars based upon this question:  how do we know something?

Like Descartes’ epistemology, i too subscribe to the notion that we only know that with which we have physically percieved.  I also take it one step further in saying that many of our rational differences as human beings originates from differences in perception.

Humans have ALWAYS solved the communication gap via technology.  ALWAYS.  From pictures to language to text to music to the web to the human-global-web i predict, we have always tried to bridge the communication (and, thus, the ideological drive) through better, and fatter communication.

The web is merely the most recent effort.
As we learn to “communicate” and “share physical perceptions” in increasingly sophisticated ways, our ideological and ethical differences will slowly, by surely, fade to nothing until we achieve undiminished, perfect communication.

Communication only breeds understanding.
See through you neighbors eyes to understand him.
People who share experiences share an understanding.

Are you sure?  Closed societies always seem to be able to agree on moral values from what I can tell.  Native American tribes, African tribes, Nazis, Communists, etc. are all examples of closed societies that agreed for the most part within their society what is morally acceptable.

Quit romanticizing small societies.  They’re no more conformist in ideology than all of America. You only think they agree because their cultures are always presented as one static set than as the dynamic of behaviors they truly are/were.

Connecting brains does not mean that people will think the same thoughts.  Or is that what you intend?  EVEN SCARIER.
Really, if my brain were connected to my mother’s, she would still prefer green and I would still prefer blue--and that’s just colors.  Wait until we get to politics!

Achieving a collective empathy is a great goal.
The one thing that makes it possible for us to get along is compromise in the form of acceptance--acceptance that your neighbor lives differently from yourself without feeling like you must live in the same way.  But to assume that such understanding would make everyone see the light and adopt the same perception seems naive to me.  How could you be sure that every single person agreed?  What would you do with dissenters?  Some people would be prevented from agreeing by emotional and psychological disorders--what would you do with them?  How would you know that you’d really acheived the goal?

I think of knowledge as an onion with infinite layers.  No matter how far you penetrate into someone else’s understanding, I think it most unlikely you could penetrate all the layers.  Furthermore, I wouldn’t want someone to know me that way.  It would take away my individuality, quite literally.  Culture would cease to be an adaptation for dealing with new situations; it would instead be dead weight.  What would we do, then, when confronted with something our bodies couldn’t immediately handle?  Do you realize that by adopting all the same perceptions of the world, humanity would lose its creativity?

shana- what you say.  You rummagin’ around in my noggin again?  Be my guest, but avoid the dark corners…

rob say: As we learn to “communicate� and “share physical perceptions� in increasingly sophisticated ways, our ideological and ethical differences will slowly, by surely, fade to nothing until we achieve undiminished, perfect communication.

Bilgewater.  Where in the ever-lovin’ world do you get these bizarre notions?  Sounds like a mixture of the Age of Aquarius and the Vulcan Mind Meld.

I really liked that quote, btw, zilch!  I meant to say it but I guess I got carried away with all the wonderful thoughts in your head...

Sorry to traduple-dip, but I was thinking about this some more!

I think I was trying to say this also, but couldn’t find the words:  If we were capable of achieving such perfect communication, then upon achieving it, we would cease to be human.