12 ms·

I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral

I understand your point of view. I accept your position that even though a system (theoretical) is not immoral in its design, it is very probable to be immoral in its execution. This is something that I think most people don't argue about and only focus on theoretical. I like your directness here. Now we probably disagree on what is immoral and not. I, for instance, think that theft of private property is immoral. Therefore the concept of private property is required in a moral society to begin with. Let me ask you a question and see if I can get an honest response, and let's assume that utopia will never exist. Which system do you think is best for society at large. (*Best being, least amount of people killed, most amount of people not in poverty.) If you'd like to argue about the definition of best (it's loose) I'd be happy to.

erikb 9y ago
(I like the discusssion about morality as well, but can't fit it into the discussion about the best system. Therefore it follows in a second comment.) It's really hard to argue that way for me. How do you set the limit between the never existing utopia, and the best realistic society? This is the fourth version of a response and each previous one included a description of how I see utopia. If we accept that no matter what utopia we describe, it will never happen, then I think whatever is already there is the best that can be there. To define a difference we would also need to show how to change the current situation to get there. I don't think that is possible. Taking a card game metapher: You can reshuffle, you can give different people different cards, you can rename the cards. But you can't decide to play a board game instead. To get to the top of skillful card playing, one would need to be a really good card player. So we can assume that all people at the top are good card players. But once you are at the top the incentive to change the system decreases, because you gain most from the existing system. Also you are a really good card player. Changing to board games may even decrease your success rate. It is the logical conclusion, and therefore probably the best that can be. How would you describe the best system but exclude utopia?
- goatlover 9y ago
  The best realistic system is the one that has the greatest positive impact for the most people. And capitalism wins on that account by a country mile. It's not perfect, because people aren't perfect, and governmental policies to keep the worst impulses in check aren't perfect. But it sure as heck does raise the standard of living for almost everyone over time.
  - erikb 9y ago
    Can you define standard of living in non-monetary terms?Probably not. Yes, capitalism raises the monetary value of individuals the most. But if that again is a quality of life is discussable. Since we are not living in feudalism, you wouldn't say raising the amount of inheritable titles you own is a quality of life. But that is what feudalism is best at. From a feudalist perspective capitalism sucks. You pay taxes on your inheritance, and you can only inherit ownership. Capitalism also makes people grow apart, so from a communist perspective capitalism really sucks. Owning nothing but a good relationship with your neighbors would be valued highly in communism. In fact ownership doesn't really even exist in communist POV. You need to evaluate the system from outside the system, or it's not really an evaluation.
    - tertius 9y ago
      > standard of living Access to sanitation, medical treatment, nutrition, shelter, opportunity (the pursuit of happiness), justice. (I could go on...)
erikb 9y ago
Morality. The funny thing about it is it needs to be there so you can follow it. For instance without a definition of property and theft you can't steal something and therefore it wouldn't be immoral. If nobody owns the car it doesn't matter if you take it or I take it. Only by owning it it becomes immoral for the other person to do it. I believe moral is not a natural constant. I believe it is defined as part of the system, a guideline for acting in the system. In one system it is totally fine to kill another man for being part of another religion. It may even be immoral to keep him alive. In another system a man's life is considered more valuabe than his believes, therefore it becomes immoral to kill him, and moral to accept his different religion. In that regard moral is similar to law, but where law tries to be specific, moral is general on purpose to be applied more widely.

erikb 9y ago

(I like the discusssion about morality as well, but can't fit it into the discussion about the best system. Therefore it follows in a second comment.) It's really hard to argue that way for me. How do you set the limit between the never existing utopia, and the best realistic society? This is the fourth version of a response and each previous one included a description of how I see utopia. If we accept that no matter what utopia we describe, it will never happen, then I think whatever is already there is the best that can be there. To define a difference we would also need to show how to change the current situation to get there. I don't think that is possible. Taking a card game metapher: You can reshuffle, you can give different people different cards, you can rename the cards. But you can't decide to play a board game instead. To get to the top of skillful card playing, one would need to be a really good card player. So we can assume that all people at the top are good card players. But once you are at the top the incentive to change the system decreases, because you gain most from the existing system. Also you are a really good card player. Changing to board games may even decrease your success rate. It is the logical conclusion, and therefore probably the best that can be. How would you describe the best system but exclude utopia?

goatlover 9y ago
The best realistic system is the one that has the greatest positive impact for the most people. And capitalism wins on that account by a country mile. It's not perfect, because people aren't perfect, and governmental policies to keep the worst impulses in check aren't perfect. But it sure as heck does raise the standard of living for almost everyone over time.
- erikb 9y ago
  Can you define standard of living in non-monetary terms?Probably not. Yes, capitalism raises the monetary value of individuals the most. But if that again is a quality of life is discussable. Since we are not living in feudalism, you wouldn't say raising the amount of inheritable titles you own is a quality of life. But that is what feudalism is best at. From a feudalist perspective capitalism sucks. You pay taxes on your inheritance, and you can only inherit ownership. Capitalism also makes people grow apart, so from a communist perspective capitalism really sucks. Owning nothing but a good relationship with your neighbors would be valued highly in communism. In fact ownership doesn't really even exist in communist POV. You need to evaluate the system from outside the system, or it's not really an evaluation.
  - tertius 9y ago
    > standard of living Access to sanitation, medical treatment, nutrition, shelter, opportunity (the pursuit of happiness), justice. (I could go on...)

erikb 9y ago

Morality. The funny thing about it is it needs to be there so you can follow it. For instance without a definition of property and theft you can't steal something and therefore it wouldn't be immoral. If nobody owns the car it doesn't matter if you take it or I take it. Only by owning it it becomes immoral for the other person to do it. I believe moral is not a natural constant. I believe it is defined as part of the system, a guideline for acting in the system. In one system it is totally fine to kill another man for being part of another religion. It may even be immoral to keep him alive. In another system a man's life is considered more valuabe than his believes, therefore it becomes immoral to kill him, and moral to accept his different religion. In that regard moral is similar to law, but where law tries to be specific, moral is general on purpose to be applied more widely.