Newtonian Ethics

[xSilverPhinx]

With this Newtonionism, I can just see someone saying that god would have to be the "first mover", as Aquinas put it...

So, are you a determinist?  What would be an example of something random? 

A toss of a balanced coin, for instance.

Random as in down to chance then? Because if you're talking about the physics, it's just more complex, but not random...

??? 

[Asmodean]

Random as in down to chance then? Because if you're talking about the physics, it's just more complex, but not random...

???  

I am disregarding the fact that there is no perfect coin and the force of a toss and the number of flips can be analysed after the coin is tossed by someone who does not know the outcome, but can calculate it within reasonable margin, given enough no-life factor and determination.

Yes, basically, I do tend to understand "random" as a product of chance (At least that is how I define it here. It can also be synonimous with any, for instance). Under perfect conditions, prior to tossing a coin, you can hardly predict with more than fifty percent accuracy what the outcome will be. Then, getting it wrong (or right) is not down to faulty (Or correct) calculations.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So, are you a determinist?  What would be an example of something random? 

A toss of a balanced coin, for instance.

Well, gravity works on that, too, and the side that it lands on can probably be explained in terms of 1) which side was up when it was tossed; 2) how much force was used to toss it; 3) the position of the thumb under the coin when it was tossed; 4) air pressure and elevation; etc., etc., etc.  Asteroids hitting planets and coin tosses are in the same category, IMO, and I consider them random, even though known, quantifiable forces and laws are at work in both instances.  But, we are, I think, picking nits.

[Asmodean]

Well, gravity works on that, too, and the side that it lands on can probably be explained in terms of 1) which side was up when it was tossed; 2) how much force was used to toss it; 3) the position of the thumb under the coin when it was tossed; 4) air pressure and elevation; etc., etc., etc.  Asteroids hitting planets and coin tosses are in the same category, IMO, and I consider them random, even though known, quantifiable forces and laws are at work in both instances.  But, we are, I think, picking nits.

Refer to my last post.

Indeed, we are nitpickering. It's late and I'm sort of bored, you see... 

[Melmoth]

You're forgetting commerce.  Sellers offer to help or give (some product) to me and if I accept, I automatically agree to help or give (money) to them in return.  Happens every day - heck, every minute, every second...

Ah, I see. Strictly business. I wonder what you think of welfare, or of 'reform' as opposed to 'justice' for criminals. Different topic.

So what of commerce on a more personal level: when someone is nice to you, can there be an automatic agreement that you'll be nice back? If there were, surely that would render their niceness insincere - the only reason they're doing it is to get something out of you - so would it still be worthy of reciprocation?

Or would you argue that this is all that 'being nice' amounts to anyway, in all cases - a sort of manipulative pandering that people only do to fish for compliments and favours for themselves. If so, I won't disagree with you, but it sounds like we're all Newtonians already.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Ah, I see. Strictly business. I wonder what you think of welfare, or of 'reform' as opposed to 'justice' for criminals. Different topic.

I give to charities that are accomplishing something I want to see accomplished.  They're rendering me a service by doing what I would do if I didn't have other things to do. 

So what of commerce on a more personal level: when someone is nice to you, can there be an automatic agreement that you'll be nice back? If there were, surely that would render their niceness insincere - the only reason they're doing it is to get something out of you - so would it still be worthy of reciprocation?

An agreement in advance to trade favors would be barter and perfectly legitimate from any perspective.

When someone does me a kindness out of the goodness of their heart, I look for an opportunity to return the favor.

If I can tell the person is trying to manipulate me, I reject their help unless I need it badly enough to endure the indignity, and I don't reciprocate if I can gracefully avoid doing so.

I look for opportunities to deposit favors into people's moral bank accounts, so as to develop a credit balance I can withdraw from in the future.

Friendship is a relationship characterized by an automatic willingness to do favors for one another and the certainty that this is so for both parties.

[Twentythree]

From a purely evolutionary perspective you have to realize that "Newtonian Ethics" Is critically flawed. In your example, to draw from Dawkins, everyone would be reciprocators and no one would be manipulators. Therefore a single genetic mutation toward manipulation would cause the population to slowly drift toward a manipulator dominant population. Then of course the pendulum would swing back and forth until an equilibrium is reached meaning a sufficient number of manipulators and reciprocators would have to exist in order to stabilize the population. Human beings are quite stable as a species, especially considering the fact that as a species we are still quite young. It is necessary for some of us to be more gullible, more skeptical, more prone to love and commitment and more prone to betrayal and self indulgent, more violent, more passive etc. It is a blending of the "Hawks" and "Doves". Plain old "Newtonian" reciprocation is flawed and is inherently unstable form an evolutionary perspective.

[Pharaoh Cat]

From a purely evolutionary perspective you have to realize that "Newtonian Ethics" Is critically flawed. In your example, to draw from Dawkins, everyone would be reciprocators and no one would be manipulators. Therefore a single genetic mutation toward manipulation would cause the population to slowly drift toward a manipulator dominant population.

In the games described by Dawkins, reciprocators weren't playing as I've recommended.

Here's what I said in the OP:

-------
Help me or give to me and I will help you or give to you in return.  This is Newton for commerce.

Hurt me or take from me unbidden and I will hurt you or take from you in return.  This is Newton for legality.

Do nothing for or against me and I will do nothing for or against you in return.  This is Newton for peace. 
-------

In the games described by Dawkins, there was no system of commerce, where I could offer products or services in exchange for money and expect in the vast majority of cases to receive that money, due to the existence of a legal system with armed enforcers.  Nor was there a system in place for providing thieves or cheats with severe consequences either directly or indirectly, the indirect method being to avail oneself of the forementioned legal system with armed enforcers.  Nor was there an opportunity to decline to interact at all with someone who wasn't offering a product or service for sale or whose product or service was undesirable.

There is, of course, an experiment in game theory continually under way, wherein Newtonian Ethics as described above is being rigorously tested, not on a computer, nor in a lab, but in the wild.  That experiment is capitalism.