I find it odd what conclusions these "ought from is" people tend to draw. They seem to me to end up inevitably where they started long ago, at the pulpit of the popes, admonishing us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Well, to balance all that, I'll toss my hat into the "ought from is" ring. I say, let's have Newtonian Ethics. For every action let there be an equal and opposite reaction.
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.
This is Lex talionis in its positive, negative, and neutral aspects, taking the atom as its metaphorical model, with its proton, electron, and neutron.
Be magnanimous toward me in my youth and I will be magnanimous toward you in your old age. This is Newton for posterity.
Attempt to beat me down and I will attempt to beat you down in return. This is Newton for dignity.
Be silent when you learn I am different from you and I will be silent when I learn you are different from me. This is Newton for self-expression.
By what logic do I defend this ethic? By this: if we live as Newtonians our civilization will progress with the regal clockwork orderliness of the heavenly spheres.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 10:45:18 AM
By what logic do I defend this ethic? By this: if we live as Newtonians our civilization will progress with the regal clockwork orderliness of the heavenly spheres.
Which includes asteroids randomly crashing into planets.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 11, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 10:45:18 AM
By what logic do I defend this ethic? By this: if we live as Newtonians our civilization will progress with the regal clockwork orderliness of the heavenly spheres.
Which includes asteroids randomly crashing into planets.
And by "randomly", you mean..?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 11, 2011, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 11, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 11, 2011, 10:45:18 AM
By what logic do I defend this ethic? By this: if we live as Newtonians our civilization will progress with the regal clockwork orderliness of the heavenly spheres.
Which includes asteroids randomly crashing into planets.
And by "randomly", you mean..?
Random: 1) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at
chance. 2) Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3) Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 11, 2011, 02:56:15 PM
Random: 1) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance. 2) Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3) Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
How is an asteroid colliding with a planet random then?
While Newtonian physics would allow you to predict when and where an asteroid would land (if you were lucky enough to see it coming), the universe isn't as orderly at other levels.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 11, 2011, 03:50:51 PM
While Newtonian physics would allow you to predict when and where an asteroid would land (if you were lucky enough to see it coming), the universe isn't as orderly at other levels.
You could also predict whether or not it would land at all. Some complex calculations involving the speed of all involved objects, gravity, trajectories and probably a whole mess of other factors, and the prediction is born :D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 11, 2011, 03:50:51 PM
While Newtonian physics would allow you to predict when and where an asteroid would land (if you were lucky enough to see it coming), the universe isn't as orderly at other levels.
The more we learn about the universe, the more orderly we discover it to be. Chaos theory itself is really a theory of super-complex radical order. Unpredictability doesn't arise from disorder but rather from limited knowledge. The uncertainty principle is a dictum as to what we can and can't know. Our ability to predict the future increases with our knowledge of the present.
In any case, it isn't predictability I seek and espouse, but balance. Nature at every level has a tendency to settle into equilibrium at some particular point of balance. This is true of the orbiting planets, the competing and cooperating species in the forest, the competing and cooperating systems in your body, and the electrons and protons in the atom.
Interesting. I can see how it would work for an individual but you seem to be advocate it for everyone. Suppose we were all Newtonians:
Quote from: Pharaoh CatHelp me or give to me and I will help you or give to you in return. This is Newton for commerce.
but I will not help you, as you have not helped me before. So we both do nothing.
Quote from: Pharaoh CatHurt me or take from me unbidden and I will hurt you or take from you in return. This is Newton for legality.
but I will not hurt you, as you have not hurt me before. So we both do nothing.
Quote from: Pharaoh CatDo nothing for or against me and I will do nothing for or against you in return. This is Newton for peace.
This seems to be the inevitable conclusion. Your system seems to be all about
response as opposed to
initiative; what could we respond to, as a bunch of mirrors simply reflecting one another?
I don't see how civilization would "progress with the regal clockwork orderliness of the heavenly spheres." It sounds more like stagnation.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 11, 2011, 02:58:41 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 11, 2011, 02:56:15 PM
Random: 1) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance. 2) Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3) Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
How is an asteroid colliding with a planet random then?
No specific pattern, purpose or objective - no one is directing the asteroid to collide with the planet - and the collision has no purpose or design. It's described by probability distribution - it will happen at a particular rate, but at this point it is impossible to predict. An asteroid may be on a collision course, with a planet in 200 years, and something may occur to take it off course. Why do you think it is not random? Do you have a different concept of random?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 12, 2011, 10:04:21 PM
No specific pattern, purpose or objective
No human constructs does not really equal randomness, does it..? As far as the patterns go, well, that one is debateable.
Quote- no one is directing the asteroid to collide with the planet -
Gravity is not a some
one, but it IS a some
thing. As is momentum trajectory and all the rest of the cool physics stuff.
QuoteAn asteroid may be on a collision course, with a planet in 200 years, and something may occur to take it off course. Why do you think it is not random? Do you have a different concept of random?
Something like... Another object diverting it with its gravity..? That wouldn't really be a random act either. For instance, if an asteroid on the collision course with mars smashes into Jupiter in stead, then the issue really is that someone screwed up when accounting for all the stuff between, or on the way to being between, it and Mars.
I'm not arguing for an asteroid having a masterplan, just that the randomness of its eventual point of collision doesn't seem quite random enough.
Quote from: Melmoth on December 12, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Interesting. I can see how it would work for an individual but you seem to be advocate it for everyone. Suppose we were all Newtonians:
Quote from: Pharaoh CatHelp me or give to me and I will help you or give to you in return. This is Newton for commerce.
but I will not help you, as you have not helped me before. So we both do nothing.
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...
Quote from: Asmodean on December 12, 2011, 10:23:28 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 12, 2011, 10:04:21 PM
No specific pattern, purpose or objective
No human constructs does not really equal randomness, does it..? As far as the patterns go, well, that one is debateable.
Quote- no one is directing the asteroid to collide with the planet -
Gravity is not a someone, but it IS a something. As is momentum trajectory and all the rest of the cool physics stuff.
QuoteAn asteroid may be on a collision course, with a planet in 200 years, and something may occur to take it off course. Why do you think it is not random? Do you have a different concept of random?
Something like... Another object diverting it with its gravity..? That wouldn't really be a random act either. For instance, if an asteroid on the collision course with mars smashes into Jupiter in stead, then the issue really is that someone screwed up when accounting for all the stuff between, or on the way to being between, it and Mars.
I'm not arguing for an asteroid having a masterplan, just that the randomness of its eventual point of collision doesn't seem quite random enough.
So, are you a determinist? What would be an example of something random?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 12, 2011, 02:12:14 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 11, 2011, 03:50:51 PM
While Newtonian physics would allow you to predict when and where an asteroid would land (if you were lucky enough to see it coming), the universe isn't as orderly at other levels.
The more we learn about the universe, the more orderly we discover it to be. Chaos theory itself is really a theory of super-complex radical order. Unpredictability doesn't arise from disorder but rather from limited knowledge. The uncertainty principle is a dictum as to what we can and can't know. Our ability to predict the future increases with our knowledge of the present.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 12, 2011, 10:50:50 PM
So, are you a determinist? What would be an example of something random?
A toss of a balanced coin, for instance.
With this Newtonionism, I can just see someone saying that god would have to be the "first mover", as Aquinas put it...
Quote from: Asmodean on December 12, 2011, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 12, 2011, 10:50:50 PM
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...
???
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 12, 2011, 11:51:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 12, 2011, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 12, 2011, 10:50:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 13, 2011, 12:52:19 AM
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... :P
Quote from: Pharaoh CatYou'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.
Quote from: Melmoth on December 13, 2011, 11:06:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Melmoth on December 13, 2011, 11:06:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Twentythree on December 27, 2011, 11:48:13 PM
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.