I agree with Wilmot. I think Jacob was so overcome with logic that he resorted to illogical, extreme statements that he does not necessarily agree with in order to maintain some kind of power or face or something subjective. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not actually refrain from raping someone just because of an economics issue. If he of course maintains this position then I will stop giving him such a benefit.
Jacob is not the best at making himself not sound crazy, but he made clear elsewhere that he has tons of empathy. I would like to ask him to make sure, but knowing human nature I am fairly certain that empathy would enter (prominently) into his “calculation” as well.
He is right in that morality is a sloppy term. It’s empathy and fear of consequences (edit to cover all bases: including divine judgment and feelings of guilt; 2nd edit: also there is our sense of justice) that stop people from raping and killing. Just consider your own self and I think you’ll agree.
One, how do you define empathy and its difference to morality?
Two, how do you propose to know what keeps people from raping? Somehow this is clear to you but morality is some kind of bizarro world you cannot comprehend.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait a second. All the oh-so-sophisticated members of the church of stirner now want to deny that Jacob is a leading member of the congregation ?
And what’s so bad about one or two rapes anyway ? Jacob supports FULL SCALE MURDER whenever the republican party or the establishment says it’s the “expedient” thing to do.
Jakob told me that if there was no law he would murder without fear of consequence, he does not need the party to abide by it as it would seem…
Looks like my edit was too late (note my revision and see if that doesn’t clear things up). Empathy commonly means “putting yourself in another’s shoes.” If morality is the same as empathy, that’s fine, but then why have two words for the same thing?
Judging from Wilderness’s sig, Rothbard defines morality differently: “…‘the good’ is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The ‘bad’ is whatever injures such an entity’s life or prosperity.” From this context, it seems Rothbard is saying that morality is a pointless concept, because all there really are are actions that are conducive/injurious to an entity’s life and prosperity. If that is Rothbard’s position, then I am in agreement with Rothbard in that quote (not to imply that it’s right just because he said it, but just to give a credible definition of “morality”).
I’m open to the idea that Rothbard’s “good”/“bad” are not the same as “morality,” but then please give me a definition for “morality” so we can talk.
You’re right, I don’t know for absolute sure (hence the “I think you’ll agree”). I should have prefaced it: “I suggest that it’s empathy and fear of consequences that stop people from raping and killing.”
Huh?
Empathy or ‘putting yourself in someone else’s shoes’ is establishing a code of coduct to follow and therefore is morality.
Ok better word usage. Why do you think that fear and empathy are all that stop rapes and murders?
Let me state that more clearly: Empathy is the ability (and tendency) of people to put themselves in someone else’s shoes, or the emotions associated with such act. The tendency part of if obviously often fails, but for me at least - and for most of us I hope - I find it pretty hard not to feel empathy (and resulting pain/discomfort) at the thought of harming a random stranger or kitten, etc. Unfortunately, for most people (probably me included) that can be overridden by other beliefs. Anyway, empathy is an emotional capacity. One could certainly establish a code of conduct that strives not to offend the human sense of empathy. Is that how you define morality?
In modern-day society, there is a sense in most people that rape and murder are “morally wrong,” and but I would class that under “fear” (of feeling guilty later or of getting punished, ostracized, going to Hell, etc.).
If we move it an Adam and Eve scenario, or a few people without any socially ingrained moral or religious sense on a desert island, I think it’d be just pure fear and empathy. I of course am basing this on my own self and my life experiences, so I cannot know for certain. Guilt is an interesting one. I think guilt has to be learned by imitation, but most everyone ends up learning it through familial and social reinforcement.
What would these beliefs be? What would override your reluctance to killing a kitten?
What about considering it a moral wrong simply because of the act itself? Unjustly coercing an individual.
I think morality would have to be purposely neglected and even then I believe that it cannot be. For where there is more then one, there is a social code describing the nature of interaction.
If I believed the kitten would eat my family. I just mentioned that beliefs could override empathy so that people wouldn’t assume I was saying “empathy stops all crimes” or something.
That is an irrational belief. What makes you suppose a kitten can eat your family?
Good point, I did forget about the human sense of justice (I’ve edited original post again). So now we have fear, empathy, and a sense of justice as deterrents to rape and murder. One could certainly establish a code of conduct designed not to offend humans’ sense of justice. Is that your definition of morality? If I can find a definition of morality that is both useful and non-sloppy, I will recant my previous statements with respect to that definition.
Definitely, but people believe all sorts of irrational things. My point was that people’s beliefs can override empathy, just so that no one would misinterpret me and think that I am saying that empathy is panacea.
What would you consider ‘non-sloppy and useful’?
Well, what is the definition of “morality” most people use here? Or if there is no consensus, what is your definition?
I would agree that empathy plays largely into the equation and is, sometimes, equated with morality - which isn’t a bad thing. Maybe that’s the difference between Jacob and some of the others here who do not necessarily see morality as inherent.
I mean, I’m a libertine, not a sadist.
Wow. I think Bloom is a real life example of D&D’s Neutral Evil alignment.
You mean that religion and statism can override empathy?
Could you give me some examples of the beliefs that can prevent murder other than empathy or the fear of consequences?