Morality and Perception: Defining Good Morals

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, no one ever claimed that free markets were truly "free", its just a term. They're free in terms of allowing a large degree of freedom, not in being anarchy.

The way I see it, the world has limited resources, and they have to be divided among people in some way. In my opinion, prices are the fairest way. Sometimes, people get screwed by this because of unfortunate circumstances, but more often than not they just get screwed by other people who aren't following the rules, not by the market itself.

The market is set up to favor those in certain circumstances, mostly because it was set up by those people.

 

[Xori]

The market is set up to favor those in certain circumstances, mostly because it was set up by those people.

I disagree that your first point logically leads to the second one.

I also disagree with the first point entirely. I think the market was set up to be an efficient economic system, and coincidentally favors some people (more intelligent people) because they are often able to take advantage of it better.

By the same principle, you could say that a game of chess is extremely unfair because the smarter person has a huge advantage. In my opinion, the game is still fair, but the results won't be a perfect distribution of resources.

 

[Xori]

Consider this: Set up any simple game that does not favor one group of people over another?

No matter what you do, there will be some factors that help in winning the game, whether it requires intelligence, physical strength, creativity, etc... "Fairness" is not in the result, but in the equal opportunity to compete.

 

[JoeDawg]

I disagree that your first point logically leads to the second one.

I also disagree with the first point entirely. I think the market was set up to be an efficient economic system, and coincidentally favors some people (more intelligent people) because they are often able to take advantage of it better.

I don't think intelligence is really an issue here. I know lots of intelligent people who can do the math, but can't keep their cheque book balanced. It favors those who have stuff they don't need, people who want to leverage that, to get other stuff. It favors greed and self interest.

By the same principle, you could say that a game of chess is extremely unfair because the smarter person has a huge advantage. In my opinion, the game is still fair, but the results won't be a perfect distribution of resources.

Of course if you start out with all the pieces and your opponent only has her king, its likely you are going to win. Its also likely that you are going to win, if you have played for years and if I don't know how to play chess.

 

[Xori]

I don't think intelligence is really an issue here. I know lots of intelligent people who can do the math, but can't keep their cheque book balanced. It favors those who have stuff they don't need, people who want to leverage that, to get other stuff. It favors greed and self interest.

Your sample size of intelligent people that can't balance their checkbook is intriguiging, but irrelavant. There is a correlation between income and IQ in a capitalistic society. More intelligent people have an easier time attaining higher education, getting better jobs, moving up, etc... Do you not agree?

Greed and self-interest is common to all humans, its the way we express them that differes. This is a different topic though: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=158435

Of course if you start out with all the pieces and your opponent only has her king, its likely you are going to win. Its also likely that you are going to win, if you have played for years and if I don't know how to play chess.

You are introducing additional variables into the analogy that were not there to try to prove your point.

No one plays a game of chess starting out with different pieces, so I didn't think it was necessary for me to specify this perametar. However, it looks like I have to.

Both people are given a chessgame. Neither has played before. They are both given the rules to the game. They both start out with equal number of pieces. They alternate sides (black/white) every game, and play 100 games. One person has an IQ of 120, the other has an IQ of 80. Who do you think will win more games?

 

[granpa]

"If someone is stealing for food, and your 'honest' store owner is selling for profit, so he can buy a nice car, who is more justified? Bear in mind, your honest store owner is implicitly denying this someone food, so they can get their nice car."

in the hypothetical free market competition should prevent this.


"Prices fluctuate based on a thousand variables, most of which have nothing to do with the quality of the merchandise. Your ruler is changing all the time. "

of course it changes. it is supposed to change to reflect changes in supply and demand. in the real world there are complications but again we are talking about a hypothetical free market here.


"Bills don't spontaneously appear or fall from trees. People have to charge you first"

maybe not but the reasons for them, diseases/disasters, do. and that was the point. these sorts of bills can be taken care of by some sort of fund therefore i see no reason you should use them against the idea of a hypothetical free market price.


i am not attempting to defend real world capitalism here. i am trying to explain the foundations of morality. the usual way people do that is to talk about the golden rule but then people argue that everone has different likes and dislikes and that makes it impossible to implement the golden rule effectively. well the same thing can be said about the economy. everyone places a different amount of value on things and that should make the idea of fair trade impossible. but the hypothetical free market will through supply and demand arrive at legitimate price for each and every product thereby making fair trade possible. if fair trade is possible then so is the golden rule.

 

[JoeDawg]

Your sample size of intelligent people that can't balance their checkbook is intriguiging, but irrelavant. There is a correlation between income and IQ

Income and the ability to manage money are not the same thing.
I.Q. is mostly ego-trip crap.

in a capitalistic society. More intelligent people have an easier time attaining higher education, getting better jobs, moving up, etc...

All other things being equal. They generally are not. People with so-called higher IQs also tend to have a higher rate of psychological problems and an inability to maintain social bonds. Most people 'advance' in their careers based on 'networking', or the old, its not what you know but who... Having social skills is much more important. They even have a name for it, its called Emotional intelligence, but its not IQ.

You are introducing additional variables into the analogy that were not there to try to prove your point.

It was a bad analogy, I pointed out some flaws.
You're creating an artifical scenario where everyone starts in the same place.
That may work in games, where both members agree to play and by a set of rules. This is not the case with life.

 

[JoeDawg]

"If someone is stealing for food, and your 'honest' store owner is selling for profit, so he can buy a nice car, who is more justified? Bear in mind, your honest store owner is implicitly denying this someone food, so they can get their nice car."

in the hypothetical free market competition should prevent this.

Thats easy to say when it remains a hypothetical. You sound like a preacher, you're a true believer. No system is perfect. If I as a seller want to maintain a certain price level, say with oil, all I have to do is agree not so tell below a certain price, it benefits all sellers to do this.

fair-trade agreement
http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/F0016400.html
NOUN: A commercial agreement under which distributors sell products of a given class at no less than a minimum price set by the manufacturer.

This eliminates the ability of some to buy it. And if I need it to survive, too bad.

i am trying to explain the foundations of morality. the usual way people do that is to talk about the golden rule but then people argue that everone has different likes and dislikes and that makes it impossible to implement the golden rule effectively. well the same thing can be said about the economy. everyone places a different amount of value on things and that should make the idea of fair trade impossible. but the hypothetical free market will through supply and demand arrive at legitimate price for each and every product thereby making fair trade possible. if fair trade is possible then so is the golden rule.

I'd say both are fantasy. And you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise.

The golden rule comes from an actual strategy that works, but the rule itself is incomplete. Once again, in game theory, its called tit-for-tat. Its not about fairness, rewards or punishments. Its entirely strategic.

 

[Xori]

Income and the ability to manage money are not the same thing.
I.Q. is mostly ego-trip crap.

The ability to manage money is only one of the requirements of becoming wealth. Earning is important too. Incomes are correlated to IQs, as much as you'd like to say otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

Plz stop saying opinions that are completely irrelavant. You're losing credibility.

All other things being equal. They generally are not. People with so-called higher IQs also tend to have a higher rate of psychological problems and an inability to maintain social bonds. Most people 'advance' in their careers based on 'networking', or the old, its not what you know but who... Having social skills is much more important. They even have a name for it, its called Emotional intelligence, but its not IQ.

I can only assume you are referring to extremely high IQs here, as that is the only case that would make sense. Otherwise, please provide referance.

If extremely high IQs cause these things, that STILL means there's a correlation between IQ and wealth, it just happens to be porabolic.

It was a bad analogy, I pointed out some flaws.
You're creating an artifical scenario where everyone starts in the same place.
That may work in games, where both members agree to play and by a set of rules. This is not the case with life.

I see the analogy as perfectly valid. Most of the outside factors determining how well you do in a free market are completely unrelated to the structure of the free market and are usually more political, such as which country you're born, skincolor, etc.. Has nothing to do with a free market.

 

[granpa]

'Thats easy to say when it remains a hypothetical. You sound like a preacher, you're a true believer. No system is perfect. '

are you deaf? i plainly stated that i am not defending real world capitalism. i am talking about an ideal here. and i am only talking about that as it relates to the foundations of morality. you keep attacking my statements by introducing real world complications that have nothing to do with what i am saying. whether such a system does or even could work in reality is irrelevant.

'If I as a seller want to maintain a certain price level, say with oil, all I have to do is agree not so tell below a certain price, it benefits all sellers to do this.'

if you did this in an ideal free market, competition would quickly drive you out of business.

 

[JoeDawg]

Incomes are correlated to IQs, as much as you'd like to say otherwise.

You're a liar. I said nothing of the sort. The fact you can correlate the decrease in the number of pirates with a rise in the Earth's temperature doesn't prove anything.

IQ is mostly about ego. It was designed to categorize those with low intelligence, not high intelligence. The fact high iq correlates with high income is only meaningful if you put value on IQ. I don't, but I certainly don't deny your correlation. I think its meaningless.

I'd say we're done here.

 

[JoeDawg]

are you deaf? i plainly stated that i am not defending real world capitalism. i am talking about an ideal here. and i am only talking about that as it relates to the foundations of morality. you keep attacking my statements by introducing real world complications that have nothing to do with what i am saying. whether such a system does or even could work in reality is irrelevant.

Its completely relevant to the question of morality.
Morality is about what people should and shouldn't do.

You keep using the word hypothetical like a shield. As if the fact its a hypothetical argument makes it impervious to criticism.
People can argue hypotheticals all day and never agree anything
And an analogy is not evidence, nor does it support an argument.
Analogies, when used properly, simply describe an argument.

If your economic analogy is describing your view of morality, I think you're wrong. And I've said why. It doesn't relate to reality, so its not really useful to people.

 

[Xori]

So JoeDawg, according to you, a free market fails because people sometimes can't afford stuff?

There has to be a way to allocate limited resources to unlimited wants. There's no "fair" method, any method will favor one group of people to another. Like I said, name a "fair" method that more fair than the current one. Otherwise, you should stop critizing the current one.

All you're doing is going off on irrelavant points. I'm have trouble keeping up with what point you're trying to make because your sentances don't even logically tie in.