Does Liberty Require a Moral Society?

[Speaker to Animals]

This is what you disappointing reprobates make me feel like:

[Fife]

Fife: you are doing the same thing when it comes to economics, trying to defend what you God damned well know is immoral. Taking economic advantage of the poor is immoral. Legalizing narcotics for profit is immoral. Libertarianism is the worst kind of liberalism.

Slow your roll, there, chief. Where am I "taking economic advantage of the poor?" Where am I "legalizing narcotics for profit?"

[kybkh]

Well that’s cool bro.

Point is, we got kids so disconnected from society that they are fucking trying to get a high score.

Shit is fucked up. Not my fault. I leave him alone he left us alone...la tee da.

We ain’t working right and we need the Federal Government to back the fuck off.

We need to stop stirring the pot and let it simmer a while eh.

[nmoore63]

Yes liberty requires a moral frame work.

[BjornP]

Yeah, I kinda think we are gonna have pick a winner at some point cause some of our current ideas of "moral behavior" seem to be suspect at best.

You can probably include how ever much debauchery you want as long as you can convince them to be selfless at the same time. Kinda like we are trying to do right now.

But there has to be set rules to the game.

I'd really like to you read this piece. I think you'd enjoy it and get a lot out of it: https://mises.org/library/utilitarian-f ... n-morality

"Arguments from morality" are ultimately sterile, because they miss the point. The business end of social philosophy is to discover, and then argue for, the most socially expedient morality.

That can only be done by demonstrating how well the moral code fulfills the purpose for which moral codes are adopted in the first place: the achievement of human ends through the facilitation of the universal means of social cooperation.

Eh, I think we can do that after option 2 is finished.

At some point you gotta realize too large of a portion of our society is beyond reason to expect reason to win the day.

Which is the more moral society? The one where most individuals act and think morally only out of fear of being killed or imprisoned, or the one where most people choose to be moral because they agree with the moral guidelines?

[Fife]

Fife: you are doing the same thing when it comes to economics, trying to defend what you God damned well know is immoral. Taking economic advantage of the poor is immoral. Legalizing narcotics for profit is immoral. Libertarianism is the worst kind of liberalism.

Slow your roll, there, chief. Where am I "taking economic advantage of the poor?" Where am I "legalizing narcotics for profit?"

BTW all, here's a link to a free PDF/ebook download on the OP topic: The Foundations of Morality (10/04/1964 Henry Hazlitt).

Here is Hazlitt's major philosophical work, in which he grounds a policy of private property and free markets in an ethic of classical utilitarianism, understood in the way Mises understood that term. In writing this book, Hazlitt is reviving an 18th and 19th century tradition in which economists wrote not only about strictly economic issues but also on the relationship between economics and the good of society in general. Adam Smith wrote a moral treatise because he knew that many objections to markets are rooted in these concerns. Hazlitt takes up the cause too, and with spectacular results.

Hazlitt favors an ethic that seeks the long run general happiness and flourishing of all. Action, institutions, rules, principles, customs, ideals, and all the rest stand or fall according to the test of whether they permit people to live together peaceably to their mutual advantage. Critical here is an understanding of the core classical liberal claim that the interests of the individual and that of society in general are not antagonistic but wholly compatible and co-determinous.

In pushing for "rules-utilitarianism," Hazlitt is aware that he is adopting an ethic that is largely rejected in our time, even by the bulk of the liberal tradition. But he makes the strongest case possible, and you will certainly be challenged at every turn.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hey, I have an idea. Let's just start with the fact that we want liberalized markets so we can take advantage of people, and then rationalize ourselves backwards to come up with some argument for a moral system that supports that, and then pretend like we started with our oh-so-obvious moral system to derive the fact that we should be able to fuck up society and even the environment for the pursuit of money.

[nmoore63]

Hey, I have an idea. Let's just start with the fact that we want liberalized markets so we can take advantage of people, and then rationalize ourselves backwards to come up with some argument for a moral system that supports that, and then pretend like we started with our oh-so-obvious moral system to derive the fact that we should be able to fuck up society and even the environment for the pursuit of money.

Free Will isn't about taking advantage of people.

[brewster]

Morality is by definition relative, one man's Freedom to dump his waste into the river is infringing on another man's Liberty to live without being poisoned. Liberty requires a Lawful Society, where both individual rights and the Commons are recognized and protected. Laws are an expression of the society's values. If a society has awful or inconsistent values, it will have awful or inconsistent laws. But Values are not Morals, they are not absolute, they can change quite quickly, witness how relatively quickly Americans became aware of environmental issues in the course of basically one decade. From Silent Spring to the creation of the EPA was 8 years. Or from Isolationist to World Policeman in 5 years.

StA, I know you're well read in SF, have you read Harrison's Deathworld 2, which is basically a treatise on moral relativism? His position is there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Aztec priests dancing around in the skins of sacrificed virgins was the epitome of morality in their society.

To begin with—can you define the difference between ethics and ethos?”
“Of course,” Mikah snapped, a glint of pleasure in his eyes at the thought of a good rousing round of hair-splitting. “Ethics is the discipline dealing with what it good or bad, or right or wrong—or with moral duty and obligation. Ethos means the guiding beliefs, standards or ideals that characterize a group or community.”
“Very good, I can see that you have been spending the long spaceship-nights with your nose buried in the books. Now make sure the difference between those two terms is very clear, because it is the heart of the little communications problem we have here. Ethos is inextricably linked with a single society and cannot be separated from it, or it loses all meaning. Do you agree?”
“Well…”
“Come, come—you have to agree on the terms of your own definition. The ethos of a group is just a catch-all term for the ways in which the members of a group rub against each other. Right?”
Mikah reluctantly produced a nod of acquiescence.
“Now that we agree about that we can push on one step further. Ethics, again by your definition, must deal with any number of societies or groups. If there are any absolute laws of ethics, they must be so inclusive that they can be applied to any society. A law of ethics must be as universal of application as is the law of gravity.”
“I don’t follow you…?”
“I didn’t think you would when I got to this point. You people who prattle about your Universal Laws never really consider the exact meaning of the term. My knowledge of the history of science is very vague, but I’m willing to bet that the first Law of Gravity ever dreamed up stated that things fell at such and such a speed, and accelerated at such and such a rate. That’s not a law, but an observation that isn’t even complete until you add ‘on this planet.’ On a planet with a different mass there will be a different observation. The law of gravity is the formula”
mM F = –- d squared
and this can be used to compute the force of gravity between any two bodies anywhere. This is a way of expressing fundamental and unalterable principles that apply in all circumstances. If you are going to have any real ethical laws they will have to have this same universality. They will have to work on Cassylia or Pyrrus, or on any planet or in any society you can find. Which brings us back to you. What you so grandly call—with capital letters and a flourish of trumpets—’Laws of Ethics’ aren’t laws at all, but are simple little chunks of tribal ethos, aboriginal observations made by a gang of desert sheepherders to keep order in the house—or tent. These rules aren’t capable of any universal application, even you must see that. Just think of the different planets that you have been on and the number of weird and wonderful ways people have of reacting to each other—then try and visualize ten rules of conduct that would be applicable in all these societies. An impossible task. Yet I’ll bet that you have ten rules you want me to obey, and if one of them is wasted on an injunction against saying prayers to carved idols I can imagine just how universal the other nine are. You aren’t being ethical if you try to apply them wherever you go—you’re just finding a particularly fancy way to commit suicide!”“

[kybkh]

So you guys are saying that Option 2 is the only answer?

Cause no matter how high falutin your jargon gets there is still a couple billion morons who will be unable to comprehend your morality index and decide that playing third string just ain't worth going to practice anymore because there is no higher calling.

I played football at a Catholic HS. 3 time state champions including my frosh and sr years during the 90s.

This school, like many of "traditional" schools, indoctrinate their student body to be proud of the tradition the HS stands for. Before the school year, all students were forced to attend walk-through days. It was a shortened school day where everyone was able to learn where their classes were and meet their teachers.

At the end of the day, the incoming freshman all walked out to the football field and got in the stands where a 67 year old man came out screaming like a drill sergeant to instruct us how to cheer properly. We learned the same chants they used in the 50s and by the end of the day nearly everyone had the fight song memorized.

This all give a great deal of meaning to being a part of something. The school had great success in academics and athletics over the years being tied to that history made all of us feel like we were part of something special. Going to school at a place like that is something special.

This brings me to the third string reference...

The freshman football team started the pre-season in early August. By that time in the summer the Gulf has had long enough to spew its humidity far enough inland so that the Ohio Valley is layered in a constant haze of 80%+ humidity. The late summer sun would just be peering over the knob hills to the east by the time we arrived for the first session of 2-a-days. In a grassy field, outside the old locker room which was built in the late 1950s after the school moved from downtown, we'd lay in the dew soaked grass like sleeping cattle while we waited for the blow of the Conditioning Coach's whistle. Then two hours of full pads before the heat index would have time to break 95, and then a lighter session after noon which was always ended with team gassers. A gasser is a 200 yard sprint. A team gasser is when your position group has to finish in a certain time or else the whole group went again. In comparison, my dad who served in the Navy in the 70s and is an alumnus of the same school said the practices appeared harder than any PT he ever endured.

By the end of Summer, after the first depth chart was posted we still had 86 kids in the team picture, not including the dozen trainers or so who helped with the equipment.

I could't believe it. 86 kids went through the most rigorous football conditioning you could imagine and even though we platooned which ensured at least 22 players would see the field in meaningful minutes that left 64 with nothing but being part of something greater than their own personal glory. Something they were willing to fight and bleed for. They were willing to be the human blocking sleds for a line full of All-District + All-State meat heads. They lined up to run a gimmick offense they'd never ran before to let the stingiest defense in the state take turns knocking their dicks in the dirt. I wouldn't have done it.

At the end of the year, everyone got a ring and even the 3rd string punter got his picture forever hung on the wall of champions and everyone felt the bruised hips, sprained ankles and concussed heads were better for what they had earned through nothing but self sacrifice.