The Mantle, or The Glory?

Give a rational argument based on your opinion of this subject, I'm very interested in hearing your responses.

Power is needed to allow morality, but power should never replace morality

Morality based on intelligent design, logic, and thought out ideas, instead of fake ancient religious superstitions.

Seriously, why not both? Progress + tech + logic seems good to me.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:19

Morality based on intelligent design, logic, and thought out ideas, instead of fake ancient religious superstitions.

Religion should be included, since it helps the mind and the person to be good.

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:22

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:19

Morality based on intelligent design, logic, and thought out ideas, instead of fake ancient religious superstitions.

Religion should be included, since it helps the mind and the person to be good.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:23

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:22

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:19

Morality based on intelligent design, logic, and thought out ideas, instead of fake ancient religious superstitions.

Religion should be included, since it helps the mind and the person to be good.

Unleashed used Ad Hominem!

It was ineffective!

I already explained. If you are good because you expect rewards in the afterlife you are good for the wrong reason. Someone should be good because he wants to, and because he is inspired by it and believes in it, not by force. By removing heaven from the equation (which is not real, so consider it removed), you remove your motivation to be good. Therefore you are the opposite of good (evil).

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:24

Unleashed used Ad Hominem!
It was ineffective!

Unleashed used thinking. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE! *Black Shark fainted*

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:28

I already explained. If you are good because you expect rewards in the afterlife you are good for the wrong reason. Someone should be good because he wants to, and because he is inspired by it and believes in it, not by force. By removing heaven from the equation (which is not real, so consider it removed), you remove your motivation to be good. Therefore you are the opposite of good (evil).

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:24

Unleashed used Ad Hominem!
It was ineffective!

Unleashed used thinking. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE. *Black Shark fainted*

But Heaven is the reward for wanting to be a good person. And then being a good person. You don't understand religion mate.

You rush to replying without even reading or comprehending. You seem to pay attention to insults only, child. As you wish then.

You are evil. You are being good for imaginary reasons. You will not get rewarded. Heaven is the imaginary reward dangled before the blind eyes of idiots such as yourself.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:37

You rush to replying without even reading or comprehending. You seem to pay attention to insults only, child. As you wish then.

You are evil. You are being good for imaginary reasons. You will not get rewarded. Heaven is the imaginary reward dangled before the blind eyes of idiots such as yourself.

Wow. Now that is some real AH there. Hey mate, screw you. You're the one who didn't even read my shit.

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:41

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:37

You rush to replying without even reading or comprehending. You seem to pay attention to insults only, child. As you wish then.

You are evil. You are being good for imaginary reasons. You will not get rewarded. Heaven is the imaginary reward dangled before the blind eyes of idiots such as yourself.

Wow. Now that is some real AH there. Hey mate, screw you. You're the one who didn't even read my shit.

If everybody went to hell, no matter their sins. Would you still be a good person?

I am a religious man, however I do not agree that you need religion in order to be a good person. There are terrible people that are religious, and great people that are atheist. The inverse is also true. Unleashed, there is no need for you to be so cruel when speaking to a religious person, based simply on the fact that they worship something you do not believe in.
Now, on the subject of this poll, I voted Power. Technology and power are essential for humanity to survive. Everyone has different morals based on their upbringing, but everyone can share and help to advance technology.

My opinion on your current debate: True moral good shouldn't not be induced, nor expected, but be the true kind patronage of one's illogical decisions. It may be irrational and non-beneficial to do good for someone else, but that's the beauty of it. Never should you expect or desire a reward.

I do not agree with your distinction, but I am also not in the mood to fully argue for it, but please allow me to make some points:

I do agree that power and morality are conceptually distinct, but I would not list radicalism or logic under power. Nor would I list moderation or emotion under morality, simply because they are different things that might be associated with the aforementioned categories, but this is not a necessity.

What do we understand by power?
Power is always a relation and not an attribute, since you cannot just have power. If X has power, then X has power over Y. If there was no Y and X was the only thing to exist, then X can have no power, only hypothetical power if Y existed. Please note that X and Y can be defined very broadly, they can be people as well as groups, systems or abstract entitites such as consciousness or whatever.
Definitions of power have been offered by sociologist Max Weber, who defines power as "the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance…" (1978). Similarly, Robert Dahl offers what he calls an "intuitive idea of power" according to which "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do" (1957). Dahl's definition of power is somewhat controversial and there are some interesting counterfactuals that make his definition of power very counterintuitive (i.e. a thought-experiment with a computer chip in a brain that alters certain behaviour, but it remains inert because the certain behaviour never occurs). However, I will not go into this.
Having establishes (for the purposes of this argument) that power is a relation, it is self-evident why technology and logic cannot be summed up by power. Logic and Technology are instruments of power, but not power themselves. Well, I am not sure about technology, but logic is just the method of valid reasoning (and, in an academic context, the study of reasoning). Using such a method can lead to obtaining instruments of power (knowledge, detecting deception, etc) but is conceptually different from power as such.

Let us turn to morality now.
Morality, as I understand it, can be understood as the code of conduct put forward by a particular group or society (e.g. the standards of morality in Western Cincinnati), or, more generally, a code of conduct that, given specific circumstances, would be accepted by all rational people. The latter is what the study of ethics and meta-ethics (to which the debate nowadays has shifted) in philosophy focuses on. I think that morality should be understood in the latter way. Narrowing ourselves to the accepted code of conduct of a particular society seems pointless when we are endeavouring to juxtapose morality and power (which we understood as a general concept).
If we thus accept the latter definition, it is self-evident that logic should be listed under morality (rationality seems like a legit criterion in ethics, although I have not seen a fully conclusive philosophical argument for it). And it also follows that moderation and emotion can have a place in morality, but do not necessarily have one. In Kantian deontology human emotion has little place. In maximising utilitarianism moderation has no place (and if it has, it is only a means to the end of happiness, not an aim in itself).
For all the reasons pointed out above I cannot answer your question as you have put it. If you ask "What is more important for a society? To accumulate more and more power over others or to find a moral way to govern their internal and external conduct?" then I am torn asunder:
I do not believe in the mere accumulation of means of power as desirable for a society, I don't think a society that has made this its ultimate goal is a good society. But I guess there are exceptions (e.g. when threatened with extinction) where power has to take precedent over a moral conduct, but those exceptions are few. On the contrary, I do believe that a society well-governed will inevitably obtain means of power - soft power through a shining example and physical means of power through a prospering and flourishing civilisation. Thus I tend to prescribe a higher value to morality.
On a more general note: I am not sure how much sense such a question makes: You want us to choose (that is: to make a value-judgement) between accumulation of power and the right value judgements. Isn't some kind of morality a prerequisite to answering such a question?

Written by Cpt.Magic, 31.03.2014 at 15:56

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:41

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:37

You rush to replying without even reading or comprehending. You seem to pay attention to insults only, child. As you wish then.

You are evil. You are being good for imaginary reasons. You will not get rewarded. Heaven is the imaginary reward dangled before the blind eyes of idiots such as yourself.

Wow. Now that is some real AH there. Hey mate, screw you. You're the one who didn't even read my shit.

If everybody went to hell, no matter their sins. Would you still be a good person?

I would be a monk actually, so yeah.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:37

You rush to replying without even reading or comprehending. You seem to pay attention to insults only, child. As you wish then.

You are evil. You are being good for imaginary reasons. You will not get rewarded. Heaven is the imaginary reward dangled before the blind eyes of idiots such as yourself.

You're the evil (and irrational) person who insults billions of people. You think being nice is insulting me and bunch of other people? Hypocrite.

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:41

Wow. Now that is some real AH there. Hey mate, screw you. You're the one who didn't even read my shit.

Hahaha love it

AH again? Please be smarter

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:00

AH again? Please be smarter

That's you in the picture, fool.

Written by Unleashed, 01.04.2014 at 13:26

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:00

AH again? Please be smarter

That's you in the picture, fool.

If you keep insulting me, you make yourself looks very dumb.

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:27

Written by Unleashed, 01.04.2014 at 13:26

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:00

AH again? Please be smarter

That's you in the picture, fool.

If you keep insulting me, you make yourself looks very dumb.

If you keep avoiding thinking, you make yourself look very dumb. Meet your end:

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=12982

Written by Unleashed, 01.04.2014 at 13:28

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:27

Written by Unleashed, 01.04.2014 at 13:26

Written by Guest, 01.04.2014 at 13:00

AH again? Please be smarter

That's you in the picture, fool.

If you keep insulting me, you make yourself looks very dumb.

If you keep avoiding thinking, you make yourself look very dumb. Meet your end:

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=12982

I used thinking. You didn't use thinking. You think you are thinking when you say that someone has a certain belief makes him irrational, which means Galileo was irrational, and Einstein?

Neither, really. I'd MUCH prefer a mix.

Morality's generally good, but I fucking hate too much of it. I know that sounds crazy, but I despise crap like political correctness and that school in Sweden where they're getting rid of gender-specific pronouns.

I don't want too much Power, either. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but who the hell wants a dystopian future? A world where people must die and be recycled to feed the masses at a certain age? A land where corporations can do whatever the hell they want, and people are just numbers? Sweatshops everywhere, the peak of human suffering?

I'm not going to vote for either on the poll, I think a mixture would be best.

Written by Chomdax, 01.04.2014 at 19:51

Neither, really. I'd MUCH prefer a mix.

Morality's generally good, but I fucking hate too much of it. I know that sounds crazy, but I despise crap like political correctness and that school in Sweden where they're getting rid of gender-specific pronouns.

I don't want too much Power, either. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but who the hell wants a dystopian future? A world where people must die and be recycled to feed the masses at a certain age? A land where corporations can do whatever the hell they want, and people are just numbers? Sweatshops everywhere, the peak of human suffering?

I'm not going to vote for either on the poll, I think a mixture would be best.

I see political correctedness as an institute of power, personally, and you are also the first person to successfully match my opinion on this subject. Have a cookie.

Written by Bluecher, 31.03.2014 at 18:51

Quote:

I do not agree with your distinction, but I am also not in the mood to fully argue for it, but please allow me to make some points:

I do agree that power and morality are conceptually distinct, but I would not list radicalism or logic under power. Nor would I list moderation or emotion under morality, simply because they are different things that might be associated with the aforementioned categories, but this is not a necessity.

<wagging finger>
I applied the Principle of Charity. There are two world-views in contrast: Power and Morality. Without a distinction, the posted question would be without meaning. I assume the intent was sincere to draw a distinction between the two.
So, I'll take a stab at refining a distinction.
Morality encompasses altruism/common good/cooperation/the intuitive/universalism/harmony. It is driven by 'the greatest good for all' as its goal.
Power is the domain of selfism/particular good/competition/the deductive/tribalism/dynamism. Autonomy is its rationale.

In this light, 'logic' is not 'agnostic' to this conflict.
Logic is rationality, distilled.
The contrast would be 'non-rational' (different from irrational/illogical). Religion, 'The Brotherhood of Mankind' and 'Charity', would in this case, belong squarley in morality's camp. Similarly, radicalism belongs to Power, as radicalism's twin is 'reactionary-ism'. The radical is for change, the reactionary is conservative.

Quote:

What do we understand by power?
Power is always a relation and not an attribute, since you cannot just have power. If X has power, then X has power over Y. If there was no Y and X was the only thing to exist, then X can have no power, only hypothetical power if Y existed. Please note that X and Y can be defined very broadly, they can be people as well as groups, systems or abstract entitites such as consciousness or whatever.
Definitions of power have been offered by sociologist Max Weber, who defines power as "the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance…" (1978). Similarly, Robert Dahl offers what he calls an "intuitive idea of power" according to which "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do" (1957). Dahl's definition of power is somewhat controversial and there are some interesting counterfactuals that make his definition of power very counterintuitive (i.e. a thought-experiment with a computer chip in a brain that alters certain behaviour, but it remains inert because the certain behaviour never occurs). However, I will not go into this.
Having establishes (for the purposes of this argument) that power is a relation, it is self-evident why technology and logic cannot be summed up by power. Logic and Technology are instruments of power, but not power themselves. Well, I am not sure about technology, but logic is just the method of valid reasoning (and, in an academic context, the study of reasoning). Using such a method can lead to obtaining instruments of power (knowledge, detecting deception, etc) but is conceptually different from power as such.

Again, charitably assessed, the OP seems to be looking for distinction between two 'states' of humanity, which I characterized as a 'worldview'. If power is wielded for a particular good (by the 'powerful') then cooperation is utilized for the common good. Consensus is reached without resort to coercion. I've already addressed logic. Technology belongs in the realm of power. What is technology? The application of human intellect and will towards 'competition with' ... with the environment, with other people, with the past.
It is a fair statement, for a Relativist, to say that power is a relationship and not an attribute. If that is the case, there are no attributes, only relationships. If I say 'this coat is brown', the Relativist would say 'Brown? Relative to what?'.

Quote:

Let us turn to morality now.
Morality, as I understand it, can be understood as the code of conduct put forward by a particular group or society (e.g. the standards of morality in Western Cincinnati), or, more generally, a code of conduct that, given specific circumstances, would be accepted by all rational people. The latter is what the study of ethics and meta-ethics (to which the debate nowadays has shifted) in philosophy focuses on. I think that morality should be understood in the latter way. Narrowing ourselves to the accepted code of conduct of a particular society seems pointless when we are endeavouring to juxtapose morality and power (which we understood as a general concept).
If we thus accept the latter definition, it is self-evident that logic should be listed under morality (rationality seems like a legit criterion in ethics, although I have not seen a fully conclusive philosophical argument for it). And it also follows that moderation and emotion can have a place in morality, but do not necessarily have one. In Kantian deontology human emotion has little place. In maximising utilitarianism moderation has no place (and if it has, it is only a means to the end of happiness, not an aim in itself).

In classical philosophy, logic and morality were harmonized - evidently this is no longer the case. Morality is meaningless without a transcendent (bigger than one person) authority. Traditionally, this was god. It could also be 'the human spirit', or 'the collective will'. Whatever the source of the authority, it is non-rational (or transcends the rational).

That being said, morality isn't codes of conduct. Properly speaking, morality is a collection of principles which distinguish conduct as 'good' or 'evil'. The justification of these principles lies with the transcendent authority. Ethics is certainly a code of conduct. In simplistic terms: Morals dictate that which is good or evil. Ethics distinguish between right and wrong.
- It is moral to violate an immoral law, it is never ethical to break the law, except to adhere to a higher law.
- It is ethical for a corporation to fire employees, knowing that they would starve, in order to be profitable, because ethics dictates the conduct of the company towards its responsibilities to its shareholders, whilst complying with the law.
It would not be moral for the company to put profit over the lives of its employees merely for the sake of profit.

(I specifically exclude Nietzsche as he muddies the waters).

Quote:

For all the reasons pointed out above I cannot answer your question as you have put it. If you ask "What is more important for a society? To accumulate more and more power over others or to find a moral way to govern their internal and external conduct?" then I am torn asunder:
I do not believe in the mere accumulation of means of power as desirable for a society, I don't think a society that has made this its ultimate goal is a good society. But I guess there are exceptions (e.g. when threatened with extinction) where power has to take precedent over a moral conduct, but those exceptions are few. On the contrary, I do believe that a society well-governed will inevitably obtain means of power - soft power through a shining example and physical means of power through a prospering and flourishing civilisation. Thus I tend to prescribe a higher value to morality.
On a more general note: I am not sure how much sense such a question makes: You want us to choose (that is: to make a value-judgement) between accumulation of power and the right value judgements. Isn't some kind of morality a prerequisite to answering such a question?

Arguably a morality wouldn't be a prerequisite: The choice would be a declaration of the world view to which you subscribe.

Written by Tirpitz406, 31.03.2014 at 15:17

Power is needed to allow morality, but power should never replace morality

I don't have to agree with you to recognize the brilliance of this statement.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:19

Morality based on intelligent design, logic, and thought out ideas, instead of fake ancient religious superstitions.

lulz.
Morality based on intelligent design = god.

Written by Unleashed, 31.03.2014 at 15:28

I already explained. If you are good because you expect rewards in the afterlife you are good for the wrong reason. Someone should be good because he wants to, and because he is inspired by it and believes in it, not by force. By removing heaven from the equation (which is not real, so consider it removed), you remove your motivation to be good. Therefore you are the opposite of good (evil).

Written by Guest, 31.03.2014 at 15:24

Unleashed used Ad Hominem!
It was ineffective!

Unleashed used thinking. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE! *Black Shark fainted*

If you are good because you expect rewards in the your lifetime you are good for the wrong reason. Someone should be good because he wants to, and because he is inspired by it and believes in it, not by force. By removing society's laws from the equation (which is not real, so consider it removed), you remove your motivation to be good. Therefore you are the opposite of good (evil).

See what I did there?
Replaced only two phrases, and now your argument makes NO SENSE. All I did was take superstition out of the equation.

I choose not exceed the speed limit, not because I am good, but because I am concerned about the financial and legal implications.
1. Am I evil for wanting to exceed the speed limit?
2. Doesn't society exert coercion to prevent me from, or punish me for, speeding? Is society, then, evil, for robbing me of my free will?

You're a fool.

Written by Chomdax, 01.04.2014 at 19:51

Neither, really. I'd MUCH prefer a mix.

Morality's generally good, but I fucking hate too much of it. I know that sounds crazy, but I despise crap like political correctness and that school in Sweden where they're getting rid of gender-specific pronouns.

I don't want too much Power, either. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but who the hell wants a dystopian future? A world where people must die and be recycled to feed the masses at a certain age? A land where corporations can do whatever the hell they want, and people are just numbers? Sweatshops everywhere, the peak of human suffering?

I'm not going to vote for either on the poll, I think a mixture would be best.

In your judgment, morality and power seem to be of a similar essential nature: Both put some limitation on human liberty.
In that sense I agree - restrictions on liberty are anywhere from annoying to fatally oppressive.

Where I would suggest a distinction (necessary for the question asked by Gardenvoir to be meaningful), the 'rightness' of morality is based on what is right and wrong for all people.
The 'rightness' of power is what is good or bad for those who wield it, whether it be the one Supreme Dictator or The Majority who Rule.

Those in power often (misuse) morality to oppress others; but this is not moral conduct.
Those who are 'selectively moral' (e.g. My Country Right or Wrong) use power to coerce others to their codes of conduct; this is not justice.