Quote :

"I hope you realize that by typing all of that out, you're demonstrating that different people have different ideas as to what constitutes "morality." And that at times, we give our morals different weight, especially when some of them are in conflict with one another. That's the whole point. Morality is plastic, and always open for debate"

Sure, I understand that people have different ideas of what constitutes morality, just like there are people that think intelligent design and science can co-exist. "Subjective morality" or "individual morality" or "personal morality" is like "individual science". There is no individual science, there's just science. There is no truth for me and truth for you, there's just one truth. 1+1 doesn't equal 3 for some people, it equals two, but if you search hard enough you'll find something that argues it does equal 3.

If morality is subjective, then you're not in a position to assert any moral rules; morality is just individual preference. The fact that I think chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin cookies is not a reason for you to change your preference. You like what you like, who am I to say otherwise. Just because I think murder is wrong isn't a reason for you to think murder is wrong.

However, if morality is objective, then you can have a discussion about how you think people should behave. This is why it's important to develop a moral framework based on logic, rather than chalking it up to personal preference.

Quote :

"And that's why I brought up the South American indigenous farmer. They worked the land for generations, but once that land got parceled and itemized, it was open for purchase to outsiders. That's exactly the situation that would put your morals in conflict with one another. Is it moral to kick someone off the land that you legally purchased, even if they were there before the land was ever for sale?"

What does the land being "parceled and itemized" have to do with it? The farmer was already working the land. The farmer already had their home and their crops there. It wasn't open for purchase; Europeans with guns simply set up shop. Using the moral framework I'm talking about, we can say that this was the wrong thing to do.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:45 PM. Reason : Sorry for taking a philosophical dump on this thread.]

2/6/2013 11:36:57 PM

Quote :

"If morality is subjective, then you're not in a position to assert any moral rules; morality is just individual preference."

No. We all agree that murder, in general, is bad. Theft, in general, is bad. Where we diverge is at the lower levels of "well, theft might be okay in this specific situation" There might be a universally correct answer, but we can't always decipher it because there are compelling arguments on either side. On that basis, it's subjective. To say it's objective, I think, is pretty narcissistic, because it asserts that you know your beliefs are the correct ones, and everyone else is wrong.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 11:51:33 PM

WELL I THINK the post office should switch to MWF delivery if they are serious about saving money, and perhaps offer special PO Boxes with delivery all 5 days of the week for businesses and anyone willing to pay.

by doing that, they can trim down their workforce slowly, and perhaps change their policies that must be draining them majorly. i was actually interested in trying to work for the post office, and spent a little while talking about it with my mailman for a bit a few years ago. the pay and retirement are great, and as long as you don't steal or completely screw up, you're pretty much set for life.

taking care of all those employees with the reduction in volume must be a killer. no doubt the rising cost of gas over the past decade hasn't helped either.

2/6/2013 11:53:03 PM

Quote :

"There is no truth for me and truth for you, there's just one truth....This is why it's important to develop a moral framework based on logic, rather than chalking it up to personal preference."

But your entire concept of "stealing" hinges on your understanding of the term "property" and your interpretation of "ownership."

These are open to interpretation, and skewed heavily by our biases (Western biases, just to continue with the indigenous farmer scenario).

So how can morality be absolute if it is built on an understanding of property and ownership that is heavily influenced by individual and societal biases?

Quote :

"What does the land being "parceled and itemized" have to do with it? The farmer was already working the land. The farmer already had their home and their crops there. It wasn't open for purchase; Europeans with guns simply set up shop. Using the moral framework I'm talking about, we can say that this was the wrong thing to do."

I only pick on the idea of ownership, because, like most things Libertarian, it is the linchpin of your moral framework. You keep speaking about the indigenous farmers in the past tense. This is still occurring. Nomadic tribes in the Amazon are being pushed out of "their" land so that oil companies can come in and "own" and distribute oil, TODAY. Those companies often purchase the land by going through all the proper legal framework.

So is it moral? They've purchased and negotiated the land in good faith with the right agencies. Yet the people who relied on that land for their existence are pushed out. Their livelihoods are ruined. And the company that comes in turns a huge profit while hoarding and selling (stealing?) a natural resource. Is owning oil underneath the ground any more logical of an idea than owning the sun? They both seem pretty silly, when you think about it. Both the indigenous people and the oil company are cultivating the land for different needs, so which group is in the wrong? Is displacing a small nomadic tribe so that thousands of people can have access to oil a morally acceptable trade-off? Careful, you might be more of a collectivist than you think.

Quote :

"However, if morality is objective, then you can have a discussion about how you think people should behave. This is why it's important to develop a moral framework based on logic, rather than chalking it up to personal preference."

I'm not going to argue that morality is always subjective. But I do think it is dependent on a myriad of factors, many of which are influenced by biases. So, with those biases in mind, I think it's impossible to say that morality can always be objective..

[Edited on February 7, 2013 at 2:37 AM. Reason : ]

2/7/2013 2:18:00 AM

well here is an interesting angle I wasn't aware of:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/02/06/the-post-office-gets-tough-with-congress/

Quote :

"the organization does actually have a detailed plan for becoming fully self-reliant over the next few years. Abolishing Saturday delivery is just one small part of that plan; all of it, by law, requires Congressional buy-in. The plan may or may not be successful, but, as they say, plan beats no plan. The big problem is simple, but huge: Congress isn’t playing along, and instead is just making matters worse, unhelpfully micromanaging everything from postage rates to delivery schedules to health-care contributions. That’s why I love the idea of the Post Office doing something that’s clearly illegal, putting the ball squarely in Congress’s court. The idea is both delicious and dangerous: go ahead an implement the plan whether Congress likes it or not. And then dare them to bring down the hammer, or simply capitulate to the inevitable. They might not like the latter option, but the former would surely be worse for all concerned."

Apparently they need congressional approval to make the changes they have proposed, but instead of waiting around they are just going ahead and implementing those changes.

2/7/2013 8:41:04 AM

The pension stuff is stupid, but beyond that, the service could use some modernizing and user-friendly enhancement. In Finland I believe they have an online site where you can "check" your mail before it's delivered. It gives you a list of everything that's addressed to you, and you approve the ones you want to actually receive. Anything you turn down is returned to sender at their cost. Later, junk mail.

2/7/2013 10:43:17 AM

Quote :

"Apparently they need congressional approval to make the changes they have proposed, but instead of waiting around they are just going ahead and implementing those changes."

Pretty much. The bureaucracy has begun its rebellion.

2/7/2013 11:48:09 AM