Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

easy2012

The Moral Hazard Question - Who Would You Save

Recommended Posts

You need to tell us much more before we can help:

How much did their parents pay for their homes?

When did they buy?

Are they on a tracker mortgage or interest only?

Are their homes in a good school catchment area?

Are the homes painted beige and smelling like fresh bread?

morals are all very well, but facts are better.

Absolutely brilliant. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a moral it is a statement of fact. Of course they can. The point of the whole argument is when doing so is it immoral or moral and I think we have demonstrated quite well that we can make up circumstances where killing or not killing can both be considered moral or immoral.

That conclusion leaves open the debate about what exactly is the definition of morality. This is not a simple subject. Socrates tackled this and I don't think he got very far with it either. I consider it an interesting discussion of human behaviour but if you are going to be silly about it there is not much point exploring it. The first step would be to try to define our terms and that is not going to be a glib off-hand equivalent of "Let's have a beer." If you find it all uninteresting simply say so and stop beating around the bush.

I'm sorry I think that we have our wires crossed somewhere.

A moral is a behavioural rule that applies to humans - yay or nay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say History shows the opposite, that taking action dilutes it.

Day one, five people need organs all of which are available from the Hobo, 5 people are alive, 1 dead.

Day two, the surgeons plural take the organs

Day three, 60,000 people are dead and provided organs saving 300,000 people.

Day four, you have 300,000 people healthy from organ transplants and 60,000 bodies to dispose of.

The surgeon took action and gets results he considers good. If you intervene and stop him you will get results you consider good. The person taking the action determines good.

The definition of "good" is the problem. An action always determines outcome. Non action allows someone else to determine outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The surgeon took action and gets results he considers good. If you intervene and stop him you will get results you consider good. The person taking the action determines good.

But we can check their actions and their results versus their stated aim.

No?

The definition of "good" is the problem. An action always determines outcome. Non action allows someone else to determine outcome.

Surely actions determine outcome, non actions have no outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I think that we have our wires crossed somewhere.

A moral is a behavioural rule that applies to humans - yay or nay?

Sorry but yes and no. A moral is a rule applied by humans to humans. Different humans have different rules. Your definition implies that the rules are intrinsic and are derived from a source outside of humanity. That might be your position but I would oppose that. It's a place to start: Who makes the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but yes and no. A moral is a rule applied by humans to humans. Different humans have different rules. Your definition implies that the rules are intrinsic and are derived from a source outside of humanity. That might be your position but I would oppose that. It's a place to start: Who makes the rules?

Humans.

My next question would be -

How many different species of humans are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we can check their actions and their results versus their stated aim.

No?

Surely actions determine outcome, non actions have no outcome?

Yes we can check their actions etc. but we cannot determine good or bad. Those taking the action will always define the action as good and when done it is not reversible.

Non actions have no outcome but time is always moving and someone will take an action and that action will determine outcome. If the action is not yours it will always be someone else's. There is always action and there is aways outcome but not necessarily yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we can check their actions etc. but we cannot determine good or bad. Those taking the action will always define the action as good and when done it is not reversible.

We are letting them define good or bad and then measuring their actions against their stated aim.

Non actions have no outcome but time is always moving and someone will take an action and that action will determine outcome. If the action is not yours it will always be someone else's. There is always action and there is aways outcome but not necessarily yours.

Shit happens, basically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans.

My next question would be -

How many different species of humans are there?

It is not a matter of species it is a matter of tribes. One street can have two tribes or three tribes. Call them groups if you like but the number of them is huge. Morals are set by a group and that group may be many millions or a single family. Even two people can be a group and in extreme cases a single person can have their own unique set of morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a matter of species it is a matter of tribes. One street can have two tribes or three tribes. Call them groups if you like but the number of them is huge. Morals are set by a group and that group may be many millions or a single family. Even two people can be a group and in extreme cases a single person can have their own unique set of morals.

Well people can say there are tribes, but the thing is they can be factually incorrect.

The questions is - are there really tribes? - that is are there really different types of humans. If someone has a moral that is based on a falsehood, they are simply wrong.

So to take your example - i think that all humans shuld be put to death for x behaviour. The moral here is clear - any humans preference should be imposable on any other human at gunpoint. The problem for our nascent gun toting moralist is that they are merely human and so the rule applies to them as well. This means that according to their principle anyone can shoot them for not doing what they want as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are letting them define good or bad and then measuring their actions against their stated aim.

Shit happens, basically?

We let them define good because we did not take an alternative action or did not stop their action.

Yes, but the goal is for it to be your shiit. Your own shiit is always better than someone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We let them define good because we did not take an alternative action or did not stop their action.

Why are actions binary?

Surely we can both act, both not act, one act, both of us half act etc

Yes, but the goal is for it to be your shiit. Your own shiit is always better than someone else's.

Why would that be?

perhaps my goal is to minimise shit. If I do nothing and someone sle acts, then there is less than if we both act. Therefore inaction is the righ tpath to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well people can say there are tribes, but the thing is they can be factually incorrect.

The questions is - are there really tribes? - that is are there really different types of humans. If someone has a moral that is based on a falsehood, they are simply wrong.

So to take your example - i think that all humans shuld be put to death for x behaviour. The moral here is clear - any humans preference should be imposable on any other human at gunpoint. The problem for our nascent gun toting moralist is that they are merely human and so the rule applies to them as well. This means that according to their principle anyone can shoot them for not doing what they want as well.

A tribe is self proclaimed. There is no reality or fact. If a group declares themselves distinct then they are distinct simply by declaration.

Since morals are based on emotion and politics and religion and not on any facts there is no such thing as a moral falsehood.

The rule applies to a behaviour not to a human. Yes it is almost always applied to a human because it was intended to control humans but it is a behaviour that is the subject of the moral. For example if killing a human is immoral then a dog is not allowed to kill a human either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tribe is self proclaimed. There is no reality or fact. If a group declares themselves distinct then they are distinct simply by declaration.

No, they aren't. Humans don't get to decide that.

Since morals are based on emotion and politics and religion and not on any facts there is no such thing as a moral falsehood.

If the thing the mora is based on is false, so is the moral. Has to be. If the foundation is faulty, the building collapses.

The rule applies to a behaviour not to a human.

How can you have a human behaviour without a human?

Yes it is almost always applied to a human because it was intended to control humans but it is a behaviour that is the subject of the moral. For example if killing a human is immoral then a dog is not allowed to kill a human either.

Oh ok.

I'll be back tomorrow. Sleep well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are actions binary?

Surely we can both act, both not act, one act, both of us half act etc

Why would that be?

perhaps my goal is to minimise shit. If I do nothing and someone sle acts, then there is less than if we both act. Therefore inaction is the righ tpath to take.

I was just trying to keep it simple. God knows it gets complicated soon enough. So yes surely I do agree that the action can be multiple and shared and it is not limited to binary.

I was taking shiit to mean any result not necessarily a bad result. So yes indeed it might turn out that you are happier with someone else's actions than your own. Probably happens a lot but as a general case I think we would all be happier if we had our own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they aren't. Humans don't get to decide that.

Oh yes they do! You are assuming a source outside of humanity for the rules. There is none. We make the rules and so does the other guy.

If the thing the mora is based on is false, so is the moral. Has to be. If the foundation is faulty, the building collapses.

I say again, there is no moral truth. There is no foundation. There is no building.

How can you have a human behaviour without a human?

Who said the behaviour had to be human? It is just a behaviour. It is usually human but it doesn't have to be.

Oh ok.

I'll be back tomorrow. Sleep well. smile.gif

Good talking to you, good night. I'll be back when I can but I have a lot of work on so I can only get to HPC during breaks. I might be late but I will return. ps if my quotes are all messed up, sorry I'm new to that aspect just upgraded and it wasn't available on millennium!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd try to alert the 3 children becuase I dont have to remain idle if I choose to not push the button

Great thinking, it stays within the parameters but doesn't go all Milgram.

Not pushing the button as an action which then allows the warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd try to alert the 3 children becuase I dont have to remain idle if I choose to not push the button. Reason the dormant track might be unsuitable for the train and it might have passengers on it thus more potential loss of life.

The fact that I know theres 3 children on one line and 1 on another would suggest I can see them, so they might be within earshot but what about alterting the train of danger can this button be the only solution in this scenerio?

I'd also try to rewrite the Kobayashi Maru test which this seems to be much like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

Haiyah,

I think the 'children' were alerted but they want to stay there because they think the train never comes (house price never crash) and it is too much fun there (house earns more than their salaries).

The button is actually the BoE ZIRP QE SLS button..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes they do! You are assuming a source outside of humanity for the rules. There is none. We make the rules and so does the other guy.

There is a source outside humanity for rules - material reality. In material reality there is only one species of human.

I say again, there is no moral truth. There is no foundation. There is no building.

Sure there is - consistent checking of the stated aim.

Who said the behaviour had to be human? It is just a behaviour. It is usually human but it doesn't have to be.

Good talking to you, good night. I'll be back when I can but I have a lot of work on so I can only get to HPC during breaks. I might be late but I will return. ps if my quotes are all messed up, sorry I'm new to that aspect just upgraded and it wasn't available on millennium!

Aight. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a source outside humanity for rules - material reality. In material reality there is only one species of human.

Good morning, one coffee down and I can give you some time. There is no such thing as material reality when discussing morals. That is my postulate and to back it up I suggest a discussion of any morality at all, but let's choose adultery. It is widely considered among humans that adulterly is immoral. Some groups will even put you to death for it and yet where is the material reality? or even the stated aim? In truth there is none. It is a behaviour that is considered immoral by some and to many different degrees. I picked adultery because it is well known but also because it has extremes. An Innuit for example would consider it an insult if you did not sleep with his wife. So in Innuit culture the notion of adultery is unknown. I'm sure there are other groups (you possibly know them personally) who hold similar views. So when we ask the question "Is adultery immoral" it is a question that demands more information. It is immoral in Dubai, expected in Iqaluit, and In France it is a grey area. In England it is not polite to ask. There is no right or wrong in any intrinsic manner. There is no material reality. There is no stated aim. A moral position is just there. It is a human construct with no facts or logic behind it at all.

It is very easy with such a big and much debated subject to go madly off in all directions so this is a good start. Let's get this idea thoroughly explored before we tackle anything else and it is at the very core of the deffinition of morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning, one coffee down and I can give you some time. There is no such thing as material reality when discussing morals. That is my postulate and to back it up I suggest a discussion of any morality at all, but let's choose adultery. It is widely considered among humans that adulterly is immoral. Some groups will even put you to death for it and yet where is the material reality? or even the stated aim? In truth there is none. It is a behaviour that is considered immoral by some and to many different degrees. I picked adultery because it is well known but also because it has extremes. An Innuit for example would consider it an insult if you did not sleep with his wife. So in Innuit culture the notion of adultery is unknown. I'm sure there are other groups (you possibly know them personally) who hold similar views. So when we ask the question "Is adultery immoral" it is a question that demands more information. It is immoral in Dubai, expected in Iqaluit, and In France it is a grey area. In England it is not polite to ask. There is no right or wrong in any intrinsic manner. There is no material reality. There is no stated aim. A moral position is just there. It is a human construct with no facts or logic behind it at all.

There is a stated aim - happiness. Some people think that adultery makes them happier, others that it doesn't. However, this doesn't mean that it's a moral, only a preference for sexual behaviour.

how about the possibility that they are mistaking personal preferences for morals?

It is very easy with such a big and much debated subject to go madly off in all directions so this is a good start. Let's get this idea thoroughly explored before we tackle anything else and it is at the very core of the deffinition of morality.

Well, it cannot be applied to everyone so it's not a moral is my answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a stated aim - happiness. Some people think that adultery makes them happier, others that it doesn't. However, this doesn't mean that it's a moral, only a preference for sexual behaviour.

I challenge that the aim of the morality of adultery is happiness. You could claim this for personal belief but you could not claim it when you apply your belief to others. If you punish a person for committing adultery you are not aiming at happiness. You are certainly not aiming at the victim's happiness and any happiness you get from punishing another's transgressions are nothing to do with adultery. I also challenge your notion that adultery is not a morality. Any behaviour that is imposed on another becomes a moral.

how about the possibility that they are mistaking personal preferences for morals?

A personal preference becomes a moral when it is imposed on someone else, as above, sorry for repetition.

Well, it cannot be applied to everyone so it's not a moral is my answer.

Sure it can be applied to everyone. There are lots of people trying to do just that right now. Notwithstanding that, I also challenge your notion that if a behaviour is not applicable to everyone then it is not a moral. To me that is a total disconnect. If I impose a behaviour on you based on my convictions then I am applying my moral code upon you and no-one else need be involved. You are going to have to expand on these ideas which make no sense to me at all at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge that the aim of the morality of adultery is happiness. You could claim this for personal belief but you could not claim it when you apply your belief to others. If you punish a person for committing adultery you are not aiming at happiness. You are certainly not aiming at the victim's happiness and any happiness you get from punishing another's transgressions are nothing to do with adultery. I also challenge your notion that adultery is not a morality. Any behaviour that is imposed on another becomes a moral.

You can't impose on others and have it as a moral, afaik.

Why would you make a moral that caused you unhappiness?

A personal preference becomes a moral when it is imposed on someone else, as above, sorry for repetition.

I think we have very different ideas about what a moral is. Here you are describing rape as moral.

Sure it can be applied to everyone. There are lots of people trying to do just that right now. Notwithstanding that, I also challenge your notion that if a behaviour is not applicable to everyone then it is not a moral. To me that is a total disconnect. If I impose a behaviour on you based on my convictions then I am applying my moral code upon you and no-one else need be involved. You are going to have to expand on these ideas which make no sense to me at all at present.

All I am doing is taking the idea of a moral and applying it to everything into which it factually fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't impose on others and have it as a moral, afaik.

Of course you can. Morals are being imposed on others all over the world all the time. You are being obtuse again because I know that you know that, and you know that I know that you know that, so what is going on here Injin?

Why would you make a moral that caused you unhappiness?

Control of others

I think we have very different ideas about what a moral is. Here you are describing rape as moral.

I think it is considered moral in some parts of Africa. Seems to make my point rather than yours.

All I am doing is taking the idea of a moral and applying it to everything into which it factually fits.

Other than to repeat that facts and morals are chalk and cheese I have no friggin' idea what you are trying to say. Hows about some straight talk and a bit less of the obfuscation. Do you really want to explore the subject of morality and all its influence upon the world or is this just a grandstanding opportunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can. Morals are being imposed on others all over the world all the time. You are being obtuse again because I know that you know that, and you know that I know that you know that, so what is going on here Injin?

What I am saying is that once you impose it, it ceases to be a moral and merely becomes enforced prejudice.

And I don't know that at all. I knwo that people cloak their actions with a veneer of morality but I don't think that doing that is in itself morality. That's silly, like saying that a forgery is the real thing if there are lots of them.

Control of others

Why would you want to control others, if not to make you happier?

I think it is considered moral in some parts of Africa. Seems to make my point rather than yours.

Yes, but it can't be considered moral anywhere because there are two people involved one who loves it one who hates it. The stronger gets their way but there is an instant disagreement as soon as force is used. You are completely discounting half of humanities opinion, so your position "morals are what people think they are" makes no sense,

Other than to repeat that facts and morals are chalk and cheese I have no friggin' idea what you are trying to say. Hows about some straight talk and a bit less of the obfuscation. Do you really want to explore the subject of morality and all its influence upon the world or is this just a grandstanding opportunity?

I am talking straight - you just have a very odd definition for morality.

Morals are something everyone should do or should not do.

The presnce of hypocrites doesn't change this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.