Neo-Tech Advantage #5
Rational or good actions increase prosperity, happiness, and psychuous pleasures. Irrational or bad actions undermine those values. While each individual's life and values are unique, certain basic actions never change in terms of good or bad actions. The rightness or wrongness of those basic actions do not vary according to opinion, or from person to person, or from generation to generation, or from culture to culture, or from solar system to solar system. Universally good or bad actions are objectively based on the biological nature of human beings and are definable in absolute terms. But other actions are amoral and cannot be judged in terms of good or bad because they are a matter of personal preference determined by individual differences.
Universal morals are objective. They are not based on opinions of the author or anyone else. Universal morals are not created or determined by anyone. No one can deem what is moral and what is not moral. The same moral standards exist for each and every human being throughout all locations, cultures, and ages. Those standards are independent of anyone's opinions or proclamations. Moreover, two and only two black-and-white moral standards exist. Those two moral standards are:
Any chosen action that purposely benefits the human organism or society is morally good and right.
Any chosen action that purposely harms the human organism or society is morally bad and wrong.
Feelings and emotions, on the other hand, cannot be considered as standards, absolutes, or morals. A person's life-style, desires, needs, and preferences can vary greatly without altering that person's character or without making that person morally right or wrong. Still, moral absolutes do exist. And following or violating moral absolutes determines a person's character and self-esteem. The two moral absolutes essential for prosperity and happiness are:
- Integrated honesty for knowing reality
- Integrated efforts for increasing productivity
Habitually violating either of those two moral absolutes precludes genuine prosperity and happiness. Related to those absolutes are the following moral issues:
Self-esteem
Individual rights
Use of force
Ends justifying the means
The list below shows how each moral issue separates into either a moral, pro-life, pro-individual category or an immoral, anti-life, anti-individual category.
Objective morals are based on reality, reason, logic. Subjective "morals", on the other hand, are based on unreal, arbitrary feelings or wishes. All such unreal "morals" require force, deception, or coercion to impose them on others. Subjectivism, mysticism, existentialism, and "do your own thing" are all attempts to deny objective morals by implying that no standards exist and everything is of equal value (thus denying objective morals and values).
| Moral Issue: Honesty. |
Conscious striving for self-honesty. Unyielding loyalty to honesty. Productive effort. (Moral)
Pragmatic compromise and evasion of honesty. Habitual dishonesty. Parasitical laziness. (Immoral)
| Moral Issue: Productivity. |
Productive actions that increase values to others and society while increasing effectiveness in dealing with reality. (Moral)
Destructive actions that decrease values to others and society while decreasing effectiveness in dealing with reality. (Immoral)
| Moral Issue: Individual Rights. |
Recognition of the inalienable right everyone has to his or her own life and property. (Moral)
Denial of individual or property rights in order to plunder the life and property of others. (Immoral)
| Moral Issue: Sacrifice*. |
Refusal to sacrifice is by nature life enhancing and thus is morally right. (Moral)
Sacrifice is "noble", especially when done for a "higher" cause or, better yet, no cause. (Immoral)
| Moral Issue: Use of Force. |
Rejecting the initiation of force, threat of force, coercion, or fraud against any individual for any reason is the foundation of morality. (Moral)
Use of force (especially government force) is acceptable against individuals, especially if the result serves the social "good" or a "higher" cause. (Immoral)
| Moral Issue: Ends Justifying the Means. |
In regards to force, the ends never justify the means. All moral actions are based on principles that prohibit initiatory force, threat of force, coercion, and fraud as a means to accomplish ends, no matter how "noble". (Moral)
Ends can justify the means. Force and coercion can be pragmatically used for the "good" of society. Individual rights can be violated or sacrificed for "noble" ends. (Immoral)
* Sacrifice occurs when a value is diminished or destroyed for a lesser value or a nonvalue.
- Next: Abandoning the Neocheaters
- Last: Dogma and Rules Eliminated
- Neo-Tech Orientation and Definitions
- Neo-Tech Category on this Blog
- Wikipedia Article on Neo-Tech
- Complete 114 Neo-Tech Advantages Archive
- Current Neo-Tech Website
- The Introductory Blog Entry to this Series
You might also like
- The Moral Vegetarians
-
Idiocracy: The Dirty Side of Evolution
- The Vegetarian Myth
- FA/RM: Free Agriculture – Restore Markets
- Mind-Body Dichotomies — The Evolutionary Approach
Please spread the word
THE POST IS VERY WELL WRITTEN,AND INFORMATIVE.BUT I AM NOT ABLE TO I=UNDERSTAND THEM.
WHY????
Very interesting ideas. Nicely done.
I like your way of analyzing morality, somewhere between Kant's universal law of duty and Aristotle's virtue ethics.
If, instead, you wanna check out how I categorize assholes by a similar methodology, check out http://www.damnesty.blogspot.com
Productivity = moral good is a slippery slope. The US for example has a huge number of very 'productive' workers in the defense industries building weapons. Is that good? Most 'production' is actually the conversion of irreplacable resources to consumer goods that are of questionable value to society. Is that good?
At the bottom of this slope you find that a society that lived in harmony with its environment, leaving little trace of its existence, would be branded 'bad' for their lack of productivity…justifying demolishing them to make way for far more productive Europeans who had already despoiled their own continent.
Well, Tim, thanks for stopping by and all, but I really don't think we'll agree, here. What's the alternative? Net loss in production, which, by definition, means the exposure, disease, and/or starvation death of millions, potentially billions? I suppose that enlightened ones such as you will naturally be in the group that survives the "cultural revolution," eh?
You know, I'm an individualist, so those who are producing just and only enough to survive at bare sustinence (with 99 infants dying to our one, and with average lifespans of 50 yrs) are fine by me. I'm certainly not going to make them do the 9-5 thing in a concrete jungle if they don't want.
See, the "environment" is only a value to me to the extent that it can be used in the furtherance of my life and the lives of those individuals and communities of individuals I value. It has no intrinsic worth beyond its value and usefulness to human beings. That's not to say that I'm not for rational conservationism. It's for the same reason that we don't, say, play target practice with real guns inside the building of the company I own. We don't use our servers as boat anchors–you know–things like that.
If the purpose of your life is rational, lasting, long-term happiness, as it is mine, then you and your loved ones first require values to survive. You (or someone) must produce those values. To prosper, i.e., for your happiness and well-being as a human being, you have no choice but to produce. To do so is a moral good. To produce in excess, providing tradeable values for yourself and others is the supreme moral good in all of existence.
You might check out this post, if you haven't seen it already.
Tim,
"The US for example has a huge number of very 'productive' workers in the defense industries building weapons. Is that good?"
Yes. My only complaint is that it's not the purely private prodcution of weapons, but weapons are good, as is anything that serves a human value. Anything can be used for evil, but that reflects only on the ones using them, not on the value of the things themselves.
"Most 'production' is actually the conversion of irreplacable resources to consumer goods…. Is that good?"
Absolutely. I reject your follow-up premises, that they are of no value, and that whether or not they are of value to society matters. The fact that rational people traded value for them is the only proof of their value that any of us requires, and neither you nor I have anything to say about whether they are a value to anyone else.
I also reject your third buried premise, that resources are "converted" or irreplacable. Resources are produced. A lump of rock or a resrvoir of decayed dinosours is just that, lumps and decay, until a human mind uses them to produce a resource. The real resource, the human mind and it's creativity is unlimited, and the universe is full of raw materials. The resources we create now will allow us to use raw materials, those we have access to and those that we presently don't, without limit or end.
Any collective assessment of their value or use to society can only hinder the production of resources, as we've seen too many times in history.
I like this place.
"Any collective assessment of their value or use to society…" There is a constant flow of 'collective assessment', generally shepherded collective assessment. Having been trained in marketing I could 'productively' be one of those shepherds and guide public opinion into really believing that it is in the moral right to burn up petroleum at a truly stunning rate. But I'm not.
Every day new uses for petroleum products are discovered by those who you are counting on to find something else to burn when it runs out. Those plastics, pharmaceuticals, and other 'valuables' could very well become unavailable in your lifetime if you are young, and most certainly will in your children's lifetime. Do you have any concerns about this? I use petroleum as an example because it is current. If we were in 16th century Spain I'd be talking about the forests and you would be saying it will all work out because the ships built from those forests will allow us to conquer the new world so we can use their forests.
You say the human mind and creativity are unlimited, and I might even agree with you on that…but that doesn't mean I like to see it wasted. Some of the most brilliant people I know are using every bit of their share of that resource 'producing' the safety of their own jobs through the constant maneuvers of office politicking. Richard owns a company. Maybe it's small enough that he really knows what is going on and the people there are all really productive. Do you think that is true at Ford Motor Company? General Dynamics? The US Postal Service? I've 'produced' more in writing this message than many of my former work force contemporaries 'produced' in a year.
Uh, no. You're not talking about "collective assessment." You're talking about accumulated individual assessment (i.e., freedom), which is quite a different matter. Kyle is talking about collective assessment, as in, "we enlightened few will decide for the ignorant collective masses."
Regading 16th century Spain, I'm sure Kyle would have been thinking of either alternatives for wood materials, or of means to more efficiently renew such material, or, failing that, how the market would ultimately curb "excess" use through price increase.
In a free market, no valuable material can ever become extinct. Long before that, prices rise to curb demand. When the price gets to a certain level, other alternative materials become more profitable. Think hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (or whatever) are too costly in development and such? That's only because gas is cheap (yes, still). Once it hits $4 per gallon, watch the demand tumble.
Fear of depleated petroleum reserves are wholly and completely unfounded.
Richard said it as well as I could. I'll add this though:
Your example of 16th century Spain supports my argument. After all, we don't use wood to build ships anymore. *That* is why I haven't the slightest concern over depletion of petroleum. Though I may put a few ounces in a vial now, to sell it on eBay once it becomes the last few ounces left on earth. It could put several generations of my progeny through college.
Well, yes, the Spaniards did develop some alternative technologies to make up for their lost forests. The technology they opted for was I believe the steel cuirasse and the longsword. The US has developed alternative technologies to maintain their petroleum reserves as well, opting for nuclear weapons, stealth aircraft, etc.
How's that going?
Before you say 'great for our side', consider that the same issues of petroleum wealth are driving the development of such technologies as terrorism and embargo.
Tim,
Actually, nuclear weapons and stealth aircraft are not alternatives to petroleum, nor were the cuirasse and longsword alternatives to wooden ships. But since they sound menacing and add emotional, if not intellectual, weight to your argument, I understand your use of them.
Nuclear *power* is an alternative to petroleum, but since you can't claim that it is used to kill brown people, or contribute to global warming (or is it cooling again, I can never keep track) then you might want to keep that one quiet.
It's interesting that you have to go through the mental gymnastics of changing the context of my argument that "we don't use wood for ships anymore" to "the Spaniards used metal for weapons". But since the fiberglass and steel used on boats and ships today wouldn't support your argument, it's probably better that you stick with the weapons.
Oh, and you might not want to go around calling terrorism a "technology". You might give terrorism a bad name with a slur like that.
I almost forgot: Nukes and Stealth? Yeah for our side!
Kyle, I think you are being intentionally disengenuous. The Spaniards didn't develop alternatives when the ran out of wood…they developed the weapons needed to acquire more wood. The US isn't developing nuclear power to replace petroleum, it uses nuclear and other weapons to acquire petroleum. If human nature really was inclined to develop improved technologies first the whole morality of production would be something I would buy right into…but history as well as current events indicate that people are far more inclined to develop better ways to steal than produce.
No, Tim, I'm not being disingenuous. My context was *we* do not use wood for ships anymore. You keep narrowing it to "the Spaniards". The point I'm making is that running out of wood was not a concern, at least in the area of shipbuilding.
I realize you're making another point. I'll say that you're being disingenuous about that entire point, because any alternative interpretation would be a greater insult.
Tim:
"…people are far more inclined to develop better ways to steal than produce."
would you argue that's a given property of human nature, or, would you say that some people are so inclined? If the latter, then I'd have no essential disagreement on that point. If you're arguing for the former, then I'd have to ask where all this production came from. How have we advanced to the dregree we have? Are a small group of people producing, against their natures, only to have it stolen from them?
This is really, in part, what this whole Neo-Tech series is about. Certainly there are criminals, at all levels of society–from the street mugger to the head of state. Neo-Tech is about identifying who is who, and acting accordingly. At the same time, such identification requires a high degree of responsibility. Much of what you read/see in the media, or learn in Universities is an inversion of who is the guilty vs. who is the innocent. Criminals are very clever.
Keep checking in.
Richard,
I will definitly keep checking in, you have a great site, a great point of view, and even though I disagree with you on the point of 'absolute morality of production' we agree on a lot.
On your specific question…I think we are all far more inclined to steal than create, and the produce is a result of the times where any or all take the second route. Common criminals or heads of state; neither is bound absolutely to the most obvious side of 'human nature' in any absolute fashion, just like much as every one of us would like to believe we are the one who is magically bound to the 'moral good' none of us are.
Kyle,
If you took my comment about being intentionally disengenuous as an insult, I apologize. That was not my intent. I understood your point on shipbuilding very clearly when you made it. I brought up the Spaniards, the forests of Spain, and shipbuilding to illustrate a much different point. Yes in the long term shipbuilding advanced past wood. It actually didn't take a worldwide wood crisis for that to happen. Your point was well made, but in making it you clearly made mine as well. I hope you don't take this as an insult as well.
The 'creativity of the human mind' as resource could be said to have been spent on using the historically accurate response of the Spanish empire to their running out of the critical resource of their time, i.e. subjugate what they considered 'morally inferior' cultures. I chose that illustration carefully, since I personally think it provides a good projection for the present and future of current US energy policy.
Rather than consider my point, you remain focused on your own point; which I say is the most likely human response. I'm not saying that you, or anyone else, will invariably choose that response, just that it is most likely. Focused on your own point, you 'seized' the elements of my illustration to use in your own, rather than creating an illustration for your point from the wide diversity of elements available. Just like the Spaniards. Just like a human. Rather than stop to think about how to illustrate your point, it's just easier to grab the elements that I brought to hand.
You still have a very high level of my respect. It would have been far easier, thus even more human, to just call me an unproductive liberal flake and ignore my comments completely. I greatly appreciate you for not taking that path.
Tim, you're basically identifying "free will," which I agree with. However, our nature as "good" is axiomatic. That is, the concept of "the good" derives from what human nature is. Therefore, it's a contradiction in terms to claim that human nature is bad, or has a propensity towards evil.
Your claim that we are all more inclined to steal than create is self-evidently false and impossible. Unless you mean we have more of an "urge" to steal than create, which might be debatable, the practical fact is that far more is produced than is stolen–which is a testament to just how good and benevolent human beings are. If we were truly more inclined to steal than create, there would quite literally be nothing left to steal.
To all,
Today America produces and sell goods in return for money just to get richer….nobody cares about anybody or anything else these days…just only for themselves and their wealth….plain and simple….America produces and waste almost as much as they produce…..wars today are unjust….nothing is going to get better by talking…its just going to keep getting worse…..
I agree with Tim. This whole moral system is so tied up with our consumer/production values, and it's largely what's killing the United States today. Everyone preaches what people consider to be "Universal moral good", as if we were at the apex of human moral thought. No, our "democratic" and "free economy" are models of inefficiency and waste of resources. If everyone held the same values as we did, we'd consume the resources of our planet at the unsustainable rate that we do now. We need to accept that the welfare of human beings are not the only moral good. There is also the welfare of things and other living organisms and the welfare of future humans to consider, and they are not accounted for in this system.
"Faye Ku" too, and the horse you rode in on.
You're a day late for May Day.
"…we'd consume the resources of our planet at the unsustainable rate that we do now."
If the rate at which resources (whose?) are being consumed (by whom; on what authority?) is "unsustainable," then isn't your fix for that concern baked right into the cake?
I suspect you don't know a lot about negative feedback systems. At any rate, it's certainly an unsupported assertion that resources are being consumed at an "unsustainable rate," particularly when you factor in technology and brain power.
"We need to accept that the welfare of human beings are not the only moral good."
Who's "we?" And weren't you just saying that consumption is unsustainable? If true, then your verminous human beings will die off until such point as consumption is sustainable, right? So everything ought to be on the right track for you, eh? Or, is it really that the "unsustainable" bromide is just a club with which to beat productive human beings over the head with? You know the ones. They're the ones who make you look incompetent, lazy, and stupid by comparison. They're so much better than you at managing not only their lives, but the excess they produce makes others wealthy as well. By comparison, you're a big fat failure, aren't you? How many jobs have you personally created. What kind of payroll do you personally sign for every week? How many people owe their livelihood to your productive efforts?
Any? If that's the case, why fake reality by falsely propping yourself up to a morally superior status? I say you've got no clothes; you're just taking a short cut to bogus self esteem. You're tearing down the hard work, big risks, big successes, and civilization lifting work and benevolence of the best, so you don't look so pathetic.