[Discussion] "Morality is for weak people who can't compete in this unfair world."

[Aim64C]

I can understand where the quote is coming from.

The argument is that, basically, people use morality as an excuse to discard actions that would lead to personal benefit and would even go so far as to engage in actions that bring about personal detriment.

The statement is, essentially, arguing that 'strong' people always do what is of benefit to them. It is the argument that the self is the supreme existence. Everything is seen as a sort of cost/effect ratio. Basically - people like Hillary Clinton. Her charity foundation is a front that can be used for popularity, but serves as a means of private income as well as a way to accept payments for the sale of state secrets she had access to while Secretary of State.

Everything she does is to benefit her. Even her marriage to Bill was simply for its political impact. The man would fly out to a private island to engage in *** with children. Their relationship is purely political and purely to benefit themselves.

Now - the argument could be made that, with that in mind, this method of thought works out. Indeed, many of our political elite are exactly this type of individual.

It would be naive to believe that 'good' is always in the winning or 'lead' position in the world. Very frequently, very bad and horrible people deceive nations. Only 7% of the Germans were Nazis. Just because the world put a stop to the conquest launched by Nazi Germany does not mean that 'good' was always 'winning.'

That said, there is a reason we have such a thing as morality, and it arises from empathy. Morality is the realization that just as others around us have flaws, we also have our own flaws that must be kept in mind. These are both benign faults - such as forgetfulness or a form of literal or metaphorical stumble - and more consequential faults, such as coveting, anger, etc.

Morals are how individuals adapt to civilized society. We realize that other people have a perfectly valid existence and that personal pursuits need not - and even should not - come via the harm of another person.

This underscores the fundamental of non-tribal society - money and trade.

Trade is the realization that someone else has something you want, and that, rather than simply clubbing them over the head to take it - an exchange proposal both minimizes the risks associated with violence and can leave both parties feeling as though they benefited from the exchange. We each have something the other wants - and realize that it is reasonable for both parties to seek a personally satisfying resolution.

Money simplifies this process by having set units that are universally valid in trade. Bluntly, it is morality that makes the economy possible. Without it - we would not have an economy.

Which is why the one we have is about to collapse.

 

[BanGinji]

I clicked this cus i thought it was a Trump quote.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Every person has a set of morals though. Lol

Whoever wrote that quote is lying to themselves.

 

[Endles Waltz]

I can understand where the quote is coming from.

The argument is that, basically, people use morality as an excuse to discard actions that would lead to personal benefit and would even go so far as to engage in actions that bring about personal detriment.

The statement is, essentially, arguing that 'strong' people always do what is of benefit to them. It is the argument that the self is the supreme existence. Everything is seen as a sort of cost/effect ratio. Basically - people like Hillary Clinton. Her charity foundation is a front that can be used for popularity, but serves as a means of private income as well as a way to accept payments for the sale of state secrets she had access to while Secretary of State.

Everything she does is to benefit her. Even her marriage to Bill was simply for its political impact. The man would fly out to a private island to engage in *** with children. Their relationship is purely political and purely to benefit themselves.

Now - the argument could be made that, with that in mind, this method of thought works out. Indeed, many of our political elite are exactly this type of individual.

It would be naive to believe that 'good' is always in the winning or 'lead' position in the world. Very frequently, very bad and horrible people deceive nations. Only 7% of the Germans were Nazis. Just because the world put a stop to the conquest launched by Nazi Germany does not mean that 'good' was always 'winning.'

Yes that is exactly what the argument is, and I hope you simply understand it and don't believe in it. Because that is a very dangerous mentality and is the reason for most of the shit in this world including genocide.

Letting go of your morality means letting go of your humanity, making you the filthiest existence.

That said, there is a reason we have such a thing as morality, and it arises from empathy. Morality is the realization that just as others around us have flaws, we also have our own flaws that must be kept in mind. These are both benign faults - such as forgetfulness or a form of literal or metaphorical stumble - and more consequential faults, such as coveting, anger, etc.

Morals are how individuals adapt to civilized society. We realize that other people have a perfectly valid existence and that personal pursuits need not - and even should not - come via the harm of another person.

This underscores the fundamental of non-tribal society - money and trade.

Trade is the realization that someone else has something you want, and that, rather than simply clubbing them over the head to take it - an exchange proposal both minimizes the risks associated with violence and can leave both parties feeling as though they benefited from the exchange. We each have something the other wants - and realize that it is reasonable for both parties to seek a personally satisfying resolution.

Money simplifies this process by having set units that are universally valid in trade. Bluntly, it is morality that makes the economy possible. Without it - we would not have an economy.

Well said, Your correlation between morality and the economy is interesting, it is indeed true, but even though the system exists because of morality, it is also the way it is due to immorality. Money = power in Capitalism. The rich are greater than the poor. You have people cruising the streets in Ferrari's without batting an eye to the homeless man they just passed by the bus stop.

Don't get me wrong I'm no Communism activist or anything, but our current situation is so very far from ideal, we have more than enough resources going to waste, by elevating our morality we can better distribute wealth and reduce poverty.

Almost all restaurants, especially the high end, waste so much food to the point where what is being thrown in the garbage is a lot more than what is being eaten. And they would never give any excess or leftover food to the needy, it goes straight to the garbage. Some even go to the extent of dissolving the extra food in a solution that renders it inedible just so the needy have no chance of salvaging it from the trash.

Which is why the one we have is about to collapse.

That is true.

 

[V h o]

I can understand where the quote is coming from.

The argument is that, basically, people use morality as an excuse to discard actions that would lead to personal benefit and would even go so far as to engage in actions that bring about personal detriment.

The statement is, essentially, arguing that 'strong' people always do what is of benefit to them. It is the argument that the self is the supreme existence. Everything is seen as a sort of cost/effect ratio. Basically - people like Hillary Clinton. Her charity foundation is a front that can be used for popularity, but serves as a means of private income as well as a way to accept payments for the sale of state secrets she had access to while Secretary of State.

Everything she does is to benefit her. Even her marriage to Bill was simply for its political impact. The man would fly out to a private island to engage in *** with children. Their relationship is purely political and purely to benefit themselves.

Now - the argument could be made that, with that in mind, this method of thought works out. Indeed, many of our political elite are exactly this type of individual.

It would be naive to believe that 'good' is always in the winning or 'lead' position in the world. Very frequently, very bad and horrible people deceive nations. Only 7% of the Germans were Nazis. Just because the world put a stop to the conquest launched by Nazi Germany does not mean that 'good' was always 'winning.'

That said, there is a reason we have such a thing as morality, and it arises from empathy. Morality is the realization that just as others around us have flaws, we also have our own flaws that must be kept in mind. These are both benign faults - such as forgetfulness or a form of literal or metaphorical stumble - and more consequential faults, such as coveting, anger, etc.

Morals are how individuals adapt to civilized society. We realize that other people have a perfectly valid existence and that personal pursuits need not - and even should not - come via the harm of another person.

This underscores the fundamental of non-tribal society - money and trade.

Trade is the realization that someone else has something you want, and that, rather than simply clubbing them over the head to take it - an exchange proposal both minimizes the risks associated with violence and can leave both parties feeling as though they benefited from the exchange. We each have something the other wants - and realize that it is reasonable for both parties to seek a personally satisfying resolution.

Money simplifies this process by having set units that are universally valid in trade. Bluntly, it is morality that makes the economy possible. Without it - we would not have an economy.

Which is why the one we have is about to collapse.

What would be your solution to the economy?

 

[Aim64C]

Yes that is exactly what the argument is, and I hope you simply understand it and don't believe in it. Because that is a very dangerous mentality and is the reason for most of the shit in this world including genocide.

Letting go of your morality means letting go of your humanity, making you the filthiest existence.

I don't believe in the principle, however, the issue I do take with your statement is in regards to the causes of the problems in this world.

Morality isn't a fixed and in-stone concept that you either have or don't have. The cause for many of the issues in the world is due to the natural instinct for people to seek dominance and control over each other. In a sense, this could be seen as a moral issue, but it is very easy to make the logical and moral argument for systems of control. It is not so much a -lack- of morality that causes many of the problems, but a -perversion- of morality that causes them.

An example would be this:

[video=youtube;_dwz_Z62e0s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s[/video]

Well said, Your correlation between morality and the economy is interesting, it is indeed true, but even though the system exists because of morality, it is also the way it is due to immorality. Money = power in Capitalism. The rich are greater than the poor. You have people cruising the streets in Ferrari's without batting an eye to the homeless man they just passed by the bus stop.

We don't live in a Capitalist society. There isn't a single capitalist society on the planet. All of them fall under State Fascism directed toward Socialism. Especially the U.S.

There are, essentially, two types of power in this world. Wu and Wei - Yin and Yang, respectively. I can get into a lengthy dissertation on the relevance of Taoist principles to governance, human behavior, and economics - but I'll just keep it relatively short considering it comes from me.

Wu is essentially the opportunity. It is a state of inactivity that serves as an invitation to someone with activity. This idea correlates strongly with the "Four Movements." Both Great Yin and Minor Yin are "Wu."

Wei:
Great Yang comprises the idea and the command - the Fiat. In this state, one is ordering that something be done, either upon one's self (a personal decision) or upon a group of individuals (such as in a company). Nothing has yet been created, it is simply the impetus for the creation.

Minor Yang is the impetus to acquire what already has been made or what already does exist. These would be purchase orders for materials, advertisements for a service you perform, etc. Made more simply, it is the representation for the actions associated with production (which involves an aspect of consumption).

Wu:
Great Yin would be the act of doing nothing. This means you are neither offering something, nor are you endeavoring to produce something for an offer. Wu, in the context of Yin, can also be interpreted as the static components of the exchanges - things like products and commodities that are not active, but comprise the 'what' on behalf of the idea/action.

Minor Yin would be the act of offering up a good or service for exchange. It is the act of actually selling what the other elements of the cycle have produced (and now also act to facilitate).

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

If you think about the progression, you can almost think of it as the following:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

There are two generic ways a government can act. It can act according to Wei, or it can act according to Wu.

All governments argue that action is necessary. All governments will trend toward Wei. They attempt to assert dominance over the ideas regarding what gets produced, how it is produced, etc. They always trend toward the aspect of Fiat - command and authority.

Economies built around this ultimately become unstable and collapse as production is weighted upon the command to produce as opposed to the necessary opportunity to exchange. Which is exactly what one would expect - an economy built out of pure fiat is an economy that exists purely as an idea in someone's head with little/no grounding in reality. The economy evaporates into thin air.

Capitalism is built around the notion of the sale - the notion of exchange. While there will always be individuals willing to forego morals and ethics in their exchanges, they have limited individual authority and capability. Since capitalism generally distributes the Fiat aspect regarding business to businesses, themselves, those who are willing to resort to abuse find themselves atop far smaller empires that must negotiate with those who have every reason to look out for their own interests and avoid being abused.

Rather than compounding abuse into centrally planned schemes, capitalism pits self-interest against itself.

Don't get me wrong I'm no Communism activist or anything, but our current situation is so very far from ideal, we have more than enough resources going to waste, by elevating our morality we can better distribute wealth and reduce poverty.

The error is the belief that there is any system that can make things 'equal' or 'redistribute' anything.

While I will agree that our current system is imbalanced, there will always be a stratification of incomes to some degree or another. People move through income brackets. Liken it to the model, above. It also works for human behavior.

People move through the Four Movements in their personal lives, as well. There have been times where I've been effectively unemployed and I've been a bum for a few months, living off of savings. It's not the wisest thing in the world to do, but at the same time - when it happens, expecting to miraculously receive an income is just as unnatural as it is to expect the world to move by command, alone.

A lot of people who are homeless or in dire economic straits are there for a reason other than any kind of free market exploitation. The error is believing that anyone has the power to change this other than the individuals in question. Temporary relief can be afforded by others, true - but the power to change exists only with the individual. If they never move from a standing of Wu, then they will eventually deplete what they have acquired and be left with nothing.

That is only natural.

Likewise - if people are forced to give to others without regard for the concept of exchange - the system is effectively Fiat and will evaporate into thin air.

Almost all restaurants, especially the high end, waste so much food to the point where what is being thrown in the garbage is a lot more than what is being eaten. And they would never give any excess or leftover food to the needy, it goes straight to the garbage. Some even go to the extent of dissolving the extra food in a solution that renders it inedible just so the needy have no chance of salvaging it from the trash.

Having worked in a restaurant that was one of the higher end establishments in town (granted, it's not a big city, here), I can say that a fair portion of unused food got sent home with people. One of the guys who was a regular was a homeless Vietnam veteran. He was a rather interesting guy who lived out of his car.

The thing is, however, that a restaurant's food is not something that can easily go to "the needy." Virtually everything a restaurant throws away is perishable and is nearing its expiration. Steaks that we threw out were sitting in the refrigerator for four to six days. The vegetables we threw out just finished their second day on the steam table. Sure, they were edible and they would often go home with employees (who were single mothers trying to feed their kids) rather than to the trash can, but the soonest a homeless shelter could make use of them would be the following morning - maybe evening.

Factor in that this supply is relatively random and inconsistent, and it makes no sense for homeless shelters to rely upon it, nor does it make any sense for homeless people to hang out for hand-outs. Our homeless guy was a sort of regular customer plus friend (though I think he usually just ordered coffee or something - he wasn't hanging out so much for the food as he was just hanging out).

Plus, who is going to gather up this food from the various restaurants?

The way most restaurants address waste is with special sales on food. When inventory is greater than what they expect to sell before it expires - they put it on sale and tell the waitresses to make sure to mention it to people. Everything thrown away at the end of the night is wasted investment. The restaurant bought the food long before the people took a look at the menu. The ones that throw away more of their investment than they sell will be out of business in a hurry.

Other times they run sales are when customer volumes are high (weekend sales are common). Since it costs almost the same just to have someone staff the grill for five customers as it does for fifty - it makes more sense to try and bring in seventy with discounted grill items than to leave the prices flat on days when customers come in. You get customers who normally wouldn't eat at your weekday price, and you also get people who divert that expense into other menu items.

I would have to do more research into the "dissolving food solution" before I come back with much of a strong answer on that, but in some areas, I can understand the need to keep people from rifling through dumpsters. There is the opportunity for lawsuits if someone gets hurt while rummaging through your dumpster, as well as the fact that when people get into bags and open them up, you'll have various scavenging wildlife breaking for your dumpster every time you turn around.

Humans can be just as much of a pest as opossums and mice. That might be the "immoral" view of it - but when your employees are practically met at the dumpster by beggars and they begin to drive off the customers who are providing the jobs for the people who work at the restaurant... a practical element kicks in to decree it unacceptable.

Generally speaking, free-market businesses are fairly efficient where they can be. We used to sell our fryer grease to a cosmetics company who used it for soaps and lotions (or, rather, they reprocessed it and then sold it to the cosmetics companies).

Of course - that restaurant eventually did go out of business. Combination of the customer base dying off and the business owner not understanding the point of advertising... and some other business sensibilities. We tried, though... we tried to get her to understand....

"You need to advertise on the radio."

"We advertise on The Bridge."

"Who listens to The Bridge, anyway?"

"Our customers do!"

*facepalm*