Moral Structure Part 2 by Drafterman of AvC

Defining the Rules

The 144 actions have been constructed by the blind and mindless process of considering all possible combinations of the available components. It is necessary to exclude some of these due to incoherence.

Two rules of logic are established to do this:

Rules of Logic

Rule of Logic 1: If misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, the moral value of the outcome will be the same as of the intent.

Whenever the moral value of an outcome differs from the moral value of the intent, there must be some cause. We have grouped all causes into the three categories of: misjudgment, neglect, chance. If these aren’t factors affecting the outcome of an action, then the moral value of that action cannot have been changed from the moral value of the intentions.

There are 12 violations of this rule.

Rule of Logic 2: Only chance can influence the outcome of an action with forethought.

As previously stated, forethought is defined as a process by which any resulting influence due to misjudgment and neglect are instead classified as influence due to chance. Alternatively, this can be restated that misjudgment and neglect are necessarily due to lack of sufficient forethought. In either case, the existence of forethought precludes the influence of misjudgment and neglect.

There are 54 violations of this rule.

The Rules of Judgment

Factoring out the logically incoherent actions leaves 78.

For those the following rules of Judgment are devised:

Rule 1: Actions with immoral intentions are judged as immoral.

Given the intended purpose of establishing a guideline for behavior, immoral actions will result in immoral outcomes except when affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. None of those factors are reliable in preventing immoral intentions from being realized. As such, all actions with immoral intentions should be judged as immoral, regardless of outcome.

There are 26 applications of this rule.

Rule 2: Actions where misjudgment, neglect, and chance do not factor are judged according to their intent and outcome, both being of the same moral value.

In accordance with Rule of Logic 1, when misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, then the outcome will invariable have the same moral value as the intentions. Such actions are to be judged in accordance with that moral value.

There are 4 applications of this rule.

Rule 3: Actions with forethought affected by chance are judged according to their intent.

As defined, forethought eliminates the effect of misjudgment and neglect. While elements of chance can be reduced, in quantity and magnitude, to a degree, they cannot be reliably eliminated. Since elements of chance are unpredictable and uncontrollable (predicted and controlled elements of chance would have been eliminated through adequate forethought), the actors should not be reasonable held responsible for them. Such actions are judged according to their intentions, regardless of outcome.

There are 6 applications of this rule.

Rule 4: Actions without forethought affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance are judged according to their intent or outcome, whichever is of least moral value.

When misjudgment and neglect are factors, they are necessarily a result of lack of forethought on the part of the actor, thus making him or her accountable. When chance is a factor in such situations, it is impossible to determine if such chance was unavoidable, since no forethought was taken to make that determination. In either case, the morality of such actions is determined by their outcome or intentions, whichever is least. This ensures that actors are not rewarded for actions which are accidentally made more moral, but held responsible for actions which are accidentally made less moral since the actor neglected to take reasonable precautions against such an occurrence.

There are 42 applications of this rule. 

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

To Be Continued With ....

Summary/Conclusion, Part 3.
References, Part 4.

Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.

Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or  immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.

Summary/Conclusion, Part 3.

References, Part 4.

Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day by Thunderfoot

Thunderfoot: "Free Speech is non-negotiable."

Thunderfoot's Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day video

Thunderfoot's South Park vs Islam video

Happy Atheist Solidarity Day!

Freedom of Religion and Civil Rights

I was recently having a discussion with a Christian on the issue of Canada's Anti-Spanking law which was inspired by a Christian Biblical Literalist family who believed that whipping and caning their six children daily was required by their religion.

My position is essentially that the Anti-Spanking law recognizes the Rights of the Child which was established by:

1. The Universal Declaration of Rights, 1948.

Article 25. "2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

2. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 and to which most Western countries are signatories.

Principle 9. "The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation."

3. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child (a binding treaty to all signatories), 1989 and to which 129 (mostly) Western countries are signatories.

Article 14. Item 3. "3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Article 19. Item 1. "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

The Christian's position is nicely summarized in the following paragraph which is a direct quote.

"Need I remind you? - I'm not the one advocating that my personal morality should be forced upon others. Your friends are. But of course, it's okay now - because it's *your* views being forced - as opposed to the fundamentalists on the either side of the spectrum."

My response to the above statement:

"I've been giving this some thought and while I still don't think continuing the discussion would be productive, here are my thoughts anyway.

While (name removed)  isn't right, he isn't completely wrong either.

The concept of the "Rights of Man" (Thomas Paine) is a view which is being imposed by Secular society.

However, it's being imposed through International and Civil Law.

Unlike, religious dogma, the Secular State doesn't impose through violence or authoritarianism. It does so through the Rule of Law while recognizing the rights of all in the context of what is being imposed, including religious rights.

So, this is one critical difference which (name removed)  doesn't appear to recognize.

Another critical difference is in the content of the views and the value judgment that we place on those views as a culture.

The view that we are imposing through Law is one that recognizes the rights of all and establishes the position that each and every human being has Natural Rights (Thomas Paine) that those rights are inviolable by any belief, social system, culture, etc.

This view is diametrically opposed to any dogmatic belief system like religion, communism, fascism, etc.  because it raises the Rights of the Individual above the Rights of the Belief, Organization, State, et al.

So, while Freedom of Religion is recognized under this concept, that freedom cannot and will not be allowed to trump the Natural Rights held by individual human beings including children.

This is the second critical difference that (name removed)  doesn't appear to recognize.

That is, this concept enshrines the rights of all individuals whereas if religion were to impose its values on the non-religious, it's concepts only recognize it's religious rights and not the rights of all individuals, particularly where the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are concerned.

This is the core of the fight going on right now between the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic extremists and the Secular Western State.

It's most obvious right now with the Islamists and their demand to restrict Freedom of Speech on the grounds that everyone should be required to follow their belief system by not "offending" them.

Yes. This is the real crux of their argument.

It's offensive to them, that non-Muslims don't follow their beliefs and therefore we should be required to  follow their beliefs by not depicting Muhammed in an image.

The Christians have recently hopped on to this bandwagon, with their campaign to prevent the release of the  new series on Comedy Central, called J.C, which will be poking some light-hearted fun at the Messiah and Dear Ole Dad.

Of course, the grounds are the same as the one's the Islamists give and the demand for accommodation is the same despite the rather hypocritical Christian objections when the Islamists do it.

No-one, according to these self-righteous souls, should be able to watch the show because it offends Christians.

The entire point of Freedom of Speech is to protect offensive speech. That is, the right of all of us to give expression to controversial positions on any topic.

This argument that the free speech of all should be curtailed on the grounds that it's offensive to the religious is absurd at best and insidious at worst.

It's nothing more than an underhanded attempt to impose religious values on the non-religious, or those of other religions, through the back door.

If the Islamist extremists aren't allowed to see personifications of Muhammed they don't have to read those newspapers that depict such personifications and if Christians are offended by a show like J.C, they don't have to watch it.

To demand that others can't is imposing their religious values on all of us.

The reasons why religious dogma would consider this an imposition and object to it are rather obvious.

To tie this in to the other topic we were discussing, this is also precisely why Interculturalism is a much better concept and why Multiculturalism is racist and divisive. The concepts are the same.

Interculturalism is founded on the concept of Inclusion and places civil law over and above all cultural and social beliefs, thereby removing cultural relativism as an option.

However, it does this within the context of recognizing the right of all to follow their culture as long as those cultural beliefs do not contravene existing law and/or violate anyone else's civil rights..

Multiculturalism is founded on the concept of Diversity and imposes cultural relativism.

The exception to this occurs in situations where certain (not all) criminal laws are violated. Other laws can be violated on the grounds of accommodationism.

However, this is inconsistently applied since by definition, not accommodating these beliefs (religious or cultural) is in contradiction to the fundamental concept of Multiculturalism.

These critical differences are based on the fundamental concepts advocated by each belief system.

Secularism and Interculturalism is Inclusive and speaks to the rights of all, religious and non-religious.


Multiculturalism and Religious accommodation are, by definition, culturally and religiously relativistic.

Ode to the Spirit of William Lloyd Garrison

by Danny Boy of AvC

So why play I in adverse air?

What else could such a climate bear---

When all societies find root,

In dualistic institute?

Might I have erred?---it may well be,

But that is not the point, you see:

When social matters polarize,

We all may gain, and all may rise.

When insipid faith deride,

'Tis in defense of rights denied.

In claiming that *I* persecute,

The sheep cry, "Wolf!" in false repute.

For ever they when foul is feigned,

Blind and deaf, by dogma chained,

Overlook *their* bigotry,

Convinced of their hegemony.

Throughout this score of centuries,

Their church our rights and freedoms seized.

Thus when objectively astute,

One finds 'tis *they* who persecute.

Most sit on fences 'tween world views,

The unknown feared and loath to choose;

Just *speaking* of that which divides,

Is of more consequence than sides.

Our ignorance can live quite long,

In silent shadows far prolonged,

Through generations of our young,

Whose new ideas remain unsung.

But with our prejudices fled,

Now dragged into the light instead,

Our ignorance can live no more,

Its fallacies brought to the fore.

And so I'll play my adverse part,

That I my manner may impart.

Though passionate and coarse I be,

'Tis rooted in sincerity.

Celebrate Atheist Solidarity Day June 21, 2010

Atheist Solidarity Site

Atheist Solidarity Facebook Page

From their Facebook Page.
Description:
This is a simple campaign with one main objective: to have atheists everywhere on Facebook put a tiny atheist solidarity ribbon (one side black other side scarlet red) on their profile image to identify themselves as an atheist. It doesn't have to be big or distracting. It could be just a tiny little ribbon in the corner.

This campaign WILL:

-*ELIMINATE STEREOTYPES* about atheists as others see and recognize atheists all throughout Facebook
-Show others that *ATHEISTS ARE EVERYWHERE* and come with many different personalities and from all around the world
-Provide a means to other atheists who feel it necessary to hide their atheism to *FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE COMING OUT* as others around him/her come out
-Help *UNITE ATHEISTS*, as it will be easier to find others who are also atheists

This group's photo section will be used as a collection of user contributed renditions of the ribbon only. This collection could then be used as a place where atheists can pick a style of ribbon that best fits onto their profile picture.

To get atheist ribbon pictures with transparent backgrounds so you can easily add it on top of profile pictures see: http://bit.ly/aQ8goS

INVITE OTHERS TO THE GROUP TO ENSURE THE CAMPAIGN SUCCEEDS"

I think this is a great idea! Go Mike!