[Colin2B]

[(edit: crikey - it doesn't like the singular of pussies!)

*****

Ha! You’re right!! It must be something built into the SMF system.

[ATMD]

For me, the problem with these dilemmas is that they are fictional dilemmas that have no basis in our world of cause and effect. For example, the trolley dilemma, what caused those five guys to be tied to the train tracks? They must have done something to be in that predicament. These things don't happen by themselves.

I believe in the laws of karma.

[jimbobghost]

"I believe in the laws of karma."

I do not...why do they keep following me?

[ATMD]

"I believe in the laws of karma."

I do not...why do they keep following me?

Hahaha

[ATMD]

The "golden rule" is subject to sampling error.

It is fairly obvious that a "family" group (could be a biological family or a temporary unit like a ship's crew) will function better if its members can trust each other. The military understand this: selection for specialist duties includes checks for honesty and recognition that you are fighting for your mates first, your country second. So the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" (GHGN) metric is fairly easy to determine where N < 50, say.

Brexit provides a fine example of the breakdown of GHGN for very large N. There is no doubt that a customs union is good for business: whether you are an importer or an exporter, N is small and fewer rules and tariffs means more profit . But if the nation as a whole (N is large) imports more than it exports, increased business flow overall means more loss, hence devaluation and reduced public budgets.  At its simplest, you could model a trading nation as consisting of just two businesses of roughly equal size and turnover N_imp ≈ N_exp. Good news for any sample of size ≤ 2N is bad news for the whole population if  N_imp > N_exp by even a small amount, hence the interesting conundrum "EU good for British business, bad for Britain".

I see nothing wrong with the Golden Rule. A business operates on profit making rather than morality, if it does not profit, it ceases to be a business over time. It is for everyone's best interest that a business can continue to serve its customers. Otherwise, where are the customers going to get their goods and services? Customers have to be willing to give profits to businesses as incentive to keep them operating.

Premise 1: As a seller I want to maximize profit.
Premise 2: As a buyer, I want to minimize the seller's profit (pay the lowest price).

Let's look at the Golden Rule when applied to business.

If we follow this rule to its full extent, the seller would want to give as much discount to the buyer as possible (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the buyer). Conversely, the buyer would not ask for a single discount (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the seller)

When the golden rule is applied, both of these actions cancel themselves out.

In the sampling error illustration, the nation exporting to Britain receives the surplus profits. Yes Britain incurs a trade deficit, but this trade deficit is exactly offset by the trade surplus of the other country. There is no change in the system, simply an aggregate flow of money from Britain to the exporting nation. The trade deficit is comparable to the profit that we as buyers are willing to give sellers so that they would continue to operate and provide us the goods and services that we need.

[jimbobghost]

ATMD,

how do you see a socialists view of the Golden Rule? do you think it is variance to that of a capitalist?

[ATMD]

Jimbobghost,

In a hypothetical world, a capitalist can be an absolutely moral person who respects the golden rule. He does not cheat, lie, or engage in dubious practices to take advantage of his customers. He asks a certain amount of profit to continue operating, and does not get greedy by cutting corners to get more profit. The consumer, out of his own interest, wants to support the capitalist by giving him exactly the profit that he asks for, so that the capitalist would continue providing the goods and services that he needs. The capitalist, by asking for a profit, is not breaking the Golden Rule at all. Profit gives him motivation and incentive to work hard. Without it, no goods or services are produced, both the capitalist and the consumer loses out. Profit creates a win-win situation, and the golden rule is respected.

This is of course easy to say, but extremely difficult to practice. In our world we almost equate capitalism with greed for money and power. The capitalist wants to earn more and more, never being satisfied with what he's got. His business ethics are out of his own self-interest rather than based on the golden rule. It is good for business when it has a reputation for being honest and engages in best practices. Customer complaints and lawsuits are bad for business. Profit making becomes number one priority, and the golden rule is nowhere in the equation.

[jimbobghost]

an excellent view of the golden rule from the capitalist's view.

but you did not give the socialist's view of the golden rule...it seems to me it would be different.

[ATMD]

an excellent view of the golden rule from the capitalist's view.

but you did not give the socialist's view of the golden rule...it seems to me it would be different.

You are absolutely right. Of course it is different, socialism completely embraces the golden rule. I think it is much more difficult to defend capitalism in the name of the golden rule. Socialism stresses more on equality of distribution of resources, something that capitalism does not care about. Socialism ensures that even the weak and the poor are taken care of, capitalism stresses on competition and survival of the fittest.

[jimbobghost]

ATMD,
thank you for your well stated comments.

i do not wish to push your patience with a follow up question...but because this topic involves morality, may i ask:

in a just world, in which morality (of the "good" kind) serves the greater of the people; and socialism follows more of a philosopy of "Due unto others" (IOW those with the most should share evenly with those with the least)...how is it that the richest (i.e. capitalist) countries are thriving, while socialist societies around the world are finding their people fleeing to find help from the wealthiest capitalist societies?

might it be that God's morality dictates that the poor should serve the wealthy?

[David Cooper]

Done right, socialism and capitalism should become identical. Caring capitalism (as opposed to uncaring capitalism) will continually redistribute wealth to ensure that no one misses out due to their inability to compete on the same level as the better performers. Responsible socialism (as opposed to irresponsible socialism) recognises that people need to be rewarded for hard work, innovation and good management skills - if you don't make these things pay off, people won't bother to generate more wealth and everyone ends up worse off (as in Venezuela). It's hard to find either of those out in the real world, but that doesn't mean they aren't both possible and that they aren't identical in practice. Fortunately, AGI will fix this by providing proper management of everything, out-innovating the innovators, and out-working the hardest of workers, so we'll all be end up in the same boat - i.e. out of work and receiving a standard income from the state to allow us access to our fair share of resources.

[jimbobghost]

" Fortunately, AGI will fix this by providing proper management of everything, out-innovating the innovators, and out-working the hardest of workers, so we'll all be end up in the same boat - i.e. out of work and receiving a standard income from the state to allow us access to our fair share of resources."

David,
your wit and wisdom are noted

[alancalverd]

"God's morality" dictates whatever you want it to dictate. That is the reason for inventing gods.

There has been a lot of confusion here between socialism and a command economy - by no means synonymous. The essence of socialism is "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". Provided that your tax system is fair and not a disincentive, and your benefit system meets all and only basic needs, you can rely on most people's desire for acquisition and comfort to propel a very pleasant and sustainable  society, as in Scandinavia.

Things go wrong when the state dictates rather than provides. Committees are fairly good at responding to demand, but not at predicting it, nor at innovating solutions or changing direction when things go wrong. The best disasters occur when the product must be presented to the dictator on a fixed date - prototype planes fall out of the sky and unripe corn is harvested to meet the command target, where in a less centralised society a test pilot or farmer can say "let's give it another week" and the shareholders realise that a duff product won't sell in a free market. Common sense (usually) prevails in our constitutional monarchy, where the "official opening date" is rarely set before the actual service commences.

[jimbobghost]

 "Common sense (usually) prevails in our constitutional monarchy, where the "official opening date" is rarely set before the actual service commences."

Alan,
difinitely sounds superior to our normal processes in the USA.

here, leaders pronounce accomplishments long before they are possible, i.e. "we will build a wall" or "i will drain the swamp", or "we will send a man to the moon", or "we will rebuild Europe".

even our private companies are prone to such declarations "there will be a new model of Tesla", or "GE will show greater profitability".

sigh...such are the weaknesses of dreamers.

[ATMD]

ATMD,
thank you for your well stated comments.

i do not wish to push your patience with a follow up question...but because this topic involves morality, may i ask:

in a just world, in which morality (of the "good" kind) serves the greater of the people; and socialism follows more of a philosopy of "Due unto others" (IOW those with the most should share evenly with those with the least)...how is it that the richest (i.e. capitalist) countries are thriving, while socialist societies around the world are finding their people fleeing to find help from the wealthiest capitalist societies?

might it be that God's morality dictates that the poor should serve the wealthy?

There is currently no true socialist country in existence though, I wish there were some to show us at least how it would fare economically. The "socialist" countries that are economically poor are pure dictatorships, the complete opposite of socialist values.

Like Alancalverd mentioned, the Scandinavian countries and Finland (not a Scandinavian country but a socialist country to a high degree) are quite well off economically, and they rank among the highest in terms of human welfare.

[jimbobghost]

small countries with people of common heritage are more suited to socialism.

however, potentially the most successful form of governance in small countries might be a benevolent dictatorship.

[ATMD]

"God's morality" dictates whatever you want it to dictate. That is the reason for inventing gods.

According to many theological doctrines, God's morality is absolute, it is not subjective. It is based on love, honesty, compassion and all the "good" values etc. It is the complete opposite of murdering, lying, stealing etc.

[jimbobghost]

if religious belief gives someone comfort, I am happy for them.

my major concern is that the religious doctrines handed down to modern day people were written originally by superstitious people and modified/altered over time; so that to my thinking they are pretty much unreliable as a guide.

[ATMD]

if religious belief gives someone comfort, I am happy for them.

my major concern is that the religious doctrines handed down to modern day people were written originally by superstitious people and modified/altered over time; so that to my thinking they are pretty much unreliable as a guide.

You are right again, religious doctrine (such as the bible) is not an evidence of God nor a reliable guide. It is unfortunate that our current understanding of God is based on the knowledge from institutional doctrines. With such understanding, it is no wonder that the belief in God is seen as an act of ignorance or gullibility.

[guest39538]

I think  bad  emotional  response  to  poor  morals  are  quite acceptable .    I think  others  might disagree ,  but  like  I  care  what  others think .   Moral  standards  begin  with  not  making  innocent  peoples  suffer ,  what  affects  one  affects  others .  Enough said  ,  it's  time  I  went  all  religious and bring back  the  strength  of  Gods  miracle , i.e  Me