Blake, that's the history of what spurred safety precautions as social norms. It's not the be all and end of their implications. As I have said over and over again in reply already, the historical basis is not relevant. Personal safety is a utilitarian end consistent with my beliefs entirely of itself, not it's historical justification nor of any reasons anyone else might support it. Understand?

You mean this:

I don't see taking safety precautions as resistance to natural cycles of life and death, granted I can understand why you might presume that I do, but I don't.

Safety precautions enable us to push boundaries successfully, I don't see it as avoiding death so much as I see it as angling for achievement.

I would concede there's probably a fine line run between fear and ambition on this matter, but my beliefs are very consistent with ambition, and so thus with the concept of taking risks with forethought of success.

I don't seek to disrespect the political value placed on human life, I simply have other values which address the same ends.

Depends on how you define "holding out in one state of consciousness". Ultimately, I believe, our consciousness is equipped to move on to different directions and ambitions, however we have humanity here and now and that's plenty of reason to make everything possible of it, and for as long as possible if you so imagine.

Finally, I originally said the above-quoted in the context of explaining my beliefs in the light of animal slaughter for meat, so, for the record, by resistance I was more strictly referring to the idea that we might need to abolish all possibility of having our human hands in bringing death to anything in order to be "good".

My reply is that death can not be inherently "bad" because life is tied inextricably to it, we cannot extract biology from the substrate of its existence.  It is what it is.  But you may note that I continued to say we have personal values affecting things like slaughter for meat, they are important, they drive us in the attempt to idealise our collective experience, I see no better reason to value them than that.

I explained how I meant it, Blake. Existence "feeds" off other existence so everything has value to us since an iota moved could be the difference between this we are now, and something else completely in our place.

Where you have missed me is in thinking that I have placed objective value above subjective value in my belief system. I have not said that - and I would not, for that matter.

So I reiterate, personal values are the beating heart of our existence, far from being unimportant, they are indispensable - without them there would be no humanity to experience.

I told you the use of them. They are the source of the experience which is humanity.

But, for the record, I am not saying that personal values trump objective value either.

In the concrete experience subjective values absolutely matter in that they are elementary to the existence of a humanity, and everything is valuable inasmuch as subjective value depends on it for existence.

Well that really didn't come across at all - in your scathing of drunkards and their enablers, for example.  I believe you even put NMCP in the enabler camp at one stage with some remark about 'not caring for the welfare of children', was it?

It sounded more personal than you are portraying it now. That's all.

I'm sorry if you feel I mis-paraphrased you; I somewhat disagree.

This is why:

Yes, there were more weasel words in your version.  Enough weasel words, in fact, that there was virtually nothing left there to attack-- nothing to constitute substance of a real attack from you, even.

However, you made a point of attacking my position using this gelatinous non-argument anyway- the spirit behind it was obvious accusation. 

Instead of paraphrasing the initial gumming you gave me, I paraphrased the teeth that would have been in those gums- and were obviously intended given your resolve that you could not 'accept' my position.

Perhaps I lost the wrong weasel word?

Tell me then: On what basis can you not accept my comparison?

Because if it's really just your opinion that you don't think the position Eloise put forth was as bad as Osama's, why didn't you just leave it at that, without all of the wishy-washy lamentations about 'rational people'?

There could be other reasons, sure, in some alternate realities.  Perhaps death in the work place causes ghosts which inhibit productivity, in some bizarro-land.  If you maintain this, then I will accept your assessment that- in your world view- it is utilitarian.

In our reality, here on Earth, however, that is not the case.

It is solid evidence of a non-utilitarian motivation.  You are lacking in any evidence for a utilitarian one.

I understood and continue to understand that you are under the delusion that modern personal safety standards are utilitarian.  Your delusion doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

Your delusion that they are is only as much to the point as a young Earth creationists' delusion that fossil records are caused by the flood- a misunderstanding of facts, tailored to your whim, can certainly be consistent with bunk beliefs.  The facts as they stand, though?  Not so much.

Even if they are obviously not utilitarian (perhaps to a degree that you can even see) like risking millions of dollars of machinery diffusing a bomb when a quickly trained orphan- or hell, even a late term cancer victim- could do the job better with no financial risk?

It's not the safety precautions themselves- but the idea that one is putting work or resources into them beyond utilitarian necessity.  The same with treating certain diseases.  These sentiments (especially when counter-utilitarian) are driven by that resistance.

You are seeing it incorrectly.  While it is utility to preserve great minds and skill, there are quite a few things that could be done better or more efficiently with casual disregard for human life-- things that would enable faster progress.

Where fear inhibits ambition, would you not consider it silly?  Is this silliness just *your* opinion, or is it based on the universe's opinion (its objective values) as you have implied?

I know what you've been saying here, but they simply do not achieve the same ends.  There may be some very rare overlap, but this is drastically different from what we understand today, and your views would entail a drastically different (and from some perspectives horrific) social ethic.

This is illogical.  If you are setting two potentially contrasting things on equal footing (such that one can not negate the other), you simply can't equivocate them as both being values and sources of 'shoulds'.

Perhaps you are mis-defining these things, and you mean not to imply that what you call these universal objective values are values, but that they are properties independent of value.  That they are not, objectively, a source of should.

You *did* imply that these "objective values" created shoulds, and pretty strongly, but perhaps this was a mist-step?

I can understand how you might have mistaken it if you didn't follow the prefacing argument carefully.

You believe truth can be obtained by just reading some woo-woo pseudo-scientific stuff and thinking about how you wish the universe worked rather than how it actually does.

Your social ethic is to give people stuff with no requirement they work, get an education in a needed field or limit the number of children they have.

As intelligent or well-read as Eloise may be, she has fallen for the world's oldest scam, the one all theists and spiritual people fall for:

Something for nothing, it never looses it's charm.

Hmmm... now you seem to be changing your tune, Blake.

What ever happened to :

So what was the problem with my beliefs, again? Prescriptiveness or apathy?

Was I advocating the slippery slope to savage hedonism or the path to wildly vivid dogma induced catastrophe?

It isn't necessary to require it, EXC. The only problem between us is that you believe the world goes to pot if we don't prescribe activity and choices to each other, and I believe the science that reveals interdependent biological communities are more likely to be hampered than helped by such prescriptions.

see also:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/21/news/in-defense-of-the-hive-a-soldier-squad-lurks-among-the-honeybees.html?pagewanted=all

you may kindly deletes the post just below this one; toothache - 3 extra strength analgesic tablets= no worries

can be so not sweet if it suits, Kapkao. Just ask Blake..

I know something for nothing, great fantasy.

The world goes to pot if individuals don't have to pay a price for bad choices and don't receive a reward for good choices. You can't solve the shortage of doctors and nurses in the world and make health care affordable by saying study your ass off to be one but you end up the same as someone that does nothing.

Well what do you call having the taxman put a gun to people's head to take the wealth of people that worked for it? Isn't that a forced prescription that interferes with the natural process?

Do the 'lazy bees' have a small group of killer bees that threaten the worker bees if they don't go out and get honey to feed them? And aren't the 'lazy bees' required to sacrifice their lives in case of attack. The only good this analogy does is justify the need for a military spending in no way can it justify socialism without requirements.

One group subsidizing another for nothing in return does not exist in nature except as a parasite/host relationship. Yet that is your political/economic/social view of the world.

Meh, this Blake thing is nothing. Backread some of the politics debates between EXC and myself - we have a beef that has extended over literally thousands of posts.

For her part:  Eloise is convinced that I'm a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be an atheist who has come here to discredit the forum, because I disagree with her pseudoscience and refuse to dignify her with debate on the subject (which infuriates her).

For my part:  Eloise has a penchant for hysterical rage (note irrational accusations), and I like to poke hornets' nests.  I'll argue with just about anybody for the joy of composing creative compilations of condescension, but I won't always humor people with debate unless I consider them rational enough to rectify fallacious positions (debating is more effort than just condescending people).

Prescribed apathy, huh? Well lets look at some of that apathy I prescribed shall we...

So, this was telling you that I believe in a prescriptive apathy? Can you see how I might not believe you bothered even reading my posts before replying, Blake?

I reckon this must be a cultural misunderstanding. To me, saying some manner of thing is impotent doesn't imply any universal anti-ethic its just a case of stating utility. I guess I just hail from a culture which takes minor aspersions much less seriously than yours.

Sorry Mellestad. I missed this before... Kapkao's fault with his bloody great gargantuan picture making that page a nightmare to load... (there you go Kapkao, I nice ugly complaint for you... want it giftwrapped?)

Anyhow, good point. I would have to admit that without the personal revelation I might not have come to forming my belief system at all. That's not to backpedal, though, my belief structure as it is today still is not based on personal revelation, however, it's place was more critical to the formation of said beliefs than to say I would definitely have them without it.

More the other part, but some parts of this- useless spiritual mumbo-jumbo layered atop effective apathy (and yes, I realize that you think "caring about all things" is different from apathy, but the practical result is essentially the same) is inconsequential. 

For the most part, you represented a useless superstition- in so far as you expressed any actual applied concern for anything, it is standard practice for a theist to be inconsistent.  I focused more on the dangers of what you were preaching.

If you have now decided that you are not preaching any kind of prescriptivism at all, though, then there's not really much to argue about (as you have long since demonstrated your inability to think critically when your pseudoscience is challenged).

It is what you said, and you have never recanted it- I have no reason to believe that you no longer hold to this conviction.  I'm not exaggerating anything- perhaps you just don't remember your ravings, because you were in a state of hysterical delirium?

Don't flatter yourself.  In your case, Eloise, there's not much of an intellect to be superior to.

Yes, so I'm smarter than a potato- not much of an ego boost there.  I don't worry myself about these kinds of things.

Blah blah, overgeneralise, assail character with vague criticisms, add a dash of hackneyed shibboleth to complete the bluff of credibility, avoid detail...

Voila! you are the legend of theist smackdown in your own lunchbox.... Claim victory.

....and round and round we go, you're addicted to the drama, Blake, let it go.

I assume you've given some thought to the idea that you might be rationalizing a belief you want to be true?

Do you think your argument is strong enough to be objectively convincing to a rational person without the benefit of your emotional catalyst?  If so, what do you think is keeping otherwise rational people from believing you?

It seems like there are more working and functional examples of societies utilizing socialism than there are of societies rejecting socialism for something like libertarianism.  Germany, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc. and most of them are doing better than America financially.

Granted, none of them are ideologically pure socialists, but I would be surprised if Eloise advocates pure socialism without qualifiers.  But I'm not aware of a functional libertarian society either, now or in the past.

If Eloise is arguing for pure socialism and you are just arguing for a mixed system, nevermind.

FWIW, I wouldn't say I'm advocating any kind of pure socialism, at least, not in any immediate sense (and it depends on what is meant by 'pure socialism' beyond that).

I agree it is the mixed economies that are the most functional in our present day world and for the most in debate with EXC I am just advocating for shifts towards the left, in general, where he raises a point in protest against such things (eg universal healthcare etc).

The bold part is where you claim that rewarding individuals for significant contribution is not necessary for basic social justice.  If "that" refers to the rewards then you're ignoring your claim that the rewards aren't necessary.  To what does "that' refer?

No, the reality is that we do not ALL pay a collective price for individual bad choices.  Stealing is an example of a bad choice that does not hurt the chooser.

Understandably, I thought this was the point you've been trying to make.  As my stealing example demonstrates, mitigating the collective consequence of individual bad choices does NOT inherently entail alleviating the individual consequence.  Another example: paying out insurance policies for stolen goods alleviates the negative effects of the stealing on those who were stolen from, but has no effect on the thief.

I thought the previous quote was "the point [you] have tried endlessly to get though..."

I don't disagree with the fact that removing desperate environments will sharply decrease criminal behavior.  However, this claim was not at all clear in the text I quoted from you.  As I showed before, the claim you made in the text I initially quoted was that mitigating collective consequence inherently entails alleviating individual consequence.  This claim is what I take issue with.  I never even commented on the effects of removing desperate environments.

That said, while desperate environments do certainly increase criminal behavior, they do not necessarily excuse it.  Furthermore, a complete removal of desperate environments would not lead to a complete removal of criminal behavior because desperate environments are only one factor in what makes criminals behave the way they do.  So even after removing desperate environments there will still be a need to reprimand criminal behavior.  This need is an inherent part of the nature of the Nash Equilibria which keeps us in the high-payoff, help-each-other environment.

Try:

Assuming that mitigating the collective consequence of individual bad choices is one of your goals (I admit I did assume this, but only because I don't have you pegged as a hateful or sociopathic person), your claim would inherently necessitate alleviating the individual consequence of bad actions.

The most extreme case of alleviating the individual consequence of bad actions is replacing law enforcement (which amplifies negative individual consequence) with freebies (which alleviate negative individual consequence).  You broke the law?  Well, we need to help everyone else recover from your terrible action so in order to do that we inherently have to help you out too (apparently).  Here's some help.  Now did you learn your lesson?

The point, though, is that we do not have to reward the criminal in order to help the victims.  Thus, we can alleviate the community without handing out freebies to the criminals.  Your claim implies otherwise.

You later clarify that you wish to change the environment in order to reduce the crime rate.  That too is a noble goal, and I agree that social benevolence will help with that.  However, until all crime has been eliminated (which is unlikely to occur any time soon), we must still deal with the question of what to do when crimes do occur.  Your assertion about mitigating consequences necessitates either inaction or rewarding crime while alleviating the social consequences (I suppose "hurt everyone" is another option given your constraints, but I won't pretend you subscribe to it).  My point is that your assertion is false, and punishing crime while simultaneously alleviating the social consequences of crime is not only possible but actually reasonable.

Ah.. Ok, I'm glad you've been more specific, Zaq, it now makes more sense why you're taking issue.

First what I probably need to say is that when I'm replying to EXC I tend to take for granted that the numerous exchanges we've already had on this subject still stand. So when I say, mitigating the collective consequence of individual bad choices inherently entails alleviating the individual consequence ... I am doing so with presumption that it is understood I mean fairly ordinary socialistic policies that EXC has branded bad for helping people who won't help themselves - like state-funded health and welfare institutions - not extreme notions of rewarding crime.

So I'd be guilty of presuming that the explicit reach of my generalisations was already understood, because I was talking to someone who is very familiar with them.

But, even so, I am surprised you found it rational to assume such extremes were meant to be implied and I will explain why in the next few paragraphs.

That's a non-sequitur, Zaq. Going back to your example, mitigating the consequence of a person stealing $50 does not in any way imply handing out a proportion of the stolen money to everyone. That's not mitigation of the collective consequence because the collective consequence is not missing money, ie the collective hasn't lost the money, its still there and still going to do what money does for the collective as always.

The loss of money is a consequence that reflects only on the individual who was stolen from.

What reflects on the collective is more subtle, its the lost sense of security that the victim will carry with him into his personal dealings in the future, the loss of his good faith in the community, the unhappiness that he will take with him into his next day and affect the people around him with - those are the collective consequences of crime. 

Mitigation of these consequences can be achieved by benevolent social policy. What happens next for a victim of crime, consequently afraid for his own security, can be summed up fairly generally, once the immediate threat is gone from his environment, as one of two things:

1. The remainder of his environment can be little or no less hostile toward his sense of security than his attacker was and his sense of unease will be compounded.

OR

2. The remainder of his environment can be far more benevolent and empathic toward his sense of security and his unease will be alleviated.

Alleviating the unease of the victim mitigates the collective consequence of the crime because the collective consequences of the crime are contributed directly by the victims sense of unease. Social benevolence achieves such alleviation.

We help out the criminal, inherently, through our benevolence, because of basically what I have already said - criminals are very often victims of crime.

But that said, the essential idea I'm proposing is simply policy that is geared to building a supportive empathic environment for them to turn to. To make the sociological environment a strong contrast to the experience of crime.

The main point, to reiterate, is that this is what is required to alleviate the collective consequence of an act of crime.

Law enforcement is yet important to alleviating the individual consequences - the direct loss or injury experienced by the victim still justifies a direct counter-action.

I offered this first because I didn't understand where you could be coming from with your contention. As I noted at the end of my post, I thought you just had some strange ideas about what was implied by a left politic so I gave you a clarification that I thought appropriate in those circumstances - ie clarifying that socialistic thinking is well grounded in facts that rational people will easily agree on.

Well I hope you now understand I never meant to imply that it wasn't. However, I consider benevolence, as I originally said, the single most powerful weapon we have against social ills.

And I would argue, then, that while punishing crime is possible and, of course, reasonable; as a primary weapon against crime, itself, a benevolent socialistic politic is, far and away, just better.

LOL, yeah... technicality. Ok.

In my defense, I said 'for all' by which I meant 'for those who don't have it yet, due to one set of circumstances or another' so I was excluding reward for service because it's recognised already as a social justice - particularly by EXC, who I was presuming to be talking to in a quite vast ream of already established context, as I said.

Just because you cannot understand 99% of what she says does not make her brilliant.  All she does in her posts is continually obfuscate her position, such that when you try to address it, she will qualify what you say with some other drivel that has nothing to do with the topic. 

You are? That's news to me.

You've changed your tune quite dramatically on that.

Mmhmm... this must be correlated with universal means to pay for it.

Knowing what we've discussed before I have to ask -- Are you suggesting equal proportion per capita regardless of means? And, if so, on what grounds to you find that a. practical and b. justifiable.

Well that hasn't changed, fair enough. We've always agreed that overpopulation is a burden, what we don't agree on is the terms by which population control can be achieved. You propose enforcement, I cite sociological statistics which evidence enforcement is unnecessary where the environment is conducive to choice.

No, I think you'll find you dyed-in-the-wool capitalists also believe in free lunch, no less than anyone does, and its nothing more than a myth of propaganda that makes you think otherwise.