Morality and Perception: Defining Good Morals

[noXion]

What is morality, really? Each person would have a different set of morals, I suppose. So if I think gay marriage is right, but a majority doesn't, do I have bad morals? How do you define good morals anyway?

 

[noXion]

Oh yes, and perception. Perception, how someone sees something. So if I can perceive something differently, this will generate alternative morals from another who perceives differently from I. So again, how do you define good morals?

 

[granpa]

morality is about 'fairness'.

i think the concept of 'fair market value' is important too, and i don't just mean in a monetary sense. i mean anything that people value.

 

[noXion]

"Morality is about 'fairness'"- granpa

What if I think something is fair that you don't? Are my morals wrong? Or are they wrong only to you and people with similar morals? The thing about morals is that they differ.

 

[granpa]

'fair market value'

"Morality is about 'fairness'"- granpa

What if I think something is fair that you don't? Are my morals wrong? Or are they wrong only to you and people with similar morals? The thing about morals is that they differ.

thats where the 'fair market value' comes in.

 

[JoeDawg]

thats where the 'fair market value' comes in.

Unfortunately supply and demand is fairly ruthless, not to mention fickle.
Morality is arbitrary, and fairness is an illusion. Getting the best deal is formalized extortion.

 

[granpa]

Unfortunately supply and demand is fairly ruthless, not to mention fickle.
Morality is arbitrary, and fairness is an illusion. Getting the best deal is formalized extortion.

yes the price of goods and services fluctuates with supply and demand but that does not make it arbitrary or illusory. and it certainly doesn't make it extortion.

 

[JoeDawg]

yes the price of goods and services fluctuates with supply and demand but that does not make it arbitrary or illusory.

You're mixing two sentences together. I did not say that.

and it certainly doesn't make it extortion.

To extort:
"To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation."
Its called sales.

 

[granpa]

You're mixing two sentences together. I did not say that.

To extort:
"To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation."
Its called sales.

the whole point of a free market place is that people buy and sell things of their own freewill. competition will drive prices down but not below the minimum that people are willing to work for. the existence of any coercion or intimidation would completely eliminate the whole concept of a 'free' market place and therefore 'fair' market prices.

if prices are fair and non-arbitrary then morality can be also.

 

[JoeDawg]

the whole point of a free market place is that people buy and sell things of their own freewill.

There is nothing free about market places.

They only really involve freewill if what you are buying are things you don't need. Its an easy mistake to make, when you are well off and in a land of plenty

Food, for instance, is not something a person can go out with. If I produce food, I will need to defend it, either with personal physical force, or the vicarious force supplied by the government/police, who will demand taxes. If I don't produce it, but decide to take it, I will need to use some kind of force. On a basic level I can do this with either personal physical force, or by refusing to give something that someone else needs to them, unless they give me food. Bartering then becomes a basis for a monetary system.

'Fair price' depends on enforcing bargains. And people will invariably do what ever they can do to get around this enforcement. You cannot have a market without security, without punishment for those who do not want to play that game. Its only free if I have the option not to pay.

Trade is polite, even civilized, but generally only when there is plenty to buy, money to buy it, and punishment for those who don't play ball. Its like gladiators in an arena, its formalized warfare, as opposed to getting knifed in an alley. I'd rather be a gladiator, but I wouldn't want to be one.

competition will drive prices down but not below the minimum that people are willing to work for.

I'm a big fan of capitalism, it works very well in modern society, but I think you are being naive. Take away our technology and we would return to serfdom and slavery in two shakes of stick. Without our machine slaves, we would need animals... and other humans to do our dirty work.

the existence of any coercion or intimidation would completely eliminate the whole concept of a 'free' market place and therefore 'fair' market prices.

No one wants to pay for things they don't have to, and most will turn a blind eye, if they think they can get away with either getting something free or increasing profit, increasing profit means money to buy other things we can't get for free. Money is a great way of coercing people to do things they would never normally choose to do.

if prices are fair and non-arbitrary then morality can be also.

They aren't, and it isn't. Pretending otherwise may make it easier for you to sleep at night, but its not reality, which can be wonderful and horrible. Simple moralities are based on an emotional response...hot->pain->bad->thou shalt not... of course as long as the pain isn't our own, we can think of all kinds of 'greater and lesser evils'. And what we can't see, is easily ignored.

 

[granpa]

well i didnt understand half of that but i will say this. i am not naive. i know that the system is screwed up but it is screwed up precisely because it is not 'free'. because free competition is undermined by people cheating the system.

you want to be 'free' of all necessities? the system is not 'fair' because you have to work? well that's a childish attitude.

you may have no choice but to buy food but as long as you have a choice of who to buy it from and those people are in honest competition with one another then the price should reflect the fair market price.

 

[JoeDawg]

What is morality, really? Each person would have a different set of morals, I suppose. So if I think gay marriage is right, but a majority doesn't, do I have bad morals?

Are they self-consistent, or do you contradict yourself?
Do you follow them blindly or do you make rational exceptions?

A good moral is a generalization that applies in most situations, but that doesn't oblige in extraordinary circumstances. Moral absolutes are for children.

How do you define good morals anyway?

The way most people do, whether they admit it or not, Morals are rules *I* think are right. Its completely subjective and arbitrary of course. Societies form around people with common interests, but each has their own. Its only with things like scientific method that we have sought some basic form of 'objective' understanding and the truth is we aren't very good at it.

 

[JoeDawg]

well i didnt understand half of that but i will say this. i am not naive. i know that the system is screwed up but it is screwed up precisely because it is not 'free'. because free competition is undermined by people cheating the system.

Systems aren't people, its like mathematics vs real objects. Mathematics is an approximation, an abstraction. The system doesn't work 'properly' because it doesn't take into account how people really are and if it does, it stifles their freedom intentionally for the sake of maintaining the system.

you want to be 'free' of all necessities? the system is not 'fair' because you have to work? well that's a childish attitude.

I didn't say I wanted free anything. I said you were naive to believe in 'free' markets. There is no freedom there, at best, and it gets worse, it is a negotiation at the barrel of a gun. What is childish is pretending its not that. Life isn't fair, nor free, we don't get what we want and sometimes we don't even get what we need. We are victims of a silent universe. The freedom to choose not to starve is a very poor kind of freedom if that is what you want to call it. All we really have is each other and sometimes we kill each other for stupid reasons.

you may have no choice but to buy food but as long as you have a choice of who to buy it from and those people are in honest competition with one another then the price should reflect the fair market price.

And if you can't afford that fair market price? You die.
Wouldn't 'fair' be a price everyone can afford?
And how would that be fair to people doing the work?
There are people dying right now who can't afford food.
And there are people destroying perfectly good food they can't sell.

Capitalism may be better than barbarism, or even communism... or any other ism, but its hardly 'fair'. Market forces cause plenty of pain and suffering. Thats why governments are always trying to regulate them.

 

[granpa]

And how would that be fair to people doing the work?
i have no idea what you meant by that.

so basically you are saying that the system isn't fair because poor people exist and can't afford the 'fair market price' of necessities.

is that 'fair' to the poor people? the answer is no. definitely not. but it isn't the systems fault. it is reality itself that is the culprit. the system is fair. reality is unfair.


of course we have insurance to help people who experience some unfortunate setback but everyone who pays into it benefits from it. i take it you are saying that some people are born into poverty and if they ever do escape it then they have no reason to expect that they will ever be poor again so therefore have no reason to help the poor. no reason to pay into a sort of 'poor people insurance'. so the poor are just left to themselves. if that is what you are saying then you may be onto something. but i think you may be looking at it wrong. it is unfair to the poor people to be born into poverty but at the same time it would be totally unfair to the rich to make them pay for something even though they, the rich, will not get anything out of doing so? no. its unfair all around. its not that the system is unfair. its just reality itself.

clearly we are dealing here with two different concepts of 'fair'. the 'fair market value concept of fairness' and the more general idea of fairness. i concur that the fair market place will only carry the idea of fairness so far. to bridge the gap to the idea of fairness in general requires something extra.

it seems to me that the 'fair market value' of commodities establishes the idea of 'fairness'. then that 'something extra' is to place (a high) value on fairness itself.

 

[JoeDawg]

it seems to me that the 'fair market value' establishes the idea of 'fairness'. then that 'something extra' is to place value on fairness itself.

Market value is market value, its a number. 'Fair' is a value judgment and will depend on your circumstances. If you have to fight to survive, or steal to eat, you will view the 'fairness' of society very differently, regardless of how others benefit from whatever system they care to choose. No man-made system is perfect, certainly not capitalism, therefore it is not fair in any absolute sense. As a working solution, its useful. Using words like 'fair' and 'free' with regards to markets are loosely descriptive at best, wholly inaccurate at worst. The reality of the market is the law of the jungle, the rules are just artificial, as opposed to natural.

"The will to a system is a lack of integrity"
- Nietzsche

 

[granpa]

Market value is market value, its a number. 'Fair' is a value judgment and will depend on your circumstances. If you have to fight to survive, or steal to eat, you will view the 'fairness' of society very differently, regardless of how others benefit from whatever system they care to choose. No man-made system is perfect, certainly not capitalism, therefore it is not fair in any absolute sense. As a working solution, its useful. Using words like 'fair' and 'free' with regards to markets are loosely descriptive at best, wholly inaccurate at worst. The reality of the market is the law of the jungle, the rules are just artificial, as opposed to natural.

"The will to a system is a lack of integrity"
- Nietzsche

well that is your opinion and you keep repeating it as though that will somehow prove its truth.

i can understand rejecting the idea of an absolute morality but 'fair market value' is not an absolute and yet you reject even that idea. i see no rationale behind that.

so you are saying that sometimes you may have to steal in order to eat? well let's look at that. what does it mean to 'steal'? to steal is to take without paying the fair market price. so even if we accept that that does in fact occur it not only doesn't disprove the existence of 'fairness' but it proves that it does exist.

a free market establishes fair market value for goods and services (including labor). it then constrains people to act fairly in buying and selling. reality itself is not so constrained. it deals us all our cards at random. some people are born rich and others are born poor. some win the lottery and others lose everything in a disaster. if you want reality to be fair then, yes, it will require something more than a free market.

if you do have to steal in order to eat then how does that differ from what i said before. it may not be fair to you to starve but it isn't fair to the store owners to have to pay for the food you steal. its unfair all around. the system isn't being unfair. its reality itself that is unfair. and that is perhaps a very good reason why we should go that extra step that i talked about. to actually place a high value on fairness itself. if we all valued fairness then we would be inclined to help those who reality had screwed.

i wanted to add that if i were in the position of being able to help some poor person and i knew that i wolud not profit from doing so i would ask myself 'woud this person do the same for me?'

 

[JoeDawg]

well that is your opinion and you keep repeating it as though that will somehow prove its truth.

Initially you stated you didn't understand most of what I was saying. Did you not wish me to clarify? Not sure why you would continue otherwise.

i can understand rejecting the idea of an absolute morality but 'fair market value' is not an absolute and yet you reject even that idea. i see no rationale behind that.

Because what is fair is completely subjective, and market value involves large numbers of people who are not going agree on said price.

so you are saying that sometimes you may have to steal in order to eat? well let's look at that. what does it mean to 'steal'? to steal is to take without paying the fair market price.

That may be your definition, but the police would disagree. Stealing is taking what is not legally yours without permission regardless of how 'fairly' it is priced. Again, if you're stealing it, you probably don't consider it a fair price. And in a market economy it doesn't even have to be a majority agreement on what is fair, it has more to do with what the rich powerful people decide.

a free market establishes fair market value for goods and services (including labor).

Again, I think you're being naive. How much is my labour worth? I guarantee people who work 12 hour days picking fruit in fields work 10 times as hard as your average office worker and get paid much less. I've done both, so I know. Markets are controlled and manipulated all the time, generally by those who can afford to do so, which puts those who can't, at a disadvantage, which has nothing to do with value of goods. Just look at the way a company like Microsoft crushes competition by leveraging the market instead of providing a superior product. 'Vista' sales have been driven by its default inclusion in most new PCs.

if you want reality to be fair then, yes, it will require something more than a free market.

So a free market is not free and fair market value is an illusion. It doesn't live up to the hype.

if you do have to steal in order to eat then how does that differ from what i said before. it may not be fair to you to starve but it isn't fair to the store owners to have to pay for the food you steal. its unfair all around. the system isn't being unfair. its reality itself that is unfair.

If reality makes it impossible for said system to be fair, then the system isn't fair because it doesn't address reality. It may be a wonderful system, in theory, but if doesn't deliver in the real world, bottom line, it doesn't deliver.

and that is perhaps a very good reason why we should go that extra step that i talked about. to actually place a high value on fairness itself. if we all valued fairness then we would be inclined to help those who reality had screwed.

As a society we do just that, its called taxing the rich. We do this because our system is weighted towards the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I'm not sure how you can continue to call it fair and free when it doesn't address inequities and necessities. A fair system would take these into account. Market systems are incomplete at best.

i wanted to add that if i were in the position of being able to help some poor person and i knew that i wolud not profit from doing so i would ask myself 'woud this person do the same for me?'

Thats bad strategy. Game theory shows that a tit-for-tat strategy is much better for society and the individual long term.

 

[granpa]

they don't have to agree on the price. that is the whole point. 'fair' is not about everybody being happy.

markets are controlled and manipulated? yes, i agree. didnt i agree with you several posts ago. i said that a hypothetical 'free' market place establishes 'fair' market value. i said nothing about a market that is being manipulated. a manipulated market is not a 'free' market.

i never said that the reality is fair (in a broader moral sense). you came up with that idea on your own. reality is unfair. it deals us our cards at random. you can't call that fair. but given that unfairness the 'free' market does establish 'fair' market value. i never said reality is fair. that would be ridiculous. this is not an argument for or against capitalism. it is a thread about a hypothetical 'free marketplace' and the foundations of morality.

is it fair if one person wins the lottery and others dont. no. if a person is born with a rare disease and has to pay expensive medical bills is that fair. no. of course not. but is it fair that others should pay for it? no. its still unfair. reality screws us all. that is a given. how you take that fact and then say that the 'free' market value established by the hypothetical 'free' market place is therefore unfair is beyond me. one has nothing to do with the other. perhaps you could give an example and what you would do differently.

your complaint just seems to be that life is unfair therefore capitalism is wrong. but life is unfair for reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism. even a hypothetical perfectly fair economic system is not going to eliminate all of reality's unfairness. that will require something more than an economic system.

 

[JoeDawg]

they don't have to agree on the price. that is the whole point. 'fair' is not about everybody being happy.

"fair market value" - http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/F0015400.html
NOUN: The price, as of a commodity or service, at which both buyers and sellers agree to do business.

markets are controlled and manipulated? yes, i agree. didnt i agree with you several posts ago. i said that 'free' markets establish 'fair' market value. i said nothing about a market that is being manipulated. a manipulated market is not a 'free' market.

Which gets back to me thinking you are naive, no market, where they exchange anything of any worth isn't manipulated, in fact, they are set up with all kinds advantages in mind. Even on the street level, you have 'sales' and bate and switch advertising, and outright lying. Your understanding of markets appears to be completely theoretical, or at the least, idealized.

but given that unfairness the 'free' market does establish 'fair' market value.

I don't agree even one bit.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Markets are controlled by those with power, there is nothing fair about that. Different rules for different people, it was ever thus.

i never said reality is fair.

I never said you did. But if you don't address the reality of situation with your 'system', then the system is ultimately unfair.

As to this thread being about morality, you are correct, but this was your example, not mine. Maybe its just a bad example, but I don't see it supporting your assertion that morality is about fairness. Trying to be fair is certainly an aspect of some moral philosophies, but its hardly universal. Many moral systems are based on hierarchical systems that value different things, and different people, in different ways.

 

[granpa]

the buyer and seller do have to agree. i was responding to your assertion that the hypothetical free market value was unfair because 'everyone' doesn't agree on that price. if someone doesn't agree with the price then they don't have to buy it.

"I don't agree even one bit.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Markets are controlled by those with power, there is nothing fair about that. Different rules for different people, it was ever thus.'

do you not underestand the idea of 'hypothetical'? it isn't necessary that any real world system be truly 'free'. we can still assume it for the sake of discussion.

a fair economic system is one thing. a fair reality is another. an economic system is only a small part of reality.
if life/reality is unfair then it does not follow that the economic system, especially a hypothetical one, must necessarily be unfair.

 

[JoeDawg]

the buyer and seller do have to agree. i was responding to your assertion that the hypothetical free market value was unfair because 'everyone' doesn't agree on that price. if someone doesn't agree with the price then they don't have to buy it.

This is true, and hypothetically, if its food they can either die of starvation, or take it by force.

Survival of the fittest. Sounds fair to me.

 

[granpa]

This is true, and hypothetically, if its food they can either die of starvation, or take it by force.

Survival of the fittest. Sounds fair to me.

yes it is unfair. like i said, reality is unfair. just because reality is unfair it does not follow that the 'fair market value' is not the fair value.

if you want reality to be fair you will need more than an economic system.



so you admit it is unfair? how do you know its unfair? we know reality is unfair because we know the 'fair market value' of the goods and services. fair market value does not imply that reality is fair. it proves that it is totally unfair. if you don't believe that 'fair market value' is fair then how do you know that reality is unfair? how are you defining fair?

fair market value does not imply that reality is fair. the fact that reality is unfair does not imply that fair market value is unfair. they are two totally different things. yet you keep insisting that one implies the other. this is incomprehensible.

 

[JoeDawg]

yes it is unfair. like i said, reality is unfair. it does not follow that the 'fair market value' is unfair.

if you want reality to be fair you will need more than an economic system.

Thats a cop out. Your economic system either works and is fair or its not. Claiming its fair in some fantasy land of hypotheticals doesn't cut it.

 

[granpa]

Thats a cop out. Your economic system either works and is fair or its not. Claiming its fair in some fantasy land of hypotheticals doesn't cut it.

i never said that reality is fair. neither in this world nor in any hypothetical world. 'fair market value' does not imply that reality is fair. indeed it shows just the opposite.

you say it is unfair that some people are born poor. i agree. but how do we know that it is 'unfair'? how do we define 'unfair'? that is the question. to say it is unfair is to say it is undeserved or unearned. but how can we say something is unearned unless we can place a 'fair market value' on things in general.

if a person is born with a rare disease that prevents them from working and requires expensive medicine and they turn to stealing food to feed themselves then is it unfair because the hypothetical free market sets a certain fair market value on food or is it unfair because reality stuck them with a bill for services not rendered? the latter in no way at all contradicts the idea of a fair market value and indeed it can't be understood without such an idea. there is no question that the situation is unfair but the question is who is the culprit? is it the store owner who is just trying to earn a living or is it cold hard reality and random chance. i am all for helping the poor but i don't see how doing so negates the idea of fair market value.

 

[JoeDawg]

i never said that reality is fair.

We agree on this. Where we don't agree is where you state your economic system is 'fair' when it doesn't take into account those with no money. Simply letting people who don't fit into your system die isn't what most people would call treating them fairly. Being born poor is hardly their fault. 'Fair' market value simply isn't fair to these people.

you say it is unfair that some people are born poor.

No, I say its life. Life just is. Fair is a value judgment, one you are making. You're the one talking about 'fair market value'. I think the entire concept is self-contradicting because fairness is relative. For a price to be fair, in a general way it would have to be so to every potential buyer. If its only fair to a certain number, then it is by definition, unfair to the rest.

Also, undeserved and unearned are not the same thing. How does one earn the right to life? How does one earn the right not to be brutally raped?

i am all for helping the poor but i don't see how doing so negates the idea of fair market value.

Thats because you buy into your fair market ideal. That everyone should be able to buy what they need and those who don't deserve our pity. That is not much different from people who buy into a warrior ideal who kill those weaker than themselves, thinking, life isn't fair, but everyone has a chance to survive, you just have to be strong. Sounds fair, if you are strong.

 

[granpa]

you are still confusing 'fair market value' with 'fair in reality'. but nevermind. i give up. i should never have used the word 'fair' in 'fair market value'. i should have just said the 'free market value'.

if the free market value isn't the legitimate price then what is?

do you even agree that everything has a certain legitimate value? if they didnt then how would one decide what is stealing and what isnt? that would be like trying to measure things with a variable ruler.

 

[granpa]

if someone sticks a gun in my ribs and forces me to hold up a bank then it is clear the law has been broken but who is the culprit? me, or the one holding the gun, or the bank teller who refuses to give me free money?

as i see it your example of someone stealing to feed their family falls into the same category. clearly something here is not fair but the question is who is the culprit? the one stealing, or reality itself for forcing them to steal to eat, or the honest store owner who insists on charging for the food? and the second question is what should we do about it?

we both agree that it wouldn't be fair for some person to be born with some expensive disease (in effect handed a bill the moment they are born, by reality (random chance) itself, for services not renedered) and thereby forced to steal to feed himself. the only question is who is at fault? you blame the hypothetical free market system for setting prices and i simply blame reality itself for dumping large bills on people who did nothing to deserve it. why should i question the legitimacy of the hypothetical free market prices just because this person can't afford them? why not just establish some kind of insurance fund to cover such undeserved bills for such people and leave the concept of hypothetical free market prices as they are? would that not solve the problem and at the same time leave the idea of hypothetical free market prices intact? using the idea of a hypothetical free market price we can establish exactly what is fair for everyone including those who like the person in our example are born with some disability. without such an idea i can see no way of establishing what is fair for anyone. that wolud be like trying to measure things with a variable ruler.

establishing such a fund would of course require that we progress beyond mere self-interest. it requires a non-materialistic spirituality which, as i said before, i think amounts to the placing of value on 'fairness' itself. i don't really want to get into spirituality here. i still believe that 'hypothetical free market value' is the foundation of morality and without it it is impossible to establish any consistant understanding of fairness.

i have begun to doubt that you really believe what you are saying.

 

[JoeDawg]

if the free market value isn't the legitimate price then what is?

Well I think 'free market' is a nonsense phrase. But I've said that, so I'll address the question here instead.

There is no legitimate price. You've just substituted 'fair' with 'legitimate'.

There is simply the price one arrives at. Sellers will always try and get as much out of their buyers as they can. And buyers will try and get a lower price. But they only do this, because its in their interest to, within a system that benefits them. The system benefits them so they advocate it as fair, even if others can't participate. Screw them.

And those who can't participate, will either suffer for it, or make those who participate in a system that excludes them, suffer, ie steal from them.

If someone makes an unreasonable demand that threatens my life, they are threatening my life. I have a right, most would agree, to defend my life. So if an economic system implicitly denies me the right to live because of my circumstance, then I'm justified, as much as anyone can be, to defend my life with all necessary force.

This is the problem with trying to force an artificial system onto the real world, invariably the system is not up to the job. The system is faulty. Which brings us back to Nietzsche.

do you even agree that everything has a certain legitimate value? if they didnt then how would one decide what is stealing and what isnt? that would be like trying to measure things with a variable ruler.

Prices fluctuate based on a thousand variables, most of which have nothing to do with the quality of the merchandise. Your ruler is changing all the time. And there are plenty of people who leverage that to make money. A fair price is one, a buyer and a seller agree upon. If they don't agree you can't say its fair, fair is value judgement. One can certainly make a statement with regards to one transaction. What I object to here is characterizing it in some absolute across the board sense. It can't be fair 'in a general sense', unless it includes everyone and so called 'free markets' never do this.

 

[JoeDawg]

if someone sticks a gun in my ribs and forces me to hold up a bank then it is clear the law has been broken but who is the culprit? me, or the one holding the gun, or the bank teller who refuses to give me free money?

People break laws all the time. Some times laws are unfair. You've got an even more complex question here than you think.

as i see it your example of someone stealing to feed their family falls into the same category. clearly something here is not fair but the question is who is the culprit? the one stealing, or reality itself for forcing them to steal to eat, or the honest store owner who insists on charging for the food? and the second question is what should we do about it?

I place no 'fairness' on reality. Calling life unfair is either stating the obvious or saying nothing at all.

If someone is stealing for food, and your 'honest' store owner is selling for profit, so he can buy a nice car, who is more justified? Bear in mind, your honest store owner is implicitly denying this someone food, so they can get their nice car.

This is something that happens all the time. Hell there are whole countries of people who can't feed themselves and whole countries wasting money, ie resources, on things they absolutely don't need.

you blame the hypothetical free market system for setting prices

I don't blame hypotheticals. I'm saying your fair/free market doesn't exist. Its a fantasy with self-contradicting ideas. I don't blame things that don't exist.

and i simply blame reality itself for dumping large bills on people who did nothing to deserve it.

Bills don't spontaneously appear or fall from trees. People have to charge you first.

why should i question the legitimacy of the hypothetical free market prices

Why defend a system that doesn't work? It doesn't. It ignores reality.

without such an idea i can see no way of establishing what is fair for anyone. that wolud be like trying to measure things with a variable ruler.

Well if you want to change things there is an easy way to deal with that ruler.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - Louis Blanc

I wasn't actually advocating that though, just honesty, the other has its own problems. Once you understand that its not a fair system then you can start talking about how to make it fair. Which you now seem to be doing, even though you insist on sticking with the empty ideal of the 'free market'.

establishing such a fund would of course require that we progress beyond mere self-interest.

Problem is, that 'fund' already exists, its called sales tax. But including that throws out the 'free' part of free market, where people can set their own prices.

it requires a non-materialistic spirituality

Not a big fan of spirituality which always sounds to me like supernatural... but maybe you meant something else.

which, as i said before, i think amounts to the placing of value on 'fairness' itself. i don't really want to get into spirituality here. i still believe that 'hypothetical free market value' is the foundation of morality and without it it is impossible to establish any consistant understanding of fairness.

Fairness is a value judgment. Morality is a set of rules. We may, or not, agree on either.
Agreement is the only foundation I can see.

 

[Xori]

JoeDawg, no one ever claimed that free markets were truly "free", its just a term. They're free in terms of allowing a large degree of freedom, not in being anarchy.

The way I see it, the world has limited resources, and they have to be divided among people in some way. In my opinion, prices are the fairest way. Sometimes, people get screwed by this because of unfortunate circumstances, but more often than not they just get screwed by other people who aren't following the rules, not by the market itself.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, no one ever claimed that free markets were truly "free", its just a term. They're free in terms of allowing a large degree of freedom, not in being anarchy.

The way I see it, the world has limited resources, and they have to be divided among people in some way. In my opinion, prices are the fairest way. Sometimes, people get screwed by this because of unfortunate circumstances, but more often than not they just get screwed by other people who aren't following the rules, not by the market itself.

The market is set up to favor those in certain circumstances, mostly because it was set up by those people.

 

[Xori]

The market is set up to favor those in certain circumstances, mostly because it was set up by those people.

I disagree that your first point logically leads to the second one.

I also disagree with the first point entirely. I think the market was set up to be an efficient economic system, and coincidentally favors some people (more intelligent people) because they are often able to take advantage of it better.

By the same principle, you could say that a game of chess is extremely unfair because the smarter person has a huge advantage. In my opinion, the game is still fair, but the results won't be a perfect distribution of resources.

 

[Xori]

Consider this: Set up any simple game that does not favor one group of people over another?

No matter what you do, there will be some factors that help in winning the game, whether it requires intelligence, physical strength, creativity, etc... "Fairness" is not in the result, but in the equal opportunity to compete.

 

[JoeDawg]

I disagree that your first point logically leads to the second one.

I also disagree with the first point entirely. I think the market was set up to be an efficient economic system, and coincidentally favors some people (more intelligent people) because they are often able to take advantage of it better.

I don't think intelligence is really an issue here. I know lots of intelligent people who can do the math, but can't keep their cheque book balanced. It favors those who have stuff they don't need, people who want to leverage that, to get other stuff. It favors greed and self interest.

By the same principle, you could say that a game of chess is extremely unfair because the smarter person has a huge advantage. In my opinion, the game is still fair, but the results won't be a perfect distribution of resources.

Of course if you start out with all the pieces and your opponent only has her king, its likely you are going to win. Its also likely that you are going to win, if you have played for years and if I don't know how to play chess.

 

[Xori]

I don't think intelligence is really an issue here. I know lots of intelligent people who can do the math, but can't keep their cheque book balanced. It favors those who have stuff they don't need, people who want to leverage that, to get other stuff. It favors greed and self interest.

Your sample size of intelligent people that can't balance their checkbook is intriguiging, but irrelavant. There is a correlation between income and IQ in a capitalistic society. More intelligent people have an easier time attaining higher education, getting better jobs, moving up, etc... Do you not agree?

Greed and self-interest is common to all humans, its the way we express them that differes. This is a different topic though: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=158435

Of course if you start out with all the pieces and your opponent only has her king, its likely you are going to win. Its also likely that you are going to win, if you have played for years and if I don't know how to play chess.

You are introducing additional variables into the analogy that were not there to try to prove your point.

No one plays a game of chess starting out with different pieces, so I didn't think it was necessary for me to specify this perametar. However, it looks like I have to.

Both people are given a chessgame. Neither has played before. They are both given the rules to the game. They both start out with equal number of pieces. They alternate sides (black/white) every game, and play 100 games. One person has an IQ of 120, the other has an IQ of 80. Who do you think will win more games?