"bricks" moral progressive theory

[FUNKbrs]

I look around in the world, and I see a lot of institutionalized corruption. How much? It's everywhere. Gas prices, the medical industry, paycheck loans, there is an endless sea of moraless institutions made of people who serve people who nonetheless are not required to display peronal morality.

How do we combat these institutions, then, when the people involved in them take no moral responsibility for their actions by blaming the evils they engender? The answer is simple, especially if you understood half the long ass words in the previous paragraph.

When a person chooses to act amorally, whether on "higher" orders from an employer the government or otherwise, they enter a sphere of amorality. Hitting someone in the face is normally wrong, but in a boxing match, where the rules allow face punching, it's not only not wrong, but it's actually a type of virtue: the virtue of being a talented boxer.

Why should this rule fail to apply in other situations? When an employee or agent decides to abandon morality, those who are subject to this lapse in the rules can only compensate and protect themselves by ALSO abandoning morality. Otherwise they are only facilitating their own persecution, like a man who bullheaded walks in the middle of busy highway, it's his own fault when he's run down in the road like a dog. The moral rule of the road is to drive a car, or stay off the road.

What is the bricks moral progressive theory, then? The bricks moral progressive theory is deceptively simple. Any agent of an instution who acts amorally is ALSO acting amorally as a PERSON. That amorality has to be responded to in kind, otherwise, you end up like the man run down in the street for traveling the road on foot instead of obeying the rules and using a car. So, for example, when you see a gas station gouging prices amorally, a doctor refusing medical treatment amorally, or a government official accepting bribes amorally, you, the victim, are no longer morally bound not to, say, bash said agent of amorality in the head with a brick. IE, the "bricks" moral progressive theory.

The point is that if someone breaks into your house, you have a right to assault them in your own defense. By the same token, all OTHER moral infringements on an individual should ALSO be subject to similar response in kind. Regardless of the law of the land, logic clearly states that those that act in an amoral sphere of influence now have to face the consequences of their moral abandonment.

So, in this long and convoluted path of logic, it thereby makes perfect sense to rise up with brick in hand against these institutions as a demonstration of moral theory to the ignorant slaves of amoral institutions in the exact same way one would to an amoral individual.

Bash a bastard in the head with a brick today! Fucker had it coming, taking advantage of the masses!

fight together, die alone

[AapoJoki]

That's game theory, a.k.a Tit-for-tat, which is the evolutionary foundation of human morality, on which we have built our legal system and social norms for the past few centuries. You want to strip all of that, and start fresh, by recreating something that cavemen figured out tens of thousands of years ago. Progressive, huh?

[ReciprocalAnalogy]

But the person you beat with the brick is now a victim of your amorality, and has the right to act amorally toward you.

Someone is gouging prices. You hit them with a brick. Their prices are now justified.

[Idiot-Finder]

I know what you mean, at the end of the film "City on Fire", a cop hits his superior in the head with a brick because he got one of their own killed on a undercover job.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/13/08 08:25 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: But the person you beat with the brick is now a victim of your amorality, and has the right to act amorally toward you.

They started it. Good luck retaliating after that life-ending head wound.

Someone is gouging prices. You hit them with a brick. Their prices are now justified.

No. Both the prices and the life of the moral pugilist are now delicously negotiable.

[Kikas123]

It's a fun theory, but, technically, if you were to kill a guy who has commited amorality against you, his family could come and rape and kill you, as your "retribution" would act amorally on them.

[MortifiedPenguins]

The problem is, that there is no detailed defination or requirement for any form of morality, or even not being tied down to morality a la amoral creatures.

When something as fluid as morality or the rejection comes into play, logic fails to account for the reactions. Logic is based upon expierence and empiricism, all of which logic can't account for in any form of detached or attached morality.

So in essence, what you may percieve as amorality (as you see price gouging) someone else (such as I) would see it as a very polarized moral choice and thus breaking your case for anarchy.

Your account of amorality is combated with institutionalized laws which try to avoid the question of morality.

[ReciprocalAnalogy]

At 9/13/08 11:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: They started it. Good luck retaliating after that life-ending head wound.

Is a brick to the head the only allowable form of retribution? Cause that's only really useful in a few applications. And I might not always have a brick handy.

Someone is gouging prices. You hit them with a brick. Their prices are now justified.

No. Both the prices and the life of the moral pugilist are now delicously negotiable.

You use a moral argument to justify one action.
And then literalism to justify the next.
Then again, you never said consistency was important.

[XaosLegend]

Umm NO, prosecute them YES, random hicks deciding for themselves who's being amoral: NO

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/14/08 12:17 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The problem is, that there is no detailed defination or requirement for any form of morality, or even not being tied down to morality a la amoral creatures.

So you're basically saying there is no unspoken pact of moral compliancy in a community? Because that opens a whole new bag of worms, aka, the "is it morally wrong if you don't get caught?" argument. If you have no responsibility to obey the common morality, why not do whatever benefits yourself based soles on ability and not morality?

When something as fluid as morality or the rejection comes into play, logic fails to account for the reactions. Logic is based upon expierence and empiricism, all of which logic can't account for in any form of detached or attached morality.

So you're saying morality isn't logical? Because if you are, we're getting into "Might makes right" territory super fast.

So in essence, what you may percieve as amorality (as you see price gouging) someone else (such as I) would see it as a very polarized moral choice and thus breaking your case for anarchy.

This is one of the reasons I hate Thoreau, BTW, because when you allow people to use internal individual and subjective morality, these are the kind of problems you end up with. I'm currently ascribing to the "us" vs "them" argument of morality, where "we" are the moral people, and "them" are people who use their own internal morality. The "them" aren't subject to any moral consideration, because they've abandoned the standard morals that make them part of a culture in the society. You either embrace the standard moral law in my argument, OR, you live outside that law, are neither constrained nor protected by it.

It's kind of an "it's totally ok to beat up homeless drunks" argument,

Your account of amorality is combated with institutionalized laws which try to avoid the question of morality.

Laws are inherently institutionalized morality. Just because the politicians who wirte them are two faced assholes fails to negate this.

[Elfer]

Yeah, but who's bricking the brick-makers?

[poxpower]

I don't get this thread.

Like I don't understand if you're just stating something really obvious we all already know in like 1000 words, or if there's something new I don't get.

So LIKE WHAT DUDE LAWL

[Elfer]

Anyway, the problem with this is not the idea of socially agreed-upon morality/ethics. The problem is this:

While I'm all for power to the people, giving power to individual members of the general public and expecting them to make good decisions by exercising their own judgment is foolhardy.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/15/08 03:51 PM, poxpower wrote: TLDR

ZOMFG BANNED!!!

What it's basically doing is morally and logically justifying violent demonstrations, as opposed to the peaceful kinds you get from dudes like MLK and Ghandi. It's a kind of civil disobedience, only get rid of that "civil" word and replace it with "violent".

Remember that movie "Falling Down"? It's basically a moral and logical justification for the antics in that movie.

[Elfer]

At 9/15/08 04:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Remember that movie "Falling Down"? It's basically a moral and logical justification for the antics in that movie.

Yeah that's the problem. That dude thought what he was doing was right, but actually he was just dumb.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/15/08 12:49 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/14/08 12:17 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The problem is, that there is no detailed defination or requirement for any form of morality, or even not being tied down to morality a la amoral creatures.

So you're basically saying there is no unspoken pact of moral compliancy in a community?

There may be around some things, e.g. murder, rape, and assault, but there are often things in between. For example, looting containers the way freegans do (google it if you don't know about it) is illegal in some countries, and many right-wing people thing it's stealing to take things other people have thrown away. On the other hand, neither I nor my friends think it's immoral, even though it's illegal. Actually, we think it's more immoral for the companies to throw away tons of eatable food than for us to use it. Also, there is the matter of non-physical ownership (pirate copying and such), and buying out alcohol for people who can't legally drink it. All those thing are considered immoral by some, and neutral or even moral by others.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/15/08 12:49 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/14/08 12:17 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

If you have no responsibility to obey the common morality, why not do whatever benefits yourself based soles on ability and not morality?

Well, rationally because it would lead to a conflict with your self interest and those that uphold law and order. And usually law and order overcome the individual. This isn't Nietzche's Ubermensch coming into play here, it's an individual that will just fail.

So you're saying morality isn't logical? Because if you are, we're getting into "Might makes right" territory super fast.

In essence, yes. For example, my morality comes from the belief of a diety that had incarnated himself into a Christ. Nietzche or Shaws belief in morality came from the strength of the individual over either corrupt laws or useless laws. Logically, which one is more correct then the other?

You either embrace the standard moral law in my argument, OR, you live outside that law, are neither constrained nor protected by it.

The problem , that is, is that everybody is a Them as everybody morality or perception of morality is different then any other. There is a secular law, that is influenced by a common morality of a group of people in specific areas, that does not address certain aspects of society because law has no effect there, thats where individual morality comes into play and the perception of others may lead into conflict.

Price gouging for example. You see the gas companies price gouging as amoral, but I see it as a moral and practical thing to do (my inherent belief in the powers of Capitalism and the ability of the private company to set whatever price they deem fit). Niether of our moralities are any more right then the other, yet under your "brick" theory this difference would lead to conflict and this conflict would end with me with a brick to the head and you in a containment cell.

This is why the theory is flawed, your arguing on a standard view of morality that isn't subjective to the individual, when the individual creates thier morality.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/15/08 04:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Well, rationally because it would lead to a conflict with your self interest and those that uphold law and order. And usually law and order overcome the individual. This isn't Nietzche's Ubermensch coming into play here, it's an individual that will just fail.

But what if successfully getting away with it is gauranteed? What if you actually had a HISTORY of getting away with this same thing, like driving drunk or carrying drugs? If you don't get caught, there's no conflict of interest.

In essence, yes. For example, my morality comes from the belief of a diety that had incarnated himself into a Christ. Nietzche or Shaws belief in morality came from the strength of the individual over either corrupt laws or useless laws. Logically, which one is more correct then the other?

Well, I'm still ascribing to the Bricks theory, so I'd have to say neither, because the only thing bigger than my ego is my penis. Confucious was actually probably the best dude for getting morality from though.

Niether of our moralities are any more right then the other, yet under your "brick" theory this difference would lead to conflict and this conflict would end with me with a brick to the head and you in a containment cell.

ONLY IF I GOT CAUGHT!! And the beauty of this argument is that when the cops come for me I can just fight back, because they're morally wrong for trying to stop me.

This is why the theory is flawed, your arguing on a standard view of morality that isn't subjective to the individual, when the individual creates thier morality.

Ok, ok, so the idea of a "standard of right" that's universal has some big holes. However, those holes only form when people are stupid, and fail to agree with me. And stupidity, as we all know, is a moral failing. However, WITHOUT a "standard of right" we're still all pretty much screwed. At least in the bricks theory the individual is no longer a victim of externally enforced morality, particular the pseudo moral codes of institutions. "Right" to Walmart is forcing people to work during their breaks, because "right" to Walmart is measured in profit on investment, nothing more. Should an individual have to wait for the government to do something? Why should the government have greater moral authority than the individual? Isn't the individual the one who empowers the government's morality, not the other way around?

The bricks theory cuts out that middleman and stops people from falling through the cracks of injustice by giving them a way of taking matters into their own hands.

[poxpower]

I still don't get it.
It just seems like you think that guy is really clever because he figured out morals aren't anything tangible that anyone actually has to stick to.

[SadisticMonkey]

Doesn't really make sense because everyone has a different idea of what is/isn't moral.

[Elfer]

At 9/15/08 05:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: However, WITHOUT a "standard of right" we're still all pretty much screwed.

Yeah, maybe we should all get together and vote on a system that works well enough for almost everyone, and then designate people to enforce it to ensure that it isn't carried out in an overly unbalanced way.

o wate

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/15/08 05:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/15/08 04:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But what if successfully getting away with it is gauranteed? What if you actually had a HISTORY of getting away with this same thing, like driving drunk or carrying drugs? If you don't get caught, there's no conflict of interest.

There morality would still be infringed on, just without thier knowledge. Thier morality would still dictate that they enforce what they believe, so that would be a certainty. But if you could forever guaranteed from avoiding this enforcement, then yes there would be no clash of interest.

Unfortunately though, realisticly the chances of that are slim.

ONLY IF I GOT CAUGHT!! And the beauty of this argument is that when the cops come for me I can just fight back, because they're morally wrong for trying to stop me.

In your perspective they are, but in there perscpective they aren't, thus a standstill of interests and ideas. And the fact that they would fuck you over.

Isn't the individual the one who empowers the government's morality, not the other way around?

That would depend on each respective governments social contract with it's people, and ours is that the people empower thier government and representitives on elections.

Thats why were a Representive Democracy.

The bricks theory cuts out that middleman and stops people from falling through the cracks of injustice by giving them a way of taking matters into their own hands.

Which is also known as vigilantism, which is illegal and under our adopted theory of legal and constitutional rights, immoral.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

I like this morality. It reminds me of the nuremburg trials, instead of persecuting all Germans for war crimes they found out who was actually responsible. Somehow I don't believe the liberal theory that the person who mined the coal sold to the train company that sent people to auschwitz is a criminal aswell.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/15/08 05:45 PM, poxpower wrote: I still don't get it.
It just seems like you think that guy is really clever because he figured out morals aren't anything tangible that anyone actually has to stick to.

It's deeper than that. It's saying that institutions are cultural entities, and that a culture can actually be morally wrong and deserve to have it's collective ass kicked. If you join the military, you EXPECT to get shot at, because that's what people do to soldiers, even if they're just picking up some bagels for breakfast.

By the same token, if you work for some other institution that has a different moral culture, you're just as culpable as that soldier who gets shot at. The soldier didn't set policy; he just follows it. It's the following that makes him responsible for the repercussions of the order, even though it wasn't his original idea, and everyone around him at the time believed he was doing the right thing.

If your boss says "We have these shitty cars here. Sell them, even though they're not worth owning" and you go and sell them... YOU'RE STILL AN ASSHOLE WHO DESERVES TO HAVE HIS ASS BEAT FOR SCREWING PEOPLE.

The idea behind the theory is that if we held individual employees responsible for the moral actions they allow institutions to direct them to do, amoral institutions would cease to exist. You can't have an army without soldiers willing to kill on orders.

If when the ceo of walmart issued a memo that employees should catch the shaft on breaks to increase productivity the managers in charge of enforcing that policy said "Hell no. I'm not that kind of asshole" there never would have been a worker's rights scandal. However, by following the amoral order, they became accomplices in it, and deserve the same punishment as their superiors, ie, a vicious ass kicking involving a brick.

Instittutions are made of people. They can only be amoral if people allow them to be. By whacking said manager in the head with a brick, you're making it impossible for him to ignore the moral repercussions of his decision.

[Jinzoa]

I have a sudden urge to throw bricks now, never seen the word used so many times.