Universal moral principles 2 electric boogaloo
It seems @DivineMarquis has replied to my blog with his own
I quite like his writings but I suppose it was inevitable we'd be tearing each others worldviews apart since I'm an internal idealist and he calls himself "Le Marquis De Sade". Let me define internal idealist first. When an idealist faces reality he must either become authoritarian in a doomed attempt to perfect reality, give up on idealism or turn that idealism inward and aim for internal perfection. Camelot can not exist but it can inspire you to be better than you are. So let's get started. From here on out "" quotes @DivineMarquis.
"What this means is that morals are only good so long as the whole of Society (and I do mean the whole) abides by these universal principles." On the western front Nazi's and allies alike refused to shoot pilots parachuting down to earth. But on the eastern front the commies had no such principles so the Germans had to respond in kind. So yes that is a problem but a universal code can include certain levels of reciprocity that allow you to sink to your opponents level when necessary. This is no different from self defense. Also a single heretic would not break universal moral principles. As long as those principles are designed to encourage spreading themselves and oppose evil. It's also necessary for those principles to include self improvement so that it's adherents become more powerful.
Then he assumes I favor treatment for the criminally insane but asks what I would suggest to for those who are sane but do evil by impulse like one who "only orgasms into the faces of tortured toddlers" My answer to both is they are a source of evil, what can we do to change them, contain them or kill them without corrupting ourselves?
"Are we to seek them out (assuming we can) and eliminate them before they act, thus punishing people for a crime they have not committed?" I'm not a fan of punishment in general it accomplishes very little. If a victim desires vengeance after a fair trial I'm fine with that. But mostly I would see those proven beyond reasonable doubt to be, insistent upon violating the rights of others, as individuals who have placed themselves outside of moral consideration by their actions. To me they are just enemies a demon to be vanquished. Draconian punishments free of misplaced compassion can easily prevent most recidivism.
To prevent tyranny we can't have a government locking people up without proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise they'll just round up all dissidents and ship them of to Gulags. This does mean preventing the first crime is hard or impossible but a good moral code would include encouraging such individuals to come forward and seek treatment or isolation.
The next point he makes "what happens when the echelons of morality are infiltrated" Such echelons should not exist. No power structure including moral or religious authority should ever exist without extensive checks and balances. Principles should be in culture and books not institutions.
"What do we do about those who are most likely to commit crimes?" If they have given us an acceptable reason to remove them we remove them. Otherwise we work to make potential victims well defended.
"only to make the idle observer feel justified" No that's not why. It's to prevent ourselves from becoming something worse.
"what defines good" Peaks of quality in the moral landscape.
"The soldier ...............must kill." Which a sane code of universal moral principles would allow for.
"Morals were not decided by what was reasoned out to be good, but by violent measures." Opinions on morality were decided not facts about what codes provide peaks and valleys of quality life on the moral landscape.
Then the Marquis asks if an unwilling cuckold has a right to kill his alimony collecting ex-wife. (Isn't it sad I have to specify unwilling.) The real problem here is that government dictates the terms of marriage and in true government style they do so quite poorly (and horror of horrors, retroactively). Ideally such matters would be discussed before marriage and the government would only enforce a prenup. "Is death a fair wage for what she has done?" I wouldn't convict the cuck but he is partly to blame for saying I do in the current system.
The other real problem is that divorce is an option. If marriage isn't forever then it's little more than a bunch of legal benefits and detriments that favors women. Perhaps a good prenup would include reasons not to leave or cheat. At fault divorces that ruin the guilty. Perhaps even the death penalty for those who break it. You could have a very romantic dagger at the wedding and say. Never shall we part lest this dagger find my heart. Hows that for vows!
His final example is that "impulsive teenagers, who really were still children" were tricked by government into making student loans and people disagree on whether those loans should be forgiven.
I would argue that may if not all of these kids have been defrauded by the universities. Getting ideology when they paid for math. The government does accredit these institutions despite their victim studies departments.
Since the government is partly to blame and they can't possibly pay of their full debt the smart thing to do would be to give them the option of having their income above the mean for a high school graduate pretaxed at 50%. The government should also seize all university property and sell it off. And then get out of the accrediting and student loans business.
The fact that people disagree means that either the peaks of the morals are equally high or on side is wrong. It does not negate the existence of a code with the highest possible peak.