The idea that morality can be polled.
Wow, just wow! No. We are currently so far from a moral society. We are far above barbarians, but not where we need to be.
Let's start with something everyone can understand. Fatherlessness. What kind of society will lead to Fatherlessness? Well if sexual promiscuity is widely accepted then fatherlessness probably isn't far behind. I'm sorry to say it, but what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom has a very large impact on the society at large. I am not condoning a bedroom police, but we do have to understand the correct moral behavior before we can discuss what society we want. And then... how can we get there from here.
I hope it is obvious if you ask people to determine their own morality, they are a biased judge of what they want. People will choose laziness over the necessary hard work, permissiveness over discipline. They will choose their own benefit in spite of the cost on others.
Now I don't believe in enslaving one person to serve another, there still has to be a balance between the needs of society and children. It also goes without saying there is a difference between government and society in general, what kinds of controls are used and how to encourage the best.
What is better for a truly diseased criminal? Life in prison or a swift execution after completing the justice process. And neglect the astonishing cost for the tax payer for the moment. Even were you to ask the criminal, I expect the vast majority to choose life and that may be logical for them in the short term. But locking up a human for life is psychologically crippling and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and execution the better alternative. Now add back in the cost to the tax payer of supporting someone in a cell for life...
Back to polling... These college students that scream madly that how dare you say anything counter to their ideology, do you want their opinion polled to determine what morality should be? And even if you should say just exclude them... And the neonazis of course... And the Alt-Right, and NRA members... I truly see no end without using judgement and that means the polling no longer matters if you can use common sense.
Recently on Rubin Report, Dave interviewed Michael Shermer, an atheist who also supports the idea of polling a population to determine what morality should be... He also ancillarily mentioned that our government would protect us from the advent of a destructive AI. Just a quick reply to Michael Shermer on government faith in regulation to prevent the ascendency of AI... Uh? No. Government regulation is a response to a wide failure, not a prevention. Were we in danger of AI taking over our computers etc, the government is the least capable to protect us. There are literally untrained children who could do more to protect you from AI than the entire might and power of the government.
Wow, just wow! No. We are currently so far from a moral society. We are far above barbarians, but not where we need to be.
Let's start with something everyone can understand. Fatherlessness. What kind of society will lead to Fatherlessness? Well if sexual promiscuity is widely accepted then fatherlessness probably isn't far behind. I'm sorry to say it, but what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom has a very large impact on the society at large. I am not condoning a bedroom police, but we do have to understand the correct moral behavior before we can discuss what society we want. And then... how can we get there from here.
I hope it is obvious if you ask people to determine their own morality, they are a biased judge of what they want. People will choose laziness over the necessary hard work, permissiveness over discipline. They will choose their own benefit in spite of the cost on others.
Now I don't believe in enslaving one person to serve another, there still has to be a balance between the needs of society and children. It also goes without saying there is a difference between government and society in general, what kinds of controls are used and how to encourage the best.
What is better for a truly diseased criminal? Life in prison or a swift execution after completing the justice process. And neglect the astonishing cost for the tax payer for the moment. Even were you to ask the criminal, I expect the vast majority to choose life and that may be logical for them in the short term. But locking up a human for life is psychologically crippling and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and execution the better alternative. Now add back in the cost to the tax payer of supporting someone in a cell for life...
Back to polling... These college students that scream madly that how dare you say anything counter to their ideology, do you want their opinion polled to determine what morality should be? And even if you should say just exclude them... And the neonazis of course... And the Alt-Right, and NRA members... I truly see no end without using judgement and that means the polling no longer matters if you can use common sense.
Recently on Rubin Report, Dave interviewed Michael Shermer, an atheist who also supports the idea of polling a population to determine what morality should be... He also ancillarily mentioned that our government would protect us from the advent of a destructive AI. Just a quick reply to Michael Shermer on government faith in regulation to prevent the ascendency of AI... Uh? No. Government regulation is a response to a wide failure, not a prevention. Were we in danger of AI taking over our computers etc, the government is the least capable to protect us. There are literally untrained children who could do more to protect you from AI than the entire might and power of the government.