

Towards axiomatic morality - Xcelerate
http://www.dematerialism.net/Chapter%203.html

======
jzila
While I like the approach of attempting to derive a moral framework
axiomatically, the resulting philosophy experiences one of the main pitfalls
that burdens authoritarian Leninism: _it fails to motivate independent agents
within the system_.

You can accept the author's implication that discrimination based on
intelligence, charisma, good looks, etc is immoral. You can even accept that
business and commerce are inherently unfair because they discriminate on such
characteristics. Despite all that, a business-based (capitalist) economy is
the best way we know to align the interests of the individual with the
interests of the society. The author's philosophy completely fails on that
front.

There are other failures to this philosophy, but I think that one is the most
egregious.

~~~
Lofkin
can you tldr what immoral means in this context? How did he define this and
why should we accept his definition?

------
icanhackit
I think humor paired with axioms has an important part to play in progressing
moral codes. Jokes and limericks are memetic - highly contagious ideas - so
they can travel through cultures with little capital and seemingly little
effort required.

Going beyond a gag, you can use humor to make an otherwise boring and hard to
understand issue like net-neutrality more enticing to listen to, as John
Oliver did so masterfully on Last Week Tonight. The way he often does it is by
making a point of comparison with pop-culture artifacts (person, movie,
consumer goods, historical event) in an analogous and equally absurd
situation.

If we could codify this kind of story-telling, we could simplify the passing
of moral programs.

~~~
unfamiliar
"this kind of story-telling" is only appealing if you already agreed with the
principle. I'm sure someone with a good reason to be against net neutrality
could easily pick holes in the Last Week Tonight segment if they wanted.

~~~
icanhackit
_" this kind of story-telling" is only appealing if you already agreed with
the principle_

You need to understand something before you can agree or disagree with it.
That's the point of the kind of humor John Oliver uses - take something
boring, use humor to attract ears/eyeballs, use well-known cultural artifacts
to make a point of comparison, viewer now grasps principals of the issue while
being entertained/having reward center tickled.

He also uses analogies because they reveal the absurdity of something without
directly attacking someones existing beliefs, leaving wiggle-room to switch
sides.

------
DArcMattr
After a brief skimming on my lunch break: The approach this author takes is
similar to the one that Baruch Spinoza uses in formulating a system of ethics,
and which David Hume tears apart. His works cited don't reference anything
written before the 20th Century, so it looks like the author hasn't done the
homework.

The "book" is hard to navigate, this is the whole book's table of contents:
[http://dematerialism.net/POS.html](http://dematerialism.net/POS.html)

