That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. — Agustino

This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly.

as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. Why is it learned? Because it doesn't pop into you when you're born. You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.

Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? — Metaphysician Undercover

Certain aspects of morality are natural. Obviously not being barbaric and cruel to those around is something that comes natural. Someone who just does things for the sole purpose of hurting others is NOT behaving naturally (nor morally).

But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are you bringing biological evolution into this? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And no, I don't think we have evolved much morally, if that's what you want to say.

This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should you make that assumption knowing that most people don't behave morally?

This is an internet forum, you shouldn't have such idealistic expectations. Don't you know shitposting is how internet discussions work in the real world?

This is an internet forum, you shouldn't have such idealistic expectations. Don't you know shitposting is how internet discussions work in the real world? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.

Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. — Agustino

Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it.

Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial.

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. — Agustino

And therein lies the absurdity of your self-refuting position. That was an easy one to address.

And therein lies the absurdity of your self-refuting position. That was an easy one to address. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, give yourself a pat on the back. You were very successful. You've certainly showed how right you are. Not.

Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial. — Agustino

Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial.

If I was a leader, I wouldn't expect people under me to behave morally. Quite the contrary. So I would set up the necessary structures around in order to prevent them from behaving immorally. How? By holding leverage over them. — Agustino

What you're missing is that this is the whole point of democratic institutions. You can also look at them as inscribing rights of you like, but they're also practical. Assume people cannot be counted on to behave virtuously, and give all the people leverage over each other. That's the ballot, of course, but also in the structure of government.

I don't need the lecture on how the world really works. You need to recognize that the theory here is designed to address exactly your concern. Even if you start from the belief that life is a war of all against all, maybe we can do a little better. Not by wishing away venality, but by reigning it in. That's what the project of civilization is all about. We're not stuck with the state of nature.

Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh quit quibbling with nonsense. Look. It's simple.

You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself.

What you're missing is that this is the whole point of democratic institutions. You can also look at them as inscribing rights of you like, but they're also practical. Assume people cannot be counted on to behave virtuously, and give all the people leverage over each other. That's the ballot, of course, but also in the structure of government.

I don't need the lecture on how the world really works. You need to recognize that the theory here is designed to address exactly your concern. Even if you start from the belief that life is a war of all against all, maybe we can do a little better. Not by wishing away venality, but by reigning it in. That's what the project of civilization is all about. We're not stuck with the state of nature. — Srap Tasmaner

Good, at least you are recognising the problem. The issue though, is that people don't have equal leverage over each other. Donald Trump has a lot more leverage over me than I do. Why? Because he controls - or can control - a large portion of the institutions of the state directly, and I can't. Because he has access to a lot more capital than I do. Etc.

You really don't get it, do you? Your own logic could have just ended the conversation. But rather than abandon it, you dug your heels in. It's like when I got you to admit that by your own definition you weren't technically a Christian, despite calling yourself one.

Expectations are an important and healthy thing to have in life, especially politics. Just because people don't live up to them is no reason not to have them. Not placing expectations on people to do better leads to a race to the bottom because being a cunt to people becomes validated, so we end up living in an even shiter state of affairs where there are no moral standards and leverage is all that matters. Politicians can play their little power games if they want, but why should we put up with it? It does us no good because politics will come to be about power and self-interest rather than public service. We as a society set the standard with our votes and our free speech.

Okay. You're obviously right there. Now look at President Trump's control. Doesn't look very absolute, does it? That's the whole idea. Of course he has power. We just need to make sure other people do too. That's how this works.

Not placing expectations on people to do better leads to a race to the bottom because being a cunt to people becomes validated, so we end up living in an even shiter state of affairs where there are no moral standards and leverage is all that matters. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Nope. You've been a cunt to me, so I told you to go fuck yourself (figuratively of course).

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.

Wasn't an issue, because you didn't get what you wanted (being right). What your exercise in futility proved is precisely my point. I have some leverage over you - I don't need you to answer me. If you don't, then I'm right, by default, because I presented an issue you couldn't address. So the fact you refuse to answer me because "that's how it's done on internet forums, and I shouldn't have expectations" - that just helps me. Not you.

As for not placing expectations, what did Marcus Aurelius teach you? And you claim to be a Stoic, yet so attached to your own expectations you are.

It does us no good because politics will come to be about power and self-interest rather than public service. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, but look - it's always been like this. Look at history. So are you going to fool yourself believing an illusion that has never been real?

Now look at President Trump's control. Doesn't look very absolute, does it? That's the whole idea. Of course he has power. We just need to make sure other people do too. That's how this works. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, well said, it doesn't LOOK absolute. But is there anything that if he really wished he couldn't achieve from his position? Very few things probably. In either case, his control is larger than probably 99.99% of people on the planet.

You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself. — Agustino

The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.

So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned.

As for Obama, what's the great ruler doing today? Buying expensive million dollar mansions, travelling on luxury yachts with all the contacts he's made from the White House, delivering speeches for heavy fees (to take money probably for all the services he's rendered as President), and living a better life than an Emperor! No fucks given about America. It was all a sham.

The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.

So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives?

One point I want to address: there is no drive towards being immoral. There's drives towards other things which can, concomitantly, lead to immorality - things like pleasure, fame, money, power, etc.

Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/lying-statistics/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60-people-cant-go-10-minutes-without-lying
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/70/5/979/
^^ This last study has over 1000 citations.

Certainly people try. But there are a lot of people involved, interested parties in and out of government, a lot of moving parts, so it's always hard to get away with too much for too long. It's a question of how much damage you can do before it comes out.

Our system engenders constraints so long as you keep the institutions functional. The press doesn't have to be perfectly free, the judiciary perfectly independent, police power perfectly limited, elections perfectly fair. They just have to not fall below failure level.

Certainly people try. But there are a lot of people involved, interested parties in and out of government, a lot of moving parts, so it's always hard to get away with too much for too long. It's a question of how much damage you can do before it comes out. — Srap Tasmaner

Or rather, it's a question of how you can help satisfy the interests of those parties, so that they can help satisfy your interests in turn (or at least let you satisfy them without trouble).

Sure, but not everyone's gonna be in on it, and the people left out will try to fuck you. Democracy in action.

And you claim to be a Stoic — Agustino

Err, citation needed? I know for a fact I've never said that. This is the second time you've insisted I call myself a Stoic, and the second time I've rejected it. At most I was quite influenced by some of their ideas, but that was in 2015.

Sure, but not everyone's gonna be in on it, and the people left out will try to fuck you. Democracy in action. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course! But that holds true even in a dictatorship. If you're an absolute ruler, you think you can satisfy all your desires and ignore everyone else? Of course not. You have to ensure that those who help you rule - all the parties involved in the management of power - can satisfy their interests too, so in turn they let you remain in power, and even help you remain there, because it's in their interest.

The underlying problem isn't political system (we've had good monarchies, good democracies, etc.) but the people running them. And that's what I'm asking - how can we make the people moral given human nature. It seems instead that most people in this thread want to ignore the people and morality, and focus on political system. It's not the system, but the people that matter.

Err, citation needed? I know for a fact I've never said that. This is the second time you've insisted I call myself a Stoic, and the second time I've rejected it. At most I was quite influenced by some of their ideas, but that was in 2015. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, my apologies then. I somehow remember you saying it, but it may have been at the old forum. Of course I can be wrong. Your comments in this thread at least though, suggest you appreciate the Stoics highly:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/4381#Post_4381

Fair enough, but you are wrong.

Fair enough, but you are wrong. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, about what? You being a Stoic or you appreciating the Stoics? Or both?

But that holds true even in a dictatorship. — Agustino

A fair point. In practice, things don't work out that way, and the difference is institutions. It seems to me, the United States is far from perfect but more free and more just than, say, Russia. Is that because Americans are better than Russians? Or is it because at least some freedoms and some justice have been institutionalized here?

For the record I don't think I was particularly vague. Whether it was an insinuation, well, who's to say? — Srap Tasmaner

You are, for one.

As for Obama and Trump, I don't actually care that much. I do care about institutions. I believe it is important that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. — Srap Tasmaner

Well, okay. I obviously agree with you....

Yeah, about the same... not. — Banno

I already made two posts on this claim. Keep up.

I could ask that question on a psychology forum but that doesn't mean it requires a psychological answer does it? It was a simple question so it's a bit dubious you can't make yourself clearer than vague. If don't want to say 'no', I can understand the dissonance. You don't need to deflect, or go on about subjectivity and interpretations. Do you think he has a good understanding of them? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I gave a very clear as well as nuanced answer and will refer back to it. Either address it or stop patronizing me about the alleged innocence and simplicity of your question.

I never said Obama 'told no lies', but I see zero evidence that Obama was the spectacularly mendacious bullshit artist that Trump is. — Wayfarer

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself whether you are selecting the evidence you choose to see?

You are, for one. — Thorongil

If it's to be an insinuation, then I won't. (Did you really miss the joke? I'm about to lose all the newfound respect I had for you.)

Well, okay. I obviously agree with you.... — Thorongil

Huzzah!

If it's to be an insinuation, then I won't. (Did you really miss the joke? I'm about to lose all the newfound respect I had for you.) — Srap Tasmaner

Consider it lost, for, alas, I don't know what you're talking about here. When was the joke made?