Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
"figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.

On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the world is
> a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
> change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is we do
> know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
> liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
> Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
> wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't just
> a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
> Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
> would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
> could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
> situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key problem
> with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this - hence
> the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know the
> rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
> can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
> equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
> 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
> to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
>
> I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
> just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me is how
> we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
> of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
> cheat and exploit.  We have a world in which much we think of as human
> rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
> tragedy of the Commons writ large.  Who amongst us really wants to
> deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?  Yet
> which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
> early death?  These matters look unanswerable in our current
> morality.  Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
> constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
> moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
> female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
> older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.).  I would
> not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
> control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
> broader lack of breeding in my own country.  What of those people who
> think procreation is work done for god?
>
> My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
> address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.  I'll try
> and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
> morality later (Lee's suggestion).  We could all do this - not to come
> up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
> what would need to change to make them possibilities.
>
> On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
> > take responsibility for them..  It seems that the people start writing laws
> > they are trying to figure out  how to get around  the concept thus trying
> > to avoid responsibility.
> > Allan
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes beyond our
> > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
> > > and be absolutly  sure that a particular stance is doing the least
> > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
> > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
> > > handling the dilema.
>
> > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
> > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
> > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
> > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
> > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
>
> > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try to
> > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions are
> > > right.
>
> > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline
> > > that
> > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like
> > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use
> > > what
> > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it,  the questions should
> > > be
> > > > if you are a family  of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of
> > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by
> > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or
> > > eliminate
> > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> > > > The real problem is  understanding just what is causing harm..  the
> > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It
> > > > seems most laws today are written  to allow people to get around this
> > > very
> > > > law.
> > > > Allan
> > > >  On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though
> > > innit?
>
> > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> > > > >> and collective morality.  Economics as our political and business
> > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> > > > >> view,  My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud.  Only lay people
> > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> > > > >> science.
>
> > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > >> rational-response<
> > >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
>
> > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
> > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics.  I'm a world-weary old
> > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
> > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
> > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs.  I think the problem is our attitude
> > > > >> towards morality.  The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
> > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
> > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
> > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich.  It is this latter factor
> > > > >> that is repeating itself.
>
> > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex.  This all largely based in old fables
> > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
> > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
> > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'.  The
> > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
> > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
> > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on.  We have
> > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
> > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
> > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
> > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
>
> > > > >> We are still at war.
>
> > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
> > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
> > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
> > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
> > > > >> agriculture.  We could have a great deal more through doing less and
> > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
> > > > >> scientific advance.  My view is it's immoral that we won't take
> > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures.  I believe this
> > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
>
> > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
> > > > >> farce.  The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
> > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view.  The implications of
> > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
> > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name.  We
> > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
> > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual.  We are
> > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
> > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
>
> > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
> > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
> > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -