Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
Allan
On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malcymo@gmail.com> wrote:
I am currently living in a small pacific group of islands. There is a
central government but many of the islands have no formal policing.
So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by the
village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
The great advantage they have over a large country with all embracing
laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They can
assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense that
they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
individuals because there is neither the money nor the time available
to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe and 31
mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but it
does seem to lead to less accidents.
It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions as
far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself, however,
is difficult because different societies have different views
regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society would
consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here which
confounds me.
I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you guys
can come up with some useful ideas.
On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if
> people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
>
> If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If you
> look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?
> On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> >> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> >> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> >> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> >> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> >> you view it.
>
> > I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and professional
> > life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will have on those
> > effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that arise. A kind
> > of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like this. Some
> > take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and station, I think
> > it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.
>
> > On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand
> > 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
>
> > Allan
>
> >> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com
> >> <mailto:rigs...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> >> 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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <mailto: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 <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.**com<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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário