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

What would you call a man who has mortgaged / taken a loan against his
future earnings... ?

The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
state of greater slavery...

What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
own agendas to make a call ... ?

The bugger is no position to refuse.

What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?

They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
kids, estate...

On Jun 2, 12:29 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> by our greed.
>
> On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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" <malc...@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
> > > > >>
>
> ...
>
> read more »