I know
Allan
On Jun 1, 2012 9:29 PM, "malcymo" <malcymo@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
> > > >> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário