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

I for one are looking forward to read what you have to say.
oddly I do not think so much the people of the world, rather it is the leaders that lack the morals.
Allan

On Jun 7, 2012 11:44 PM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:

At times my thinking is affirmative, wherein expressivity I see as a prime virtue of our world and especially living things. But I have to consider what truth or information value this renders on the subject, does it increase anyone's appreciation, mental prowess to examine that world or find solutions to challenges?

(I hope I get a few minutes tonight, there is much more to say, I haven't even caught up with conversation yet. Kudos all!)

On 6/6/2012 5:31 PM, archytas wrote:

Many thanks James - many of us know something is wrong and it's good
to see we are at least free to exchange views.  There's a book called
Liberalism and the limits of justice by Michael Sandell (I cribbed
what I wanted from Amazon's look inside feature) - he describes
something called Deontological Liberalism.
In the end this seems to mean justice is an over-riding part of
morality, but also an ideal and we should worry less about never
achieving it fully.  I  broadly agree with rigsy most of the time and
could say this of most posted in here.  I'm after something else.  I
could mention Bruno Latour's 'we have never been modern'  - but we'd
end up in his jargon.  The idea is we think and act in an institution
we've never had.

On Jun 6, 10:09 am, Lee Douglas<leerevdoug...@gmail.com>  wrot

Meh of course slavery is not our lot at all, we can choose simply to cease
striving to live.







On Saturday, 2 June 2012 23:09:11 UTC+1, malcymo wrote:

Hey Vam,

Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler.  Credit has more to answer for
than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?

Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
food and shelter, I guess.   What fucks our brains is when we realise
that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
there.

As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
the associated crime is my present stance.

There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
denying the existence of opportunities to grow.

On Jun 3, 4:00 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com>  wrote:

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

...

read more »