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

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 »