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

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" <rigsy03@yahoo.com
> <mailto:rigsy03@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>>
> > > > 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
> modern science in
> > > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > > >> rational-response<
> > >
> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
> >
> > > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
> >
> > > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure
> against the
> > > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a
> world-weary old
> > > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as
> narcissist
> > > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though
> I think the
> > > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our
> attitude
> > > > > >> towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus
> on religion for
> > > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have
> forgotten that much
> > > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against
> unfairness and the
> > > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this
> latter factor
> > > > > >> that is repeating itself.
> >
> > > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in
> old fables
> > > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive
> societies such
> > > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and
> non-penetrative youth
> > > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring
> thing'. The
> > > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can
> achieve this
> > > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about
> quality of
> > > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so
> on. We have
> > > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries -
> to such an
> > > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime
> despite
> > > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed
> countries
> > > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
> >
> > > > > >> We are still at war.
> >
> > > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and
> "consumption" and notions
> > > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount
> of work we
> > > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6
> months of a year.
> > > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard
> work like
> > > > > >> agriculture. We could have a great deal more through
> doing less and
> > > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and
> very different
> > > > > >> scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we
> won't take
> > > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures. I
> believe this
> > > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us
> simply animal.
> >
> > > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just
> a purposeless
> > > > > >> farce. The first step in a new attitude towards
> morality is to
> > > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view. The
> implications of
> > > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves
> from a false-
> > > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in
> our name. We
> > > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear
> and demons to
> > > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the
> individual. We are
> > > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics
> developed with
> > > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire
> disasters.
> >
> > > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we
> might recapture
> > > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's
> 'Debt: the first
> > > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
> >
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
> >
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>