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

I have had time to read the last few post and found myself interested
in this string. I returned to the original post and am wading through
the ideas on the various links. To me, this is a very complex issue.
Utopia does not come easy. Arcytas's idea of attempting to put
forward an idea of what a world would be like based on modern morality
is compelling. I will be interested to see what comes of it.

On a simpler note I like the idea of "least harm" linked to
responsibility for actions. Very often the best of our intentions kick
us in the teeth but accepting the responsibility is crutial and often
leads to a growth experience.

Heaven knows how such moral stances could be integrated into society
in any formal way. I would welcome any pointers to precedents.

On Jun 1, 9:43 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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.
> Allan
> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <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> 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> 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> 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> 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>
> > > > > 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"
>
> ...
>
> read more »