Ranvier wrote:Spectrum
Spectrum wrote:
I am not claiming there IS already a well oiled superior collective moral consciousness or MQ at present.
What I stated is, there is an ongoing evolving and progressive average moral quotient [consciousness] within humanity. We should take advantage to expedite this trend.
Objectively there is an evolving set of mirror neurons [support empathy and compassion] within humans.
Evidently the majority of humans has an active tendency toward evil but there is a trend [small but significant] in the increase of the average moral quotient or consciousness within humanity. I have given you examples of the changes in the attitude and practices toward slaver, racism. There are many areas where human are co-operating on a global scale not observed 100 years ago.
These are
opinions that not only
can't be proven but there isn't any objective method that could ascertain such quotient. How in the world can you measure the level of consciousness? Or that someone has an active tendency towards evil? You can't even define evil, other than your subjective opinion. But most of all, it's what you want to do with these ideas that is evil and terrifying. It's not some loose guide for amusement parks, you are actually serious about this...with penalties to people!
Who is measuring the level of consciousness per se in this case. It can be done if necessary but not for this case.
Here we are dealing with moral-consciousness aka moral-awareness in our actions.
Note this Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom within human history.
https://en.wik1pedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
If you compare the number of nations banning slavery 100 years with the current position, there is an improvement.
That is objective, are you disputing this fact?
As I had stated this forum is limited. However if we do a detail analysis of all the moral elements and compare their change over the last 100 years or some other time period, there are definitely changes and improvements.
Note I have provided a workable definition on what is 'evil'.
Once we have define evil [genocides, mass rapes, serial killer with torture are high degree evil] then we can search for the root cause of evil. I have done this. In the future we can develop methods [voluntary self development programs] for those with high evil tendencies to build great inhibitors to modulate their evil impulses.
Another root cause that contribute a greater proportion of evil to humanity is Islam and we will have to find ways to get rid of Islam and replace it with more positive methods to deal with the existential crisis.
It is like discussing the issues of Physics at the highest levels where one has to read up, understand and comprehend all the past greats Physicists ideas. You should convey this to Newton.
For example if you want to discuss Quantum Mechanics and its issues you need to understand Newtonian and Einstein's Physics in matters related to the context of the issue on hand. Really? That's your expert opinion on Quantum Mechanics?
I am not giving an expert opinion on Quantum Mechanics.
What I have stated is if anyone want to discuss QM seriously they should have reasonable knowledge of Classical Physics, Newtonian Physics those of Einstein etc.
It is the same with Philosophy, when we discuss say Morality, we need to understand [not necessary agree] with what the great philosophers before us has been discussing. This is to save time and not to invent the wheel of discussion especially in a limited forum like this.No one denies the wisdom in learning from the knowledge of others, it's definitely necessary to an average bloke. But there are people capable of creative thought on their own, believe it or not. Very useful in inventing wheels. Perhaps we should teach that in schools. Did you ever get a feeling that something is wrong, even though you can't describe it at first, so you dig deeper in attempt to figure it out... That's creative thinking
Note I have introduced lot of novel philosophical ideas here but they are leveraged on the shoulders of great giants in Philosophy.
I don't think this forum is a place for any one to present a new paradigm and full set of new theory.
In any case do you understand what is a "Literature Review" for a thesis before you start arguing for your theory.
My point is if you want to discuss morality you will need to at least understand [not necessary agree] with what is already within the database of the philosophical community. You are wrong to insist in ignoring the existing database of knowledge and just jump into your new theory.
Let me tell you something about morality that you may not learn in school... There is no absolute morality! Morality is not about "good" or "evil", neither it's about the "right" or "wrong". Our reality is evil and unpredictable where anything can kill us at an instance or in prolonged miserable death. There are only choices, some are bad some may seem less bad in the subjective view of each individual, that will vary wildly between individuals and the number of choices.
I can ask a modern slave if they choose freedom or security? It turns out that majority prefers security. That's real life, not some deducible universal morality in eclectic deliberation if we should feed the pigeons sitting on the park bench.
There are no ontological absolute morality like those from a God.
However there is no law to stop society from setting absolute moral maxims as a guide which is not necessary enforceable.
An effective Moral Framework and System need fixed goals to work with.
Otherwise it is working with movable goal posts which any one can shift any time to suit their interests.
What you are advocating is any one can define their own moral standard of what is good or evil. That was what Hitler did.
At present we humanity [as in the UN] is in fact advocating absolute moral standards on slavery, i.e.
"No slavery is legally permissible"
There will be people trying to break the law on slavery directly or indirectly.
It is then up to each government to ensure compliance with the universal standard on slavery and punish those not-complying accordingly.
There is definitely a moral gap between you and the delusional/psychopaths but there is also a positive moral gap between you and the wiser/enlightened in the other end.
I would like to meet a guy or gal like that, so I could shake their hand with respect.
I can introduce you to some one like the Dalai Lama.
As usual, don't think my proposals are for the present.
What I have proposed is for the future where there are significant increase [say 50-100%] in the average intelligence, moral, spiritual, emotional, wisdom, philosophical, etc. quotients of humanity.
I'm sorry Spectrum, these proposals are not for the present nor the future anytime soon. Our morality hasn't changed much within the recorded history, it would be a hypocrisy and narcissism to hold such belief. What has changed is our knowledge, technology, and the way we live but not our morality. The 20th century is a perfect example, will see if we get out of the 21st.
No doubt there is much evil at present.
But as I have proven objectively [as above] the average moral-consciousness has increased over the last 100 years. e.g. slavery, racism and other global co-operative efforts.
Note there are changes and improvement in the average attitude toward misogynistic tendencies, homosexuality, etc, over the last 500 years.
Btw, are you familiar with mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are the basis for empathy and compassion and its evolution within humanity is an indication of the evolving moral quotient on an objective basis.
As usual I am very optimistic of improvement in the average moral quotients of humanity based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.
We have already mapped the human genome and when we achieve critical level in mapping the human brain, then, we can specifically target those neurons responsible for the morality quotient [MQ].
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/