Judaka wrote: ↑
January 26th, 2018, 1:59 am
How can being more moral be a threat when its objectives are to be more proper in conduct that are related to "goodness" or "rightness"?
You've already said the reason. People don't agree on what is proper, good or righteous.
Earlier you stated 'to be more moral is a threat itself.'
Firstly it is the principle;
If morality = proper, good or righteous, how can that be a threat itself.
Thus in principle, more moral as define above cannot be a threat.
If we were to ask every human to list what they consider is proper, good or righteous and give weightage to each, re Pareto 80/20 [-I presume you are familiar with this], the 20% of the list that make up the 80% in terms of criticalness in all listing is likely to be the same.
The same will apply to what is evil.
The shorter list of heavyweights, e.g. killings, genocides, mass rapes, rapes, abominable evils acts are likely to be the same for the majority.
Where they don't agree is likely confine to the non-critical 20% from the 80% of items.
Thus we can get consensus on the critical items.
we will never reach the impossible ideals
They're not even my ideals.
By logic and reason, within morality, the obvious ideal is the highest good which is an impossible ideal.
Yes you have free will but you also have a faculty of reason and at the highest level of reasoning, we are likely to have the same objectives in terms of morality, i.e. striving to achieve the highest good
Morality has taken life of it's own, it cannot possibly be represented fully biologically. We have moral positions today that simply weren't possible in the past, our values are based on the world around us and culture has a huge, observable impact. I don't have your objectives in morality, I don't care about the highest good. I want practical benefits for people based on their own situations, I'm not interested in sacrificing anything for the sake of ideals.
If you do not align with the highest good reason and wisdom can think of, then you could logically allow someone like Hitler and his likes to please themselves with their personal moral objectives. Utilitarianism is not an effective moral system and with this slavery is likely to be made legal again.
I have defined 'objective' earlier, i.e. it is intersubjective consensus.
Surely in moral philosophy, we'd call intersubjective consensus subjective morality... So you agree morality is based on the sensibilities/nature of men, but why do I need to agree with your morals for them to be effective? Consensus doesn't currently exist - am I wrong about that? So the plan is to genetically engineer a consensus?
Nope in morality intersubjective consensus based on the highest reason is objective morality.
Objective morality is based on the highest reason possible within all humans.
Note there was no consensus the Earth orbited the Sun 600 years ago.
But now there is consensus on that theory based on evidence.
It is the same with objective moral laws in the future based on reason and evidences - note Chattel Slavery as an example.
Genetic engineering is a straw man. The ability of all Nations to agree on the abolishment of Chattel Slavery is not based on genetic engineering. We will work along the same line with the overall objective moral law.
Spectrum currently what you're suggesting isn't possible so there's no need for me to form an opinion right now. Your view is controversial because of the whole "genetically engineering the way you think" aspect, I'd need the science to be closer to completion before I was able to form a real opinion about it. I might even be willing to agree with you to a point - but my problems with morality aren't that people don't follow it stringently enough, it's quite the opposite. I am relying on increased law enforcement capabilities to serve as a deterrent to crime but it's all out of my hands so I don't care too much.
Btw, I am not expecting any one to agree with my ideas on morality because what I have presented here is only about 40% of the full picture.
I have mentioned the Philosophy of Morality is independent from law enforcement. The judiciary merely adapted moral maxims as laws to be enforced. Morality [as specifically defined] is not something that is to be enforced but allowed to emerge from one's consciousness spontaneously.
In my scheme, the function of Morality, Ethics and Judiciary [legislature] are independent functions with minor overlaps.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.