Is Social Order Important?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

Belindi wrote: February 16th, 2019, 8:18 am In the circumstances of a group of hunters who have just killed an animal I'd guess that the natural leader would be someone who achieved status for that specific occasion maybe for having displayed special skill, or else someone whose ascribed status was already known to the group.
Of course. But leadership is not merely a matter of skill: there must also wisdom, responsibility and concern for the welfare of the group in order to earn the trust of one's team.
My first example was to highlight the improbability of anyone claiming personal power without support from the group.
The killing of the priest king may require very little or any of governing ethics, of ideology. It would be a natural cause and effect action to kill the individual who was the main player who threatened the family with reduced efficiency.The slaughter of dangerous individuals is hardly limited to ancient societies.
Wait a minute. First you give a hunter-leader the additional burden of priesthood - the fearful supernatural component of power - and then equate his murder with the execution of a felon, - in a society so small that even a felon is your cousin! - and assert that such an execution, or any execution - can be carried out with no moral framework??
Consider the psychology. Men who have grown to maturity under the tutelage of this revered mentor/protector, have followed him into danger and come out whole, have relied on him for years, suddenly turn around and attack him because his eyesight is failing or he's slowing down? Then consider the religious aspect: if they have a concept of priesthood, they also have a structure of belief and divine law.
I don't know which particular tribe had this practice - I've heard of an obligation of sons to strangle their decrepit parents, but not of a casual habit of killing kings. If we researched the practice in context, we would learn the governing ethic behind it.
Whether or not an ideology is imposed from above, or else evolves from subsistence needs and old tradition, and both together I suppose differs from case to case . In the cases of famous innovators such as Muhammad, and Constantine, there were pre-existing ideologies such as Judaism, and Middle East Christianity. By "imposed from above" I am thinking of deliberate whole policies not piecemeal changes through trade or colonisation: I mean not like Britain became gradually Romanised but like how Muhammad produced the Koran as a whole ideology, or how Constantine is reputed to have thought out the political advantage of the whole Christian ideology, or how Lenin who is called 'the architect' of the socialist revolution was in the position of creator of something novel albeit made from pre-existing needs.
Okay, that's a distinction. But "above" and "top-down" can be quite deceptive terms. To impose an ideology does require armed force, and it remains superficial. It doesn't change the thoughts and feelings and loyalties of the native population. See the First peoples of North America, or Afghans under USSR and US occupation.
Your three examples are very different in content, origin, population and historical circumstances.
This is where generalization can lead you down a blind alley.
But what's the application to values/moralities?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Alias wrote: February 13th, 2019, 11:20 pm
Where's a free market? Where has one of those ever been observe in real life?
Many places, notably in the US, Canada, and Australia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the sort of economy that naturally arises whenever people forgo, for moral or pragmatic reasons, the use of force in their economic relationships.

Admittedly, they usually don't endure for very long, since those willing to use force to obtain what they can't get via voluntary interactions never give up.

Perhaps I should define what a "free economy" is. It is simply an economic environment wherein anyone may exchange his products or services with any other willing person, on any mutually agreeable terms, without interference from any third parties (assuming no rights of those parties are violated by the transaction).
Anyway, the post parrots capitalist dogma whole and is irrelevant to how governance and social organization adapts to a central value-structure.
I wasn't aware that "how governance and social organization adapts to a central value-structure" was the topic of the thread.
Alias wrote: February 14th, 2019, 9:06 pm
None of that is relevant here. I already understood that your pov is different from mine and that you can articulate it very thoroughly. But you're nit-picking a side-issue.
Perhaps. But my comments responded to claims made by you. If it is side issue you introduced it.
I was thinking that people were more familiar with their environment.
That's nothing to do with the state of science - every age has the most advanced science science to that point in time and they do not compare it to what will be known 2000 years hence. Familiarity is about knowing the place where you live and the people who inhabit it, where the grapes and olives come from, where the roads and footpaths go, who's likely to show up for an oration, when ships land and what they bring, what colour twilight is in early spring and what flowers bloom in fall.
Are you suggesting people in modern civilized societies do not know that milk comes from cows, beef comes from cattle, flour comes from wheat, etc., or where the streets and roads in their communities lead, or which flowers will do well in their gardens? I'm sure millions of farmers, drivers, and gardeners --- not to mention school children --- would argue with that.
From nothing I read would I conclude that the ancient Greeks suffered from angst or existential dread.
Neither do 99% of people today. According to this recent poll climate change ranks 15th on people's list of concerns. The risk of nuclear Armageddon is not even on the list.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/pu ... te-voters/

Or on this UN poll, where concern about climate change ranks dead last:

http://euanmearns.com/are-people-really ... s-tell-us/
Any mob of meerkats can figure that out. Every one of those primitive tribal peoples did.
Yes, and many today are trying to apply the answers arrived at by those tribal people, which are inapplicable to modern societies.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: February 15th, 2019, 5:52 pm Capitalism developed out of monarchy in early modern times and was more a bottom-up procedure unlike communism, ISIS, and Nazism.
"Capitalism" is a term of disparagement, coined by Marx, to denote a free economy (see definition in last response to Alias). It did not develop out of monarchy, though monarchy prevailed in many places where it was practiced. It is ancient; it is the kind of economy that arises by default when no one has the will or power to effectively interfere in private economic relationships.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

Capitalism (with an OT-leaning Christian veneer) is the dominant religion of the United States in the 19th-21st century. It is a state religion, in that the government and most of its agencies support and facilitate it, often through force of arms and institutional charity, and its high priests anoint heads of state, or become themselves heads of state.
However, that's still a side issue, interesting only as a demonstration of the dogma its prelates enunciate and its missionaries propagate. I've already mentioned the values on which it bases its laws and won't repeat them.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Alias wrote: February 16th, 2019, 12:59 pm Capitalism (with an OT-leaning Christian veneer) is the dominant religion of the United States in the 19th-21st century. It is a state religion, in that the government and most of its agencies support and facilitate it, often through force of arms and institutional charity, and its high priests anoint heads of state, or become themselves heads of state.
Well, to make the case that advocacy of a free economy is a religion you'll have to alter the definition of "religion," which denotes a system of beliefs based on "faith," i.e., lacking empirical evidence or rational arguments supporting it. The empirical evidence for the productivity of free economies is overwhelming, and the moral arguments for it are cogent and sound. But feel free to refute those arguments if you can. Generally, a belief supported by evidence and rational argument is considered scientific, not religious.
I've already mentioned the values on which it bases its laws and won't repeat them.
I must have missed that. Can you supply a link to those comments?
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

GE Morton wrote: February 16th, 2019, 1:46 pm Well, to make the case that advocacy of a free economy is a religion you'll have to alter the definition of "religion," which denotes a system of beliefs based on "faith," i.e., lacking empirical evidence or rational arguments supporting it.
Unless the central concept is a figment/chimera/myth.
If there has ever been a free economy on this planet, it went extinct with the onset of civilization.
Can you supply a link to those comments?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16138
Only one of three examples:
Business interest at the center would place emphasis on wealth-accumulation; the government would commit the bulk of its resources to the protection of property, enforcing rights of ownership both physical and intellectual, facilitating commerce. It would keep corporate taxes low and the flow of capital free of interference. Such a nation would indoctrinate its young in a reverence of financial success and gear its education system toward jobs training and deference to wealth; it would encourage competition rather than co-operation; place productivity at the top of the virtues and laziness at the top of the vices. Such a society would have a numerically small elite, living in luxury, wielding vast political power, and a large underclass living in poverty with no political power. It would have extensive law-enforcement facilities and a high crime rate.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by chewybrian »

GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2019, 1:47 pm A just tax system apportions taxes according to the value of the benefits each taxpayer receives from government services. I.e., you pay for what you get, just as you pay for everything else you buy. If you leave the supermarket with one six pack of beer, you pay for one six-pack. If you leave with a case, you pay for a case. No taxpayer has any duty to pay for government services received by someone else, any more than he has a duty to pay for someone else's beer.
GE Morton wrote: February 16th, 2019, 12:22 pm Perhaps I should define what a "free economy" is. It is simply an economic environment wherein anyone may exchange his products or services with any other willing person, on any mutually agreeable terms, without interference from any third parties (assuming no rights of those parties are violated by the transaction).
I just grabbed a couple examples that I felt summed up your opinions on capitalism and free markets. I was not trying to pull something out of context to distort your opinion, so I hope I have not.

I see a few issues with your stance. First, what about "there, but for the grace of God..."? For example, are you against the Americans with Disabilities Act? Certainly, businesses are forced to spend more than they get back from handicapped customers in many cases, and the government spends yet more that must come largely from folks who don't benefit. We could all pay lower prices and lower taxes if we let the handicapped fend for themselves, couldn't we? But, we know that any day, any of us could have a stroke or become disabled in some other way, so we choose to take from everyone to help those who need it through, mostly, no fault of their own.

What about 'stakeholders' who benefit or suffer from the decisions of business, but don't add or subtract from the bottom line directly? You seem to imply that utilitarianism begins and ends with shareholders. Sometimes, the cost to stakeholders outside the company might exceed the benefit to the shareholders. In such a case, would allowing them to continue with their plans be the right thing to do?

You seem to imply a level playing field, in which case the free market might be rather fair. But, some of us have benefited from the actions of the past, and some of us are disadvantaged by the past. These past actions were anything but above board and fair in many cases. I'm not pleading for reparations, but rather for things like student loans and mortgage guarantees for people who need them and want to improve themselves.

What about trading with foreign countries, where corruption, injustice and exploitation are the rule rather than the exception? Is it acceptable for a company to exchange products and services on 'mutually agreeable terms' if they reach such an agreement with a corrupt government?

I think you are right that free markets are a powerful force and a better choice than communism. But, a little touch of socialism to blunt the sharp corners is warranted in my view. We often don't know when to stop, and that can be a problem, too. I vote for well regulated free markets, and just a little bit of socialism.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: February 16th, 2019, 12:33 pm
Belindi wrote: February 15th, 2019, 5:52 pm Capitalism developed out of monarchy in early modern times and was more a bottom-up procedure unlike communism, ISIS, and Nazism.
"Capitalism" is a term of disparagement, coined by Marx, to denote a free economy (see definition in last response to Alias). It did not develop out of monarchy, though monarchy prevailed in many places where it was practiced. It is ancient; it is the kind of economy that arises by default when no one has the will or power to effectively interfere in private economic relationships.
I did not imply disparagement; you inferred disparagement.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: February 17th, 2019, 10:48 am
I did not imply disparagement; you inferred disparagement.
I know you didn't, and didn't suggest you were. I was only commenting on the origins of the term, which has now become ubiquitous and does not always carry disparaging intent. I prefer the terms "free economy" or "natural economy," as they are more accurately descriptive.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Gertie »

GE
Belindi wrote: ↑
February 11th, 2019, 7:06 am
I imagine that human values are underwritten by scientific discoveries about the genetic nature of the human.
Does that imply that there were no human values prior to the development of genetics and related sciences?

What I'm wondering, though, is, What are these "human values," and, What distinguishes them from other categories of values?
Humans are a particularly complexand flexible evolved social species, and usually when we use the term Values it's to distinguish from Needs and Desires, it's a term which carries universal and moral overtones.

And as Belindi says there is research in this field, based in our species' particular evolution, and our resulting neurology. And universal patterns of 'human values' are beginning to be categorised and explained.

It's a fairly new and undeveloped field, but the progress so far should help inform us of broad brush explanations of why we are how we are. Why we aren't simply a species intent on fulfilling our own needs and desires, or even that of our own family - in other words the role our evolution as a social species has played. And specifically a tribal species. So yes, human values are very specific to humans in a way.

But our sociality, resulting culture and flexible neurology mean that our evolutionary legacy can play out in myriad ways, as both DNA and lived experience combine to model our psychology and literal brain chemistry. And then our culture provides institutions, narratives, laws, archetypes, religion, mores and so on which concretise the broad tendencies. But as I say current research suggests that there are universal predispositions underlying these, which can be called human values.

It's a humbling thought that our own sophisticated ideology or morality of choice can be de-constructed this way. Or should be!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

chewybrian wrote: February 16th, 2019, 8:22 pm
I see a few issues with your stance. First, what about "there, but for the grace of God..."? For example, are you against the Americans with Disabilities Act? Certainly, businesses are forced to spend more than they get back from handicapped customers in many cases, and the government spends yet more that must come largely from folks who don't benefit. We could all pay lower prices and lower taxes if we let the handicapped fend for themselves, couldn't we? But, we know that any day, any of us could have a stroke or become disabled in some other way, so we choose to take from everyone to help those who need it through, mostly, no fault of their own.
Well, critiquing various specific public policies takes us rather far from the subject of the thread, but yes, I'm against Titles I and III of the ADA (I have no objection to Title II). The law, like all "social welfare" laws, rests on the assumption that citizen Alfie has some duty to support citizen Bruno. In the case of the ADA, it is because Bruno has some disability. In the case of food stamps, it is because Bruno cannot afford food. In the case of rent subsidies, it is because Bruno cannot afford housing. In the case of Medicaid and Obamacare, it is because Bruno cannot afford health insurance. But there is no moral argument that I know of which justifies that assumption. Unless Bruno's disability or poverty was somehow caused by Alfie, then the latter has no obvious duty to mitigate it at the cost of his own welfare. Forcing him to do so denies his status as an equal moral agent, entitled to decide for himself who deserves his help and who does not; it makes him a slave to others' interests and moral judgments.

That assumption, of course, derives from a collectivist, tribalist conception of society --- a conception which is archaic and inapplicable to contemporary civilized societies.

As for your "but for the grace of God" argument, yes, I could myself become disabled tomorrow. But if I do I will not presume to force others, who had nothing to do with my misfortune, to accommodate me or support me. As autonomous and equal moral agents those will be their decisions to make, and I will respect them.
What about 'stakeholders' who benefit or suffer from the decisions of business, but don't add or subtract from the bottom line directly? You seem to imply that utilitarianism begins and ends with shareholders. Sometimes, the cost to stakeholders outside the company might exceed the benefit to the shareholders. In such a case, would allowing them to continue with their plans be the right thing to do?
In the comment of mine you quoted I said that in a free economy third parties do not interfere in private economic transactions unless some right of a third party is violated. That can indeed occur; the common law of nuisance is a decent bulwark against negative externalities. In many contemporary cases, however, self-described "stakeholders" appear who have no defensible or tangible "stake" in the transaction or its result. Their objections are contrived and often frivolous.
You seem to imply a level playing field, in which case the free market might be rather fair. But, some of us have benefited from the actions of the past, and some of us are disadvantaged by the past. These past actions were anything but above board and fair in many cases. I'm not pleading for reparations, but rather for things like student loans and mortgage guarantees for people who need them and want to improve themselves.
Per what moral principle is Alfie responsible for some evil committed by his great-grandfather? The US Constitution outlaws "corruption of blood," which is what that thesis amounts to. Where specific historical offenses and offenders, and specific contemporary victims, are identifiable, then restitution is warranted. If the offenses were committed by governments, then those governments and their taxpayers are arguably liable for damages. They are not, however, liable for wrongs presumed to have been committed by private persons a century or more ago.

Nor do I assume a "level playing field." There is and has never been such a thing, for humans or any other species. Every individual arrives in the world with different strengths and weaknesses and in different circumstances, some advantageous, others disadvantageous. It is a poker game; some players are dealt a strong hand, others a weak one. Each player must play the hand he is dealt. Fortunately, unlike players in a poker game, humans in a society have many means and opportunities to improve that initial deal.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

Alias wrote:
Your three examples are very different in content, origin, population and historical circumstances.
This is where generalization can lead you down a blind alley.
But what's the application to values/moralities?
My examples of top-down imposition of an ideology were Muhammad's, Constantine's, and Lenin's.
I accept that your warning applies to me, as I want history to shed light upon the present day and a generalisation such as the above might help, and this is for me to be biased before all possible evidence is in. I do however keep an open mind, and I support the airing of ideas including half baked ideas for testing opinions from others.

Regarding the theory of threefold deaths of priest kings as an aid to social order I suppose that if the theory is correct the people and the soon to die priest king must have regarded his death as beautiful and good and not have questioned that the society was much more important than individuals who comprised it. The threefold death of a priest king arguably was an ancient custom that was still observed by a certain religious sect when Jesus was killed. Gospel evidence reveals three means by which Jesus lost his life. To this day Christians of all denominations believe that Jesus was prophet, king, and priest. The crucifixion, the spear in the side, and the poisoned sponge. Bog bodies also reveal (questionable)evidence of threefold death.

Looking again at unusual theories of social organisation and at outre, and common, generalisations is that new evidence continues to appear and any new evidence gains in significance as it's compared with various theories of social organisation. Human social organisation although it's so very various is a major consideration when we try to discover the parameters of who we are. The main generalisation that may be abstracted from the threefold death of the priest king theory is that human social order may be such that sometimes and in some places the society is vastly more important than the individual and that this ethic is not confined to modern communism.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by chewybrian »

GE Morton wrote: February 17th, 2019, 10:48 pm Unless Bruno's disability or poverty was somehow caused by Alfie, then the latter has no obvious duty to mitigate it at the cost of his own welfare. Forcing him to do so denies his status as an equal moral agent, entitled to decide for himself who deserves his help and who does not; it makes him a slave to others' interests and moral judgments.

That assumption, of course, derives from a collectivist, tribalist conception of society --- a conception which is archaic and inapplicable to contemporary civilized societies.

As for your "but for the grace of God" argument, yes, I could myself become disabled tomorrow. But if I do I will not presume to force others, who had nothing to do with my misfortune, to accommodate me or support me. As autonomous and equal moral agents those will be their decisions to make, and I will respect them.
I find a sharp dividing line between disability and poverty. Disability can happen to anyone, regardless of their good intentions and honest effort. Just as we fund a fire department to help our neighbors in the event of a fire, we have a moral imperative to help people who are disabled, within reasonable limits. I imagine you firmly believe your stance is honest, but I have to wonder how well it would hold if your number came up. Would you refuse social security disability payments, or forgo using the wheelchair ramp if you needed these things?

We are not talking about helping able-bodied folks to have cable TV and A/C without working, or even helping drug addicts who arguably had a hand in their plight to get free treatment. I can hardly think of a better use of government power and funds than helping the handicapped to try to go out in the world and work and shop and have fun like the rest of us as best they are able. How could you see such a great display of our humanity as immoral when it is in fact one of the finest examples of what we can be? Morality doesn't get played out in a spreadsheet.
GE Morton wrote: February 17th, 2019, 10:48 pm In the comment of mine you quoted I said that in a free economy third parties do not interfere in private economic transactions unless some right of a third party is violated. That can indeed occur; the common law of nuisance is a decent bulwark against negative externalities. In many contemporary cases, however, self-described "stakeholders" appear who have no defensible or tangible "stake" in the transaction or its result. Their objections are contrived and often frivolous.
Modern corporate structures and activities are terribly complex, sometimes by necessity and sometimes by design, to make tracking and regulating their business more difficult. Claims of the impact of their decisions thus become less obvious and more difficult to fight. You'd have to give at least one example of a frivolous claim of negative impact to even begin to make your case, though I have a hard time thinking the whole arena tilts to the benefit of the stakeholders.
GE Morton wrote: February 17th, 2019, 10:48 pm Per what moral principle is Alfie responsible for some evil committed by his great-grandfather? The US Constitution outlaws "corruption of blood," which is what that thesis amounts to. Where specific historical offenses and offenders, and specific contemporary victims, are identifiable, then restitution is warranted. If the offenses were committed by governments, then those governments and their taxpayers are arguably liable for damages. They are not, however, liable for wrongs presumed to have been committed by private persons a century or more ago.

Nor do I assume a "level playing field." There is and has never been such a thing, for humans or any other species. Every individual arrives in the world with different strengths and weaknesses and in different circumstances, some advantageous, others disadvantageous. It is a poker game; some players are dealt a strong hand, others a weak one. Each player must play the hand he is dealt. Fortunately, unlike players in a poker game, humans in a society have many means and opportunities to improve that initial deal.
So, if you were given free reign to set up a morally correct society in South Africa tomorrow, you think a free market, beginning with some people holding the spoils of past abuses, and some living in harsh poverty, would be the answer? Again, I am not arguing in favor of reparations, but in favor of giving the poor a leg up, on the basis of past discrimination, rather than assuming they 'deserve' to be poor in all cases. If these programs all come in the form of assistance to move forward, rather than assistance to sit still, then all of society can benefit from them in the long run. If we give someone a student loan, the value can come back to society many times over if they use this education to get a good job and pay more taxes. In addition, they are more likely to avoid costing society in other ways, like committing crimes or being in prison.

I think you truly are displaying a religious kind of worship of the free market. It is a powerful force which should be harnessed for the greater good. But, it doesn't solve all our problems and give fair results unless it is well regulated and augmented with programs to address the issues it does not solve well on its own. For example, it's rather necessary that we create a fire department at the government level, instead of than allowing everyone to pay for private fire protection. Some wouldn't buy it, and they would lose out in a fire. But, society would also lose out, too. If the home had been protected from the fire, the tax payments could continue, and the home could be used by someone else later. The usefulness and productivity of free markets is self-evident, but they do not rise to the level that we should slavishly worship them and ignore abuses. And, (gasp!), sometimes we can and should bite the bullet and spend some public funds to do good things, like building parks and wheelchair ramps.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

Belindi wrote: February 18th, 2019, 8:37 am My examples of top-down imposition of an ideology were Muhammad's, Constantine's, and Lenin's.
Yes. Constantine comes before Muhammad.
Rome already had a strong Christian community and the sect was spreading across the colonies through zealous missionary work. It had a wide appeal to the underclasses, and the polytheism of ancient Rome was badly diluted by identification with foreign gods; the reigns of Nero and Caligula did a huge amount of damage to its credibility, which later persecution of other religions did not mitigate (good for extra taxation and circuses, though). By the time Constantine came along, Rome was ready for a fresh, uncorrupted religion. His own mother and probably many of his troops were already openly Christian. It was a popular move to declare it the official religion after a military victory, and an excellent vehicle to promote Roman law through the conquered territories, since he could send in the priests with a carrot behind the armies and their stick. It caught on pretty well, too, in most places.
So, for top-down, yes, it was a shrewd political move - as it proved later on for the progeny of the Roman empire: Imperial England, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and France. The difference was that Rome practiced its proselytizing with a lighter hand, incorporating local rituals, totems and feast-days in its version of Christianity, declaring local heroes Christian saints. It was also quite brilliant to raise Mary to prominence, as some pagan peoples wouldn't accept a sole male deity.
What happened to the moral values as a result?

Muhammad was concerned for the future of his people. The Christians were becoming very aggressive and intolerant by the 600's; Arabs were comparatively few and scattered, fighting among themselves. He knew that they must unite in order to survive. He had some knowledge of both Christianity (some local forms, which may not have been mainstream doctrine) and Judaism through his travels as a merchant. He saw what a unifying force a single, strong, law-making god can be, as compared to all the little tribal demons and djinns besetting the Arabs of his time. So he went and had himself some visions - providently enlisting a scribe to record them. He was a smart man, an excellent organizer; he had deep psychological insight and could motivate people (women, too). This was no top-down imposition of an ideology: he was nowhere near the top when he began, nor did he have the means to impose anything on anybody. What he did was persuade other men to follow him and inspire passionate loyalty. Interestingly, for one with no formal education, he prized knowledge greatly and made it a tenet of his religion, and eschewed idolatry of the human. We know what happened to the people who took on this new religion: they formed a very successful armed alliance and set out to build empires.
What happened to the moral values as a result?

Lenin was no king or emperor, either. What he had was an understanding of how his people were oppressed, trampled down and terrorized by the aristocracy - and their complicit priesthood. Europe flourished all through the Industrial revolution; its middle class increased and prospered; its standard of living was high; even its exploited working classes were better off than the Russians, still mired in feudal practice if not law. The rulership was so rotten, in fact, that they were close to a French-style revolution long before Lenin came along. Some attempts had been made by illicit political organizations to affect change: one finally managed to assassinate a czar in the late 19th century (ah, here we are - Alexander II, 1881, https://www.bl.uk/russian-revolution/ar ... revolution ) A whole lot of heavy **** went down then - repression, rescinding of previous rights, persecutions, pogroms, etc. - all the same mistakes the French had made a century earlier. Then famine, riots, a world war... Russian people so desperate they'd follow anyone who promised them a different government; betrayed and disappointed by one leader after another; civil war. Lenin never had power to impose anything on anybody. (Stalin eventually did, but that's not an ideology so much as an autocracy with ideological makeup on its face.)
What happened to the moral values as a result?
I accept that your warning applies to me, as I want history to shed light upon the present day and a generalisation such as the above might help, and this is for me to be biased before all possible evidence is in. I do however keep an open mind, and I support the airing of ideas including half baked ideas for testing opinions from others.
How is the testing to be done? And what are you testing for? (I mean: methodology, parameters and intent)
Regarding the theory of threefold deaths of priest kings as an aid to social order...
I still don't know what priest-king you're talking about. What period? Which region of the world? What religion?
The only candidates I can think of without more information are the Aztec semi-divine kings. I'm not aware of any pre-civilized, hunting, fishing or early farming peoples who combined the two offices of leadership and priesthood, and I don't know of any who ritually killed their chiefs. (Human sacrifice, yes. Young men usually considered most valuable, but children are common.)
The threefold death of a priest king arguably was an ancient custom that was still observed by a certain religious sect when Jesus was killed.
What is the custom of three-fold death? Can you provide a citation?
Jesus, assuming there was such a person, was killed at the height of Roman Imperialism. By then, there were and had been numerous urban, highly organized, militant, multi-layered civilizations. What ancient sects would be left to exert an influence in the Middle East?
Gospel evidence

is an oxymoron.
Crucifixion takes a long time. Some kind (or impatient) guard would help a condemned man out with a spear (just as a kind, or bribed executioner would strangle heretics condemned to burning at the stake) and the sponge was soaked in dilute vinegar - a cooling drink.
Bog bodies also reveal (questionable)evidence of threefold death.

I'm sorry - they don't. They're all over the place and all over the time-scale; some murdered in the 20th or another century, some killed in battle or by highwaymen, stabbed, hanged, head bashed in; some just died, sometime, of something.
The main generalisation that may be abstracted from the threefold death of the priest king theory is that human social order may be such that sometimes and in some places the society is vastly more important than the individual and that this ethic is not confined to modern communism.
In fact, you can generalize more, and without the king: all social order is predicated on the collective taking precedence over the individual. And that organizational principle goes back to long before humans evolved. The degree of disparity in importance varies, yes. In theocracies and monarchies, as well as dictatorships ostensibly based on some ideology, the general population doesn't count at all, and has no enforceable rights, while a few individuals - an elite - have all the rights. In hereditary divided societies like slave-owning, Indian-massacring American colonies, feudal states and caste systems, some categories of people have zero rights, some have limited rights and some have sweeping rights. In constitutional governance, individual and class rights are spelled out in a formal declaration and codified in a body of laws - which invariably allow the state to override citizen's rights in many instances, in many ways and for many reasons. (taxation, conscription, eminent domain, search and seizure, trade regulation, crowd control, internment, licensing and inspection, capital punishment, etc.).
(ps There is no modern communism on a national level; communes exist in low profile under other political regimes.)
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

Reply to Alias.

How is the testing of a theory to be done ?In an amateur philosophy forum like this?

These are different procedures. I hope that any person who writes to this discussion group and is a professional with academic experience will instruct those of us who lack the experience and knowledge.

As for testing historical theories, my guide to assessing primary sources is what historian Arthur Marwick called "unwitting testimony". Even the much edited Gospels can perhaps provide unwitting testimony although I myself am not qualified to find it. Theories aren't evidence. I mentioned the threefold death of priest kings, which I heard about in connection with northern Europe notably Britain and Gaul, were to aid fertility ; the dead and returning king; the seed corn and the burying of it in the soil. It's an interesting theory however will probably lack sufficient archaeological evidence which is the only sort of unwitting testimony that could apply as no documents. Caesar wrote about the Druids of Britain and Gaul but was probably biased.

For secondary sources I'd go to peer reviewed historians who provide bibliographies, and good text books.

I have several intentions when I do history. One of them is so as to feel what some person in the past could have been feeling, and ways of life of individuals, and this applies especially to my interest in very local social history.

You reiterate "what happened to the moral values?" after the agencies of Constantine, Muhammad, and Lenin, plus the respective social circumstances among which these important persons lived and worked. It may be worth hypothesising that In the long term the original values became petrified as dogmas that were appropriated by politicians for their own projects. Are all ideologies doomed?
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021