Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Money and Ethics

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by -1- » August 23rd, 2017, 4:50 pm

Guys, it is extremely difficult to follow threads that have no references "You said" is bullolcrap, because "you" is undefined as to its antecedent. My favourite pet peeve on forums.

Also, if you have embedded quotes, and the quotes have embedded quotes as well, please make sure that the reader knows who said what. I read posts here that have part of the post italicised, but without any reference to the author.

Please be mindful that others may, just may, on the odd and rare occasion, read your posts. If you write incomprehensibly, people may take you for a fool.

"You" in this post of mine here refers to anyone and everyone who has quoted others in their text. Except to me, of course.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Ranvier » August 23rd, 2017, 5:23 pm

-1-

That's reasonable but I think people follow the logic that unless it's specifically indicated, it means that the post is aimed directly at the OP (original poster...I believe)

As for myself, I don't usually mix different people within a single post. As you noticed I dedicate an entire post to a single person addressed at the beginning of the post.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by -1- » August 23rd, 2017, 9:37 pm

Ranvier wrote:-1-

That's reasonable but I think people follow the logic that unless it's specifically indicated, it means that the post is aimed directly at the OP (original poster...I believe)

As for myself, I don't usually mix different people within a single post. As you noticed I dedicate an entire post to a single person addressed at the beginning of the post.
I understand what you are saying. Is it true for post #15? I believe I see an inconsistency in your claim, but I am not sure, as I can't make it out. Are you responiding to the OP in post 15? You must be, because you say that UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, you always respond the to the OP. You did not note otherwise. But maybe you are not responding to the OP. Are you responding to the OP in post 15, is my straight question to you. Ha! I caught you in flagranti, red-faced in the act. (-:

Also, please look at post #13. It's not yours, I understand, but still. Do you know what's going on on there? Was it one that you replied to? If yes, then you must understand what was going on. I don't.

A bit more patience put into your posts, a bit more foresight as to what your readers may see, would go a long way, ladies and gentlemen. I beg you all to please be more true in your referencing schedule.

It is so easy to say: "-1- wrote:" or "Quagmire wrote:". Easy does it. Why can't you?
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 23rd, 2017, 10:50 pm

Ranvier wrote:I can only be certain of my own morality, especially when I don't observe much of it in the "superior collective" framework you would have me to follow.
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.

This is a problem I often find with people quoting other people with whom I may not converse, namely dead people. It's as if conversing with a radical Theist who can't think on his own but continues to quote religious texts in a flawed context as a literal word of God, difficult to argue with that... Even if you were an expert on Kant, I'm conversing with you not Kant, therefore you must defend alone your understanding of what you are presenting from your subjective understanding of Kant.
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. 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.
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.
I mean really... MQ? How can you qualify morality as a quotient? From this alone I can tell that we most likely wouldn't find much in common in our understanding of morality and not the least to find a Universal framework out of the thin air.
We have IQ which is very well recognized and useful to some degree albeit having its controversy.
Now we have Emotional Intelligence [EQ] which give an idea of one's control of emotional impulses.
These measurements based on various criteria are never absolute but they at least provide guidance and it is useful when we use them with a clear understanding of the limitations involved.

Present there are various models to measure Moral Quotient [MQ] but these models need vast improvements before they are effective.
wiki wrote:Moral intelligence is the capacity to understand right from wrong and to behave based on the value that is believed to be right.[1] Moral intelligence was first developed as a concept in 2005 by Doug Lennick and Fred Kiel, Ph.D. Much of the research involved with moral intelligence agrees that this characteristic is ability-based, rather than trait-based. Therefore, moral intelligence is seen as a skill that can be further developed with practice. Beheshtifar, Esmaeli, and Moghadam (2011) claim that moral intelligence is the “’central intelligence’ for all humans.”[2] It is considered a distinct form of intelligence, independent to both emotional and cognitive intelligence.
Point is at least we are starting somewhere with baby steps rather than you condemning such a step straightaway and ignoring it for good.
"This Universal Moral Standards from the collective are not my own ideas but from Kant who is recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. E.g..."
How is this for a philosophical challenge: One cannot intellectually deduce morality! That is a sheer nonsense! I'm confident in this assertion because nobody can objectively define good or evil. Perhaps it is panic, especially when someone proposes evil to be good.
It is very easy to deduce morality and absolute moral standards. The difficulty is putting such standards in practice.

There are no ontological absolute 'good' or 'evil'.
However we can work on a definition of say 'evil' which can be acceptable by all.
  • I define 'evil' as any act or thoughts that is net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom the group. There is intensity [degrees] for such evil, i.e. from Low [1%] to High [99.99%].
I have prepared a taxonomy of evil acts from Low to High for my purpose.
It is so obvious petty crimes are evil of low degrees while genocides, mass rapes with tortures is 99% high degree evil. We can fill in between the various range of evil. We start with a draft taxonomy and this can be continually refined and improved over the years.
As I said this is not something perfect but at least it will give guidance as long as we understand the qualified limitations and assumptions.
"The difference between the Moral Standard and what is actually happening constitute the Moral Gap which society must make an attempt to narrow as much as possible. Note the Moral Standard approach provide a fixed goal post as a fixed goal to strive for instead of moving goal posts that are inefficient".
The moral gap? Yes, there is a moral gap between myself and the collection of delusional strangers. I am part of the society, as much as the society is part of me, so yes I must continue to elevate the moral standards to shield individuals from the "superior collective" fallacy.
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.

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.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Ranvier » August 24th, 2017, 2:23 am

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!

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?
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

We have IQ which is very well recognized and useful to some degree albeit having its controversy. Surely, especially if one were to decide to penalize people for not scoring high enough...
Now we have Emotional Intelligence [EQ] which give an idea of one's control of emotional impulses.
These measurements based on various criteria are never absolute but they at least provide guidance and it is useful when we use them with a clear understanding of the limitations involved. I think we already established that for you MQ isn't a mere guide
wiki wrote:Moral intelligence is the capacity to understand right from wrong and to behave based on the value that is believed to be right.[1] Moral intelligence was first developed as a concept in 2005 by Doug Lennick and Fred Kiel, Ph.D. Much of the research involved with moral intelligence agrees that this characteristic is ability-based, rather than trait-based. Religion already proved that a long time ago, Dah? I assert, it's still not entirely true, although people can be conditioned to some degree but will quickly revert back in real life due to change in circumstances. Ex. New Orleans after Katrina. Therefore, moral intelligence is seen as a skill that can be further developed with practice. Beheshtifar, Esmaeli, and Moghadam (2011) claim that moral intelligence is the “’central intelligence’ for all humans.”[2] It is considered a distinct form of intelligence, independent to both emotional and cognitive intelligence.
It is very easy to deduce morality and absolute moral standards. The difficulty is putting such standards in practice.

There are no ontological absolute 'good' or 'evil'. We are getting somewhere, hopefully that makes sense.
However we can work on a definition of say 'evil' which can be acceptable by all. Can't, not possible
  • I define 'evil' as any act or thoughts that is net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom the group. The group doesn't care about the individual, individuals may care about individuals. The bigger the group, the less they care. There is intensity [degrees] for such evil, i.e. from Low [1%] to High [99.99%].
I have prepared a taxonomy of evil acts from Low to High for my purpose. It is so obvious petty crimes are evil of low degrees while genocides, mass rapes with tortures is 99% high degree evil. We can fill in between the various range of evil. We start with a draft taxonomy and this can be continually refined and improved over the years.
As I said this is not something perfect but at least it will give guidance as long as we understand the qualified limitations and assumptions.
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 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.
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.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 24th, 2017, 4:05 am

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/
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Ranvier » August 24th, 2017, 12:18 pm

At some point in any argument one must realize if there is a logic in continuing to reason the fallacy of opponent's view. Once one realizes that the opponent is unwilling or unable to grasp opponents view, there is no further logic in arguing. Knowledge is a virtue, even if conclusions of such knowledge lead the path of dead end but there is only so much time in one's life that one must choose wisely the knowledge they pursue. I usually take the high ground in walking away in opponents conviction of my ignorance.

-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 12:52 pm to add the following --

In all fairness, I'm not discouraging you or others from pursuing such line of thinking. Even our mistakes lead to knowledge from which we can learn further. I just hope that MQ will not result some day in decades of different type of misery.

-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 2:35 pm to add the following --

Morality is only a human concept in complexity of human mind. Religion, namely Christian religion, played a fundamental role in evolution of "morality" in the sense of an absolute objective moral principle outside of the human mind, that stems from the "belief" in uniqueness of human beings that contain a "soul" and "spirit". Once we reject the premises of religion (Atheism), morality becomes a nonsense in a subjective view of "well being". We wouldn't ask ourselves if a lion hunting a gazelle to devour it, is a moral question. This becomes nonsense.

In that sense, if one wishes to modify the "well being" of the general population (society), it's not through "educating" such population in whatever subjective perspective any individual or group wishes to impose on people but to change the environmental circumstances that cause people to commit to "immoral choices". One must understand the human mind in all it's complexity from evolutionary perspective of human DNA, as well as the environmental factors: politics, economy, religion, history, science, art, philosophy :) and all the factors that affect the development of human mind, with possibility that consciousness isn't just reducible to physical structures such as "mirror neurons".

With this understanding, what you propose could only be useful in identifying unique to human mind "pathology" of "evil" unseen in other animals: hate, cruelty, sadism, masochism, vengeance, and other depravities of human mind. But we already have Psychology and Psychiatry for that purpose.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 25th, 2017, 1:46 am

Ranvier wrote:At some point in any argument one must realize if there is a logic in continuing to reason the fallacy of opponent's view. Once one realizes that the opponent is unwilling or unable to grasp opponents view, there is no further logic in arguing. Knowledge is a virtue, even if conclusions of such knowledge lead the path of dead end but there is only so much time in one's life that one must choose wisely the knowledge they pursue. I usually take the high ground in walking away in opponents conviction of my ignorance.
I have no problem grasping your views but I am not accepting them due to their shallowness. E.g. you are insisting on accepting rigid theistic morality based on an illusory entity as the ultimate for human beings. This is too dogmatic and not sufficiently dynamic to cater for changes.
In all fairness, I'm not discouraging you or others from pursuing such line of thinking. Even our mistakes lead to knowledge from which we can learn further. I just hope that MQ will not result some day in decades of different type of misery.
Problem is your views are too pessimistic. Reality is always changing and you want something immutable from an illusory entity to be the ultimate controller of change?

Point is for improvements to be efficient it must be based on something grounded and justifiably objective as far as possible. This is where MQ is a good start albeit roughly and subject to continuous improvement in time.
Whether it is MQ or other Quotients the basis for morality must be something objective to start with.

Note even 'moral values' can be objectively quantified and its measurements subject to continuous improvements.
See axiology.
wiki wrote:Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1], philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.
What objective views have you offer for the future other than theistic morality?
Morality is only a human concept in complexity of human mind.
Religion, namely Christian religion, played a fundamental role in evolution of "morality" in the sense of an absolute objective moral principle outside of the human mind, that stems from the "belief" in uniqueness of human beings that contain a "soul" and "spirit". Once we reject the premises of religion (Atheism), morality becomes a nonsense in a subjective view of "well being". We wouldn't ask ourselves if a lion hunting a gazelle to devour it, is a moral question. This becomes nonsense.
Theistic morality has contributed to humanity [something better than nothing] but within the conditions then. However theistic morality useful as a transitory and temporary measure is not going to be effective in the future.

E.g. the Abrahamic religions are stuck with slavery to some degree while presently all nations have banned slavery. Some believers are still practicing slavery because they insist God's Law overrides secular laws. As such theistic morality is a hindrance to future progress in the well being of humanity.

Note, I am not proposing we reject theistic morality and do nothing about it, that would be suicidal. What I have proposed is a Kantian model of a secular Framework and System for Morality and Ethics. Obviously such a proposal has to be many times more effective than the rigid theistic morality which is driven by the fear of Hell.
The Kantian model for Morality and Ethics is driven by absolute moral laws established by all of humanity [co-shared by all] where these Laws are of greater quality than theistic morality and without the other negative baggage of theistic religions.

It is not easy to explain the full Kantian Model of Morality and Ethics. You will have to read it up.
But one interesting point is the establishment of Absolute Moral Laws is based on refined reason where all humans are reasoning as if they are omniscient and omni-rational beings [ens realissimum]. This is not impossible because humans can easily conceptualize perfection and absoluteness even though they cannot produce perfection.
If humanity can produce Pure and absolute Physics Principles and Mathematical axioms there is no reason humanity cannot establish Pure Absolute Moral Laws for guidance.
In that sense, if one wishes to modify the "well being" of the general population (society), it's not through "educating" such population in whatever subjective perspective any individual or group wishes to impose on people but to change the environmental circumstances that cause people to commit to "immoral choices".
One must understand the human mind in all it's complexity from evolutionary perspective of human DNA, as well as the environmental factors: politics, economy, religion, history, science, art, philosophy :) and all the factors that affect the development of human mind, with possibility that consciousness isn't just reducible to physical structures such as "mirror neurons".
Nah, it is not to change the environmental circumstance.

The effective approach is to change the wiring in the brain [fool proof methods and voluntary] that support morality. I am optimistic this can be done effectively in the future when we have the relevant knowledge and competence. This will involve developing effective activators and inhibitors in the brain. Note the Connectome Project.
With this understanding, what you propose could only be useful in identifying unique to human mind "pathology" of "evil" unseen in other animals: hate, cruelty, sadism, masochism, vengeance, and other depravities of human mind. But we already have Psychology and Psychiatry for that purpose.
The present Psychology and Psychiatry competence is not sufficient and competent. What we need is more advance neuro-Psychology and neuro-Psychiatry plus all other fields of knowledge necessary to advance the MQ of the average humans.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2879
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Burning ghost » August 25th, 2017, 2:11 am

Spectrum -

Eugenics again. I am sure you can understand the kind of backlash people have against such ideas? It is certainly a problem that is becoming more and more of a potential reality we're going to have to face up to soon enough.

I admire your spirit, but I am sure you can understand the controversy of such proposals. We are talking about genetic engineering here and we seem very ill-equipped as societies to deal with such a thing and/or understand the repercussions of taking up such discussions, let alone implementing the technology that is fast approaching us. There is also the issue of cybermen being a common thing in the future. Hive minds and many other ideas are something that humans naturally fear (due to threats to identity) and also have curiosity about.

What happened to "Money and Ethics" btw? Maybe a thread on technology and eugenics is worth starting?

I can agree with the gist of this:
The present Psychology and Psychiatry competence is not sufficient and competent.


This I see, again, as the reflection of the larger conflict of humanity and societies. The subjective and objective views which are, to some degree, being tackled by a phenomenological approach. The "spirit" of humanity is deeply polarized now due to this era of information overload.
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 25th, 2017, 2:52 am

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -

Eugenics again. I am sure you can understand the kind of backlash people have against such ideas? It is certainly a problem that is becoming more and more of a potential reality we're going to have to face up to soon enough.

I admire your spirit, but I am sure you can understand the controversy of such proposals. We are talking about genetic engineering here and we seem very ill-equipped as societies to deal with such a thing and/or understand the repercussions of taking up such discussions, let alone implementing the technology that is fast approaching us. There is also the issue of cybermen being a common thing in the future. Hive minds and many other ideas are something that humans naturally fear (due to threats to identity) and also have curiosity about.
Note ever since humans emerged many have been trying to "rewire" their brains to be better humans [inevitably there are the negative] as driven by their evolving trait for improvements in all aspects of human life.
This is why the average humans 3000 years ago are relatively less advance/developed in many aspects of life as compared to present average humans.
This is normal and has nothing to do with Eugenics per se. There has been attempts at eugenics like Hitler trying to develop the superior race but such a perversion is a different topic.

What I am proposing is something that must and has to be net-positive for the well being of humanity and nothing negative at all. There will be people attempting the negatives but such moves will be taken care of.

Even at present there are the existence of smart drugs to enhance human performances.
wiki wrote:Nootropics ( /noʊ.əˈtrɒpɪks/ noh-ə-TROP-iks)—also called smart drugs or cognitive enhancers—are drugs, supplements, or other substances that improve cognitive function, particularly executive functions, memory, creativity, or motivation, in healthy individuals.
The above has been going on for years and little can be or has been done to control them because the consequences are not as negative as the dangerous drugs.

There are many other self-development programs that involve rewiring the brain but the limitation is at present they are done within a black-box approach. In this case, the awareness is merely confined to the relation between the inputs and the output without much knowledge and control over processes within the black-boxes.

My point is in the future [extrapolated from current reliable knowledge] we will have the detail and specific knowledge of what is going inside the black-boxes and we have to competence to target specific processes of the black boxes without incurring any side effects, i.e. solidly FDA and other authorities approved.

Now if we can do that, i.e. improved based on the processes within the black-boxes without side effects, what is the problem with that. What most are worry [typically] is because they are not thinking from the future standpoint but rather fearing based on their current level of limited knowledge. It is like 50-75 years ago where the majority unnecessary feared computers will make the majority jobless and create a permanent economic depression.
200 years ago the majority would be frightful to think of a heart transplant but it is a reality at present.

Another point is I am a very voracious reader and crazy absorber of knowledge, analytical and very forward thinking. My ideas are not picked from the air, what I have proposed is backed up by my above database.

It is very normal that many will accuse me of proposing eugenics and all sort of negatives on the ideas that I introduced. Think more deeply and widely and one will note what I am proposing is a trend based on what had happened from 5000 years ago and what is happening at present. It will not be an elitist program but it will and must be common knowledge to all. Like it or not, changes and improvements will naturally happen within 50, 75, 100, 200, > into the future.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2879
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Burning ghost » August 25th, 2017, 3:22 am

Accusations are not accusations when you're talking about eugenics. If people don't want to talk about it more fool them. Like you say it will happen, or rather the technology will become more available in the future so the sooner we pay attention to it the better.

Granted you are not directly talking about selective breeding and eradication of parts of the genome, yet you are saying the next best thing. Chemical consumption can have aknock-on effect in the next generation. We are ill-equipped to understand what the repercussions are. There is a huge issue with viewing this or that as a problem and eradicating it without a second thought. Like what you said about religion, and altering peoples brains.

This is something Zizek has warning about too. Rather than dealing with the problem and understanding it, rather than talking to someone and bringing them around to a new way of thinking, or even coming around to their way of thinking, WHY bother? Why bother when you can just bypass the person and directly alter the structure of their brain. This is the fear (note, I am not saying this is what you're saying, only that you;ve done very little to guard against the misunderstanding. That is on you, not only the accuser.)

-- Updated August 25th, 2017, 3:33 am to add the following --

Also, your despairing lack of presenting any ounce of humility just furthers the "accusers" cause and demeans your position. The arrogance you show is quite profoundly apparent to everyone who reads a few of your posts.
Another point is I am a very voracious reader and crazy absorber of knowledge, analytical and very forward thinking. My ideas are not picked from the air, what I have proposed is backed up by my above database.
Your opinion of yourself has no place here. I believe you have put effort it and you are interested in discussing difficult subjects. A list of the material you've read repeatedly followed by the assumption that others have not read X or Y is vacuous and self defeating (although quite obviously partially correct in some particular areas, but the reverse is undoubtedly true too!)

Nobodies ideas a picked from thin air. Everyone's knowledge is necessarily myopic in this or that direction. The greatest scholar and possessor of knowledge is next to useless if they either don't know how to relate the knowledge, and/or are unable to present it in a manner fitting to their audience. In this respect no matter how accomplished we are there is a constant duress of improvement only we can take on against ourselves or remain in a hall of mirror appeased by our own self-possessed grandeur wholly unable to step out into the light of public scrutiny and grow a sense self-deprecation that helps us grow into a successful communicator.

Obviously by the flowery pretentious trash above you can see I have my own issues with self deceit and refinement of my ability to write and judge the resilience of my audience! haha!
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 25th, 2017, 3:41 am

Burning ghost wrote:This is something Zizek has warning about too. Rather than dealing with the problem and understanding it, rather than talking to someone and bringing them around to a new way of thinking, or even coming around to their way of thinking, WHY bother? Why bother when you can just bypass the person and directly alter the structure of their brain. This is the fear (note, I am not saying this is what you're saying, only that you;ve done very little to guard against the misunderstanding. That is on you, not only the accuser.)
I agree I have not done much to explain to allay the natural fears [resistance to perceived apparent threats] of the majority against changes from the norms.

One element I can state is there will definitely be an increased levels of transparency and openness on the available knowledge.

In the past, people with evil intents could do things [experiments with humans] in secrets.

However with the current trend of information technology, the moral obligation to be more open, there will be and must be greater sense of transparency in the future.
When humanity expect the majority [thus 6-7 billions in the future] to participate in such a project it would be impossible to get all of them to volunteer if the knowledge [pros and cons] and processes are not extra-ordinary transparent.
In addition, by then, the average IQ, emotional intelligence, spiritual quotient, philosophical quotient, etc. of all humans will be much higher than the current state.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by -1- » August 25th, 2017, 11:04 am

Spectrum wrote:s I said this is not something perfect but at least it will give guidance as long as we understand the qualified limitations and assumptions.

"The difference between the Moral Standard and what is actually happening constitute the Moral Gap which society must make an attempt to narrow as much as possible. Note the Moral Standard approach provide a fixed goal post as a fixed goal to strive for instead of moving goal posts that are inefficient".




The moral gap? Yes, there is a moral gap between myself and the collection of delusional strangers. I am part of the society, as much as the society is part of me, so yes I must continue to elevate the moral standards to shield individuals from the "superior collective" fallacy.
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.
Spectrum, do you know what's going on? Do you know whom you are quoting, and perhaps, are you quoting yourself?

I have no clue what's going on in your post. Random, unreferenced quotes all over the place. Please be a bit more considerate of your readers and say who is saying what at each quote. Thanks.

This goes for everybody, by the way. Don't be shy, refernce your quotes. Otherwise you won't be read due to you, the writer, frustrating the reader.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Spectrum » August 27th, 2017, 10:06 pm

-1- wrote:
Spectrum wrote:s I said this is not something perfect but at least it will give guidance as long as we understand the qualified limitations and assumptions.

("The difference between the Moral Standard and what is actually happening constitute the Moral Gap which society must make an attempt to narrow as much as possible. Note the Moral Standard approach provide a fixed goal post as a fixed goal to strive for instead of moving goal posts that are inefficient".)

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.
Spectrum, do you know what's going on? Do you know whom you are quoting, and perhaps, are you quoting yourself?

I have no clue what's going on in your post. Random, unreferenced quotes all over the place. Please be a bit more considerate of your readers and say who is saying what at each quote. Thanks.

This goes for everybody, by the way. Don't be shy, reference your quotes. Otherwise you won't be read due to you, the writer, frustrating the reader.
I think you missed and misread somewhere.

I have always been very mindful to maintain intellectual integrity thus indicating sources [reference within the quoted or mentioned outside the quote] if the statement is not mine.
Since you raised the point [I don't intend to brag], I believe I am the one who is throwing in the most external references [youtube, wiki, links, books, etc.] and links among all the recent posters. Show me if my claim is wrong?

Ranvier stated in post #15,

... then you follow with this:
"The difference between the Moral Standard and what is actually happening constitute the Moral Gap which society must make an attempt to narrow as much as possible. Note the Moral Standard approach provide a fixed goal post as a fixed goal to strive for instead of moving goal posts that are inefficient".
I believe you have taken the above from Ranvier's quoting me in his #15;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 47#p293847

You should address the point to Ranvier not me. In any case he did nothing wrong in quoting me accordingly.

Suggest you reread from post #13 again carefully. You will find there is no problem of confusing quotations from me at all.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Jan Sand
Posts: 510
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Money and Ethics

Post by Jan Sand » January 22nd, 2018, 10:26 am

For a fundamental perception of the nature of money and how it is used and misused an excellent article can be found at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/22 ... ry-theory/

Post Reply