Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

[Ecurb]

Love cannot be willed. The human limbic system doesn't work that way; emotional responses are generated sub-consciously and are involuntary and non-rational. Agape is not not love; it is a consciously adopted, irrational and unworkable moral principle.

I disagree. Emotions can be learned, through practice, just like tastes can be learned. Eric Fromm is probably referring to eros here (I wouldn't know, I've never read the book) but his quotes would be even more true of agape. Indeed, the testimony of millions of Christians claim the he is right.

“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”

“Love isn't something natural. Rather it requires discipline, concentration, patience, faith, and the overcoming of narcissism. It isn't a feeling, it is a practice.”

[GE Morton]

The State is the political authority and it makes and imposes laws. In a Christian or post-Christian society secular law is founded upon Christian morality.

No, it is not. It embodies most of the Ten Commandments, which is a Hebrew, not Christian code, but that code consists largely of the "universal morality" --- moral strictures and principles found in nearly every formal moral code and legal system, irrespective of religion: ""Don't murder;" "Don't steal;" "Don't bear false witness (lie);" "Don't covet;" "Don't commit adultery." All of those strictures are rationally justifiable. Moreover, in the US the government is constitutionally barred from enacting laws implementing "Christian" morality, unless the law can be independently justified on rational grounds.

It has been found necessary for states to impose laws as we would wait forever for most people to give enough voluntarily.

Well, you're begging the question. It is only "necessary" if you assume there is such a duty. Which is what is in question.

The imposition of laws is not theft. Theft is a recognisable crime.

"Theft" is stealing. "Stealing" is "the taking of another's property without right or permission."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

Any act which satisfies that definition is "stealing," whether committed by the State or a street mugger, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal.

You seem to be deifying the State there, holding it exempt from moral scrutiny and perhaps even lauding it as the fountainhead of morality. Given the endless list of atrocities committed by governments and oppressive laws enacted by them over the centuries, I'm surprised by your deference to them.

[Ecurb]

"Theft" is stealing. "Stealing" is "the taking of another's property without right or permission."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

Any act which satisfies that definition is "stealing," whether committed by the State or a street mugger, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal.

You seem to be deifying the State there, holding it exempt from moral scrutiny and perhaps even lauding it as the fountainhead of morality. Given the endless list of atrocities committed by governments and oppressive laws enacted by them over the centuries, I'm surprised by your deference to them.

Steal
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

The state has the legal right to levy taxes, and (in a democracy) the permission of the voters. So taxes are not "stealing". Give up on the hyperbole.

[GE Morton]

The state has the legal right to levy taxes, and (in a democracy) the permission of the voters. So taxes are not "stealing". Give up on the hyperbole.

We're not speaking of legal (fiat) rights, but of real (natural and common) rights. And the "permission of the voters" is irrelevant. Alfie may not given relevant permission to Bruno to take Chauncey's property. Only Chauncey's permission counts.

And, as I've said before, not all taxes are stealing. Stealing is "taking without right or permission." The State may rightfully take payment for services from which you benefit.

[Belindi]

The State is the political authority and it makes and imposes laws. In a Christian or post-Christian society secular law is founded upon Christian morality.

No, it is not. It embodies most of the Ten Commandments, which is a Hebrew, not Christian code, but that code consists largely of the "universal morality" --- moral strictures and principles found in nearly every formal moral code and legal system, irrespective of religion: ""Don't murder;" "Don't steal;" "Don't bear false witness (lie);" "Don't covet;" "Don't commit adultery." All of those strictures are rationally justifiable. Moreover, in the US the government is constitutionally barred from enacting laws implementing "Christian" morality, unless the law can be independently justified on rational grounds.

It has been found necessary for states to impose laws as we would wait forever for most people to give enough voluntarily.

Well, you're begging the question. It is only "necessary" if you assume there is such a duty. Which is what is in question.

The imposition of laws is not theft. Theft is a recognisable crime.

"Theft" is stealing. "Stealing" is "the taking of another's property without right or permission."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

Any act which satisfies that definition is "stealing," whether committed by the State or a street mugger, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal.

You seem to be deifying the State there, holding it exempt from moral scrutiny and perhaps even lauding it as the fountainhead of morality. Given the endless list of atrocities committed by governments and oppressive laws enacted by them over the centuries, I'm surprised by your deference to them.

You elaborated on my point that secular morality is founded on Christian morality. Obviously where there are other main religions the secular code is founded on the particular religious code.

The reason there is a duty to give concessions to people who are differently abled is that nobody knows or can know what the paradigmatic citizen is like.

[GE Morton]

You elaborated on my point that secular morality is founded on Christian morality. Obviously where there are other main religions the secular code is founded on the particular religious code.

Belindi, what I said was not an "elaboration" of that point of yours, but a refutation of it. And your statement concerned laws --- " In a Christian or post-Christian society secular law is founded upon Christian morality" --- not "secular morality."

Religious moralities are largely based on the "universal morality" I mentioned, to which they add some sort of supernatural authority as justification. So are secular laws. The actual justification for that morality and those laws is pragmatic --- civilized societies can't function unless those constraints are largely observed.

The reason there is a duty to give concessions to people who are differently abled is that nobody knows or can know what the paradigmatic citizen is like.

Well, I have no idea what a paradiagmatic citizen might be either. Nor do I have any idea why one might be needed to construct a rationally sound morality. What we know about actual persons is sufficient. But I'm pretty sure no lack of knowledge, of any kind, gives rise to any moral duties.

[Belindi]

Secular laws are founded on religious laws that's to say moral laws. Study the history of law .

To legitimate giving one sort of person Alice more power than another sort of person Alicia you have to have a reason for thinking Alice is better than Alicia. The paradigm is a concept of the ideal person. If Alice is more deserving than Alicia then Alice would be a better match for the paradigm.

But there is no such paradigmatic person . A paradigm does not exist outside the great myths.A lazy person who will not work may , for all you can know , be absolutely necessary to you and others.

[Sculptor1]

Secular laws are founded on religious laws that's to say moral laws. Study the history of law .

THat might have been true in some cultures 100 years ago, in others 2000 years ago.
And whilst people of the cloth may have had influence over laws, most laws today are found from secular law and are not founded any any religious principle.
Lex Americana derives from the lex Britanica which comes most from the lex Romana, whose roots were secularised long before Christianity was part of Rome.All new laws have no reference to religion in any sense.

To legitimate giving one sort of person Alice more power than another sort of person Alicia you have to have a reason for thinking Alice is better than Alicia. The paradigm is a concept of the ideal person. If Alice is more deserving than Alicia then Alice would be a better match for the paradigm.

There can be little legitimate interest in giving advantage under law to any person. Practially it does happen but the basis of law is that it applies equally to commoner or nobel.

But there is no such paradigmatic person . A paradigm does not exist outside the great myths.A lazy person who will not work may , for all you can know , be absolutely necessary to you and others.

[GE Morton]

Secular laws are founded on religious laws that's to say moral laws. Study the history of law.

Well, that is simply false, Belindi. All of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

To legitimate giving one sort of person Alice more power than another sort of person Alicia you have to have a reason for thinking Alice is better than Alicia. The paradigm is a concept of the ideal person. If Alice is more deserving than Alicia then Alice would be a better match for the paradigm.

Egads. First, the issue is not about anyone "giving" anyone else "power." If Alfie produces widgets for which 1000 people are willing to pay him $10 each, then he has "given" himself $10,000. He has that $10,000 because he produced that amount of wealth. If Bruno has no wealth it is not because someone failed to give him any, but because he has not produced any. There is no third-party "giver" or giving" involved. Moreover, the only power Alfie's $10,000 yields to him is the power to improve his own life; it gives him no "power" over anyone else.

Nor is there any basis for concluding that because Alfie has $10,000 and Bruno $0, that Alfie is "better" than Bruno, in the sense of a "better person," though he may be better at producing widgets. No "ideal person" figures in any way in the wealth difference between Alfie and Bruno. That notion is completely spurious and superfluous.

A lazy person who will not work may , for all you can know , be absolutely necessary to you and others.

Well, we don't usually make investments based on what "may be" necessary in some far-fetched scenario, but for which there is no evidence upon which to compute a probability estimate. I.e., we don't buy insurance against tidal waves if we live 1000 miles inland, or wear tinfoil hats just in case aliens are beaming signals to control our minds. At least, we don't if we're rational.

[GE Morton]

Love cannot be willed. The human limbic system doesn't work that way; emotional responses are generated sub-consciously and are involuntary and non-rational. Agape is not not love; it is a consciously adopted, irrational and unworkable moral principle.

I disagree. Emotions can be learned, through practice, just like tastes can be learned.

They may be acquired, but not learned, in the sense being teachable. Emotional responses and tastes can and do change over time, however.

Eric Fromm is probably referring to eros here (I wouldn't know, I've never read the book) but his quotes would be even more true of agape. Indeed, the testimony of millions of Christians claim the he is right.

“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”

If you're referring to "The Art of Loving," I did read it, many years ago. Fromm confuses "love" with "loving." The first is an spontaneous emotional response, which is not chosen and over which the person experiencing it has no control. "Loving" is a practice --- something one does, in order to nurture, protect, and please the object of one's affection. But without that unchosen emotional response there would be no incentive to master that practice.

Fromm was also a Marxist, and like Marx, a "new man" theorist. Those are theories which propose that if contemporary socio-economic conditions are changed in the right way and maintained (by force) for a sufficient period, then human nature will adapt; humans will shed their divisive individuality and become "new men," all bound by common purpose and "brotherly love," at which point the State "withers away."

That is, of course, another forlorn attempt to resurrect the long-lost and lamented tribal consciousness.

[Buzzard3]

Is this what the world feels like at the moment? Do rich countries exploit the poorer ones for their own gain? Are they the predators and the third-world countries are the prey?

Or is it a problem within these third-world countries alone? Is the corrupted local politics the reason for their remaining as poor countries forever?

Haiti, for example, is one of poorest nations on earth. Which rich nation is sucking it dry? Can't think of one, myself.

[Belindi]

Secular laws are founded on religious laws that's to say moral laws. Study the history of law.

Well, that is simply false, Belindi. All of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

To legitimate giving one sort of person Alice more power than another sort of person Alicia you have to have a reason for thinking Alice is better than Alicia. The paradigm is a concept of the ideal person. If Alice is more deserving than Alicia then Alice would be a better match for the paradigm.

Egads. First, the issue is not about anyone "giving" anyone else "power." If Alfie produces widgets for which 1000 people are willing to pay him $10 each, then he has "given" himself $10,000. He has that $10,000 because he produced that amount of wealth. If Bruno has no wealth it is not because someone failed to give him any, but because he has not produced any. There is no third-party "giver" or giving" involved. Moreover, the only power Alfie's $10,000 yields to him is the power to improve his own life; it gives him no "power" over anyone else.

Nor is there any basis for concluding that because Alfie has $10,000 and Bruno $0, that Alfie is "better" than Bruno, in the sense of a "better person," though he may be better at producing widgets. No "ideal person" figures in any way in the wealth difference between Alfie and Bruno. That notion is completely spurious and superfluous.

A lazy person who will not work may , for all you can know , be absolutely necessary to you and others.

Well, we don't usually make investments based on what "may be" necessary in some far-fetched scenario, but for which there is no evidence upon which to compute a probability estimate. I.e., we don't buy insurance against tidal waves if we live 1000 miles inland, or wear tinfoil hats just in case aliens are beaming signals to control our minds. At least, we don't if we're rational.

What all religions simply are for, and always have been for, is social control. The religious myths are nothing but partly metaphysical explanations and justifications of social control. Now that religions are mostly defunct the social control is secular and the codified social control remains, including after political revolutions. There must be social control, and there must be theories of social control, and where else could social control possibly originate but from the institutions that were once the powerful and legitimate carriers of the moral code? These are not plucked by law makers and politicians from thin air. Hitler had to invent a quasi-religious mythology to justify Nazism. Jesus himself was a Jew . Moses was adopted by the Pharoah's daughter and raised in the Pharoah's court.
GEM wrote:
A

ll of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.

which bears out that religions and other ideas are syncretistic, i.e. they aren't invented de novo. Indeed, it's somewhat doubtful if ordinary human affections, human reason, and human kindness can hold the fort in the absence of religious myths .
__________________________________
GEM wrote:

If Alfie produces widgets for which 1000 people are willing to pay him $10 each, then he has "given" himself $10,000. He has that $10,000 because he produced that amount of wealth. If Bruno has no wealth it is not because someone failed to give

Alfie is permitted by a capitalist society to retain $10,000. Capitalism and most other economic systems hold that Alfie deserves his rewards for his own work. Bruno has a few dollars from social welfare and if Bruno is able to work but refuses to work and turns to crime then he will be brought to justice. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by feeding and housing Bruno even if he has turned to crime, and even when everybody regards Bruno as nuisance or worse. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by ensuring that others don't learn laziness, or crime, but instead learn morality. The fuller application of morality leaves capitalism behind as an immature moral stage.

GEM wrote:

Well, we don't usually make investments based on what "may be" necessary in some far-fetched scenario,

Certainly Bruno is a bad investment compared with the efficient and law abiding Alfie. But immediate returns is not the only reason to support Bruno. We support Bruno as , if we didn't , we would damage ourselves by allowing ourselves to be led by our resentment . We also see that Brunos are the repositories of as yet unused and potentially useful talents.

[Ecurb]

If you're referring to "The Art of Loving," I did read it, many years ago. Fromm confuses "love" with "loving." The first is an spontaneous emotional response, which is not chosen and over which the person experiencing it has no control. "Loving" is a practice --- something one does, in order to nurture, protect, and please the object of one's affection. But without that unchosen emotional response there would be no incentive to master that practice.

Bunk! Let's assume a new father. He never wanted to have children, but mistakes happen. When his son was born, he fled to another state and never saw him.

Now let's posit another new father, whose original feelings were identical to the first. OUt of a sense of duty, he played an active role in rearing and caring for his child. Who is going to have the "unchosen emotional response" to which you refer? Clearly the behavior promotes the emotion. That's storge -- but the same is true for philia, eros and agape. Doesn't kissing someone, or having sex with them promote eros? Doesn't discussing philosophy (not in our case, of course) promote philia? If someone gives to charity out of a sense of duty, mightn't the act of giving promote agape?

The answers are (I think) obvious to anyone who has ever loved.

Even in cases of "love at first sight" the acts of loving promote the emotion of love. When Romeo says, "what light through yonder window breaks, it is the dawn, and Juliet is the sun..." he is already intoxicated, but he is autointoxicating further through poetry.

The "incentive" can be duty (marriage vows, for example, or parenthood, or Christian faith). Whatever the incentive, it is clear that loving behavior promotes love (the emotion). For one thing, we all love those who love us, and loving behavior influences them to do so.

I don't want to rehash our old arguments about some taxes being theft, but I've always thought the ideal welfare system would involve one person giving another person money, in person. It would make the payer (even you, GE) feel good about himself (and perhaps even feel some agape) and would make the recipient feel more grateful (instead of entitled). It wouldn't work logistically, but behavior promotes emotions (as well, of course, as the other way around).

[GE Morton]

What all religions simply are for, and always have been for, is social control. The religious myths are nothing but partly metaphysical explanations and justifications of social control.

Well, not "nothing but." They also served other purposes, such as providing answers to "why" questions about the workings of the natural world, the cosmos, and the origins of life.

Now that religions are mostly defunct the social control is secular and the codified social control remains, including after political revolutions. There must be social control, and there must be theories of social control, and where else could social control possibly originate but from the institutions that were once the powerful and legitimate carriers of the moral code?

How about from rational analysis and contemplation of the problem, just as we approach other problems, such as building a bridge or developing a COVID vaccine? Religions are no better equipped, nor any more likely, to provide answers to moral questions than they are to questions about why the sun shines, or why volcanoes erupt.

All of the "universal law" tenets I listed above were contained in the earliest known legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which preceded Christianity by 2000 years. They are found in virtually every legal code and informal moral code on Earth, irrespective of religion.

which bears out that religions and other ideas are syncretistic, i.e. they aren't invented de novo. Indeed, it's somewhat doubtful if ordinary human affections, human reason, and human kindness can hold the fort in the absence of religious myths.

Well, that is an amazingly pessimistic view of human nature, and one easily refuted by observation, since all those qualities can readily be found in non-religious persons.

Alfie is permitted by a capitalist society to retain $10,000. Capitalism and most other economic systems hold that Alfie deserves his rewards for his own work. Bruno has a few dollars from social welfare and if Bruno is able to work but refuses to work and turns to crime then he will be brought to justice. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by feeding and housing Bruno even if he has turned to crime, and even when everybody regards Bruno as nuisance or worse. A civilised society will protect its basis as civilised by ensuring that others don't learn laziness, or crime, but instead learn morality.

Well, you're begging the question again. You're also equating "civilized" with adoption of Christian ethics, when that term carries no such connotation. A "civilized" society is simply one characterized by cities, i.e., communities so large that most of their inhabitants don't know most of the others ("civilized" derives from the Latin civitas, for "city").

Civilized societies do require a morality, of course, but the question is whether it will be a rationally developed and justifiable morality or an archaic one left over from an extinct form of human society and buttressed by myth and superstition.

Certainly Bruno is a bad investment compared with the efficient and law abiding Alfie. But immediate returns is not the only reason to support Bruno. We support Bruno as , if we didn't , we would damage ourselves by allowing ourselves to be led by our resentment.

What damage would that be? Per the common definition of "damage," if the State seizes wealth from productive Alfie in order to support unproductive Bruno, then Alfie is damaged (his welfare is reduced). No one is damaged if it refrains from doing that, or if it prevents Bruno from doing that. Refraining from enacting laws forcing Alfie to support Bruno is not motivated by "resentment," BTW. It is motivated by the desire to avoid damaging Alfie. Keep in mind, of course, that nothing prevents Alfie from voluntarily supporting Bruno, if he has adopted a personal moral code which commands that.

We also see that Brunos are the repositories of as yet unused and potentially useful talents.

Well, no, Belindi, we DON'T see that, in 98 or so cases per 100. You've embraced a Panglossian fantasy of human nature which is quite at odds with the observable facts.

[GE Morton]

If you're referring to "The Art of Loving," I did read it, many years ago. Fromm confuses "love" with "loving." The first is an spontaneous emotional response, which is not chosen and over which the person experiencing it has no control. "Loving" is a practice --- something one does, in order to nurture, protect, and please the object of one's affection. But without that unchosen emotional response there would be no incentive to master that practice.

Bunk! Let's assume a new father. He never wanted to have children, but mistakes happen. When his son was born, he fled to another state and never saw him.

Now let's posit another new father, whose original feelings were identical to the first. OUt of a sense of duty, he played an active role in rearing and caring for his child. Who is going to have the "unchosen emotional response" to which you refer? Clearly the behavior promotes the emotion. That's storge -- but the same is true for philia, eros and agape. Doesn't kissing someone, or having sex with them promote eros? Doesn't discussing philosophy (not in our case, of course) promote philia?

You're partly right there. When I said "Without that unchosen emotional response there would be no incentive to master that practice," that was too hasty, and incorrect. There could be other motives to engage in that practice, such as a sense of duty, as you mention. Or perhaps even a threat of legal action. And having commenced that practice, love for the child may well develop. But it also may not. Whether it does or not is beyond the control of the agent.

I said above that emotional responses and tastes can change over time. Those changes can well be triggered by experience. But they are unpredictable.

If someone gives to charity out of a sense of duty, mightn't the act of giving promote agape?

That is possible in theory. But given the historical and sociological evidence that such affections are normally extended only to persons with whom one has personal relationships, it is not very likely. Moreover, if that person is forced to give to charity it is far more likely to provoke resentment than agape.

The "incentive" can be duty (marriage vows, for example, or parenthood, or Christian faith). Whatever the incentive, it is clear that loving behavior promotes love (the emotion). For one thing, we all love those who love us, and loving behavior influences them to do so.

The latter claim there is obviously false. Unrequitted love is more likely than not. And again, while it is true that loving behaviors (and other experiences) can arouse love and other emotional responses, there is no guarantee they will do so.

I don't want to rehash our old arguments about some taxes being theft, but I've always thought the ideal welfare system would involve one person giving another person money, in person. It would make the payer (even you, GE) feel good about himself (and perhaps even feel some agape) and would make the recipient feel more grateful (instead of entitled).

That would be true --- provided the giving was voluntary. If forced it will trigger resentment in the donor and instill a sense of entitlement in the recipient, both of which consequences are destructive.