[quote]kamui wrote:
Of course we can control it. Our increase in population was because of our increase in life expectancy. It can be controlled better right now than at any other time in modern history. We have access to better contraceptives than EVER before. Americans are having less children.
It’s always easy to play chicken little and that’s how most pundits make their living anyways. Just screaming this is the worst times ever.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You are right, that isn’t specifically what is wrong with the church. It’s that they lag behind even the most obvious moral comparatives and tend to be among the last to change their positions. Long after the majority of society accepts things like black skin not being some evil mark (like with mormons) or homosexual acts being anyones business since everyone seems to have premarital sex, but it’s only the homosexuals who go to hell for example… How do you answer that? They are clearly behind, and they clearly change their stances.
[/quote]
You missed the mark. The church was out front in the abolition movement. [/quote]
Many were, many weren’t. A lot depended on whether they were in the North or South.
[quote]
Of course we can control it. Our increase in population was because of our increase in life expectancy. It can be controlled better right now than at any other time in modern history.[/quote]
Hmm.
I tend to think our increase in population was more because of a sudden and massive decrease of child mortality.
But even if the increase in life expectancy is a more important factor, what control are you advocating here ?
Massive euthanasia ?
Also, the increase in population is only one aspect of the wave i was speaking about. it’s followed by the opposite phenomenon. Decrease of fecondity and “greying” of the population.
Some country are still in the first phase, mostly in the third world. But most of the “first world” countries are now in the second phase.
After this, the world demography will probably stabilize itself at some point, and the crisis will end.
But we can’t predict how and when, and we will live “dangerous times” until it’s done.
[quote]
What are YOU currently doing about the slums? Making posts at T-Nation?[/quote]
Nope, i buy everything with Max Havelaar name on it and i collect every anti-globalization flyers i can get.
Just kidding.
I teach an old, outdated and morally inferior culture to the children of those who managed to fly from those slums.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
Of course we can control it. Our increase in population was because of our increase in life expectancy. It can be controlled better right now than at any other time in modern history.[/quote]
Hmm.
I tend to think our increase in population was more because of a sudden and massive decrease of child mortality.
But even if the increase in life expectancy is a more important factor, what control are you advocating here ?
Massive euthanasia ?
Also, the increase in population is only one aspect of the wave i was speaking about. it’s followed by the opposite phenomenon. Decrease of fecondity and “greying” of the population.
Some country are still in the first phase, mostly in the third world. But most of the “first world” countries are now in the second phase.
After this, the world demography will probably stabilize itself at some point, and the crisis will end.
But we can’t predict how and when, and we will live “dangerous times” until it’s done.
You’re the one talking about it as our greatest mistake. I’m not advocating we do anything. I’m challenging your absurd notion that we live in much less moral times now than in the past. It seems as if you’ve backed off a lot of that, but I’ll take 2014 over 1814 anyday. How about 1914? Lots of people wanting to run back to that morality filled time right?
It’s absolute horseshit. Less people are dying in wars, life expectancy is longer, access to health care and education are both better, work is safer. So far 2000-2014 is off to a far better start for humans than 1900-1914 was.
The world is probably currently less dangerous than at any other time. And things are better for more people than at any other time. Don’t let the whiny book selling naysayers convince you otherwise. Historically speaking the good old days were never that good for that many people.
It’s not child mortality, our life expectancy almost doubled in the last 100 years. Of course it also became safer for women to have healthy children and our children were expected to be born alive. Somehow we managed this despite losing all of our morals? Seems as if our morals may be in better shape now.
Remember those awesome moral times where we didn’t think women were capable of work. Where we didn’t think blacks and whites should marry? How about when we thought the government should spank our children at school? How about blacks not being able to vote?
Spanish Inquisition? French Wars of Religion? Triangular Trade?
If only we were as moral as the people before us! Obviously we have problems, but how many people die at work in a given year in America? How many children go slave away in factories?
You’ve got to REALLY ignore history to come to the conclusion that America in 2014 is morally bankrupt compared to America in 1914 or 1814.
Wages and disposable income in places like China and India are going up massively. And we want to act like things were BETTER for them a while back? Most of our problems are because of how long people are living and the quality of life expected by many of us. So I don’t know what kind of genocide or whatever you wish would have happened to keep us from growing at a large pace.
We want to start killing Americans at 65? That will save a shit ton of money. Yet I thought you started this by talking about morals?
And you’re not making sense. You’re talking about too much population at the same time as worrying about the greying of the population and a decrease in fecundity which is not a viable concern anyways.
Which is it? We need more reproduction or less? Your statements aren’t consistent man. I thought population growth was a problem. If so what is the issue with greying and a decrease in reproduction? It seems like you should be happy about these if population growth scares you.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s a matter of looking at the Church for what it is as an institution. I could go on and on about specific Popes and how difficult it has historically been for certain minority men of the cloth to gain positions within the church. Only within the past 20 years when it was calculated that Latino’s would become the minority of Catholics did the Church really make an effort to start giving Latino’s more prominent roles within the Church.
[/quote]
Isn’t that true across the board though? How many minority presidents have we had? What % of CEOs are minorities? How about women, they are still a smaller % of top earners or in top positions.
Again, ridiculous. Soup kitchens are not convenient. Mission trips to Burma are not convenient. Being thrown in prison in Iran for having a bible isn’t convenient.
Men are fallible. The Church has black spots on their history. What organization does not?
The church doesn’t tell you what’s right from wrong. They guide you to your own conclusion.
Individual people act in an immoral way (or a way you think is wrong) and that’s the fault of the organization?
Who is going to educate the people about right from wrong? I really hope you don’t say government.
The difference being, various religious institutions are supposed to possess superior ethics, as superior ethics and conduct are the very things that supposedly get you to the next step, heaven, hell etc.
That the various religious institutions have been wrong, and have lagged behind ethically due to politics and hegemony shows they are incapable of having superior morality at any current era.
Morman faiths just recently rejected the idea of blacks being born a certain way. Christianity still is against fucking birth control and barely acknowledged they did Galileo wrong. They aren’t a bastion of justice or ethics, they are are centuries old institutions/ businesses. If they are consistently behind contemporary ethics and justice, why would they be good now? Are they making strides of moral excellence and being groundbreaking? Or are they still trying to figure out what to do with gay people for example? They are behind the moral contemporary times, and are consistently rather than being frontrunners and only seem to amend their stances when they are exposed as retarded.
[/quote]
Christianity does not teaches the way to heaven is through superior ethics and/or conduct.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s a matter of looking at the Church for what it is as an institution. I could go on and on about specific Popes and how difficult it has historically been for certain minority men of the cloth to gain positions within the church. Only within the past 20 years when it was calculated that Latino’s would become the minority of Catholics did the Church really make an effort to start giving Latino’s more prominent roles within the Church.
[/quote]
Isn’t that true across the board though? How many minority presidents have we had? What % of CEOs are minorities? How about women, they are still a smaller % of top earners or in top positions.
Again, ridiculous. Soup kitchens are not convenient. Mission trips to Burma are not convenient. Being thrown in prison in Iran for having a bible isn’t convenient.
Men are fallible. The Church has black spots on their history. What organization does not?
The church doesn’t tell you what’s right from wrong. They guide you to your own conclusion.
Individual people act in an immoral way (or a way you think is wrong) and that’s the fault of the organization?
Who is going to educate the people about right from wrong? I really hope you don’t say government.
The difference being, various religious institutions are supposed to possess superior ethics, as superior ethics and conduct are the very things that supposedly get you to the next step, heaven, hell etc.
That the various religious institutions have been wrong, and have lagged behind ethically due to politics and hegemony shows they are incapable of having superior morality at any current era.
Morman faiths just recently rejected the idea of blacks being born a certain way. Christianity still is against fucking birth control and barely acknowledged they did Galileo wrong. They aren’t a bastion of justice or ethics, they are are centuries old institutions/ businesses. If they are consistently behind contemporary ethics and justice, why would they be good now? Are they making strides of moral excellence and being groundbreaking? Or are they still trying to figure out what to do with gay people for example? They are behind the moral contemporary times, and are consistently rather than being frontrunners and only seem to amend their stances when they are exposed as retarded.
[/quote]
Christianity does not teaches the way to heaven is through superior ethics and/or conduct. [/quote]
As the Catholic Church teaches, faith without works is dead.
[quote]
You’re the one talking about it as our greatest mistake.[/quote]
Never said it was our mistake, for the very obvious reason that i don’t even think it’s our own “doing”.
[quote]
I’m not advocating we do anything. I’m challenging your absurd notion that we live in much less moral times now than in the past.[/quote]
I am challenging the absurd notion that we live in much more moral times now than in the past, and the even more absurd notion that it’s because of de-christianization
-This is factually wrong, in both numbers and proportions.
The worst wars in human history happened in the timespan i considered in my initial argument (“the last two centuries”).
Even if it were true (and it may be true in some myopic “right here, right now”), it doesn’t have much to do with “moral progress”, and more to do with balance of terror.
Again, right here, right now.
And because of scientific and technical progress, economical growth and wealth, etc. not because of some kind of moral miracle.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for non-humans. Maybe not for a long time. Etc.
But this has nothing to do with my point.
Our original topic was “morality when the Church was everything vs morality since de-christianization”.
your “1900 vs 2000” comparison is far from the mark.
[quote]
The world is probably currently less dangerous than at any other time. And things are better for more people than at any other time.[/quote]
And they are worst for more people than at any other time, too.
And since we are speaking about morality, that’s actually a problem. And speaking about percentage doesn’t solve it.
if i do more good than bad, in percentage, am i allowed to act badly ?
If i give a lot to charity, am i allowed to steal a bit, but just occasionally ?
if i love my wife a lot, can i rape a girl or two from time to time ?
morally speaking, the question is not “are we better now ?”. The real question is “which part of all the remaining suffering could be avoided if we were more moral than we are ?”
Because as long as the answer is “a fucking huge part of it”, we have no right to congratulate ourselves.
Period.
[quote]
It’s not child mortality, our life expectancy almost doubled in the last 100 years.[/quote]
This is a false dichotomy. The average life expectancy goes mechanically up when child mortality goes down.
[quote]
Remember those awesome moral times where we didn’t think women were capable of work.[/quote]
Those times only ever existed for a tiny minority of people and in the Golden Legend of liberalism.
Rural women and female industrial workers have always been thought are perfectly capable of work. Especially hard work.
The men of the bourgeoisie and upper-middle class didn’t think that their women were capable of work, mainly because they could afford such a thought.
And many still do, even today.
[quote]
Where we didn’t think blacks and whites should marry?[/quote]
Because you really think those times are over ? Seriously ?
How many whites think they (themselves) should marry a black partner ?
How many actually do it ?
Less than 1% ? A bit more ?
[quote]
How about when we thought the government should spank our children at school?[/quote]
Are you sure a majority would answer “we should not” if they had to actually vote for or against it ?
I don’t know about America.
But in France, i’m pretty sure no government will ever ask the question. They would be way too afraid to hear our answer.
[quote]
How about blacks not being able to vote?[/quote]
Are you sure we have recognized their right to vote for morally superior reasons ?
nothing to do with the fact they vote at 75+ % for the same party, each and everytime ?
[quote]
Spanish Inquisition? French Wars of Religion? Triangular Trade?
If only we were as moral as the people before us![/quote]
I never pretended we were moral before. I deny we are moral now.
I will grant you we are richer now, and that it allow us to buy ourselves a bit more morallity. especially cheap morality .
[quote]
Obviously we have problems, but how many people die at work in a given year in America?[/quote]
How many people do not work in a given year in america ?
[quote]
How many children go slave away in factories?[/quote]
In America ? or in the countries where america’s consumption is produced ?
[quote]
You’ve got to REALLY ignore history to come to the conclusion that America in 2014 is morally bankrupt compared to America in 1914 or 1814.[/quote]
Again, it was not my point, is not my point, won’t be my point. Which won’t prevent you to keep arguing against it.
[quote]
Wages and disposable income in places like China and India are going up massively. And we want to act like things were BETTER for them a while back? Most of our problems are because of how long people are living and the quality of life expected by many of us. So I don’t know what kind of genocide or whatever you wish would have happened to keep us from growing at a large pace. [/quote]
I never said we should have been kept from growing at such a large pace.
I don’t fight tidal waves.
I’m saying that we haven’t seen the end of this specific movie yet. And it’s too early to say it will have an happy ending.
The Pax Romana was an objective progress for a huge percentage of people.
And many of them thought it would last forever.
Back then, a Roman citizen would have said the very same thing you said in this post.
“We live longer, in better shape, with better wealth. There is less war, less insecurity, less crime, more education, etc. We are so morally superior to our predecessor than we can forget their old model. After all there is nothing wrong to enjoy a little decadence.”
But he would have been dead wrong.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
You’re the one talking about it as our greatest mistake.[/quote]
Never said it was our mistake, for the very obvious reason that i don’t even think it’s our own “doing”.
[quote]
I’m not advocating we do anything. I’m challenging your absurd notion that we live in much less moral times now than in the past.[/quote]
I am challenging the absurd notion that we live in much more moral times now than in the past, and the even more absurd notion that it’s because of de-christianization
-This is factually wrong, in both numbers and proportions.
The worst wars in human history happened in the timespan i considered in my initial argument (“the last two centuries”).
Even if it were true (and it may be true in some myopic “right here, right now”), it doesn’t have much to do with “moral progress”, and more to do with balance of terror.
Again, right here, right now.
And because of scientific and technical progress, economical growth and wealth, etc. not because of some kind of moral miracle.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for non-humans. Maybe not for a long time. Etc.
But this has nothing to do with my point.
Our original topic was “morality when the Church was everything vs morality since de-christianization”.
your “1900 vs 2000” comparison is far from the mark.
[quote]
The world is probably currently less dangerous than at any other time. And things are better for more people than at any other time.[/quote]
And they are worst for more people than at any other time, too.
And since we are speaking about morality, that’s actually a problem. And speaking about percentage doesn’t solve it.
if i do more good than bad, in percentage, am i allowed to act badly ?
If i give a lot to charity, am i allowed to steal a bit, but just occasionally ?
if i love my wife a lot, can i rape a girl or two from time to time ?
morally speaking, the question is not “are we better now ?”. The real question is “which part of all the remaining suffering could be avoided if we were more moral than we are ?”
Because as long as the answer is “a fucking huge part of it”, we have no right to congratulate ourselves.
Period.
[quote]
It’s not child mortality, our life expectancy almost doubled in the last 100 years.[/quote]
This is a false dichotomy. The average life expectancy goes mechanically up when child mortality goes down.
[quote]
Remember those awesome moral times where we didn’t think women were capable of work.[/quote]
Those times only ever existed for a tiny minority of people and in the Golden Legend of liberalism.
Rural women and female industrial workers have always been thought are perfectly capable of work. Especially hard work.
The men of the bourgeoisie and upper-middle class didn’t think that their women were capable of work, mainly because they could afford such a thought.
And many still do, even today.
[quote]
Where we didn’t think blacks and whites should marry?[/quote]
Because you really think those times are over ? Seriously ?
How many whites think they (themselves) should marry a black partner ?
How many actually do it ?
Less than 1% ? A bit more ?
[quote]
How about when we thought the government should spank our children at school?[/quote]
Are you sure a majority would answer “we should not” if they had to actually vote for or against it ?
I don’t know about America.
But in France, i’m pretty sure no government will ever ask the question. They would be way too afraid to hear our answer.
[quote]
How about blacks not being able to vote?[/quote]
Are you sure we have recognized their right to vote for morally superior reasons ?
nothing to do with the fact they vote at 75+ % for the same party, each and everytime ?
[quote]
Spanish Inquisition? French Wars of Religion? Triangular Trade?
If only we were as moral as the people before us![/quote]
I never pretended we were moral before. I deny we are moral now.
I will grant you we are richer now, and that it allow us to buy ourselves a bit more morallity. especially cheap morality .
[quote]
Obviously we have problems, but how many people die at work in a given year in America?[/quote]
How many people do not work in a given year in america ?
[quote]
How many children go slave away in factories?[/quote]
In America ? or in the countries where america’s consumption is produced ?
[quote]
You’ve got to REALLY ignore history to come to the conclusion that America in 2014 is morally bankrupt compared to America in 1914 or 1814.[/quote]
Again, it was not my point, is not my point, won’t be my point. Which won’t prevent you to keep arguing against it.
[quote]
Wages and disposable income in places like China and India are going up massively. And we want to act like things were BETTER for them a while back? Most of our problems are because of how long people are living and the quality of life expected by many of us. So I don’t know what kind of genocide or whatever you wish would have happened to keep us from growing at a large pace. [/quote]
I never said we should have been kept from growing at such a large pace.
I don’t fight tidal waves.
I’m saying that we haven’t seen the end of this specific movie yet. And it’s too early to say it will have an happy ending.
The Pax Romana was an objective progress for a huge percentage of people.
And many of them thought it would last forever.
Back then, a Roman citizen would have said the very same thing you said in this post.
“We live longer, in better shape, with better wealth. There is less war, less insecurity, less crime, more education, etc. We are so morally superior to our predecessor than we can forget their old model. After all there is nothing wrong to enjoy a little decadence.”
But he would have been dead wrong. [/quote]
Actually Kamui when I came in you said we were morally lost. I challenged this notion. You came back with how MANY people are living in bad situations right now which is undoubtedly due to population increase. Mostly from us living longer than ever and losing less kids in childbirth (both things that are good).
I don’t think it is because of de-christianization though clearly as religion has lost influence it shouldn’t surprise us that all the immoral things done in the name “of” religion have declined as well. I just mentioned the correlation. That said why would we assume more religion would make us better and more moral? We weren’t back then with more of it.
You were the one that decided to start with the last two centuries which of course saves you when I was talking about right now. Use 2000-2014. This century is off to a much better start than the last one. You keep bringing up the problem with the amount of people and then asking ME what I want to do about it. You’re the one in fear of it. I think we will be fine. It is a problem and a challenge, but we are more capable than ever to deal with challenges.
Most of the rest of your post (we haven’t seen the end of this movie yet) is largely meaningless. Your right we have no idea where the future goes. Talking about it is stupid. I’ve talked about current times vs. the past. You’ve yet to really bring out any ammunition to my original point which was morality in the past vs. morality now. If past times were so moral and we are losing all that right now (which is again an insane notion) then how come you can’t provide anything counter to what I’ve said?
Your other points are really weak. Blacks didn’t vote for predominantly one party for a long time because they couldn’t vote. It’s beyond dumb to say the only reason blacks get to vote right now is because they largely vote for one party. Of course that is untrue. And blacks didn’t always vote Democrat anyways. So some Americans not working is immoral all of the sudden? Since when? Mixed market systems like Capitalism have never had full employment and never will. This is again completely meaningless to show how “morally lost” we were compared to previous generations.
Things are better in 2014 than 1914 and 1814. I know it’s awful to actually think about current society in a positive manner when every politician, book, talk show, news program, etc makes all its money off telling you how bad things are now and how good they used to be. Anyone who is even an average student of history knows how full of shit this is.
Saying we don’t know where this movie ends is a nice way of saying my current argument is weak, but MAYBE things will be super bad in the future and I’ll be right.
And I’ve yet to say we need to get rid of all religion, but it is not based on anything but emotion to say how morally bankrupt we are now compared to our predecessors by each century. I don’t see how anyone could point to what is happening right now in history and come to the conclusion that we are less moral then we were 100 years ago. And NO ONE on this forum in this thread would actually want to trade places with the average joe from 100, 200, 300, etc years ago anyways.
Also Kamui most of the stuff you’ve said is based purely on emotion and nothing else.
[quote]At what cost ? and how long will it last ?
To produce this “wealth” and this wellfare, we have eaten everything our parents had produced during the “glorious thirty”.
Yet we are unwilling to treat our old people respectfully. Let alone their old ideas and their old values.
Worst, we are already feasting with the future work of our children and grand-children, who will be our posthumous slaves for their whole lifetimes.
We all know it, and we don’t care.
In the meantime, we are quietly and happily devasting the Earth, destroying species after species.[/quote]
None of this is based on anything more than your word. You are not the first person to claim the future will be awful and our children are fucked. This is what everyone has been saying for forever. A child born today in the world has more opportunities and a healthier life than AT ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
Will shit hit the fan one day? Probably. Will it be worse than it used to be when it does? I don’t know and neither do you.
This is you saying a bunch of stuff that you can’t prove, but sounds good to you and sounds good to other people because hey it’s always been fun to talk about how bad shit is right now and how good it used to be before “we” (choose any generation ever like the 60’s) started fucking things up. Oops, the 21st century has been really good for the vast majority of people. MUCH better than the 20th or 19th or 18th was.
You won’t be the first to predict the end of times and fuck it up though. The sky has always been falling and always will be. No one wants to talk about anything else. Nothing else sells. Hell Alex Jones is a multi-millionare who makes his money by saying everything is a government conspiracy (yes, even Hurricane Sandy). You think he would have made that money if he talked about anything good?
The MONEY isn’t in anything positive. Fox News and MSNBC are screaming about how fucked everything is (blame whichever party you dislike more of course). The most famous right wing pundits over the last couple decades have all been paranoia screamers (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) The left will constantly talk about the horrors of Republicans and what will happen if we re-elect Bush (or say Christie, Paul, Cruz in 2016).
The thing is you don’t have to buy into it all just because everyone is yelling.
Organized religion has its good points… A) It keeps the masses in check with a promise of the divine B) It atempts to answers questions we dont know C) Death and randomness suck its nice to believe things have a reason
The bad A) Giant chunks of it can be disputed with science most 7th graders can understand B) It claims one side is right and all the others suck C) They all seem to need my money
IMO organized religion prevents free thinking & takes advantage of the weak minded. You dont need some load mouth telling you when to sit stand, what not to eat, what to sing, what language to pray in, just to believe in God and to be a good human.
If you want to challenge this, it should be pretty easy :
Show me that we have a moral north on our moral compass.
Show me we are a “we”. Name the morality followed by this “we”. Show me its intrinsic moral superiority.
[quote]
You came back with how MANY people are living in bad situations right now which is undoubtedly due to population increase. Mostly from us living longer than ever and losing less kids in childbirth (both things that are good).[/quote]
Population increase is a direct consequence of many of the “good things” brought to us by modernity.
Consider it its COST.
You can’t claim the benefits as a proof of our morality, without acknowledging the existence of the costs, and the immorality of such a cost.
it’s both, or neither. But you can’t have it both way.
You can say “look, we are moral” when something is good, and then say “but it’s not our fault, it was population increase” when something is bad.
In both cases, it’s the same massive phenomenon, the same “tidal wave” of development.
If you really want to congratulate yourself for the good part, you have to take moral responsability for the bad part.
[quote]
You were the one that decided to start with the last two centuries which of course saves you when I was talking about right now. Use 2000-2014. This century is off to a much better start than the last one. You keep bringing up the problem with the amount of people and then asking ME what I want to do about it. You’re the one in fear of it. I think we will be fine. It is a problem and a challenge, but we are more capable than ever to deal with challenges.[/quote]
For the record, i never mentioned “the amount of people” as a problem in itself. I didn’t make some kind of neo-malthusian argument.
I tried to remind you that all the good things you see have a cost. A cost paid in lives.
You invoked population increase has an excuse and a explanation for this huge cost.
And my answer is : i don’t care, because that’s no excuse.
if one person, just ONE person on Earth suffers as a direct result of our actions
if this suffering could have been easily avoided
No matter the amount of good our actions does, it is still morally bad.
It doesn’t matter how much people benefit from something. If this thing make victims, it’s still a crime.
Utilitarian calculus, the “metrical” comparison of “good things” vs “bad things”, all this rhetorics is nothing more and nothing less than cynicism.
If you want a proof of our loss of a moral compass, don’t seek elsewhere. It’s right there.
[quote]
Most of the rest of your post (we haven’t seen the end of this movie yet) is largely meaningless. Your right we have no idea where the future goes. Talking about it is stupid. I’ve talked about current times vs. the past. You’ve yet to really bring out any ammunition to my original point which was morality in the past vs. morality now. If past times were so moral and we are losing all that right now (which is again an insane notion) then how come you can’t provide anything counter to what I’ve said?[/quote]
In the past, we shared a common morality. A christian one. We failed to conform to its standards many times, on many levels, but at least we knew what we meant by “morality”.
Now, we may be doing good things, and we may be enjoying “better times”, but we do not share a specific moral system anymore nor a common cultural ethos. Which means that, strictly speaking, we don’t know anymore what we mean by “morality”.
Everyone can make up such a meaning for himself, when he want and how he want, and this will last until the transition period is over.
So yes, in the meantime, we have no compass, no north, no “instruments” anymore.
And we have to wait and see when and where the plane will land, or crash.
And how could we be “more capable than ever to deal with challenges” if we are not a “we” anymore ?
I didn’t say (and i don’t think) the future will be awful.
I know for a fact that our children will have to pay our economical, environnemental and cultural debts, or to deal with the consequences of not paying them.
You know that too.
You just HOPE that everything will be well. And THIS isn’t based on anything more than your word.
[quote]
Will shit hit the fan one day? Probably. Will it be worse than it used to be when it does? I don’t know and neither do you.
This is you saying a bunch of stuff that you can’t prove, but sounds good to you and sounds good to other people because hey it’s always been fun to talk about how bad shit is right now and how good it used to be before “we” (choose any generation ever like the 60’s) started fucking things up. Oops, the 21st century has been really good for the vast majority of people. MUCH better than the 20th or 19th or 18th was.
You won’t be the first to predict the end of times and fuck it up though. The sky has always been falling and always will be. No one wants to talk about anything else. Nothing else sells. Hell Alex Jones is a multi-millionare who makes his money by saying everything is a government conspiracy (yes, even Hurricane Sandy). You think he would have made that money if he talked about anything good?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...9126331/?no-ist
The MONEY isn’t in anything positive. Fox News and MSNBC are screaming about how fucked everything is (blame whichever party you dislike more of course). The most famous right wing pundits over the last couple decades have all been paranoia screamers (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) The left will constantly talk about the horrors of Republicans and what will happen if we re-elect Bush (or say Christie, Paul, Cruz in 2016).
The thing is you don’t have to buy into it all just because everyone is yelling.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with what i said.
I have nothing to do with your right wing. I am not speaking about our apocalyptic future.
I’m speaking about the amorality and immorality of today.
Species and cultures won’t go extinct tomorrow.
We are destroying them now.
And even ONE of these irreversible but avoidable events would be enough to make my point.
[quote]kamui wrote:
If you want to challenge this, it should be pretty easy :
Show me that we have a moral north on our moral compass.
Show me we are a “we”. Name the morality followed by this “we”. Show me its intrinsic moral superiority.
[/quote]
Why do I need to prove this? You came in and said we are morally lost compared to our predecessors. You’re the one with the burden of proof on you. I gave plenty of evidence for why I think we are either better or tied. You’re the one saying worse.
So apparently (to you) our predecessors were a we and did have a moral north and now we don’t have one?
Ludicrous my man, simply ludicrous. Where was that compass during the Inquisition? French Revolution? African slave trade? When did right now become less moral and how can you prove it?
So far you’ve got we have a lot of poor people (which we have proportionally probably less poverty than ever)
[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, we may be doing good things, and we may be enjoying “better times”, but we do not share a specific moral system anymore nor a common cultural ethos. Which means that, strictly speaking, we don’t know anymore what we mean by “morality”.
Everyone can make up such a meaning for himself, when he want and how he want, and this will last until the transition period is over.
So yes, in the meantime, we have no compass, no north, no “instruments” anymore.
And we have to wait and see when and where the plane will land, or crash.
And how could we be “more capable than ever to deal with challenges” if we are not a “we” anymore ?
[/quote]
This is lunacy my man. We NEVER shared a common moral system. You mean the same moral system that led to wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics? The same moral system that had slavery? The same moral system that started World War 1 and 2? The same moral system that had blacks and whites separated? The same one that had 0 rights for women? The same one that kicked Native Americans off their land?
You think we were EVER a we?! Fuck no we weren’t and never have been. If we were a we then “we” were all immoral as fuck and your premise is lost on that alone.
What do you think was moral about those times? Everyone was NOT on the same page. You think Japanese Americans WANTED to go to internment camps? You think Native Americans wanted the trail of tears? You think people were on the same page back then? You’re ignoring everything rational and reasonable about human history to come to that conclusion.
WE NEVER HAD THESE INSTRUMENTS YOU SPEAK OF. We have always been harming one another. We have never been on the same page. I have no idea why you keep repeating these false premises.
You started from a disadvantaged position (we are less moral now than we used to be) and you’ve been trying to shift things to prove your point. You are no closer right now my friend than you were when you began.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Species and cultures won’t go extinct tomorrow.
We are destroying them now.
And even ONE of these irreversible but avoidable events would be enough to make my point.
[/quote]
We are more aware and doing more for species at this point than any other in human history.
So by this token 2014 is far more moral from a species standpoint than any other time in human history.
See below: Ooops, we did such a good job of protecting that now we have some other issues. Again, you’re just speaking from the heart on stuff you want to believe and you won’t back off for some reason off your initial poor point.
No. I came in and challenged one of Severiano’s claim. the claim that our current non-religious ethics are superior to previous religious ethics.
My point, or rather one of my points was that irreligion doesn’t have any shared and defined ethics to speak about. Yet.
Hence the expression “morally lost”.
[quote]
I gave plenty of evidence for why I think we are either better or tied. You’re the one saying worse.[/quote]
Which is not my point, and not the issue. In other words : strawmen and diversions.
[quote]
So apparently (to you) our predecessors were a we and did have a moral north and now we don’t have one?[/quote]
They were closer to being a we than we are now. They had at least a theoretical moral north. We don’t have one, neither in practice nor in theory.
[quote]
Where was that compass during the Inquisition? French Revolution? African slave trade? When did right now become less moral and how can you prove it?[/quote]
Are you trying to use the prevalence of crimes to disprove the existence of the law ?
[quote]
This is lunacy my man. We NEVER shared a common moral system. You mean the same moral system that led to wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics? The same moral system that had slavery? The same moral system that started World War 1 and 2? The same moral system that had blacks and whites separated? The same one that had 0 rights for women? The same one that kicked Native Americans off their land?[/quote]
I never realized that moral systems were so powerful and could do so many things. That’s impressive.
But it’s actually interesting to note that everything you quote still exists today to some extant. Despite all our “moral progress”. (you know, the idea i initially “came in” to challenge).
Let’s me check if i understand you correctly :
When our current (non-religious) culture do something good, that’s because we are morally superior. And we can congratulate ourselves.
When our (christian) predecessors did something bad, it was because they were morally inferior. And we can blame them. A posteriori.
When our current (non-religious) culture do something bad, that’s not our fault. It’s demography. side effects and collateral damages.
I get it.
But now i wonder… when our (christian) predecessors did something good, despite their awful inferior morality, what was it ? Luck ?
[quote]
You think we were EVER a we?! Fuck no we weren’t and never have been. If we were a we then “we” were all immoral as fuck and your premise is lost on that alone.[/quote]
To challenge my premise you have to prove that we were amoral. Not immoral.
[quote]
You started from a disadvantaged position (we are less moral now than we used to be) and you’ve been trying to shift things to prove your point. You are no closer right now my friend than you were when you began.[/quote]
Again … was not my point, is not my point, won’t be my point, but that won’t prevent you from arguing against it. Again, and again, and again.
That being said, i note that auto-congratulation and early proclamation of victory are really your thing. You do not only do it with history of civilization, you do it with internet discussions.
[quote]
We are more aware and doing more for species at this point than any other in human history.
So by this token 2014 is far more moral from a species standpoint than any other time in human history.[/quote]
Yet the rate of species loss is greater now than at any time in human history.
How is it possible since :
-we are more moral and more aware now than at any time in human history
-we are more capable than ever before to deal with challenges ?
Something doesn’t add up.
Well, we have the luxury of living off the spoils of the victors. The bloodiest work has already been done for us. Now we get to live in the powerful nation-states (with their well-developed militaries, unspeakable WMDs, and police forces) that developed from it, using the resources secured and captured so we can make pace-makers, air-conditioning, and our i-phone.
Was it bloody? Yeah. We would do better? I seriously doubt a hyper-secular, materialistic-consumerist people would let ignorant superstitious savages impede the securing and use of resources needed for forming the nation-state and global economy needed for their cheap consumer products today.
The question is always was it bloody. How about was it constrained relative to what it could have been? I know there are secularists and even atheists who admit that religion helped maintain order among a people, at least. So what if even those sensibilities lost out to some some hypothetical materialistic secular-acquisition. Would those hunting grounds and waters been left undeveloped, to the use or non-use of the traditional societies using them? Absolutely not. The fact that our morality is now being measured by a wealth, and the monopolization of power of larger nation-states, made possible by the taking and settling of resources and borders in yester-year certainly doesn’t suggest it.
Will the religious be commanded to participate in the economy in ways that violate their moral conscience? Sure. Will it happen relatively peacefully? Sure. Why? Because nation-states monopolized their power longer ago.
We’re spending off the credit, and throwing out the baby with the bath water.