The Heartbeat of Civilization

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.

…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

So if a bunch of cannibals decide that you are to be the entree tonight, then that’s moral?[/quote]

…to the cannibals it is perfectly moral…

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

So if we all agree that white people with green eyes are inferior and we should enslave them, this is a good example of morality?

…no, it wouldn’t be a good example.

Okay then, so 1. your previous assertion is treading on extremely thin ice, to put it mildly:

ephrem wrote:
…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

Now: 2. how do you know it isn’t?

…i gave you a good example katz, the full quote reads: “…no, it wouldn’t be a good example. A good example would be to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and then decide that that isn’t actually the moral thing to do. See?” That’s an actual real-life example of how morality changes as society changes…

…as for number 2: as society changes, the demands the people assert on society changes. This means that what once was considered moral, may no longer be considered moral. That means that morality is fluid and subjective, and not innate or inherent to mankind’s existence…

It therefore follows that the standard you’re using to determine that morality is ‘fluid and subjective’ is in itself fluid and subjective.

It then follows that, there being no common objective standards to which one may appeal, right-and-wrong becomes a matter of opinion; a matter of who is stronger, has the most guns, and so on.

No wonder this world is hell, if most people believe this.[/quote]

…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

43

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

So if we all agree that white people with green eyes are inferior and we should enslave them, this is a good example of morality?

…no, it wouldn’t be a good example.

Okay then, so 1. your previous assertion is treading on extremely thin ice, to put it mildly:

ephrem wrote:
…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

Now: 2. how do you know it isn’t?

…i gave you a good example katz, the full quote reads: “…no, it wouldn’t be a good example. A good example would be to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and then decide that that isn’t actually the moral thing to do. See?” That’s an actual real-life example of how morality changes as society changes…

…as for number 2: as society changes, the demands the people assert on society changes. This means that what once was considered moral, may no longer be considered moral. That means that morality is fluid and subjective, and not innate or inherent to mankind’s existence…

It therefore follows that the standard you’re using to determine that morality is ‘fluid and subjective’ is in itself fluid and subjective.

It then follows that, there being no common objective standards to which one may appeal, right-and-wrong becomes a matter of opinion; a matter of who is stronger, has the most guns, and so on.

No wonder this world is hell, if most people believe this.

…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

[/quote]

It sounds as if you’re condemning this. But if right-and-wrong is simply a fluid matter of opinion, then why is your opinion more correct than someone else’s? What allows you to condemn the actions of another? It is just your opinion against theirs.

44

Ephrem,

One word: “Sophism.” LOOK IT UP.

While I’m glad to be discussing this with you, if you aren’t going to understand my argument (and you appear not to), you should at least understand your own - currently, it’s not even remotely coherent.

  1. how do you know that morality is “fluid” without an independent basis from which to judge it as so? You cannot ascertain “change” without an understanding of what “doesn’t change.”

  2. your assertion itself - that morality is “fluid” - is itself an absolute claim.

  3. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have (either as an “outsider” or as a member of that society) to judge its worthiness?

  4. How does this change or progress that you refer to happen without the ability for outsiders/insiders to criticize the current moral order, or lack thereof.

I could go on and on…but I’m starting to think that your moral values are so deeply structured in your being that you cannot - as yet! - even recognize them.

45

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.

…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

So if a bunch of cannibals decide that you are to be the entree tonight, then that’s moral?

…to the cannibals it is perfectly moral…[/quote]

Obviously. And obviously, at the same time they can also be wrong. After all, to you it isn’t “perfectly normal,” right? Why?

46

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.

…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…
[/quote]

I doubt that.

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

It sounds as if you’re condemning this. But if right-and-wrong is simply a fluid matter of opinion, then why is your opinion more correct than someone else’s? What allows you to condemn the actions of another? It is just your opinion against theirs.[/quote]

…that is not what i’m condemning. It’s the chestbeating and acting as if you’re the good guys that gets tiresome. That the US is looking out for number 1 is understandable and acceptable, just own up to that and you’ll get no argument from me…

48

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem,

One word: “Sophism.” LOOK IT UP.

While I’m glad to be discussing this with you, if you aren’t going to understand my argument (and you appear not to), you should at least understand your own - currently, it’s not even remotely coherent.

  1. how do you know that morality is “fluid” without an independent basis from which to judge it as so? You cannot ascertain “change” without an understanding of what “doesn’t change.”

  2. your assertion itself - that morality is “fluid” - is itself an absolute claim.

  3. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have (either as an “outsider” or as a member of that society) to judge its worthiness?

  4. How does this change or progress that you refer to happen without the ability for outsiders/insiders to criticize the current moral order, or lack thereof.

I could go on and on…but I’m starting to think that your moral values are so deeply structured in your being that you cannot - as yet! - even recognize them.[/quote]

1 + 2: …your position is just as untenable because you base it on the idea that morality is something that’s passed down from an imaginary deity, or that morality is somehow ingrained in us and does not waver. If that is not the case, please show how morality is permanently defined…

3: …you’d base that on how that society prospers…

4: …i welcome constructive critism. You should try it…

49

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

It sounds as if you’re condemning this. But if right-and-wrong is simply a fluid matter of opinion, then why is your opinion more correct than someone else’s? What allows you to condemn the actions of another? It is just your opinion against theirs.

…that is not what i’m condemning. It’s the chestbeating and acting as if you’re the good guys that gets tiresome. That the US is looking out for number 1 is understandable and acceptable, just own up to that and you’ll get no argument from me…

[/quote]

How do you judge if someone is ‘the good guys’? According to Pol Pot, for ex, he was a good guy. Was he wrong? Why? Its his opinion against mine and most everyone else.

It is a ‘fluid’ morality that is destroying the world.

50

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.

…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

So if a bunch of cannibals decide that you are to be the entree tonight, then that’s moral?

…to the cannibals it is perfectly moral…

Obviously. And obviously, at the same time they can also be wrong. After all, to you it isn’t “perfectly normal,” right? Why? [/quote]

…that depends on the situation. Was it immoral for the crashed rugby players in de Andes to eat from their dead teammates? If it’s a matter of life and death, would you resort to cannabalism? I would…

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

It sounds as if you’re condemning this. But if right-and-wrong is simply a fluid matter of opinion, then why is your opinion more correct than someone else’s? What allows you to condemn the actions of another? It is just your opinion against theirs.

…that is not what i’m condemning. It’s the chestbeating and acting as if you’re the good guys that gets tiresome. That the US is looking out for number 1 is understandable and acceptable, just own up to that and you’ll get no argument from me…

How do you judge if someone is ‘the good guys’? According to Pol Pot, for ex, he was a good guy. Was he wrong? Why? Its his opinion against mine and most everyone else.

It is a ‘fluid’ morality that is destroying the world.[/quote]

…make no mistake: Pol Pot killed millions, but as a direct result of invading Iraq by the US over half a million innocent women and children died. After WW2 the USA started wars or supported revolts and had legitimate governments overthrown through it’s support, which led to the death of countless people. You’re not the good guy either…

52

…the same wine in different bottles…

53

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:…exactly, the way the USA has acted on the world stage for the most part of this decade is proof of that. Thank you for making my point HH!

It sounds as if you’re condemning this. But if right-and-wrong is simply a fluid matter of opinion, then why is your opinion more correct than someone else’s? What allows you to condemn the actions of another? It is just your opinion against theirs.

…that is not what i’m condemning. It’s the chestbeating and acting as if you’re the good guys that gets tiresome. That the US is looking out for number 1 is understandable and acceptable, just own up to that and you’ll get no argument from me…

How do you judge if someone is ‘the good guys’? According to Pol Pot, for ex, he was a good guy. Was he wrong? Why? Its his opinion against mine and most everyone else.

It is a ‘fluid’ morality that is destroying the world.

…make no mistake: Pol Pot killed millions, but as a direct result of invading Iraq by the US over half a million innocent women and children died. After WW2 the USA started wars or supported revolts and had legitimate governments overthrown through it’s support, which led to the death of countless people. You’re not the good guy either…

[/quote]

How do you know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is?

54

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.

…morality is an agreement between groups of people in order for society to function in a, more or less, cohesive manner. We decide what is moral, and what is not…

So if a bunch of cannibals decide that you are to be the entree tonight, then that’s moral?

…to the cannibals it is perfectly moral…

Obviously. And obviously, at the same time they can also be wrong. After all, to you it isn’t “perfectly normal,” right? Why?

…that depends on the situation. Was it immoral for the crashed rugby players in de Andes to eat from their dead teammates? If it’s a matter of life and death, would you resort to cannabalism? I would…

[/quote]

Sure, I think situational ethics plays a role in all of this. That’s fine. But your example doesn’t absolve you from your little dilemma: you keep saying that morality is fluid and relative; however, you keep using language that indicates that you employ a morality that is that is not relative. You can squirm all you want, and play dumb, and try to sow confusion, and continue to throw in red herrings all over the place, but I see what your doing. It’s sad really. This is precisely why Europe is diseased from within: you no longer believe in anything objective or absolute. That is why Europe’s greatness is behind it.

55

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem,

One word: “Sophism.” LOOK IT UP.

While I’m glad to be discussing this with you, if you aren’t going to understand my argument (and you appear not to), you should at least understand your own - currently, it’s not even remotely coherent.

  1. how do you know that morality is “fluid” without an independent basis from which to judge it as so? You cannot ascertain “change” without an understanding of what “doesn’t change.”

  2. your assertion itself - that morality is “fluid” - is itself an absolute claim.

  3. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have (either as an “outsider” or as a member of that society) to judge its worthiness?

  4. How does this change or progress that you refer to happen without the ability for outsiders/insiders to criticize the current moral order, or lack thereof.

I could go on and on…but I’m starting to think that your moral values are so deeply structured in your being that you cannot - as yet! - even recognize them.

1 + 2: …your position is just as untenable because you base it on the idea that morality is something that’s passed down from an imaginary deity, or that morality is somehow ingrained in us and does not waver. If that is not the case, please show how morality is permanently defined…
[/quote]

I haven’t mentioned “god” or a “deity” or anything like that. I haven’t even MADE a positive case. You are making it for me in a roundabout way. You are continually expressing the independent nature of morality without realizing it. Do you really not understand what I am saying? I’m not sure how I could make myself clearer. I’ll try to think of something.

Okay, so now we have a new definition of morality. (You do realize that this is a NEW argument, right? Aren’t you tired of squirming?) NOW you’re saying that where there’s a PROSPEROUS society there is a worthy moral order.

…So, apparently, then, according to your theory of morality, the United States of America - the most prosperous in the history of the world - must be the most moral of any society in history. Is that what you meant to say?

56

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
This is an excellent and timely piece by Bill Whittle. One the of the comments is by a 79 year old lady who remarked that “Your article brought tears to my eyes and fury in my soul for the likes of Sean Penn and his ilk.” I dare say she is right.

http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2009/04/10/the-workshops-of-identity/
[/quote]

GREAT ARTICLE!

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Civilisations rise and fall because they do not understand the morality that caused the rise and the morality that caused the fall.

You can’t have a dynamic and healthy civilisation if you rely on religious mystics or irrationalist philosophers hiding in ivory towers for your morality.[/quote]

Very Interesting Thoughts!

Civilizations are based in a common set of values and principles - look at the rise of any civilization and you will find that their “religion” or set of standardized mores and values defined them and allowed them to work in concert with each other to rise to a higher level. That has been the effect of all “religions” within every great civilization. The rise of Rome was based on a shared “religion” - the decline of Rome came when the people no longer shared the same “religion”

Now - why do i say “religion” - because religion in this context is what the society has determined to be worthy of belief thus true thus their practiced morality. Religion is about more than the deity worshiped - it is about the values and principles held in common and unified through whatever recognized belief system has been adopted by the majority of the population

When the “religion” is destroyed the civilization that rested upon that belief system crashes and collapses.

What destroys a “religion”? competing belief systems, ie - other “religions”.

Your comment about religious mystics is a perfect example of some of the new belief systems that challenge the belief system upon which this civilization was founded and thus leads to the eventual collapse of the original civilization and the establishment of a new civilization. This is the real goal of historical revisionism, anti-western civilization thought, anti-judeo/christian attacks and the “progressive” socialists - they seek to kill the old gods and replace them with new ones of their own.

They seek to identify a new morality based on a new belief system upon which they can build a new civilization!

58

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:How do you judge if someone is ‘the good guys’? According to Pol Pot, for ex, he was a good guy. Was he wrong? Why? Its his opinion against mine and most everyone else.

It is a ‘fluid’ morality that is destroying the world.

…make no mistake: Pol Pot killed millions, but as a direct result of invading Iraq by the US over half a million innocent women and children died. After WW2 the USA started wars or supported revolts and had legitimate governments overthrown through it’s support, which led to the death of countless people. You’re not the good guy either…

How do you know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is?[/quote]

…ultimately neither really exists. The bad guy is capable of doing good, and the good guy is capable of doing bad. The distinction between them is a matter of perspective, and also depends on the extent of how the actions of one individual affect society as a whole…

…so, to anticipate your next question: how about a childmolester? In the case of a childmolester i happily make an exception to everything i’ve said in this thread and say that is wrong BUT i have one true story about this:

…my oldest brother has 3 sons, and the youngest two often went to a farm in the neighbourhood to care for the animals. This went on for years until one day it came to light that both boys were ‘taken advantage of’ by the farmer. When the boys went for counseling, the youngest was understandably troubled by what he experienced but the eldest, who was 13 something at the time and just started to become aware of his sexuality, didn’t seem to mind the abuse that much because he did not perceive it as such…

…the oldest boy was actually curious and, more or less, went along with the farmer. When he spoke about this at counseling, the counselor couldn’t really deal with the situation and felt he was repressing the ordeal, morphing it into something palatable. That could very well be, i wasn’t there, but he felt more guilty about the fact he perceived the experience differently from how other’s expected him to feel…

…so even a sordid affair like this isn’t that clearcut, and leaves a grey area most find uncomfortable, and in the case of children we should keep on finding that uncomfortable…

…so, are you confused yet?

59

…i guess i don’t understand you point then…

…no, i’m rather socialist in my outlook, and i don’t think that, altough it’s absolutely true in certain aspects of american society, the USA is the most prosperous nation in the world. In many ways the US resembles a third world country: inner city slums, no-go areas, high murder rates, violent crime, ridiculous [drug]laws, rampant under-age pregnancy, illiteracy, poor general education and so on…

…a good example of a prosperous moral country would be Norway. Everybody there has it good, and you never hear that Norway invaded another country based on lies. Perhaps that is what you mean? That i decide for myself what is moral and what not?

60

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When someone builds a building, in every step of the process they have to ask: ‘Is this the correct procedure here, right or wrong?’ When a doctor makes a diagnosis, they have to ask: ‘Does this person have this condition, right or wrong?’ Morality is imbued in everything.[/quote]
You appear to be equivocating. Morality refers to a code of conduct in which “right” conduct is required or encouraged and “wrong” conduct is prohibited or discouraged. Engineering and science deal with facts, computations, and analyses that may be correct or incorrect. The calculation 2+2=5 is “wrong”, but is not immoral. It is simply incorrect.

That said, perhaps you meant to imply that an architect failing to use best practices, or a doctor rushing to diagnose a condition would be guilty of moral failure for their actions. If so, it would have been helpful for you to elaborate on how those moral failings were related to the topic.

This claim appears to be unsupportable. Humans, like other primates, are social animals who exhibit both selfish and selfless behavior in nature.