The Heartbeat of Civilization

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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.

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![/quote]

Welcome to PWI. These are excellent insights, about cycles of religion.

One of my interests is Chinese history (my daughter is Chinese) and the rise and fall of dynasties and how their historians explain these. There IS a common theme throughout their history which fits quite well with your description.

62

[quote]milod 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.
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.

Humans are selfish by nature. Until we stop denying this and trying to force unselfishness on ourselves, the world will be just that — a world of force. That has made the world a charnel house.
This claim appears to be unsupportable. Humans, like other primates, are social animals who exhibit both selfish and selfless behavior in nature.
[/quote]

What motivates a carpenter, a doctor, an architect, to choose to do the correct action to achieve a desired goal? It is their moral code. Actions are not causeless, insofar as the actor is thinking.

A man cannot be both selfish and selfless at the same time and in the same respect (Aristotle). One must be part of the defining characteristic while the other is accidental (or secondary). No one would deny that selflessness exists. But it is not a defining characteristic, or the species would have evolved out of existence.

63

[quote]ephrem wrote:
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?

…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?

[/quote]

No, but you are.

You keep on using “bad” and “good,” and “right” and “wrong,” without realizing that you’re completely undercutting your own argument.

The rest is simply jibberish. I take it that you are admitting that your stance has no coherence.

64

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote: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.

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

…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?

…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?

[/quote]

You do realize that Norway has nearly zero market activity right? Basically, they’re sitting on a bunch of oil and the state doles out revenue to its citizens, many of whom don’t even live in the country anymore because they can’t stand it. LOL! Yeah, that’s real prosperity. O, and without American protection - ooops, I mean “NATO” - do you think they’d still have that oil? Fucktard.

You have no understanding of America beyond crude stereotypes that Europeans are awfully fond of repeating.

You have evidenced in this thread nothing more than a smug relativism and an almost complete inability to think.

I’ll repeat what I said above: “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.”

Unfortunately, this “diseased thought” is spreading to America.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Welcome to PWI. These are excellent insights, about cycles of religion.

One of my interests is Chinese history (my daughter is Chinese) and the rise and fall of dynasties and how their historians explain these. There IS a common theme throughout their history which fits quite well with your description.

[/quote]

Thanks - I too am a lover of history - especially “long” history such as that of the Chinese peoples. I cannot take credit for these insights as they are the culmination of much reading of many great historians.

My point was to demonstrate that the “change” proposed by Obama and many other progressives is actually a change in the actual civilization that we possess. If we change the underlying belief system - we will cause the destruction of the original American civilization and the establishment of something new and foreign to the founders of it.

I just wish progressives, liberals and socialists would finally be honest about the reality of their beliefs and goals instead of the constant subterfuge of adopting the language of the current civilization while supplanting it with the definitions of their new one.

66

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote: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.

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

…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?

…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?

You do realize that Norway has nearly zero market activity right? Basically, they’re sitting on a bunch of oil and the state doles out revenue to its citizens, many of whom don’t even live in the country anymore because they can’t stand it. LOL! Yeah, that’s real prosperity. O, and without American protection - ooops, I mean “NATO” - do you think they’d still have that oil? Fucktard.

You have no understanding of America beyond crude stereotypes that Europeans are awfully fond of repeating.

You have evidenced in this thread nothing more than a smug relativism and an almost complete inability to think.

I’ll repeat what I said above: “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.”

Unfortunately, this “diseased thought” is spreading to America. [/quote]

…all this while you can’t even formulate what ‘it’ is you base your objective or absolute source of morality on. Exactly because of this inability, because there is no absolute source of morality, you are forced to continually affirm the greatness of your nation, and try to dismiss and discredit those who think otherwise. Quite pathetic actually…

67

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…all this while you can’t even formulate what ‘it’ is you base your objective or absolute source of morality on. Exactly because of this inability, because there is no absolute source of morality, you are forced to continually affirm the greatness of your nation, and try to dismiss and discredit those who think otherwise. Quite pathetic actually…[/quote]

I didn’t have to argue that - you did it for me. You’ve already asserted that morality is independent of what we think it is - you’re just too stupid and ill-educated to realize it.

68

That’s one of the best pieces I have read in a long time. Very moving and very true.

69

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…all this while you can’t even formulate what ‘it’ is you base your objective or absolute source of morality on. Exactly because of this inability, because there is no absolute source of morality, you are forced to continually affirm the greatness of your nation, and try to dismiss and discredit those who think otherwise. Quite pathetic actually…

I didn’t have to argue that - you did it for me. You’ve already asserted that morality is independent of what we think it is - you’re just too stupid and ill-educated to realize it. [/quote]

…saying that morality is fluid and subjective is asserting that morality is independent of what we think it is? How did you come to that conclusion?

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

70

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…all this while you can’t even formulate what ‘it’ is you base your objective or absolute source of morality on. Exactly because of this inability, because there is no absolute source of morality, you are forced to continually affirm the greatness of your nation, and try to dismiss and discredit those who think otherwise. Quite pathetic actually…

I didn’t have to argue that - you did it for me. You’ve already asserted that morality is independent of what we think it is - you’re just too stupid and ill-educated to realize it.

…saying that morality is fluid and subjective is asserting that morality is independent of what we think it is? How did you come to that conclusion?

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

[/quote]

Okay, for example, right there ^^ - I’m sorry but I’m going to have to repeat myself:

  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.” In other words, it’s “fluid” with respect to what? In other words, you are asserting an independent basis of morality.

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

  3. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have to judge its worthiness? It must be on the basis of something independent of “what the majority think,” which your theory of morality disallows.

  4. How does this change or progress that you refer to happen without the ability to criticize the current moral order, or lack thereof. And they cannot do so without an independent basis by which to judge. See #3.

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.

71

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

[/quote]

^^ That is just fucking insane. You ought to go back to sticking your finger in a dike.

72

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

  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.” In other words, it’s “fluid” with respect to what? In other words, you are asserting an independent basis of morality. [/quote]

…i base that on the fact that people condemn actions by others they perceive as ‘bad’, and then go on to act in a similar manner but because they justify those actions in a certain way, suddenly these actions become ‘good’…

…and to think you called mé a sophist…

…the worthiness of what exactly? The worthiness of morality? Does morality even have worth?

…ofcourse it can change without an independent basis to judge from. Morality changes based on the demands people place on society, that’s it. You demand something that is not required. Huff and puff all you want, but if there’s a certain order to society that no longer meets the people’s demands, and they want it changed to fit their demands, what else is needed for that change? Nothing…

[quoteI 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]

…sorry katz, perhaps you should try to think outside of the box for once. The cardboard is blocking your view…

73

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

^^ That is just fucking insane. You ought to go back to sticking your finger in a dike. [/quote]

…this is a discussion forum. You act like a teenager who can’t verbalize his conflicts. Are you a teenager katz?

74

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

  1. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have to judge its worthiness? It must be on the basis of something independent of “what the majority think,” which your theory of morality disallows.

…the worthiness of what exactly? The worthiness of morality? Does morality even have worth?

[/quote]

Nice job. You actually skirted each and every one of those. You do realize that any retard can play dumb right?

I’m going to assume for a moment that you are not dumb. And I’m going to ask you to answer just ONE of the above questions and stop fucking around.

75

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

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

^^ That is just fucking insane. You ought to go back to sticking your finger in a dike.

…this is a discussion forum. You act like a teenager who can’t verbalize his conflicts. Are you a teenager katz?

[/quote]

No, I’m an adult trying to engage with sophistry: yours.

76

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

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

[/quote]

What a fascinating concept. Situational ethics lives indeed!

Let me see if I understand your point and please forgive me jumping into your discussion with katz.

Your imply that morality is what I choose it to be, or in other words I define what is moral for myself based on the circumstances in which I find myself and the outcome that I seek from those circumstances.

Thus-the classic - it is wrong to steal for profit, but ok to steal to avoid starvation - argument.

Seriously? This is the height of your moral judgment?

Can you tell me if you are defining morality from and individualistic perspective or a communal one?

77

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

  1. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have to judge its worthiness? It must be on the basis of something independent of “what the majority think,” which your theory of morality disallows.

…the worthiness of what exactly? The worthiness of morality? Does morality even have worth?

Nice job. You actually skirted each and every one of those. You do realize that any retard can play dumb right?

I’m going to assume for a moment that you are not dumb. And I’m going to ask you to answer just ONE of the above questions and stop fucking around. [/quote]

…most of your replies to me in this thread are devoid of actual content, and you are summoning me to answer questions? Okay; i don’t think morality has an intrinsic value or worthiness that goes beyond how society benefits from those morals…

78

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…morality is whatever we decide given the situation, and the prefered outcome of a situation…

What a fascinating concept. Situational ethics lives indeed!

Let me see if I understand your point and please forgive me jumping into your discussion with katz.

Your imply that morality is what I choose it to be, or in other words I define what is moral for myself based on the circumstances in which I find myself and the outcome that I seek from those circumstances.

Thus-the classic - it is wrong to steal for profit, but ok to steal to avoid starvation - argument.

Seriously? This is the height of your moral judgment?

Can you tell me if you are defining morality from and individualistic perspective or a communal one?[/quote]

…i consider myself to be a-moral, just like i consider myself an a-theist. My morality overlaps the communal morality in certain areas, and may even be stronger in places, but as my thread in ‘Get a Life’ on homegrowing weed illustrates, in general i approach morality as an individual…

79

[quote]ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…i consider myself to be a-moral, just like i consider myself an a-theist. My morality overlaps the communal morality in certain areas, and may even be stronger in places, but as my thread in ‘Get a Life’ on homegrowing weed illustrates, in general i approach morality as an individual…

[/quote]

Fantastic - love a honest individual!

OK, let me make sure I am with you so far. You say that you are amoral -do you mean that you lack any moral sensibility at all and never distinguish any difference between right and wrong? I don’t think you mean amoral in that sense. So perhaps you mean amoral in the sense of that you refuse to make judgments about morality except in certain cases?

Well, then you are not amoral- merely less judgmental than most individuals -but you do have a sense of morality that you define for yourself. - Is that more or less where you are?

80

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

  1. If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have to judge its worthiness? It must be on the basis of something independent of “what the majority think,” which your theory of morality disallows.

…the worthiness of what exactly? The worthiness of morality? Does morality even have worth?

Nice job. You actually skirted each and every one of those. You do realize that any retard can play dumb right?

I’m going to assume for a moment that you are not dumb. And I’m going to ask you to answer just ONE of the above questions and stop fucking around.

…most of your replies to me in this thread are devoid of actual content, and you are summoning me to answer questions? Okay; i don’t think morality has an intrinsic value or worthiness that goes beyond how society benefits from those morals…
[/quote]

You’re the one who proclaimed that you believe morality is “fluid.”
Okay, let me re-word it so you can’t provide yourself an “out” by pretending to get fluxommed over the word, “worthiness”:

If morality is simply what the majority think, on what basis would you have to criticize it? It must be on the basis of something independent of “what the majority think,” which your theory of morality disallows.