Moral Progress or Corruption

[damngrumpy]

Moral progress and moral corruption are things that have always been talked about
but never really existed period. preaching and being are two different things. Often
the most prolific moral preachers and advocates turn out to be anything but. Moral
business ethics have always been an ideal to strive for but without some sort of
government regulation those morals evaporate. Right now we are in a very visual
vacuum that is filled by neither the left or right. Instead of striving for the ideal societies
competing forces call each other names and claim to be the moral authority in charge
of a moral vacuum.
The question should be how do we not only strive for the ideal but actually achieve something?

 

[Angstrom]

Moral progress and moral corruption are things that have always been talked about
but never really existed period. preaching and being are two different things. Often
the most prolific moral preachers and advocates turn out to be anything but. Moral
business ethics have always been an ideal to strive for but without some sort of
government regulation those morals evaporate. Right now we are in a very visual
vacuum that is filled by neither the left or right. Instead of striving for the ideal societies
competing forces call each other names and claim to be the moral authority in charge
of a moral vacuum.
The question should be how do we not only strive for the ideal but actually achieve something?

Without first embracing our true nature nothing will ever be achieved.

 

[Sal]

Moral progress and moral corruption are things that have always been talked about
but never really existed period. preaching and being are two different things. Often
the most prolific moral preachers and advocates turn out to be anything but. Moral
business ethics have always been an ideal to strive for but without some sort of
government regulation those morals evaporate. Right now we are in a very visual
vacuum that is filled by neither the left or right. Instead of striving for the ideal societies
competing forces call each other names and claim to be the moral authority in charge
of a moral vacuum.
The question should be how do we not only strive for the ideal but actually achieve something?

that would make a great thread Grumps

 

[Motar]

These immoral practices do not continue at nearly the rate they did back then, Motar.

Your position is untenable, and your false equivalency simply demonstrates that.

Thanks for addressing me by name, Tbones. My position that "these immoral practices continue today" makes no mention of rate. What rate are you referencing?

 

[cj44]

it is what people will do to others in order to acquire it that causes problems.

LOL that blue squiggly is interesting isn't it?

Private citizens are not corporations cj... you seem to have developed a whole philosophy and attributed it to me. A tad disengenous no? Big leaps and assumptions and conclusions. In fact you seem more certain of what I think than I am.

Wow this site is leaning so far right these days it's tipping...lol. You are maybe the second or third person around here who seems to think that the way the world is currently functioning economically is the only answer. Capitalism is the only answer even though it is destroying the middle class, it is the only way to do things or we will end up like communist China. cj think out of the box man... think BIG, use your intelligence that god has given you.

There is a child of 15 now at the Perimeter Institute in my city. His advice is to stop learning and start thinking. Quite brilliant don't you think? Stop sucking in what you are being told, and have been taught and think out of the box. I like that idea. Kids like him are gonna save the world. Kids like him they are gifts.

I am not suggesting anything. I merely examining the terrible mess we are in and wondering how the world will right itself...for it will as it always does.

I see capitialism as a way out for all. I define capitialism as freedom for one to choose what he or she would like to do to earn a living. For me, capitialism is thinking out of the box. I like your example. I do not advocate more "education and higher learning". I advocate thinking and doing. Capitialism is a way out for the middle class. Government regulation/taxes/entitlements have a stranglehold on the middle class and all classes. People need to be free to do - capitialism provides that.

At what point in the past do you think humanity was more moral than it is now?

I rather agree with Motar's death spiral example.

These immoral practices do not continue at nearly the rate they did back then, Motar.

Your position is untenable, and your false equivalency simply demonstrates that.

Turn on the news, T-Bones. Those practices sadly continue.

 

[BaalsTears]

The idea of Moral Progress in Western Civilization is a Judeo-Christian concept which assumes the perfectibility of humanity as it seeks to follow the righteous path laid out by the prophets and Jesus Christ.

Moral Progress in the Dharmic religions exists through detachment from the material world over the course of innumerable births and rebirths.

Islam believes in following the Word of Allah and his Prophet, but is more determinist than Christianity.

The Secular West believes in Social Progress and again...until recently...believed in the social perfection of the human community.

Taoism doesn't believe in a human trajectory except for each individual to live a simple life at peace with himself/herself. Inner harmony is the objective.

Imo, there is no trajectory, moral, social or otherwise. For a trajectory to exist it must be consistent with the principles of time and history.

The reason for someone to study history is to gain insight. With sufficient study one can stroll through time and escape the limitations of time, space and personal experience.

In most of Western civilization history has been viewed as linear in dimension. In Confucian cultures history is generally seen as cyclical.

In my opinion history is neither linear nor cyclical. It is random. The limitations of human nature and the circumscribed expanse of human behavior make the course of events seem cyclical.

Conceptualize history as a pinball machine. Once the lever is pulled the ball takes on a life of its own. However, if one is skilled it is possible to use the opportunities presented by the movement of the pinball to score. When one is prepared and the opportunities present themselves it is possible for a society to advance. But there must be an alignment between preparation and opportunity. In the absence of either there is no advancement.

A society or civilization is like a complex organism with many different systems that must work together for the organism to live and prosper. Societies and civilizations don't fall or collapse because a single system fails. They fall when enough systems fail that the society or civilization can no longer breath, circulate, digest, and live.

That is what happened to Late Period Egypt prior to the Macedonian Conquest. That is what happened to the Roman Empire in the West. http://www.financialsense.com/contri...k-civilization.

And that is what happened to Qing Dynasty China. It is all a question of the alignment of preparation and opportunity to create dynamic equilibrium.

No polity or society in all or recorded history has survived a prolonged and protracted period of financial instability. None. Not one. The story is always the same whether it be Bourbon Dynasty France in 1789, Qing Dynasty China in 1911, or the Soviet Union in 1989.

America won't survive financial collapse either. America is not exempt from the forces and processes of history. America is not exempt from economic collapse. All that is required for economic collapse is for enough people to lose faith in America. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius said something in his Meditations to the effect that that which is old shall be new again. He didn't mean that in a good way.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Thanks for addressing me by name, Tbones. My position that "these immoral practices continue today" makes no mention of rate. What rate are you referencing?

Take your pick, Motar. Total percentage of the population in slavery or recently killed, general acceptance of genocide, general acceptance of discrimination, legality of any of the above.

I probably should have asked you for a definition of "morality." I find that using large, undefined terms like "morality" or "justice" rarely leads to a productive discussion.

For me, morality is way of evaluating conduct. Moral behaviour is that which increases humanity and human dignity or impedes a decrease in same. Immoral behaviour is that which decreases humanity and human dignity or impedes an increase in same. Actions that do none of the above are morally neutral. Further, for me, all morality is social. The hypothetical man alone on a desert island can do anything he pleases with no moral consequences.

As far as divine morality, or "sinning against Gawd," it's an absurd concept whose only function is to give the preachers power. Unfit for a mature society (or a mature individual).

 

[Walter]

As far as divine morality, or "sinning against Gawd," it's an absurd concept whose only function is to give the preachers power. Unfit for a mature society (or a mature individual).

And who is the arbiter to decide who is mature, you?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And who is the arbiter to decide who is mature, you?

Yep, me. And you. And each and every person, with the decision holding force to the extent that person's writ runs.

 

[Angstrom]

At our root we are animals.

We just happen to be so many we decided to self domesticate ourselves to keep some kind of control.
In the days of kings royalty dictator. A moral code was put in place.

Where in a free society now. Things naturally will change.

The nature of the beast is and always has been, animals will do things to reward itself. Like hunt for food. Today a sort of control exists because we chase money, your reward. As long as your doing that, they can control you, and your being productive.

In the days of kings, moral progress was rewarded.
This is no longer the casein this time.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

At our root we are animals.

We just happen to be so many we decided to self domesticate ourselves to keep some kind of control.
In the days of kings royalty dictator. A moral code was put in place.

Where in a free society now. Things naturally will change.

The nature of the beast is and always has been, animals will do things to reward itself. Like hunt for food. Today a sort of control exists because we chase money, your reward. As long as your doing that, they can control you, and your being productive.

In the days of kings, moral progress was rewarded.
This is no longer the casein this time.

In the days of kings, doing what brought more wealth and power to the king was rewarded. I don't recollect any history that records kings rewarding moral progress, unless you define moral progress as "bringing more wealth and power to the king."

 

[Motar]

Take your pick, Motar. Total percentage of the population in slavery or recently killed, general acceptance of genocide, general acceptance of discrimination, legality of any of the above. ... I probably should have asked you for a definition of "morality." I find that using large, undefined terms like "morality" or "justice" rarely leads to a productive discussion. As far as divine morality, or "sinning against Gawd," it's an absurd concept whose only function is to give the preachers power. Unfit for a mature society (or a mature individual).

I concur, Tbones, that measuring morality is difficult.

In terms of quantity, it is challenging to accurately count trafficked humans, genocide deaths or gender bias victims. As far as qualifying is concerned, definitions of slavery, genocide and gender discrimination vary. And what about so-called collateral damage such as destroyed psyches and property? Should we not also look at the morality of method and motivation in these abuses and neglects? Are some more or less heinous than others? The measurement of morality is mammoth and multifaceted. Expert or scholarly opinion may hold more weight on this subject. Full-time students of morality may have a better handle on agreed-upon definitions and statistics. This is why I chose to launch this discussion by furnishing Dr. Grant's opinion in the opening post.

I shared my definition of morality in a previous post. It involves human relationships. It impacts how we regard and treat one another. It includes both code and conduct within relationships.

A definition of "mature" is needed.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I concur, Tbones, that measuring morality is difficult.

In terms of quantity, it is challenging to accurately count trafficked humans, genocide deaths or gender bias victims. As far as qualifying is concerned, definitions of slavery, genocide and gender discrimination vary. And what about so-called collateral damage such as destroyed psyches and property? Should we not also look at the morality of method and motivation in these abuses and neglects? Are some more or less heinous than others? The measurement of morality is mammoth and multifaceted. Expert or scholarly opinion may hold more weight on this subject. Full-time students of morality may have a better handle on agreed-upon definitions and statistics. This is why I chose to launch this discussion by furnishing Dr. Grant's opinion in the opening post.

No problem, Motar. Motivation is the key. If you intend to do harm and do good (by my moral definition above) it is not moral. E.g., if you decide to shoot the next person you see for kicks, and that person happens to be someone on his way to murder his girlfriend, you have not done a moral thing. Similarly, if you send $1000 to a famine relief fund, and the money is intercepted and used to buy weapons for terrorists, you have not done an immoral thing. If you set out with a reasonable expectation that your action will do great good, it is more moral than an act that you set out to do knowing it will do some good, but not much. The measure? It'd be the measure of reasonable expectations.

I shared my definition of morality in a previous post. It involves human relationships. It impacts how we regard and treat one another. It includes both code and conduct within relationships.

I have some reservations about "code," but I find your definition reasonable. We may get down to the point where hair-splitting is actually a worthwhile exercise, but I calculate we're close enough to agreement for now.

A definition of "mature" is needed.

I think a good enough definition for these purposes is facing the world as it is, understanding that there is a tension between individual freedom and collective good, reasonable expectations, a fairly high level of self-knowledge, and a fairly well-honed notion of human motivation and behaviour. For example, if you go around killing or abusing people because Big Sky Daddy has told you that it's better for them to be dead than infidel, or that beating them into piety is a good thing, you are not mature. You are allowing your notions of humanity and human dignity to be influenced by a myth that cuts against all readily available evidence. A person who wants to increase public assistance to the poor and a person who wants to decrease it may both be moral, if their intent is to enhance the humanity and human dignity of the poor. If their intent is to assuage their own guilt feelings or to label the poor "worthless" and let them die, then neither is moral.

Yes, being a bloody idiot can be, not just bloody idiocy, but actually immoral.

 

[Motar]

No problem, Motar. Motivation is the key. If you intend to do harm and do good (by my moral definition above) it is not moral. E.g., if you decide to shoot the next person you see for kicks, and that person happens to be someone on his way to murder his girlfriend, you have not done a moral thing. Similarly, if you send $1000 to a famine relief fund, and the money is intercepted and used to buy weapons for terrorists, you have not done an immoral thing. If you set out with a reasonable expectation that your action will do great good, it is more moral than an act that you set out to do knowing it will do some good, but not much. The measure? It'd be the measure of reasonable expectations.


I have some reservations about "code," but I find your definition reasonable. We may get down to the point where hair-splitting is actually a worthwhile exercise, but I calculate we're close enough to agreement for now.


I think a good enough definition for these purposes is facing the world as it is, understanding that there is a tension between individual freedom and collective good, reasonable expectations, a fairly high level of self-knowledge, and a fairly well-honed notion of human motivation and behaviour. For example, if you go around killing or abusing people because Big Sky Daddy has told you that it's better for them to be dead than infidel, or that beating them into piety is a good thing, you are not mature. You are allowing your notions of humanity and human dignity to be influenced by a myth that cuts against all readily available evidence. A person who wants to increase public assistance to the poor and a person who wants to decrease it may both be moral, if their intent is to enhance the humanity and human dignity of the poor. If their intent is to assuage their own guilt feelings or to label the poor "worthless" and let them die, then neither is moral.

Yes, being a bloody idiot can be, not just bloody idiocy, but actually immoral.

For me, Tbones, maturity is summed up as follows:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23 NIV)

For me, maturity is personified in Jesus Christ.

 

[Angstrom]

In the days of kings, doing what brought more wealth and power to the king was rewarded. I don't recollect any history that records kings rewarding moral progress, unless you define moral progress as "bringing more wealth and power to the king."

The reward of eternal life you idiot.

Anyways it's simple reward good moral behaviour and you''ll get a morally strong society.
Today, we reward productivity. We do punish bad moral behaviour.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The reward of eternal life you idiot.

Anyways it's simple reward good moral behaviour and you''ll get a morally strong society.
Today, we reward productivity. We do punish bad moral behaviour.

Not nearly enough, moron.

 

[Angstrom]

Not nearly enough, moron.

There you go, now this thread is getting somewhere.
:lol:

Punishing bad behaviour will not produce a morally strong society. It only encourages finding ways to not get caught.

Rewarding strong moral behaviour on the other hand, would be much more productive at accomplishing that goal.

 

[Motar]

There you go, now this thread is getting somewhere.
:lol:]

Is the thread heading up or down morally, Angst?

 

[Angstrom]

Is the thread heading up or down morally, Angst?

The question is, is society regressing or progressing morally.

 

[Sal]

I see capitialism as a way out for all. I define capitialism as freedom for one to choose what he or she would like to do to earn a living. For me, capitialism is thinking out of the box. I like your example. I do not advocate more "education and higher learning". I advocate thinking and doing. Capitialism is a way out for the middle class. Government regulation/taxes/entitlements have a stranglehold on the middle class and all classes. People need to be free to do - capitialism provides that.

I agree with you in theory Cj. In practice I believe capitalism has had its day and we need a better system for today's fast moving global economy. I also believe capitalism used to work well for the little guy. I no longer believe it does. It is very difficult for the little guy to compete with mega corporations.
I used to work in a business environment for many years. With some capital and some hard work one could produce a thriving family business that would not only support the family well it would allow for a true opportunity to excel financially. It is very very difficult now for a small family business in retail. One needs buying power. The only way to have buying power is to be huge.

This retail collapse was predicted long ago by David Foot and the book is called Boom Bust Echo...he was right. Conglomerates rule.