Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[atanu]

He is using the Enlightenment as the starting point for measuring progress I think, not necessarily embracing all facets of enlightenment thought.

Not really. Pinker claims that the Enlightenment is defined by a “non-negotiable” commitment to reason.

But in A Treatise of Human Nature (1738), Hume wrote: “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” And Kant’s thesis was “Critique of pure reason”. Schopenhauer proposed that reason was a weak servant of a blind will. Same goes with egalitarianism.

The point is that thinking at that time was much more open and diverse than what Pinker tells us.

 

[Moz]

The Bible doesn't have a happy ending for all. Myself, it has a violent end in store for me as it demands my execution. On the other hand, no human law calls for my death.

How many people do not find slavery morally reprehensible?

Hi
Demands you execution...... .. that's a strange way to take it.

I suppose that armegedon may take that flavour but then that is a war in which only combatants are killed. If you are caught up in that and chose to fight then that's just war isn't it?

Otherwise if you die in the meantime you be resurrected according to the bible story, so while NOT wanting to execute you, he will resurrect you in spite of your rejecting him if someone else kills you.
.......................
So you boycott all products and luxuries provided by the off shoring of your slavery because it is morally intolerable. Or do you NOT LOOK at the world you live in so you can fool yourself that you are against the exploitation of the poor while living off their sweat.
..................................


Peace

 

[PruePhillip]

Religious values are being replaced by morality based in logic, reason, evidence, and the fact we are social animals.
No, they are your values. I tend to think the ideals that America read founded on.
None of it will happen.

The morality based upon logic and reason are shown in my profile below.
Logic suggests we shouldn't have gambling - it was rare when religion was
strong and common now that religion is weak.
The penalty for adultery was death when religion was strong, but now when
religion is weak adultery is extremely common.

First two off the top of my head - logic, reason and evidence based values
has not delivered a moral outcome. What do I mean by "moral"? I mean
when you have millions of gambling addicts and as many with broken
relationships and busted homes.

 

[joe1776]

I don't mind you think my view is wrong, I can only speak from what I see every day in the world, and as a Buddhist how we are taught to look at the truth.

We all want to find the truth.

Is humanity making moral progress or is it declining? How do you discover the true answer to this question by only looking at the present? Don't you have to compare the present to the distant past?

 

[Spirit of Light]

We all want to find the truth.

Is humanity making moral progress or is it declining? How do you discover the true answer to this question by only looking at the present? Don't you have to compare the present to the distant past?

It is written in the Buddhist texts about it, that is all that matter when following and understanding the Buddhist teaching, it is more easy to see how we as humans "should" behave to be morally good people. Yes, immoral has always been there, and will always be there. But the more people who see the truth about what good morality is, and can follow it, the better it is. And unfortunately today it is very clear that morality is not something people pay a lot of attention to.
An example of today can be how Trump and the white house in America are acting out. Not morally at all, because all that matters to them is their own ego and their own wealth. They do not put other people first then themself. they do the opposite way, themself first then maybe others.
Did that happen before too? yes, kings of old times did do the same, so people in power have more difficult to be morally good than common men/women. Following immoral people lead to immoral for common men/woman too

 

[joe1776]

It is written in the Buddhist texts about it, that is all that matter when following and understanding the Buddhist teaching, it is more easy to see how we as humans "should" behave to be morally good people. Yes, immoral has always been there, and will always be there. But the more people who see the truth about what good morality is, and can follow it, the better it is. And unfortunately today it is very clear that morality is not something people pay a lot of attention to.
An example of today can be how Trump and the white house in America are acting out. Not morally at all, because all that matters to them is their own ego and their own wealth. They do not put other people first then themself. they do the opposite way, themself first then maybe others.
Did that happen before too? yes, kings of old times did do the same, so people in power have more difficult to be morally good than common men/women. Following immoral people lead to immoral for common men/woman too

I can agree with everything you wrote but you are not answering the question which is: Is humanity making moral progress or is it in decline?

You're right that leaders for the most part have been corrupt. But they are not capable of doing as much harm today as they did in the past because we have learned not to trust them.

Centuries ago, leaders were regarded as gods.Today, we see their flaws and don't make them our moral authorities. Yes, we have people lacking morals who follow them but most of us follow our conscience.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I can agree with everything you wrote but you are not answering the question which is: Is humanity making moral progress or is it in decline?

You're right that leaders for the most part have been corrupt. But they are not capable of doing as much harm today as they did in the past because we have learned not to trust them.

Centuries ago, leaders were regarded as gods.Today, we see their flaws and don't make them our moral authorities. Yes, we have people lacking morals who follow them but most of us follow our conscience.

I already answered your question in a previous post I made Yes human morality is declining.

 

[joe1776]

I already answered your question in a previous post I made Yes human morality is declining.

I meant that your previous post was not relevant to the question because it did not support a decline.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I mostly agree, except that competence for reasoning could not spring up from non phenomenal chemicals. Pinker et al fall flat if you insist upon evidence for this presumption.

In many other ways Pinker is shallow, imo.

...

At what point in our past do you think that reason first appeared? And would you see such when other species apparently solve problems?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I meant that your previous post was not relevant to the question because it did not support a decline.

ok

 

[Augustus]

How many people do not find slavery morally reprehensible?

Historically, very few people found it morally reprehensible, because they had no concept of a universal humanity or intrinsic value of all life. In Europe these evolved out of the Christian tradition and certainly weren't a part of the Classical world where slavery was an inescapable part of human society, and thus ethical.

European economic and military power was the main reason for the decline of slavery in many parts of the world, not people suddenly realising slavery was wrong.

Many 'self-evident' Western values are culturally specific, hence their increasing rejection in many parts of the modern world.

I have confidence most of the world wouldn't resort to that. We've been through some hard times, and we haven't really seen it go to extreme measures.

Was only the middle of last century that the 'good guys' decided it would be strategically useful to burn to death as many men, women and children as possible.

We complain about a handful of deaths at the auto-de-fe, or recoil in revulsion at the sack of a medieval city despite these being nowhere near as barbaric in absolute terms.

We might have more options these days that allow us greater leeway in responding to events in less violent manners, but when push comes to shove we'll do what we deem necessary.

 

[atanu]

At what point in our past do you think that reason first appeared?

Allow me to humbly ask as to why you think that 'reason' first appeared at some time past? This discussion might however de-rail the current thread and therefore it would be better if we discussed this in a separate thread.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Allow me to humbly ask as to why you think that 'reason' first appeared at some time past? This discussion might however de-rail the current thread and therefore it would be better if we discussed this in a separate thread.

I was just wondering how recent you might think this occurred.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What metrics do we use to measure morality?

 

[PruePhillip]

What metrics do we use to measure morality?

If it's Judaeo Christian morality it would be metrics like
fidelity in relationships
love of your neighbor
forgiveness
no excess of behavior
honesty
love of God
etc..

Things which are bad would include
gambling
pornography
adultery
love of violence
etc

nb, whether engaging in these vices or being entertained by them is not the point.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Pinker's in a nutshell: Reason + Humanism + Science = Progress

YES! We've progressed from stones and clubs to knives, and now nuclear weapons! We don't really need God, do we?

 

[Wandering Monk]

If it's Judaeo Christian morality it would be metrics like
fidelity in relationships
love of your neighbor
forgiveness
no excess of behavior
honesty
love of God
etc..

Things which are bad would include
gambling
pornography
adultery
love of violence
etc

nb, whether engaging in these vices or being entertained by them is not the point.

Would increased life spans, better health, better education, reduced weapons stockpiles etc be measures of morality in Judaeo Christian morality even if people didn't love God?

 

[joe1776]

What metrics do we use to measure morality?

As I see it, human acts are judged case-by-case. The universal standard to judge whether the act is moral or immoral is the conscience (moral intuition) of an unbiased jury (no biases relevant to the case). An immoral act feels wrong and produces the urge to punish the wrongdoer.

This doesn't have to be a formal jury. For example, the people not attacking or under attack during WWII might constitute an unbiased jury capable of judging whether Adolf Hitler's acts were immoral. Hitler's own opinion is biased, therefore it doesn't matter.

 

[Wandering Monk]

YES! We've progressed from stones and clubs to knives, and now nuclear weapons! We don't really need God, do we?

Nuclear weapons stockpiles have decreased dramatically in the recent past. Doesn't that suggest that reasonable people want to reduce the dangers of them?

The nuclear apocalypse hasn't happened, much to the disappointment of some End Times freaks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not want to start an argument with you, but my question is, How can we see morality getting better in a world that constantly attack each other, Both in wars but also in politics or even daily life? Morality the way I understand it is to do our best to not harm others or own interests. But today we often see, that people get more and more greedy, hateful, dishonest, and full of egoistic way of living. In my understanding that is not good morality at all.
But you see it different then me i know

Just ask yourself this question....

Given the choice, in what society would you want to live, not knowing in advance who you are (in terms of ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation,...):
- today's London, or 500 years ago's London?
- today's California or 300 years ago's California?
- today's US or 70 years ago's US?

I'ld pick today's any day of the week. And I'm guessing you would too.
It wasn't much fun being black and living the US 70 years ago.
It wasn't much fun being a non-christian, or a woman, and live in London 500 years ago.
Etc.

These societies today are vastly more moralistic then back in the day.
That is not saying they are "morally perfect" today or whatever, off course.

The only point here, is that the world today has higher moral standards then back in those days.
It's just the way it is.