Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[PruePhillip]

That's not morality, it's your personal hangups about stuff rusty is none of your business of someone is doing.

So, we are supposed to be talking about morality - and when I give examples of moral
behavior, backed with statistics, it's "none of your business." ??????

That's a failed argument.

And if my community is wracked with drugs, crime, kids without fathers, gambling
debts, violence etc it is none of my business? What happened to this Age of Reason
we are discussing here? Your reasoning has failed, just as this failed community's
reason has failed.

 

[atanu]

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

The idea, knowledge if you prefer, that reason came up ‘ x’ years before now, is in awareness, here and now.

...

 

[Moz]

Paul endorsed slavery. He told Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon, a LEADER of the churhc in Collosi, to return to his master.

Hi

Paul was actually endorsing obedience to the Roman civil law. Runaway slaves were crucified.
Paul was saying better a live slave than a dead Onesimus, killed by the state btw not Philemon of course. They were the only choices on offer. Then he could still have his life do good works etc for those around him and put up witj his lot in life.
Peace

 

[MikeDwight]

All these governments are some form of self-agency invention and intellectualism and human element promotion, lets put all that back in context. Ya so napoleon kicks al the kings for republics, I'm purposefully not going to count the earlier American republic. Communists kick Russia. Nazis kick Italy and France. Lets group the UK with imperialism. Christian Europe needs people that speak like them and think their thoughts from a similar cultural background to explain it.

 

[Moz]

Paul endorsed slavery. He told Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon, a LEADER of the churhc in Collosi, to return to his master.

Hi
My initial response was to soft. i'm done with letting you lot get away with such misconstruing of the facts.
He ENDORSED slavery did he... where the hell is that endorsement.

He had a friend who was a runaway slave.... the only options on the table are ...........
1 to be arrested and crucified for not having a certificate of freedom,
2 sent to the slave mines as a runaway.
3 , To flee outside the borders of the Empire where he would probably die pretty quickly anyway.
4 To go back to his master where he could be of use to his follow believers in spite of his condition.

He was giving his friend some advice.. And IT IS only advice. Onesimus could have freely chosen any of the 4 options and Paul would have had no say over his choice.

So he tells him, Go back to Philemon and btw i'll write to Philemon and see if i can mitigate any anger for at you running away in the first place. It actually seems like a friend giving good advice rather than an endorsement of the Institution of slavery like you painted it .

What would your advice to Onesimus have been in this situation?

Peace.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, we are supposed to be talking about morality - and when I give examples of moral
behavior, backed with statistics, it's "none of your business." ??????

Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality. That people approve of it hat nothing to do with morality. It harms no one, thus it's no one's business. Casual sec? None of your business. Gambling? Butt out of other peoples business. Polygamy? They harm ye none. Suicide? People should have the right to end their life, especially if they are terminal and suffering. How is it moral to force someone to endure prolonged suffering?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And if my community is wracked with drugs, crime, kids without fathers, gambling
debts, violence etc it is none of my business?

None of that is mentioned or specified in your signature. What you describe in that post sounds like a community that is devestated with poverty.

 

[England my lionheart]

Birth control would probably work wonders. Religion says "be fruitful and multiply," but on the other hand, they might also argue that people should exercise self-control rather than use birth control.

I guess that could be another topic - at least in terms of human sexuality and its relationship to reason and logic. For example, parents, teachers, and other adults might try to reason with teenagers to explain why it's better to wait until they're adults to have sex (or until they're married). Or, one might try to use reason to persuade people that it's not a good idea to have more kids than one can adequately support.

But not just birth control,the use of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs seems easy reasoning but it's not allowed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know you didn't direct this question to me, but another factor which makes comparisons like this difficult is the level of scientific and technological advancement which is the real gamechanger, in my view.

My question works just as well if we pretend that those older societies had all the science and technology we have today.

My question is not about meds, science, technology, etc.
My question is about the very structure of society, the culture and how the people finding themselves in that society are treated.


I thought that was pretty obivous from context.

 

[PruePhillip]

None of that is mentioned or specified in your signature. What you describe in that post sounds like a community that is devestated with poverty.

Actually, drugs, crime, kids without fathers, gambling debts, violence etc
is more prevalent in rich America than poor India, for instance.
Moral decline is more at play in the West than in poor cultures. You see
this quite clearly when you have a global church (such as England's
Anglican) wrestling with its churches in Africa or Asia over liberalization
of divorce, euthanasia, decriminalization of drugs and homosexuality.

 

[Augustus]

I know you didn't direct this question to me, but another factor which makes comparisons like this difficult is the level of scientific and technological advancement which is the real gamechanger, in my view.

People do often conflate these yet, tech progress is cumulative and inevitable, moral progress is neither and can be reversed in a moment.

One of the problems with the idea of 'moral progress' is that humans adapt to their environment.

Modern technology acts as a deterrent, which makes war less of a policy option, however if war does break out, then it vastly increases its destructive potential.

The average person is protected from violence by the state, so can 'progress' to being more peaceful, but when states go to war, or when the state goes bad then violence can return with a vengeance.

Once people start to feel physically threatened, they will often support actions which are far from progressive. People will willingly give up freedoms for security and a sense of purpose.

"Moral progress" relies more on our environment than the 'better angels of our nature', and will last only as long as we can provide the kind of environment in which such things flourish. Thinking in terms of moral progress is mostly self-congratulatory, and creates the perception in many that 'progress' is both natural and inevitable. Such complacency is dangerous imo.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The idea, knowledge if you prefer, that reason came up ‘ x’ years before now, is in awareness, here and now.

...

I'm sure all the other animals will be so pleased to know this.

 

[Stevicus]

Once people start to feel physically threatened, they will often support actions which are far from progressive. People will willingly give up freedoms for security and a sense of purpose.

"Moral progress" relies more on our environment than the 'better angels of our nature', and will last only as long as we can provide the kind of environment in which such things flourish. Thinking in terms of moral progress is mostly self-congratulatory, and creates the perception in many that 'progress' is both natural and inevitable. Such complacency is dangerous imo.

I tend to agree. It's easy to be morally upright and enlightened when one has a full belly and a warm bed to sleep in. It's not so easy when one has to struggle.

 

[Stevicus]

But not just birth control,the use of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs seems easy reasoning but it's not allowed.

Yeah, I know. That doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

[Stevicus]

My question works just as well if we pretend that those older societies had all the science and technology we have today.

My question is not about meds, science, technology, etc.
My question is about the very structure of society, the culture and how the people finding themselves in that society are treated.

I thought that was pretty obivous from context.

Yes, but I think it comes down to the same thing. Your earlier post suggested that people in past societies were badly treated. While I do agree with this, it still begs the question as to whether that bad treatment was due to the overall harsh, relatively primitive conditions people lived under - or if it's because humans themselves were biologically less evolved than we are now.

So, yes, it's pretty much a no-brainer to suggest that it's better to live now than 100 or 300 years ago, but the question is why. That wasn't so obvious in your post.

 

[Audie]

I tend to agree. It's easy to be morally upright and enlightened when one has a full belly and a warm bed to sleep in. It's not so easy when one has to struggle.

Yes, there are niceties, and there is survival.

How about when you are well fed, have a
family, and, a corporation with thousands
of people whose lives are profoundly tied
to your decisions?

Ethical and moral dilemmas are inevitable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Hi
My initial response was to soft. i'm done with letting you lot get away with such misconstruing of the facts.
He ENDORSED slavery did he... where the hell is that endorsement.

He had a friend who was a runaway slave.... the only options on the table are ...........
1 to be arrested and crucified for not having a certificate of freedom,
2 sent to the slave mines as a runaway.
3 , To flee outside the borders of the Empire where he would probably die pretty quickly anyway.
4 To go back to his master where he could be of use to his follow believers in spite of his condition.

He was giving his friend some advice.. And IT IS only advice. Onesimus could have freely chosen any of the 4 options and Paul would have had no say over his choice.

So he tells him, Go back to Philemon and btw i'll write to Philemon and see if i can mitigate any anger for at you running away in the first place. It actually seems like a friend giving good advice rather than an endorsement of the Institution of slavery like you painted it .

What would your advice to Onesimus have been in this situation?

Peace.

Or Philemon, a LEADER in the Christian church, could have FREED Onesimus. Duh, obvious thing you missed there. Why didn't Paul tell Philemon to free his slaves?

 

[MikeDwight]

But even Jesus so frequently talks of the hierarchy of servants and how that God's servants will treat their own servants, point is, we don't allow ourselves any hierarchy today, rebellious in nature, all of us, Fight the Power.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, there are niceties, and there is survival.

How about when you are well fed, have a
family, and, a corporation with thousands
of people whose lives are profoundly tied
to your decisions?

Ethical and moral dilemmas are inevitable.

Yes, this is true. Although I have talked to and heard people speak about surviving great traumas and horrors, such as veterans and/or refugees who have suffered through war and deprivation (including many Russians who survived WW2). I've often heard it suggested that people who have never gone through that are grossly unqualified to morally judge them, if they had to carry out harsh actions for their survival. A common retort might be "You don't know it was like. I was there! You have no right to judge me."

I actually do respect that position to a large degree. For much the same reason, I tend to disrespect and reject judgments and pronouncements made from ivory towers, country clubs, or other such insular surroundings.

Regarding your question about the person running a corporation, I suppose there's a certain ethical and moral idea that, at the very least, they want that corporation to remain viable and profitable, so that its executives and board members can continue to make money for themselves and their stockholders. As with any profession or random group of people, one might find varying degrees of ethics and morality.

Just like there might be a few good lawyers out there. But I think their bigger concern is more with what is "legal" vs. "illegal" than "right" vs. "wrong."

That may be another aspect related to the topic of "reason," at least when it's used by lawyers.

 

[Audie]

Yes, this is true. Although I have talked to and heard people speak about surviving great traumas and horrors, such as veterans and/or refugees who have suffered through war and deprivation (including many Russians who survived WW2). I've often heard it suggested that people who have never gone through that are grossly unqualified to morally judge them, if they had to carry out harsh actions for their survival. A common retort might be "You don't know it was like. I was there! You have no right to judge me."

I actually do respect that position to a large degree. For much the same reason, I tend to disrespect and reject judgments and pronouncements made from ivory towers, country clubs, or other such insular surroundings.

Regarding your question about the person running a corporation, I suppose there's a certain ethical and moral idea that, at the very least, they want that corporation to remain viable and profitable, so that its executives and board members can continue to make money for themselves and their stockholders. As with any profession or random group of people, one might find varying degrees of ethics and morality.

Just like there might be a few good lawyers out there. But I think their bigger concern is more with what is "legal" vs. "illegal" than "right" vs. "wrong."

That may be another aspect related to the topic of "reason," at least when it's used by lawyers.

It is a misconception to think that the law is about
right and wrong, ie morality.

Or that lawyers are there to present moral arguments.

Or even "legal" v "illegal".

Whose side is correct,according to the law is
what they deal with.


People dont always like how the law works out.
If the will clearly and legally states that the old
widow gets nothing, and the floozie gets it all,
then it does.

The atty for the flooz is required to represent
her and present her legal position to the best of his
ability, not screw it up hoping the widow gets a break.

It is unfortunate that the popular conception of lawyers
is as it is. The bad actors get all the publicity and
opprobrium brought down on all, which is grossly unfair.

Same as the CEO is required to look out for the
interests of shareholders, and workers who do,
of course, have to make money and support their families.

It it seems a bit unethical to outmaneuver your opponent
sometimes, well, too bad,.

ETA sorry if I am overstating the obvious