Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[Mock Turtle]

Which is why ability is environment dependent and we shouldn't use a completely arbitrary number as the basis for who'd be good at tasks across the board. It actually amazes me that intelligent people think this is possible because they have been fooled by pseudo-scientific rigour. Sooner or later, IQ test will be looked on like phrenology, graphology or scientific racialism in an "OMG how did we fall for that charlatanism" manner.

Also on motivation:

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

... we examined whether motivation is less than maximal on intelligence tests administered in the context of low-stakes research situations. Specifically, we completed a meta- analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of material incentives on intelligence-test performance on a collective 2,008 participants. Incentives increased IQ scores by an average of 0.64 SD, with larger effects for individuals with lower baseline IQ scores [0.98SD]... Collectively, our findings suggest that, under low-stakes research conditions, some individuals try harder than others, and, in this context [can significantly affect research findings]

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/19/7716.full.pdf

People become smarter when they have more motivation, and a large part of IQ is how well can you motivate yourself to perform mundane, arbitrary, meaningless tasks with zero real world application against strict time limit.

Some people are good a classroom learning and others good at real world learning. In the real world, I want the latter making decisions for me. IQ selection gives you the former and says nothing about the latter.

If you spent 1000 hours doing IQ training exercises, your IQ score would likely go up significantly. Your real world functional intelligence would be unchanged (or perhaps would have regressed due to wasting your time on dull, pointless tasks). Also individual scores fluctuate by 1 or more standard deviations which means someone who scores 110, could well be as IQ smart as someone who scored 130.

A good selection tool rules out bad options, and doesn't rule out good options. IQ tests don't do that. They work well in identifying learning difficulties, that's it.

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle



Because it is a tool of selection. We give better opportunities to those who perform better in standardised tests.

If instead of IQ tests we made people play golf and gave better opportunities to those who did well then we'd se a correlation between being good at golf and success in many areas.

Well I've never viewed IQ tests as being much more than the ability to solve a variety of problems - which is what one tends to get in Mensa puzzles - so it's more about this in many ways - the ability to think logically but also produce novel solutions, looking at the puzzles from all angles. And no doubt if one trains sufficiently then one will get better at doing such tests - after all, there is a limited number of different types of problem to solve. I'm sure many have intelligence in other areas as has been found out and IQ will do nothing for these so much. I remember reading Howard Gardner's book Frames of Mind long ago too - can't remember much now though.

Is there a single test that could do better than an IQ test?

 

[Muffled]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

I believe, on the contrary everything immoral is quite reasonable. If I am hungry I can kill and eat people. The reason is that I am hungry.

 

[Muffled]

So after watching I'm left with the thought, 'Is reasoning really a moral acceptance of bad reasoning behaviorisms?'

No, no it is not.

I believe if there is no immorality then there is no bad reasoning. Bad reasoning is a value judgement.

 

[Augustus]

Well I've never viewed IQ tests as being much more than the ability to solve a variety of problems - which is what one tends to get in Mensa puzzles - so it's more about this in many ways - the ability to think logically but also produce novel solutions,

Well, formulaic solutions from a list of MCQ answers.

Is there a single test that could do better than an IQ test?

There are many tests, but these would all be specific to whatever environment you were trying to judge suitability for. The results of the tests may not result in a neat, standardised metric though.

A test should most closely relate to the tasks it is testing aptitude for.

 

[Muffled]

It was a good video. It would be easier to comment if there was a written transcript or summary of their arguments, though.

I believe it was fun to listen to the debate but you know the debate was loaded for reason to win. However reason has its merits. God does say come let us reason together.

I noticed an emphasis was placed on empathy which I believe is a big concept in atheist thinking but the video debunks it.

I also noticed that reason had to revert back to values and that brings us back to who has the best values.

 

[Muffled]

Morality and religion are an oxymoron, imo. Many religious people wouldn't know the meaning of the word 'moral' if their behaviour is anything to go by.

I believe you could go by my behavior but I actually think if it differed from your personal concepts of good and evil you wouldn't like my behavior either.

 

[Muffled]

I know there are some teachings in the Old Testament, but those are not for the Christian people anymore, that belong to the old teaching. When there were other rules.
As far as I know the teachings for Christians it is only the New Testament that should count, not the whole bible of today. (i could be wrong of course)

I believe you are wrong. Jesus is our teacher and supersedes old and new testament.

 

[PruePhillip]

I believe you are wrong. Jesus is our teacher and supersedes old and new testament.

How can Jesus supersede the New Testament? This testament is
from Him.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi
What a great reply. Thank you.

Here we go....i have been very general in my comments up to this point but you have given me some points of discussion here, the two major advancements that I've mentioned is the ending of slavery as an institution and the advancement of women's rights,

I do not think that is an untenable position that the ending of slavery was an economic inevitability and had little to do with morals except in a retroactive sort of way looking back as a conscience salving exercise. The two great emancipation's in the 1860's were the Russian freeing 23 000 000 serfs and the Americans 4 000 000 Slaves and neither event was based in the moral argument initially. I think that it was the relentless christian polemic against slavery that finally prodded the powerful to make a move on the issue when it became economically viable.


..........................................................
..........................................................
The simple fact that the first half of the 20th century was plagued by global wide conflict and there hasn't been any comparable global conflicts since the MAD doctrine makes the MAD doctrine a moral principle.

It is hardly a simple fact. I am in a couple of battles over the slavery issue on a couple of threads atm. My main aim has been to point out that while slavery was a horrible institution it seems as though it was necessary and a net benefit to civilizational development. I get SHOUTED down by the comment that slavery was immoral period. It is good that you can see that complex situations can have solutions that can seem immoral to some.
So sometimes you think the ends justify the means.
............................................................

I believe that proper morality is all based on an individual's ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want someone else to do to you, then you shouldn't do that thing to anyone else. Since I would not want my spouse to cheat on me, then it's seems obvious to me that cheating on my spouse would be wrong.

At the same time I DO believe that monogamy is a social construct. IF a couple chooses to have multiple partners and agrees to it beforehand, then there is nothing inherently immoral about having multiple partners. However, in such a case no one would be 'cheating' on the other, since this was the agreed upon arrangement from the start.

If the strength of your desire outweighs the strength of your loyalty is it immoral in a reasoned sense to follow the stronger desire?

If I was in a relationship and my desire to be with someone else was stronger than my desire to be with my current mate, it would not be immoral for me to follow my stronger desire. However, the moral way to go about it would be to inform my current mate that I no longer have a desire to be with them prior to starting a new relationship. Why? Again, it has to do with empathy. Since I would want my mate to be honest with me and break up with me prior to starting a new relationship, I feel that it's only right for me to do the same.

I combined two of your points here as my comments will refer to both. I was referring to the general moral attitude that i perceive as dominant in our society. From your lovely description of your personal morals on these issues i applaud you(except the multiple partners but hey) I would assume from this one of three things
1 You had an excellent upbring with good examples.
2 You had a poor upbringing and worked hard and thought hard to find what you should believe in
3 You are naturally an empathetic type
I do not think any of these three examples are abundant in our society though. We may have more sexual freedom and sexual choice but that has been traded off against sexual morality in my opinion.
.........................................................
gree that it's 'undeniable' that there is less unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation. Having LESS of such things makes us a MORE moral society that we were when there was MORE unnecessary death, suffering, poverty, and starvation

Once again i do not see how you tie MORALITY to this in any way. We ended slavery because of economics and tech we have freed women because of economics and tech and medical stuff has helped women a lot as well. They tend to not die having kids anymore. Actually i think you are referring more to culture than morals. They are very different beasts at the bottom end of any analysis.

Yes we have looked back on our ancestors from our comfortable airconditioned boxes and judged them as somehow less because of the choices they were forced to make. We also know i think that for all our backward glancing moralizing that we are still the SAME people and could fall back into those old patterns pretty quickly.

So i guess i have to concede the point in one sense. Using the power of reason and science we have definitely made the physical suffering of life a lot more bearable for vast numbers of humanity. That is progress for sure. We seem to be in a very precarious position with all this progress though. It all seems very superficial and built on very shallow foundations. Most mid to longer term projections are not very encouraging on many different fronts. Human reason seems to have some very difficult chasms to traverse and i for one have no trust in men to even come close to getting it right.This Indian Summer of humanity has almost run its course.

Peace

I do not think that is an untenable position that the ending of slavery was an economic inevitability and had little to do with morals except in a retroactive sort of way looking back as a conscience salving exercise. The two great emancipation's in the 1860's were the Russian freeing 23 000 000 serfs and the Americans 4 000 000 Slaves and neither event was based in the moral argument initially. I think that it was the relentless christian polemic against slavery that finally prodded the powerful to make a move on the issue when it became economically viable.

I never suggested that slavery was abolished because of a sudden change in human morality, simply that abolishing slavery has given us a more moral society. Personally I could care less what the factors were that caused slavery to end, just as long as the result was the end of a highly immoral practice. And of course, I haven't brought up why we're a more moral society today that in the past, only that we are.


Womens rights are the same thing.

Actually, no. Women attaining equal rights had nothing to do with economics. It was based on the fact that 51% of the population finally stood up and demanded the rights that the other 49% enjoyed. What IS the same is that I really don't care why women were given equal rights, only that in doing so we became a more moral society.

I reject the idea that men and women were at each others throats throughout history. The picture at ground level is men and women working together to survive against the rich and powerful and a hostile natural world. I do not think there is a moral dimension to this either way. As we were able to produce more the burden of the home was lessened and women were free to pursue a wider world. I think that it is only natural for us to want our wives, daughters and mothers to be happy.

I also reject the idea that men and women were at each other's throats throughout history. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who advocates that position.

Tell me please when you think the average man had a better lot than the average women. For every oppression or compulsion that women were forced to bear there is one that men had to bear as well. Their are very few Kings and Lords in the broad sweep of humanity and ALL the rest were just playing catch up together as best they could.

I'm not sure I would claim that the the average man had a 'better lot' than the average woman. What I think is undeniable however is that throughout history men have enjoyed greater freedoms, rights, and opportunities than women have. And the more society has moved towards giving women equal freedoms, rights, and opportunities to men, the more moral we have become.

Well you can not be MORE willing than to give up your life so i am not sure what you are searching for. I think that people in the past were more likely to DIE for there personal beliefs than people are today i guess.
Human right watch publishes the list of conscientious objectors imprisoned by regimes around the world each year and they seem to mostly be religious types claiming an OLD morality. There are not many rational moralists in that club.
I think that sexual conduct, on the whole over the broad stretch of humanity, was more moral in the past.
I think the honesty of the system, your oppressor was easily identified, was more moral than the shadow game we live in.now You at least KNEW who was out to get you back then.

I'm not asking for evidence that people were MORE willing to give up their lives. What I'm asking for is evidence a greater percentage of people in the past were willing to give up their lives than people today. I agree that more people lost their lives for their beliefs in the past, but I'd argue that this is because people were more willing to kill other people who didn't share their beliefs in past centuries than they do today. China's jails are filled with political prisoners willing to die for their beliefs and I imagine that only a small percentage of them are 'religious types'.

So please, the question is what is your evidence that societies were MORE moral in the past than they are today?

On the MAD thing.
It is interesting to me that you can REASON to the conclusion that the threat of Global Extinction makes the MAD doctrine a moral principle because it stopped a hypothetical war. Surely human reason could have sorted this before it got to where it was. This is less than 80 years ago after all.
For me doctrine is unwise at its core and whatever expediency that is used to make it appear moral is self serving and shortsighted. To threaten every single life on the planet because you may be attacked is wrong at its core.
I'd like everyone to go out on the streets tomorrow and say either push the dam button or get rid of the weapons. Morals require skin in the game.

Not sure that I'm claiming that MAD is a moral PRINCIPLE. All I've stated is that it's possible to argue that one result of MAD is that it has forced us to behave in a more moral manner towards one another. Would it have been MORE moral is we DIDN'T have MAD in place and had endured a couple more world wars, with the resulting death, destruction, and suffering?

Finally, I'd like to ask you what moral code do you think is MORE effective at getting people to behave in a moral fashion than the simple ability to empathize and realize that if you don't want people to treat you in a certain way then you shouldn't treat other people in that way?

 

[Moz]

I do not think that is an untenable position that the ending of slavery was an economic inevitability and had little to do with morals except in a retroactive sort of way looking back as a conscience salving exercise. The two great emancipation's in the 1860's were the Russian freeing 23 000 000 serfs and the Americans 4 000 000 Slaves and neither event was based in the moral argument initially. I think that it was the relentless christian polemic against slavery that finally prodded the powerful to make a move on the issue when it became economically viable.

Finally, I'd like to ask you what moral code do you think is MORE effective at getting people to behave in a moral fashion than the simple ability to empathize and realize that if you don't want people to treat you in a certain way then you shouldn't treat other people in that way?

Hi
I am really enjoying the way you think and express your self.

I never suggested that slavery was abolished because of a sudden change in human morality, simply that abolishing slavery has given us a more moral society.
No argument there. The op though does propose that REASON was the driver for moral advance.
If we are to confine reason to the scientific method and technological advances and not human philosophical or metaphysical reasoning then i'm on board.
...........................................................
Actually, no. Women attaining equal rights had nothing to do with economics. It was based on the fact that 51% of the population finally stood up and demanded the rights that the other 49% enjoyed. What IS the same is that I really don't care why women were given equal rights, only that in doing so we became a more moral society.

The "suffargates" were a middle class women's movement led by women who had the economic freedom to be able to devote time and resources to a cause, it was all economic. The strongest moral argument they had was in referring back to the principle that ALL humans contain a spark of divinity that must be acknowledged. A decidedly christian principle.
I am not sure when you think that the voting split was 51 to 49. MOST MEN did not get the right to vote until the mid to late 1800's themselves. MOST MEN have been serfs, slaves or soldiers through out history and very rarely got a say in ANYTHING. The rich and powerfull oppressed men and women with remarkable equality if you really look at the lives of the majority.

On a personal note... if wartime conscription ever became "necessary" again i would hope that women demand their right to be forced into the trenches in equal numbers to the men.
...................................................................
I also reject the idea that men and women were at each other's throats throughout history. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who advocates that position. .

So women are not the victims of a Male dominated Patriarchal hierarchy that has oppressed them through out history. I am glad that you do not see it that way but the previous comment about It was based on the fact that 51% of the population finally stood up and demanded the rights that the other 49% enjoyed and the comment that follows does indicate that you buy into that narrative on some level.
................................................................
I'm not sure I would claim that the the average man had a 'better lot' than the average woman. What I think is undeniable however is that throughout history men have enjoyed greater freedoms, rights, and opportunities than women have. And the more society has moved towards giving women equal freedoms, rights, and opportunities to men, the more moral we have become.

I can deny it. I can not see what greater freedoms that men enjoyed that did not come with greater burdens. Men supplied all the labour in a world that required MUCH labour to just survive. Most men through out history were OWNED by someone in one manner or the other. Men undertook all the trade ventures, which were insanely dangerous and uncomfortable. Life was just as hard for BOTH sides and i think that thinking of this as a man women dichotomy is just a ideological trick of feminism.

I'm a plumber. Over the years i have run across a couple of women who choose my trade and have made a go of it.That's great. But i do not think that women have been kept out my trade in equal numbers because of some male oppression, i think it is because it is heavy labour and not many women could keep up with the physicality of the job. It has ever been thus.
............................................................
China's jails are filled with political prisoners willing to die for their beliefs and I imagine that only a small percentage of them are 'religious types'.

A good point and i will give you some admission of the truthfulness of that.
However political concerns are in the main not issues of morality but of ideology. Yes people can use human reason to die and kill for all sorts of ideologies, the states founded on rational philosophies showed this all to well last century. The religious objectors are based on an OLDER and unchanging set of standards that are impervious to political machinations.
.....................................................................
So please, the question is what is your evidence that societies were MORE moral in the past than they are today?
Since we seem to defining morality as the ability for people in society to live easier lives and express themselves as they wish too and can not include sexual morality in the mix because sex is merely a construct of the patriarchal system that has oppressed men and women and there are no true "rules" in sexual matters then there is no evidence that i can provide.
I would submit that on those parameters that our ancestors were just as moral as we were but not as lucky in some respects.
...............................................................
Finally, I'd like to ask you what moral code do you think is MORE effective at getting people to behave in a moral fashion than the simple ability to empathize and realize that if you don't want people to treat you in a certain way then you shouldn't treat other people in that way?

Thanks for the question, it's a good one.

There is no more effective way than teaching true empathy. My point though is that is not a new discovery unearthed by the power of human reason. It was the stories of Eden and Cain and Abraham and David and Jesus and Paul and John that i was told as a child that put certain concepts in my makeup that could be reasoned on and expanded as i aged. The hero stories and fairytales that we tell our kids are based on ancient principles of moral choices and the battle between the good and evil within ourselves. Slaying the Dragon as the object of the Hero is the story of the Bible. I think that if we were all more honest and recognized the source of the stories we tell ourselves when judging good from bad we would have a better chance of having a world of moral agreement rather than moral diaspora.

Although i do not think empathy is all that is needed. There are people who are just not naturally all that empathetic. When my natural proclivity for self interest comes up against the interest of others i have other trusted examples that i can reason on to navigate through the grey.... and the grey is where we die in these things.
Then there is malevolence. We live in a hostile world that is extremely hard to navigate through without doing harm. I have examples i trust of how people in the past have dealt with malevolence and sometimes the answer was that it may kill you but it is still BETTER if you stand firm.
Then there is judgement. I have no resentment or angst against the state of being nor do i view life as against me because i know that injustice will be sorted and we will all be given the opportunity to chose our destiny one way or another.
In short... i think that the moral code our judeo/christian forbears chose to follow should be the base standard that communal human moral is built on.

Peace

 

[Stevicus]

To some extent, yes, but 'street smarts' sells it a bit short. I'd say real-world smarts, or perhaps wisdom.

Book smarts often fail in real world situations, for example: Long-Term Capital Management - Wikipedia

Many "less intelligent" traders make money because they understand markets and people and how to avoid being a sucker, real-world smarts, yet couldn't begin to understand the complex formulae of mathematical quants.

You might be able to quantify certain types of reasoning ability in a vacuum, but better reasoning ability also enables you to reason your way into holding stupid beliefs, and reason your way out of accepting any evidence that you dislike (see cited scientific studies above).

"Intelligence" also makes it easier for us to acquire and apply false information (anti-knowledge).

"Intelligence" is not wisdom, and wisdom is the only thing that really counts whether it comes from experience, intelligence, common sense or something else..

There is no rigorous way to quantify intelligence, just arbitrarily selected mental capabilities.

You might be able to quantify certain types of reasoning ability in a vacuum, but better reasoning ability also enables you to reason your way into holding stupid beliefs, and reason your way out of accepting any evidence that you dislike.

Book smarts also makes it easier for us to acquire and apply false information (anti-knowledge) which is often more harmful than ignorance. They are only helpful if you were trained correctly, or if you have the wisdom/smarts to identify and undo bad training.

IQ "intelligence" is not wisdom/real world smarts, and wisdom is the only thing that really counts whether it comes from experience, intelligence, common sense or something else.

Yes, this all makes sense. I can't find anything here I disagree with. Although I did have to look up the word "quant," and started thinking of how many people's level of intelligence is so often confined to certain specific areas. Everything is so specialized in this day and age, since it's impossible for any individual to know everything.

That's the point though. To be a successful drug lord you need both masses of real-world intelligence, and the qualities/nerves/ruthlessness to survive in the criminal environment. You need all to be able to thrive.

To be a great politician, you need masses of real world intelligence, and also the vision and political skills to be successful. Even then, a great peacetime leader might not be a great wartime leader.

In UK pre-WW2 there were countless ferociously intelligent MPs, yet most wanted 'peace in our time' and appeasement. Churchill was pretty much alone in his insistence that this only made things worse. This isn't because he had a higher IQ than everyone else, but because he understood this aspect of the real-world better. He was a great leader because his skillset fitted the environment. Had he been born 60 years later we might well never have heard of him. That is why simplistic standardised "intelligence" metrics are worthless in a complex, non-standardised world.

IQ doesn't measure independent thought, vision, foresight, opportunism, the ability to be a risk taker/risk averse in the right situations, creativity, and countless other things that are generally far more important than "IQ intelligence".

It also can't legislate for people who are below average at most things, yet excel at one thing in particular. When choosing someone to do task A, I'd prefer someone who was excellent at task A, yet awful at tasks X,Y, Z, rather than choosing someone who was slightly above average at tasks A, X, Y, Z.

Yes, I agree. People have different personality types, skills, and talents which make some more suitable for some jobs over others. If someone was excellent at task A, then I agree, put them on the job. Even the job of leadership; some people seem to have a natural talent for that, while others might struggle at the top job while still excelling at responsible yet subordinate positions.

Even the person in the leadership role may not necessarily be as smart or expert as those working under them. They have to employ aides and consultants whom they trust to provide them with expert knowledge needed to conduct their affairs. This is where it gets dicey.

 

[Shadow Link]

I believe if there is no immorality then there is no bad reasoning. Bad reasoning is a value judgement.

The biggest problem for extreme liberalism is trying to prove that a non-intrinsic value has extrinsic value for the whole. Mostly made up of stuff & nonsense -- A.K.A, "Lets just promote the idea that *past A* was way worse than *modern B* without making a reference point to our *modern B* agenda, representing it therefore natural and mute so that *modern B* should thus gain more support by claiming and encompassing 'reason' alone."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

When the rubber meets the road and we have to make a quick moral choice, we don't stand there and reason it out. We act on intuition.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi
I am really enjoying the way you think and express your self.

I never suggested that slavery was abolished because of a sudden change in human morality, simply that abolishing slavery has given us a more moral society.
No argument there. The op though does propose that REASON was the driver for moral advance.
If we are to confine reason to the scientific method and technological advances and not human philosophical or metaphysical reasoning then i'm on board.
...........................................................
Actually, no. Women attaining equal rights had nothing to do with economics. It was based on the fact that 51% of the population finally stood up and demanded the rights that the other 49% enjoyed. What IS the same is that I really don't care why women were given equal rights, only that in doing so we became a more moral society.

The "suffargates" were a middle class women's movement led by women who had the economic freedom to be able to devote time and resources to a cause, it was all economic. The strongest moral argument they had was in referring back to the principle that ALL humans contain a spark of divinity that must be acknowledged. A decidedly christian principle.
I am not sure when you think that the voting split was 51 to 49. MOST MEN did not get the right to vote until the mid to late 1800's themselves. MOST MEN have been serfs, slaves or soldiers through out history and very rarely got a say in ANYTHING. The rich and powerfull oppressed men and women with remarkable equality if you really look at the lives of the majority.

On a personal note... if wartime conscription ever became "necessary" again i would hope that women demand their right to be forced into the trenches in equal numbers to the men.
...................................................................
I also reject the idea that men and women were at each other's throats throughout history. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who advocates that position. .

So women are not the victims of a Male dominated Patriarchal hierarchy that has oppressed them through out history. I am glad that you do not see it that way but the previous comment about It was based on the fact that 51% of the population finally stood up and demanded the rights that the other 49% enjoyed and the comment that follows does indicate that you buy into that narrative on some level.
................................................................
I'm not sure I would claim that the the average man had a 'better lot' than the average woman. What I think is undeniable however is that throughout history men have enjoyed greater freedoms, rights, and opportunities than women have. And the more society has moved towards giving women equal freedoms, rights, and opportunities to men, the more moral we have become.

I can deny it. I can not see what greater freedoms that men enjoyed that did not come with greater burdens. Men supplied all the labour in a world that required MUCH labour to just survive. Most m
Then there is malevolence. We live in a hostile world that is extremely hard to navigate through without doing harm. I have examples i trust of how people in the past have dealt with malevolence and sometimes the answer was that it may kill you but it is still BETTER if you stand firm.
Then there is judgement. I have no resentment or angst against the state of being nor do i view life as against me because i know that injustice will be sorted and we will all be given the opportunity to chose our destiny one way or another.
In short... i think that the moral code our judeo/christian forbears chose to follow should be the base standard that communal human moral is built on.

Peace

No argument there. The op though does propose that REASON was the driver for moral advance.
If we are to confine reason to the scientific method and technological advances and not human philosophical or metaphysical reasoning then i'm on board.

Yes, and it was human reason that led us to abolish slavery. It doesn't matter if it economics that led us to do so, the reality is that laws created by human beings finally led to the abolishing slavery... not any laws or morals proposed by any religion.

The "suffargates" were a middle class women's movement led by women who had the economic freedom to be able to devote time and resources to a cause, it was all economic. The strongest moral argument they had was in referring back to the principle that ALL humans contain a spark of divinity that must be acknowledged. A decidedly christian principle.
I am not sure when you think that the voting split was 51 to 49. MOST MEN did not get the right to vote until the mid to late 1800's themselves. MOST MEN have been serfs, slaves or soldiers through out history and very rarely got a say in ANYTHING. The rich and powerfull oppressed men and women with remarkable equality if you really look at the lives of the majority.

I agree, it was women with a degree of economic freedom that led the charge for voting rights. However, society didn't adopt voting rights for women because it was in societies economic interest to do so. Actually the notion that all people are created equal originated from Enlightenment thinkers such as the founding fathers of the United States. Christianity basically pushed the notion that slaves should obey their masters while here on Earth and anything close to equality would come in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The 51 to 49 split is the percentage of women compared to the percentage of men. No argument that throughout history MOST men lived lives of toil and desperation. However, you're woefully ignorant of history if you don't realize that men STILL enjoyed greater freedoms, rights, and opportunities than women did. Even a lowly serf had authority over the women in his life. True, he might be subjected to beatings and abuse from every other man in his life, but when he got home to his hovel, HE was the one who could beat and abuse his wife and children with impunity.

I can deny it. I can not see what greater freedoms that men enjoyed that did not come with greater burdens. Men supplied all the labour in a world that required MUCH labour to just survive. Most men through out history were OWNED by someone in one manner or the other. Men undertook all the trade ventures, which were insanely dangerous and uncomfortable. Life was just as hard for BOTH sides and i think that thinking of this as a man women dichotomy is just a ideological trick of feminism.

I'm a plumber. Over the years i have run across a couple of women who choose my trade and have made a go of it.That's great. But i do not think that women have been kept out my trade in equal numbers because of some male oppression, i think it is because it is heavy labour and not many women could keep up with the physicality of the job. It has ever been thus.

No one claimed that the greater freedoms, rights, and opportunities didn't come with additional responsibilities. But the fact that men had greater responsibilities does NOT alter the fact that they ALSO enjoyed more rights, freedoms, and opportunities. And realistically, men did NOT perform all of the labor. The vast majority of women spent their entire lives performing back breaking labor as well. The difference was that the TYPES of labor that women were allowed to perform were extremely limited.

So glad that you have no problem with qualified women becoming plumbers. However, the reality is that men like you have always had the opportunity to at least TRY and pursue a career as a plumber. For the majority of history being a female excluded them from even trying, regardless of how capable they might have been. Thankfully today most women live in a society where people get jobs based on ability, not their genitalia. Unfortunately we still have a ways to go.

Thanks for the question, it's a good one.

There is no more effective way than teaching true empathy. My point though is that is not a new discovery unearthed by the power of human reason. It was the stories of Eden and Cain and Abraham and David and Jesus and Paul and John that i was told as a child that put certain concepts in my makeup that could be reasoned on and expanded as i aged. The hero stories and fairytales that we tell our kids are based on ancient principles of moral choices and the battle between the good and evil within ourselves. Slaying the Dragon as the object of the Hero is the story of the Bible. I think that if we were all more honest and recognized the source of the stories we tell ourselves when judging good from bad we would have a better chance of having a world of moral agreement rather than moral diaspora.

Although i do not think empathy is all that is needed. There are people who are just not naturally all that empathetic. When my natural proclivity for self interest comes up against the interest of others i have other trusted examples that i can reason on to navigate through the grey.... and the grey is where we die in these things.
Then there is malevolence. We live in a hostile world that is extremely hard to navigate through without doing harm. I have examples i trust of how people in the past have dealt with malevolence and sometimes the answer was that it may kill you but it is still BETTER if you stand firm.
Then there is judgement. I have no resentment or angst against the state of being nor do i view life as against me because i know that injustice will be sorted and we will all be given the opportunity to chose our destiny one way or another.
In short... i think that the moral code our judeo/christian forbears chose to follow should be the base standard that communal human moral is built on.

Sorry, but it seems to me that our judeo/christian forbears had 2000 years to implement a more moral society. Yet it wasn't until the Enlightenment when people started to put human laws above any religious laws that we finally started to make some progress. The idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was a novice idea back then. The Church certainly didn't support such a notion. It took human beings deciding to separate religion from their government who finally started to make moral progress in the world. Religions didn't get rid of slavery... secular society did. Religion didn't provide equality for women... secular society did. The truth is that the places were women are still treated like property is in nations were religious morality trumps secular morality.

Human law, based on reason and what's best for society has been far more successful in moving us towards moral behavior than thousands of years of religious laws ever did.

 

[Moz]

="QuestioningMind, post: 6350850, member: 25412"]
Whoops

 

[Moz]

Sorry, but it seems to me that our judeo/christian forbears had 2000 years to implement a more moral society. Yet it wasn't until the Enlightenment when people started to put human laws above any religious laws that we finally started to make some progress. The idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was a novice idea back then. The Church certainly didn't support such a notion. It took human beings deciding to separate religion from their government who finally started to make moral progress in the world. Religions didn't get rid of slavery... secular society did. Religion didn't provide equality for women... secular society did. The truth is that the places were women are still treated like property is in nations were religious morality trumps secular morality.

Human law, based on reason and what's best for society has been far more successful in moving us towards moral behavior than thousands of years of religious laws ever did.

Hi

For someone who said they didn't buy into the male patriarchal oppression narrative you sure spew their talking points over and over and over. It's a poor analysis of the past, you should read first hand accounts from history and not fully believe the lefty feminist propaganda, the truth is in the middle somewhere.

I noticed that you not give examples of the so called greater rights that ordinary men had that women did not. I would be interested to know what you think these rights were, but i do not think you will be able to because the male oppressor ideology has no basis in fact.
.................................................
It seems at every point you have agreed that economics and technology have been the driver but still want to claim that some fundamental moral improvement has been made. It is a superficial, self serving and frankly arrogant claim that is built on a 500 trillion that's $500 000 000 000 000 global debt and when that catches up with us your so-called moral progress will last how long.
Peace

 

[Earthtank]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

"Reason" is subjective and therefore, trying to build "Progress" on subjectivity will never lead to progress or peace.

 

[Earthtank]

In what way?
I see it as improving.

Every way possible starting from the top (leaders and "role models")

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi

For someone who said they didn't buy into the male patriarchal oppression narrative you sure spew their talking points over and over and over. It's a poor analysis of the past, you should read first hand accounts from history and not fully believe the lefty feminist propaganda, the truth is in the middle somewhere.

I noticed that you not give examples of the so called greater rights that ordinary men had that women did not. I would be interested to know what you think these rights were, but i do not think you will be able to because the male oppressor ideology has no basis in fact.
.................................................
It seems at every point you have agreed that economics and technology have been the driver but still want to claim that some fundamental moral improvement has been made. It is a superficial, self serving and frankly arrogant claim that is built on a 500 trillion that's $500 000 000 000 000 global debt and when that catches up with us your so-called moral progress will last how long.
Peace

The greater rights included the right to own property, the right to enter into a contract, the right to vote, the right to pursue career opportunities. You don't even have to go back in history. In nations that have NOT adopted secular laws and instead still reply on religious laws, women STILL can't vote, own property, enter in to contracts, freely work, drive a car, or even go out in public without an escort. These are simply FACTS. No 'feminist propaganda' involved. That you can sit there and claim that women have NOT had fewer rights and opportunities suggests that it's YOU have been brainwashed by the conservative right that appears so very afraid of acknowledging the inequalities of the past and that still exist in the present.

What I've claimed is that SECULAR laws have done FAR MORE to advance our morality than RELIGIOUS LAWS ever have. I noticed that you didn't respond to the reality that for 2000 years the Christian religion did nothing to abolish slavery... and it was a nations using SECULAR laws that finally accomplished it.

 

[PureX]

The greater rights included the right to own property, the right to enter into a contract, the right to vote, the right to pursue career opportunities. You don't even have to go back in history. In nations that have NOT adopted secular laws and instead still reply on religious laws, women STILL can't vote, own property, enter in to contracts, freely work, drive a car, or even go out in public without an escort. These are simply FACTS. No 'feminist propaganda' involved. That you can sit there and claim that women have NOT had fewer rights and opportunities suggests that it's YOU have been brainwashed by the conservative right that appears so very afraid of acknowledging the inequalities of the past and that still exist in the present.

What I've claimed is that SECULAR laws have done FAR MORE to advance our morality than RELIGIOUS LAWS ever have. I noticed that you didn't respond to the reality that for 2000 years the Christian religion did nothing to abolish slavery... and it was a nations using SECULAR laws that finally accomplished it.

Slavery has not been abolished, it's just been very cleverly disguised as "free enterprise" (credit/debt).