evilgenius wrote:SeaGypsy wrote:The assertion by EvilG that ethics requires more than fear of negative consequences of behaviour outside the social ethics of your environment is spurious.
The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.
That's flat out wrong. It is fear which provides the basis upon which all of the things you mention can thrive. Mostly, fear that love has no solution for them. That it has no efficacy. Just try training an animal by brutalizing it every time that it fails to do what you want as opposed to rewarding it when it does right and you will see what I mean. In order to understand ethics you have to believe that right works, and that it works for you. Once there you will see that being good is its own reward. The unbelief of fear, that short circuit is an easy out. It comes because your average person is not capable of seeing enough of the pieces to put two and two together.
As I've said before, it would require super human memory for a truly ethical human to exist, and that only after trial and error. People don't have those kinds of memories. Instead they reinvent themselves in light of their own view of themselves as whatever construct their own selfishness has created for them at the time they do so. As a way to cope with the troubles this creates for them most people turn to the collective in order to measure themselves and make sure they at least fit in somehow. They don't realize the collective can't be trusted. Wisdom is a much better alternative, but to achieve that one must endeavor to at least partially solve the memory problem, so that comparison of like situations, at various levels, can be gotten at. Even then you can't be certain that your memory isn't fooling you, so that your analogies actually match in enough ways to pass a standard of validity pertinent to the situation you are attempting to solve.
onlooker wrote:It dawns on me AD, that unfortunately, the evolution of this social circular reasoning did not compel mankind to take more care of Mother Earth. I wonder what is your take on why we in all the span of human civilization not come to the point of rationalizing the importance of Earth. That is why I think reason alone may not suffice, mankind can most respond to a profound emotional message and I am persuaded to believe this message must point to the profound dysfunctional nature of our ethics and value system. Because at its heart I cannot quite accept that it is a problem of reasoning but rather of ethics whereby we are not prone to wars, destruction and domination but rather a creed of empathy, nurturing and care as I described above in the timeless virtues. Only by adopting this value system which incidentally speaks to the above posts about what we assign value too or how much value we assign, so we MUST assign the highest values to actions and thoughts that are positive in all respects.
SeaGypsy wrote:The assertion by EvilG that ethics requires more than fear of negative consequences of behaviour outside the social ethics of your environment is spurious.
The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.
The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts.
Ibon wrote:onlooker wrote:On a personal note how are things in the bush so to speak Ibon? Your posts seem to conjure up this pristine setting which you are fortunate to have. I guess it is tough for us to have the personal experience of nature that you have had. Something some city folk like me envy. By the way Ibon stands for bird right?
The nature here is breathtaking and we live essentially in a national park. The project is demanding. The situation: I am almost 60 years old. Access to Mount Totumas is 10km up a 4WD road. The place is spectacular and borders an immense upland wilderness. The managing and running of it is slowly getting beyond the scope of an older couple. I am right now in the beginning phases of creating a non profit foundation whose mission will be to preserve this as a wilderness for as long as this legal entity will be respected by modern governments. I hope to open up ownership of the foundation to other individuals who share our vision for this place. Folks who can also commit to the sweat equity of spending several months a year here. Since this will never be a business any foundation member will be putting in funds that is not an "investment" so much as "benefactor" funds for preservation. Other members will have to have a degree of independent financial wealth. I hope to be a part of this project into my old age as a member of this foundation with others.
SeaGypsy wrote:evilgenius wrote:SeaGypsy wrote:The assertion by EvilG that ethics requires more than fear of negative consequences of behaviour outside the social ethics of your environment is spurious.
The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.
That's flat out wrong. It is fear which provides the basis upon which all of the things you mention can thrive. Mostly, fear that love has no solution for them. That it has no efficacy. Just try training an animal by brutalizing it every time that it fails to do what you want as opposed to rewarding it when it does right and you will see what I mean. In order to understand ethics you have to believe that right works, and that it works for you. Once there you will see that being good is its own reward. The unbelief of fear, that short circuit is an easy out. It comes because your average person is not capable of seeing enough of the pieces to put two and two together.
As I've said before, it would require super human memory for a truly ethical human to exist, and that only after trial and error. People don't have those kinds of memories. Instead they reinvent themselves in light of their own view of themselves as whatever construct their own selfishness has created for them at the time they do so. As a way to cope with the troubles this creates for them most people turn to the collective in order to measure themselves and make sure they at least fit in somehow. They don't realize the collective can't be trusted. Wisdom is a much better alternative, but to achieve that one must endeavor to at least partially solve the memory problem, so that comparison of like situations, at various levels, can be gotten at. Even then you can't be certain that your memory isn't fooling you, so that your analogies actually match in enough ways to pass a standard of validity pertinent to the situation you are attempting to solve.
"That's flat out wrong" then a paragraph agreeing with me? Huh? Everything you counter with is an extension of my argument, are you one of those 'must disagree' people? It is very basic psychology we are talking about- carrot & stick. All humans respond more effectively to one or the other. The society which has plenty of carrots needs fewer sticks. (This is the insanity of the USA, plenty of carrots, plenty of insane use of sticks, a whole lot of people in the horrid position of having an insane monkey on their back dangling a carrot & flogging their arse non stop regardless how hard they go for the carrot).
You have a highly individualised view of ethics. This ignores the fact that ethics always emerge in groups. You have an ethic, sure, but it is shared ethics which are of consequence, ie. group & task/ objective specific ethics define culture, which defines the people in the culture as well as what is anomalous to the people & culture. There is no need for proscribed universality in the practical development & application of ethics, any more than 'God' or the 'Singing Stones' or whatever local deity needs to be real for it's followers to develop moral/ ethical/ religious maturity. Of course there is always history involved in developing culture, but history is flawed, unknowable in fact, therefore culture developed nominally on a sense of history is in fact building on an aspect of poetry, (AD's fascination with dialectics) while cultural confirmation in historical confirmation is held as mere collective bias, not subjective truth.
I can't see your position much differing from singularists who ultimately want to hand authority over to the machine, as soon as the machine proves clever enough. Without going into a diatribe on the merits or otherwise of AI, there is not much to indicate mass following of applied wisdom in how culture & ethics are being developed now. Ask anyone you consider wise, if they think society is progressing wisely, you will all get the same answer. Same goes when a computer spits out the perfect plan for humanity on the planet, the people won't play without carrot & stick. As I began, basic psychology.
onlooker wrote:Evil your proposed scheme is too limited even if it works. It does not confront the comprehensive and full challenges that would lie ahead. Economic matters will be minor problems compared with problems of pure survival and getting along together and rebuilding some semblance of a functioning society. Of course Ethical Man is an abstraction yet it is the ideal which we should all be striving for and it can be done with a personal appeal to every single human. Others think like you Evil that humans cannot progress to this level. I remain optimistic because we have the potential to do so.
SeaGypsy wrote:So AD, given that 'landed wealth' is the primary basis of the rentier economy no developed country is going to willingly forgo: a revolutionary position on land holding is mandatory. The breathing space of direct control of collective surplus through rebellion against the land control system is the only way to begin to establish a truly collective economy. A side door may be for wealthy benefactors to freely hand full control to collectives, as has happened occasionally. However the lack of such a benefactor should not be an insurmountable object to establishment of collectives in the way it is.
A legal pro-forma needs to be designed to support establishment of alternative tenure. This needs to be done at the top brass legal level, with challenges ready for every level of the legal system, which should buy at least a decade of time for the emergent claimant collective to become established & to spawn further such land rebellion communities.
would you agree?
SeaGypsy wrote: It is very basic psychology we are talking about- carrot & stick. All humans respond more effectively to one or the other. The society which has plenty of carrots needs fewer sticks. (This is the insanity of the USA, plenty of carrots, plenty of insane use of sticks, a whole lot of people in the horrid position of having an insane monkey on their back dangling a carrot & flogging their arse non stop regardless how hard they go for the carrot).
onlooker wrote:Evil your proposed scheme is too limited even if it works. It does not confront the comprehensive and full challenges that would lie ahead. Economic matters will be minor problems compared with problems of pure survival and getting along together and rebuilding some semblance of a functioning society. Of course Ethical Man is an abstraction yet it is the ideal which we should all be striving for and it can be done with a personal appeal to every single human. Others think like you Evil that humans cannot progress to this level. I remain optimistic because we have the potential to do so.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests