Which serves individuals & society best?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2018 02:59PM by GNPE.

Morals seem to function on 6 related scales. As each individual weights each scale differently there are no universal values. Similarly there is no coherence on local scales except to the extent that individuals self select a matching locale.

When mobility was lower, there was more effort to accomodate difference, but also a similar act of not flaunting your difference as the true absolute we see more today.

We're working in the tribal instincts we evolved with. Whether these instincts are still serving us well is debatable but I have no doubt we will continue to evolve there over time.

I hope we develop ways to voluntarily adapt or change them to serve us even better.

This would depend on the actual content of those values and principles.

There are plenty of sick societies on this planet, some healthier societies (with partial sick content), and some societies which are actually pretty healthy overall.

Unfortunately, so-called "universal" values and principles (as perceived from the internal perspective of those societies) can be extremely unhealthy/harmful/lethal--again: depending on the content.

[Easy example: Nazi Germany, from one perspective, was a country brimming with all kinds of laudable "universal" values (health, education, cultural achievements in the arts, scientific prowess, etc.)...but the OTHER parts of Nazi Germany's values and principles, which reached into the lives of every individual, and every family, every home, and every town and village in what turned out to be most of that part of the planet, were responsible for the imprisonment, torture, maiming, and murder of millions of people, beginning with Jews--but extending to other ethnic groups like Gypsies, and into every home, as the Nazis efficiently plucked away those, such as malformed, or physically/mentally deficient children of even the "best" families, who did not fit into the schematic of Nazi values and principles.]

The answer to what you are asking is: It is all in the content.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2018 03:49PM by Tevai.

Personally, I think it's the height of human arrogance to proclaim *anything* we humans think or do as "universal." On the assumption that we're the only intelligent life in the universe. To me, it's the same as the (wrong) assumption that the sun goes around the earth. That our little part of the universe is the center of it. And that our values are "universal"...

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think it's the height of human
> arrogance to proclaim *anything* we humans think
> or do as "universal."

I agree with you, Hie. I was answering a question which contained given words, so I was answering what, to me, were the most important considerations from those given words. In a far larger context--the ACTUAL universe, so far as we are able to comprehend it--it is obvious (to me), that the word "universal" extends far beyond our understanding of our own species.

In daily life, the word "universal," as used in colloquial communication, IS often used ["universal health care," for example] as a collective descriptor to refer solely to humans (who exist on our planet--or specifically, in the case of "universal health care" as the example, to humans who reside ONLY within the boundaries of the United States of America).

This doesn't mean that this use of this word is accurate, just that it is often used as a communication device in common speech.


> On the assumption that
> we're the only intelligent life in the universe.

Not only are we homo sapiens sapiens VERY likely NOT the only intelligent life in the universe which exists outside of Earth's boundaries, we human beings are increasingly learning that, in so many different and very often totally unexpected ways, we are not the only "intelligent life" on this planet.

Although I began questioning what I was being told (about "intelligent life" and "who," precisely, has this kind of intelligence) as I was growing up (because what I was being told about this subject had at least the appearance of being bogus), as I became an adult, I also--in step with my developing intellectual and ethical maturity--learned what had been discovered, and a good bit of what is BEING discovered, and became a deeply committed animal rights advocate, which I very much am today.

Concerning this thread, I just (without actually thinking about it) assumed that the opening post was framed within the boundaries of human values and human principles only. From your perspective, my assumption was wrong. Sorry!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2018 05:42PM by Tevai.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Tevai.

Its common usage is, I think, a holdover from when earlier humans actually thought their little corner of the planet (which they didn't know they were on) WAS the "universe."

And you know me, I like to stir the pot when it comes to holdovers from more ignorant times...:)

" . . . as I became an adult, I also--in step with my developing intellectual and ethical maturity--learned what had been discovered, and a good bit of what is BEING discovered, and became a deeply committed animal rights advocate, which I very much am today."

COMMENT: Clearly you are right that animals (and humans generally) have a variety of properties that might be associated with "intelligence." As such, arguably intelligence of itself should not be a determinative factor when assigning respect for life, or assigning rights. But, even assuming that, what criteria is there for making such moral judgmenhts and assignments, other than simply whatever species is dominant. And, why is that criteria unacceptable: Why isn't the adage 'might make right' an acceptable moral criterion unless there is some other "universal" criteria to hang one's moral hat on?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: ...As such, arguably intelligence of itself
> should not be a determinative factor when assigning respect
> for life, or assigning rights.

I agree on this, and an easy way to explain my position is to cite non-human animals who have what we can recognize as human-like intelligence (octopi, who are one of many possible examples--plus: our primate cousins, dolphins, crows, possibly elephants, etc.)--or, at the other end of the spectrum, human beings whose intelligence is a fraction of what would normally be expected from that person, because of congenital issues, traumatic injury, brain wounds/brain surgery, brain malfunctioning due to inborn or acquired structural issues, or to things like diseases.

We have easily available examples of extremely high-functioning (by our expectations) non-human beings, and extremely low-functioning (by our normal expectations) of humans who were born, or became, markedly limited in their abilities to notice, comprehend, remember, or think.

In human beings, intelligence (or the lack of intelligence) is widely not recognized as a moral/ethical criteria to NOT allow, or TO allow, many kinds of medical experimentation, torture, torturous military interrogation, etc. When these lines are breached (and they often are, and have been throughout history), then we are into very serious moral/ethical territory.


> But, even assuming that, what criteria is there for making
> such moral judgmenhts and assignments, other than simply
> whatever species is dominant.

So far as I am able to see, dominance appears to be the principal principle ;) utilized throughout most of history. Whether the dominance comes from superior weaponry, or group identification (race, caste, religion, political affiliation, social class, etc.--plus species, in some cases), "might makes right" has been, most often, the actual rationale proffered--very often with some kind of "God wants this to happen" explanation.


> And, why is that criteria unacceptable: Why isn't the
> adage 'might make right' an acceptable moral criterion unless
> there is some other "universal" criteria to hang
> one's moral hat on?

This is, of course, the basic question.

My deeply-felt personal question is (and has been for a long time) DOES "might makes right" offer the optimum way for us (either individually, or as groups) to live our lives?

I grew up in a family (maternal side) where the Tulsa Massacre/"Tulsa Race Riot" of 1921 was literally dinner table conversation. (My Mom, born in a Tulsa suburb, was two years old when this happened.)

Were the white people (a group which includes ancestors of mine), who were indeed dominant not only in that area, but in that state and in that area of the country, "right" to murder hundreds of black people and burn down their houses and businesses because, basically, the white people there just kinda felt like it on that early summer day? [There are still, today, efforts ongoing to find the remains of the those murdered in this massacre whose bodies were dumped, have not yet been found, and are, therefore, still uncounted.]

What about Emmett Till in Mississippi, and all of the other victims of lynching in US history? Is it "universally" okay to kill people because you are, in fact, dominant over them?

Enslave them?

Steal their land?

Perform medical experiments (often horrific) and vivisections on them while they are still alive? [CAUTION: Once you read or see the reality of what I am going to reference, you will not be able to then forget it, so please: know yourself, and do not proceed unless you know you can deal with what you find. The first list of Google results, without going any further, will given you enough to know what I am referencing, but the actual records and photos I have seen which are now part of the public record cannot then be "un-seen" or "un-known." The subject is: Unit 731, Japan, WWII. There WERE some American POW's who were caught up in this after they were captured. "We," the United States, were also the "beneficiary" of this research and the research results after the Japanese lost in WWII.]

So: IS dominance over someone, or some other group, or some other species, enough to justify whatever "you" (whoever this is) decide to do to them?

And if dominance fails as a justifiable reason, is SIZE a justifiable reason? (If we are bigger, or better armed, than those we want to dominate, does this give us the RIGHT to dominate?) (After that, we go to the old reliables: gender, race, religion, caste, social class, etc.)

The immediate question is about dominance.

If "you" do absolutely have the ABILITY to dominate another person or animal or being, do you then have the RIGHT to do it?

It is going to be interesting for me to read the responses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2018 10:03PM by Tevai.

"Personally, I think it's the height of human arrogance to proclaim *anything* we humans think or do as "universal." On the assumption that we're the only intelligent life in the universe. To me, it's the same as the (wrong) assumption that the sun goes around the earth. That our little part of the universe is the center of it. And that our values are "universal"..."

COMMENT: You are painting with a very broad brush here. I am not sure your characterization "height of human arrogance" as applied to "anything" humans think might be universal is justified. For example, finding what are assumed to be the "universal" laws of nature, is, after all, what scientists do. Moreover, most people (I think) would insist that there is something "universal" about mathematics, as discovered and used by humans.

The search for universal psychological laws and related values may be a more difficult problem, but certainly does not of itself imply arrogance. It is just an attempt to understand what general properties humans might share, including, perhaps, shared values. Some of these proposed values might have a universal character based simply upon standards associated with the basic requirements of social communication and social interaction. Such "values" might arguably apply not only across cultures, but across galaxies where intelligent life exists.

Note that humans are supposed to have evolved in accordance with the foundational "values" of survival and reproduction, both of which are "universal" within standard evolutionary theory. It is not arrogance, although perhaps otherwise misguided, to assume that any life in the universe would also have such values simply in order to flourish. We simply do not know whether such values are "universal" in a literal sense. But, why would it be arrogant to assume so based upon observations of our own experience here on earth, particularly when there is no suggestion of "superiority" associated with the term "universal."

Of course, when one society imposes or projects its own values on another society by simply announcing that such values are universal and thus superior that is another matter. In short, it is one thing to make an arrogant judgment that the earth is the center of the universe in order to elevate earthly humans in the grand scheme of things, and quite another thing to wonder whether all human life (or all life generally) might share some basic values as a result of the same or a similar evolutionary heritage.

Thanks for your thoughts, Henry.

I'll just point out that science doesn't assume anything is "universal" -- the properties of matter/energy in all their forms we painstakingly discover using the scientific method are always qualified as "so far as we can observe and test." Numerous observations and tests validate that everywhere we can look/test, the "laws" appear to apply. But there's no assumption involved, and the qualification is always kept in mind.

Newton did indeed use terms like "universal" in an arrogant way. Which is ironic given that while what he found and documented mathematically was amazing, it was also only one part of the bigger picture relativity brought to bear. At any rate, Newton's days are long over...as scientific exploration has revealed our not-special place in the universe, our human-centered arrogance decreased. In science, at least. :)

I'll just point out that science doesn't assume anything is "universal" -- the properties of matter/energy in all their forms we painstakingly discover using the scientific method are always qualified as "so far as we can observe and test." Numerous observations and tests validate that everywhere we can look/test, the "laws" appear to apply. But there's no assumption involved, and the qualification is always kept in mind.

COMMENT: Well, there is (as you suggest) a posture of tentativeness in science. However, there is also an assumption that there are natural laws and a "universal" order to the universe that can to some extent be discovered by science, and described with the rigors of mathematics. Otherwise, there would be no point in engaging in science. Some scientists have outrighted called this assumption "faith," an unfortunate religious reference in my view.
___________________________________________

Newton did indeed use terms like "universal" in an arrogant way. Which is ironic given that while what he found and documented mathematically was amazing, it was also only one part of the bigger picture relativity brought to bear. At any rate, Newton's days are long over...as scientific exploration has revealed our not-special place in the universe, our human-centered arrogance decreased. In science, at least. :)

COMMENT: Well, I tend to attribute such comments by Newton as part of his religious heritage, which occasionally seeped into his scientific writing. I think it is fair to say that any "human-centered" arrogance that might once have existed in science is long since dead.

There is kindness, understanding, empathy, and reciprocity. These are wonderful assets to humanity on their own when they are employed in their simple honest form.

Unfortunately we live on a planet where kindness is taken as weakness, giving is take as gullibility, and being empathetic will get you called a "snowflake" in today's grade school parlance now used by adults.

Some people are nice and some people aren't. Perhaps Maya Angelou wasn't right after all when she said "We are more alike, my friends, than we are different."

Why worry about the rules when not everyone is playing by them? Sometimes integrity is a negative that some of us are hopeless hooked on?

"Why worry about the rules when not everyone is playing by them? Sometimes integrity is a negative that some of us are hopeless hooked on?"

COMMENT: Because if no one worries about moral rules and mores, such rules will soon lose their meaning entirely and we will live in a world of self-centered nihilism. Being "hopelessly hooked on" moral principles like integrity is what it means to be human--even if some take advantage by exploiting such rules.

Calling integrity a negative is dangerously cynical.

There was a question mark at the end of that sentence because I think it is something to consider. The question mark indicates that it is not an emphatic pronouncement. Clearly we have different sets of rules for this conversation. No?

If no one is playing by the rules but you, perhaps the rules are useless. You will always get to keep your integrity perhaps by adhering to your own personal idea of the rules. So, in that case, what is the true value of integrity?

If you end up on the bottom of the heap, spent, defeated, what is your integrity worth. It is a very serious question that has no universal value. It is extremely personal. We can always evolve and change our minds about what we think is honorable.

Considering that integrity could be a negative is just being willing to look at an idea from all angles. And I do find value in cynicism. Enlightening, not dangerous, except that perhaps exploration always carries an element of danger.

glad I started this thread, Thanks for your comments!