Trump's leadership team

[IDBillzFan]

More basic, barbaric thinking?

 

And what prompted those with basic, barbaric thinking to decide that their thinking was basic and barbaric and not moral?

 

You said it was not something "mystical" that made this happen, which means you believe it must be something physical and real that gives everyone this sense of morality, right?

 

So what would that physical, real thing be?

[Chef Jim]

What's your explanation for all the hate, murder, rape,

 

Charming...........

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

And what prompted those with basic, barbaric thinking to decide that their thinking was basic and barbaric and not moral?

 

You said it was not something "mystical" that made this happen, which means you believe it must be something physical and real that gives everyone this sense of morality, right?

 

So what would that physical, real thing be?

 

Improved forms of culture and governance from tribalism to small city states to ever-larger nation-states, among other things. Greater complexity and organization among people. Creation of law, starting in mesopotamia and constant evolution of those basic laws.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

From this foundation, SOME cultures evolved to more just laws, some did not (see, Saudi Arabia, Iran, elsewhere). Once the law is codified, it can be taught and shared from generation to generation, and gradually modified as it goes along.

 

It's not miraculous. It's incremental, and uneven at that.

 

The difference between what I think and what some relativists think is that I believe we're BETTER than those other cultures. More evolved. More sophisticated. BETTER. They're not our equals, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Okay, so let me see if I'm following you here.

 

Cultures evolve at different rates, but there's a universal morality that we will eventually all reach. Let's define that as a singularity.

 

What do you do when you've reached that point or close to it, and there's a culture that hasn't? It's not their fault, right? They just haven't evolved.

 

Honestly, there's a spectrum of possible responses that include the following:

 

1) You can leave them alone, and choose to let them either crumble under the weight of their lack of progress or evolve to meet your better standard.

2) You can try and force them into your standard.

3) You can try and persuade them to your standard.

 

We've tried 2. It didn't work. We could try 3, but I think it's a hopeless proposition. I think 1 is the proper answer. Leave them alone to suffer the consequences of their own lack of cultural evolution, and in the meantime don't allow their barbarity to pollute our culture in the name of open-mindedness. If they try and attack our way of life, punish them accordingly.

Edited February 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[FireChan]

Honestly, there's a spectrum of possible responses that include the following:

 

1) You can leave them alone, and choose to let them either crumble under the weight of their lack of progress or evolve to meet your better standard.

2) You can try and force them into your standard.

3) You can try and persuade them to your standard.

 

We've tried 2. It didn't work. We could try 3, but I think it's a hopeless proposition. I think 1 is the proper answer. Leave them alone to suffer the consequences of their own lack of cultural evolution, and in the meantime don't allow their barbarity to pollute our culture in the name of open-mindedness. If they try and attack our way of life, punish them accordingly.

Okay. I appreciate the legitimate response. Seriously.

[Joe Miner]

 

Improved forms of culture and governance from tribalism to small city states to ever-larger nation-states, among other things. Greater complexity and organization among people. Creation of law, starting in mesopotamia and constant evolution of those basic laws.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

From this foundation, SOME cultures evolved to more just laws, some did not (see, Saudi Arabia, Iran, elsewhere). Once the law is codified, it can be taught and shared from generation to generation, and gradually modified as it goes along.

 

It's not miraculous. It's incremental, and uneven at that.

 

The difference between what I think and what some relativists think is that I believe we're BETTER than those other cultures. More evolved. More sophisticated. BETTER. They're not our equals, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

 

Honestly, there's a spectrum of possible responses that include the following:

 

1) You can leave them alone, and choose to let them either crumble under the weight of their lack of progress or evolve to meet your better standard.

2) You can try and force them into your standard.

3) You can try and persuade them to your standard.

 

We've tried 2. It didn't work. We could try 3, but I think it's a hopeless proposition. I think 1 is the proper answer. Leave them alone to suffer the consequences of their own lack of cultural evolution, and in the meantime don't allow their barbarity to pollute our culture in the name of open-mindedness. If they try and attack our way of life, punish them accordingly.

Your better moral standard says that other people with differing morals shouldn't be treated as your equal?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Okay. I appreciate the legitimate response. Seriously.

 

Yeah, I don't quite understand why people think I'm taking a relativist position.

Relativism requires the belief that all cultures are equally good. That's about as far from my position as possible

[IDBillzFan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

From this foundation, SOME cultures evolved to more just laws, some did not (see, Saudi Arabia, Iran, elsewhere). Once the law is codified, it can be taught and shared from generation to generation, and gradually modified as it goes along.

 

So Hammurabi is the person who decided, for everyone, what is and isn't moral?

 

Who told him? His parents?

[DC Tom]

No.

 

Actually, yes...but by definition. "Murder" is wrong across cultures because it's defined as a killing that's illegal or immoral.

 

What constitutes murder varies from culture to culture, pretty widely.

 

So Hammurabi is the person who decided, for everyone, what is and isn't moral?

 

Who told him? His parents?

 

I was wondering when Hammurabi would get dragged in to this.

 

Joe pretty much proved his point with that: morality isn't strictly Abrahamic. Don't know why he was too stupid to bring it up earlier.

[FireChan]

 

Yeah, I don't quite understand why people think I'm taking a relativist position.

Relativism requires the belief that all cultures are equally good. That's about as far from my position as possible

I think your one post was ambigious enough to be twisted the other way.

 

I will say, there are genuine concerns about your position in relation to the intrinsic value of a human life. You speak of these "moral inferiors" as though they are children or animals.

[DC Tom]

 

Yeah, I don't quite understand why people think I'm taking a relativist position.

Relativism requires the belief that all cultures are equally good. That's about as far from my position as possible

 

People think that because you're all idiots.

 

You're all having a message board discussion on a topic that's stumped the best philosophers of all of mankind over the past several millennia. I'm sure you'll all reach a conclusion pretty quickly.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Your better moral standard says that other people with differing morals shouldn't be treated as your equal?

 

Correct. There is literally NO shame in believing your culture is better than others. My culture gave the world Da Vinci, Chopin, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Beethoven, Brunaleschi. My culture evolved the idea of universal sufferage. My culture ENDED slavery.

 

No shame in trumpeting those virtues.

[SWATeam]

 

People think that because you're all idiots.

 

You're all having a message board discussion on a topic that's stumped the best philosophers of all of mankind over the past several millennia. I'm sure you'll all reach a conclusion pretty quickly.

 

What's your take on the origin of spoken language?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Joe pretty much proved his point with that: morality isn't strictly Abrahamic. Don't know why he was too stupid to bring it up earlier.

Was on a phone. Trying to add links on a phone is a pain in the ass.

[DC Tom]

I will say, there are genuine concerns about your position in relation to the intrinsic value of a human life. You speak of these "moral inferiors" as though they are children or animals.

 

That's more normal than not. There's still major swaths of the world where it's believed that some people are "more human" than others.

 

In fact, you could make a very strong case that people who hold to humanist beliefs of equality are the outliers.

 

Correct. There is literally NO shame in believing your culture is better than others. My culture gave the world Da Vinci, Chopin, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Beethoven, Brunaleschi. My culture evolved the idea of universal sufferage. My culture ENDED slavery.

 

No shame in trumpeting those virtues.

 

You're Scotch-German-Polish-Florentine?

 

What's your take on the origin of spoken language?

 

It was invented in 1878, at 18 Rectory Grove, Croydon, London.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

That's more normal than not. There's still major swaths of the world where it's believed that some people are "more human" than others.

 

In fact, you could make a very strong case that people who hold to humanist beliefs of equality are the outliers.

 

You're Scotch-German-Polish-Florentine?

 

Scotch, German and Polish, yes. Florentine, no.

 

They're all European, however.

[FireChan]

 

People think that because you're all idiots.

 

You're all having a message board discussion on a topic that's stumped the best philosophers of all of mankind over the past several millennia. I'm sure you'll all reach a conclusion pretty quickly.

With the brain power on PPP, we'll be posting "what difference, at this point, does it make?" within 2 pages.

 

 

That's more normal than not. There's still major swaths of the world where it's believed that some people are "more human" than others.

 

In fact, you could make a very strong case that people who hold to humanist beliefs of equality are the outliers.

 

You're Scotch-German-Polish-Florentine?

That's human psychology. And something worth investigating.

[SWATeam]

With the brain power on PPP, we'll be posting "what difference, at this point, does it make?" within 2 pages.

 

That's human psychology. And something worth investigating.

Sociology

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Actually, yes...but by definition. "Murder" is wrong across cultures because it's defined as a killing that's illegal or immoral.

 

What constitutes murder varies from culture to culture, pretty widely.

This was what I had intended, but did not articulate well.

 

While I strive for brevity, the simple "No" was clearly not enough.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Joe pretty much proved his point with that: morality isn't strictly Abrahamic. Don't know why he was too stupid to bring it up earlier.

 

The question was never whether it was strictly Abrahamic. Joe argued that morality did not originate from something 'mystical,' but it rather evolved. I'm trying to understand from where he believes it originally evolved. We've so far worked our way back to Hammurabi.

 

What I am curious about now (from Joe's perspective, mind you) is where did Hammurabi come to know and understand what is and isn't moral? So far the answer has been either "he evolved" or "from his parents." Just trying to work our way back to its physical, real origin since "mystical" has been removed as an option.

 

Joe? Where did Hammurabi come to understand what is and isn't moral?

[DC Tom]

With the brain power on PPP, we'll be posting "what difference, at this point, does it make?" within 2 pages.

 

That's human psychology. And something worth investigating.

 

It's larger than human psychology. It's a sociological and cultural construct.

 

And it's what almost all people and cultures believed for almost all of history. That attitude only started to change 200 years ago in Europe and North America, and only really gained traction in the past 70. That's maybe 3% of recorded history. Like I said, outlier.

This was what I had intended, but did not articulate well.

 

While I strive for brevity, the simple "No" was clearly not enough.

 

It's a tough concept to articulate. Describe how "murder" isn't "murder?" It's too easy to make a rhetorically circular definition. I had a tough time expressing it as succinctly as I did.

 

The question was never whether it was strictly Abrahamic. Joe argued that morality did not originate from something 'mystical,' but it rather evolved. I'm trying to understand from where he believes it originally evolved. We've so far worked our way back to Hammurabi.

 

What I am curious about now (from Joe's perspective, mind you) is where did Hammurabi come to know and understand what is and isn't moral? So far the answer has been either "he evolved" or "from his parents." Just trying to work our way back to its physical, real origin since "mystical" has been removed as an option.

 

Joe? Where did Hammurabi come to understand what is and isn't moral?

 

You actually want the answer, or you want to wait for Joe to respond?