I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders. — Hanover

I'm saying that morality and ethics for men and women are different contextually based on gender/physiology. So, while we can generally say that people believe in morality, the divide between genders reveal that the emphasis of moral actions between men and women are different. You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild?
Have we forgotten paternalism? Coming from the word "father", paternalism actually wants to limit the freedom of the individual to protect them from themselves! One can make an argument that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Historically, men would not hesitate to commit unethical actions to preserve society and show what the greater good is.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. — Possibility

No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved.

So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world. — Possibility

So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't?

Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion. — Possibility

Another attempt at confusing the above point -- women recognize that it is an illusion to ignore their gender in relation to the world.

For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking. Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events? — Possibility

You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies.

That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc). — Possibility

What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word?

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. — Possibility

There is. scientific american

The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction. — Possibility

I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer?

Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.

Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear. — I like sushi

And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. Why do you sound so much like Possibility? Are you and Possibility the same posters?

I am skeptical of the characterizations you have made. I'm even more skeptical about the rationales you have provided for the differences between men a women. Since you say you know this thread deals with a touch subject, it's hard to accept you making claims with no justification. — T Clark

Trust me I have consulted findings and studies to back my OP. I'm just lazy right now to provide the links. It is a touchy subject because we get posters like Possibility who start mincing and dicing educational words so that gender becomes the enemy here. There are other things to fear -- zombies, for one. Ax murderers, another.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine — I like sushi

Hyperbolic? So everything that's said on this thread is just..exaggeration?

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious. — I like sushi

The point is to point out there is a class of low wage earners. I know, funny. It's shallow and lacks imagination.

It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course. — schopenhauer1

In western economies, there are people who get paid this way -- artists, for example. That's not a white collar job. It's artistic.

and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them. — schopenhauer1

Because we were made to believe that economies can only be one way, and not another. I mean, look at the parents who start telling their children before birth what the children are going to be -- an engineer, a doctor, a teacher, an architect -- in other words, salary-earners! Everyone is supporting the economy as it is now. The blue collar work are there to catch us in case we don't want to be one type of salary-earner -- we become the wage-earners. Amazon warehouses abound.

Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell. — schopenhauer1

It's all about necessity. If that ability is taken away from you, there is a salve for your psyche: your life is much more comfortable if you don't have to work your muscles or brains for the things you need. Do you agree?

You know the memory capacity of the ancient civilization professionals, right? The lawyers, the orators, the philosophers -- like a dictation machine. Yes, that good. Why? Because there were no tape recorders or typewriters during their time. Just their hearing and memory, and they had to wait until the meeting is over before they could start writing things down. Imagine doing that now.

Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for? — schopenhauer1

I don't know. In western societies, the "necessities" are different than in other countries. For example, creative self-expression and low unemployment rate are necessities in the first world. By creative self-expression I mean, the freedom and opportunity to be able to do things that one enjoys outside work, or to be able to be employed according to one's passion. Being a middle class but controlled by business owners is not satisfying. A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer).

What do you mean it's a crime? If the economy is weak and people are poor, how can it be a crime? — ssu

In western societies it's a crime.

In fact, that there isn't widespread abject povetry shows that things can indeed improve. Likely if prosperity increases, in the future people with low income will enjoy a lifestyle that now is limited to upper middle class and even upper class. — ssu

So you assume the same poor people occupy the low income class. They might be able to move up, but then there will always be other people who would just occupy that place. Are you really not getting this? The state of being low income is what's permanent, not necessarily the people.

I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting. — Cobra

I agree. I'm mostly vegetarian by choice.

There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. — Cobra

That's not happening now. Covid-19 has brought out the worst in people. Have you tried looking at the prices of stupid used cars these days? What about housing? Overpriced real estate, realty companies/realtors hording...houses!

The poor are screwed because once they are poor they are generally going to stay that way, unless their economic environment changes--which it might, or might not. In general the same is true with people who are have reasonably stable, if barely adequate income. — Bitter Crank

Yes, one indicator of the state of well-being is how long do poor people remain in that same economic level, as in how many years or generation. Another indicator is the existence of the middle class -- if it shrinks or expands.

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank

Drum roll....

One method of preventing crime is to increase police presence (the threat of capture deters). — Agent Smith

I second the motion! The threat of capture is scarier than being already inside a prison.

As a result in this wealthy city there are people who eat out of rubbish bins and sleep in parks and under bridges, etc. This I have seen in cities all over the world. — Tom Storm

Someone once said, the only certainties about life are death, taxes, and mental illness. Scary shit.
Did you know that it costs so little each year to end severe poverty around the world?
A quick google reveals it's $175B! Think about that. The billionaires themselves can end global poverty each year.

That is to say ex-ante ethics/laws (free will negated) — Agent Smith

This is where we are. We're not free to commit a crime.

See where you began with "therefore"? We use that term to indicate that a logical conclusion comes next. What you wrote after "therefore" did not follow from what I said and you agreed to. — creativesoul

Did you really not read my OP where I said logical argument on this thread is irrelevant? It is irrelevant because the rule is, society dictates morality, which is enforced by the law.

I think it's important to notice that if absolute poverty has decreased (especially on the long time scale), many can be worse off than before even if they aren't literally starving. It is important to define what low income or poverty means. Just taking a segment of people who earn the least and declaring them to be poor doesn't tell much. — ssu

Abject poverty no longer exists now because it is a crime. I am talking about low income, as in minimum wage. So, normally this would be single income, minimum wage earner, in western society. But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government.

Well, that doesn't follow from what's written, — creativesoul

What doesn't follow? Does anything at all follow from a morality by reason of majority?

We agree that morality is enforced. What next? — creativesoul

Therefore, talks about objective or subjective or relative morality is moot.

Maybe your plan is to convince the poor of the value in ending their life of meaningless suffering. — Book273

Sometimes you irritate the heck out of me and I don't even know why.

Where in my post does it say it's meaningless suffering? Some low income people are actually assholes who couldn't give two three fucks about you or me. Think about that. You want them to feel suffering, but instead, they strut their way to the liquor store or fast food. Laughing. Yeah, the laughing poor people irritate the Berkeley graduates of engineering to no end. Who do they think they are not worried about the future when others have busted their way to a diploma sacrificing their social life and family.

Where on earth do you find people who just got paid and already broke? The next morning, they're sober and no money, and they feel the same way. That's not normal to responsible working adults! You can't be broke, make a joke about it, go to work, and do it over again.

Now that would be the equivalent of having a meal of 4 000$ to 5 000$, which is way much more that a full meal costs in any Michelin restaurant. But of course, I'd guess you could blow that amount of money by drinking the most expensive wines, which likely the restaurant has purchased just for your kind of sucker that comes around every once in a while and orders the most expensive they have. — ssu

I think I should have said in my OP that before you could post in my thread, that you must have calibrated your estimates about history. There were no average income indicators during the late 19th c or early 20th c. because there was no law about wages or labor. You could work and make zero dollar per hour back then. Your equivalent is grossly incorrect.

Go ahead and acknowledge it. Admit it: you've been had by your capitalist employers. — Bitter Crank

Many people can't. There's just too much worship of billionaires and multi-millionaires. Notice that you see rationale here and there defending the accumulation of wealth by the very few, while at the same time, berating the low income people for being...well..low income. lol.

Many actually live vicariously -- watching the lives of the rich and themselves feeling as if they've own the material possessions. It's pathetic when the number one past time of people is watching the everyday lives of the rich.

I wonder what happens when the average people just stop caring about those segment of society and start living their lives as it is.

you are acting as if trailer trash is the only social grouping of low-income people there is when that's not the case. — MAYAEL

I looked up the definition of trailer trash. Perhaps, you are correct. My OP is directed towards those with jobs, but earning at poverty level or below that.

It's essential to have some unemployed and low-income workers in the economy to serve as a reserve and a warning, A reserve in that the non-employed can start working when there is a big demand for unskilled labor (not so much these days). — Bitter Crank

True that.

So, while I generally agree with what I think your saying, I suspect that there's some much needed refinement so as to avoid painting the picture with too broad a brushstroke. — creativesoul

And society's answer to the severity of crimes is appropriate punishment. Obviously, not wearing a seat belt, you get a ticket. You get more tickets and they suspend your right to drive on public roads.

There are also very different kinds of societies where the majority do not have much say in the laws. — creativesoul

Yes, tyranny of the minority exists. It's been addressed by many political scientists.

No society has a complete buy-in by all of its citizens. In fact, most laws, directives, decrees and executive decisions by any government encounters more resistance than not. — god must be atheist

Did I not repeatedly say in the beginning of this thread that the majority is what makes the decision of society? Even the supreme court decide by majority votes. A society's laws do not have to be 100% approved by all of its members.

Agreed. Getting an education and a job would be a decent start. — Book273

I concur.

↪L'éléphant
you're confusing low income with trailer trash — MAYAEL

Am I? How so?

Are crowdsourcing companies causing the unemployment rate to go up because we now have another option besides W2 employment? — TheQuestion

No. And no again.

Will the employer need to rethink there strategy since the dynamics of how we see employment changed? — TheQuestion

No they don't need to rethink. Contract employment/self-employment has a much different commitment to an employer than an employee. It is this commitment, besides dependable skills, that set an employee apart (by employee, I mean the definition set forth by the employment bureau). And the employers know this.

:up: An noble objective, no doubt but what's our strategy, economically? — Agent Smith

Give me a sec, I'll launch my spreadsheet for the calculation per capita of the basic needs first, then entertainment second, then ability to enjoy luxury, travel, and leisure for everyone. :meh:

Just curious, what is the "big picture"? — Agent Smith

Utopian world, I guess?

The tension to these assertions arises when an unjust law is passed. The idea arises that the law itself must answer to a higher authority to be considered just, but injustice alone will not unravel a society. What will unravel it is the loss of power of the government over the governed. Injustice alone in free societies offers a basis for enough pushback by the public to change the laws. That isn't so in less free societies, where only forceful overthrow would be effective. — Hanover

I have no contention with this. Unjust laws have existed. That's why laws are in constant review, like a trial and error, to make sure that what worked in the past is still fit today, or what didn't work in the past could actually work today, justly.

I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State. — NOS4A2

We can't help but have a name to this society -- state, town, territory, a whole country.
But the essence is the same.

Enforcement of law? — Agent Smith

No. Incorrect attribution.

I am kind of leaning toward you operating at an oxygen deficient level currently. Don't write self help books eh. Maybe read a few, talk to a counsellor. Your responses strongly imply a deep depression state. — Book273

Tell me, @Book273, when was the last time you spoke the truth while feeling good about the world? Oh, yeah, right. You must only be thinking of telling selective truth -- one that awards your vanity, I suppose?

Stop taking cheap shots. Tell me why my post disturbs you -- not why my post disturbs me. My post doesn't disturb me, telling those bullet points in a public forum does not disturb me.

Look for a pattern! :grin: — Agent Smith

heart

It comes across as someone offended at making entry level pay and wanting to identify as being oppressed. I'm just stating my impression of how it reads. Been wrong before. — Cheshire

Try harder. That's a cheap shot.

Anyway, Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian) has an interesting theory which he writes about in his book Spaiens. It seems that back when religion was in heydays, it was impossible to get rich without, at the same time, making someone else poor (the economy didn't permit anything else). That's why the Church, he says, institutionalized poverty/austerity and was dead against money-lenders who charged exorbitant interests. — Agent Smith

Okay, thank you for a bit of history. But yes, that's a zero sum game. Which is also true today. People argue that it's no longer true. But they fail to see the big picture. It's not just satisfying the basic needs of a person.

Your "irony" is lost on me, Astro. — 180 Proof

Not on me. I can't answer your question, that's why I skipped it. I can't answer it cause my answer is irrelevant to what I said in the OP. If I answered one way, you'd have more criticisms.

Society and Moral Opinion

No doubt we would all agree that a consensus of moral opinion on certain matters is essential if society is to be worth living in. Laws against murder, theft, and much else would be of little use if they were not supported by a widely diffused conviction that what these laws forbid is also immoral. So much is obvious. But it does not follow that everything to which the moral vetoes of accepted morality attach is of equal importance to society; nor is there the slightest reason for thinking of morality as a seamless web: one which will fall to pieces carrying society with it, unless all its emphatic vetoes are enforced by law.

-- H.L.A. Hart

I find the above quote as strongly supportive of enforcement of morality by legislation, but also a concession that not all moral beliefs should be this way.

So, in fairness to all in this thread, not all moral principles are subject to societal enforcement -- which, by the way, I mentioned in passing. But some morals are.

In essence the poor are forced/unwilling monks! To put it another way, monks are voluntarily poor.

Is being a monk the same thing as getting screwed? I guess for monks, it's consensual screwing but in the case of the poor, it's not (rape)! :chin: — Agent Smith

Okay, this is one good way to put it. Why I missed this comment earlier is beyond me.
It's one thing to voluntarily give up income and benefits to live like a monk. It's another when you try to make a life and you're just screwed. You feel frustrated, tired, helpless.

Really, low income-ness is thrust upon people.

You can't make up your mind. I think the ball is lost. We can quit this game now. — Alkis Piskas

My mind is made up. And this is not a game. If this is the best of your argument you can make, please quit now.

Many of the rural poor are more content and less stressed than the suburban & urban 'working poor' or 'lower middle-class'. — 180 Proof

Okay. But that doesn't negate what I said.

6. You face more opportunities to learn how to do things without relying on others. That's priceless. — Outlander

I think my no. 6 has a different meaning than your no. 6.

There are inconveniences that build up to work-related stress.

:heart: — Agent Smith

I'm intrigued by this symbol.
Could you explain what is this for?

It might suck to be stuck in a place that manufactures public infrastructure supplies for rich "eco-friendly" regions. — Nils Loc

I was going to ask that this thread be deleted. But your comment deserves a reply. Yes, this is what I'm getting at. There are jobs that sacrifice health so that others could live in an eco-friendly environment.

Can you live without oxygen? — Outlander

I don't know. I haven't tried it yet. Maybe some people can.

It's a few dollars, sometimes less for a reasonable enough distance to walk after using public transport. — Outlander

So a public transport doesn't pollute the oxygen?

1. Cars are bad for the environment. You like oxygen right? You know that thing that lets you breathe and type this drivel? — Outlander

Can you drive oxygen to work?

How a society should force such a format on itself is not made clear but we do know we have tried to change man with law, compulsion, and religions of various kinds throughout history, and the result is nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

Well, not having a religion is not a crime against society. But if you actively sabotage the peaceful congregation of religious people -- you know, vandalizing churches and harassing church goers, you deserve to be punished.

You highlight one question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. Then you highlight another question/point, click on "Quote" and answer that question/point. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

I tried. The result is that I was still confused by your question. I just don't know how to answer it. Apparently, the ability to follow a technical procedure doesn't equate to correct understanding of the question.

Many laws, tax laws for example, benefit the wealthy over the less wealthy. Is that moral, even apart from Christianity? Or how about a law against smoking marijuana that can get you put in jail for holding a few grams (and disproportionately puts blacks in jail), when speeding at a potentially lethal level for both you and those around you is just a fine? — Philosophim

Yes, there is absolutely a great disparity of wealth in our society. Where is the outrage? I don't see the majority being outraged about it. In 2020 and 2021, the wealthy got wealthier, and the low income got the stimulus checks to make them happy for a few months and not realize that business owners, shareholders, partners got wealthier as a result of loan that turned into nontaxable income. Why is everybody so busy with covid when there's protest that should be done about being poor or low income? Oh yeah, because they were happy to collect unemployment twice what they were used to getting without working for a year. They shouldn't settle for that pittance.

The nature of Democracy is that plenty of people get a say. And it turns out that while many people have different views of morality, very few people seem to want to sacrifice their own comfort and money to help those who could really use a hand. Many laws are about preserving power over other people, and in a Democracy, that is much more difficult to do. — Philosophim

I think you should say, so many people are willing to settle for a lot less and avoid doing anything about it. They don't want to sacrifice their own comfort -- and what's that comfort? The comfort of being ignorant about why wealth creation is skewed one direction only. Do you know you don't create wealth by receiving a salary. You're being paid for the work you do, per hour. Creating wealth is making your money work for you, while you screw around town or around the world.

Personally I have partaken in 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at various times. — Tom Storm

Personally I have partaken in 5 and 10.

Someone should take over this thread.