"To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents."
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay

I am on your side of the argument. I think we need to question what does it mean to be one of us and why does it matter. A society needs a shared ideology but do we have that?

Is someone with a different skin color one of us? Are Japanese children one of us? Is a Mexican one of us? Can a Jew really be one of us? Do all these people share the same ideology?

Who can list 10 characteristics of democracy? How can a person who can not list 10 characteristics of democracy, pass the ideology of democracy on to his/her offspring? What does it mean to pass on an ideology?

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here. — schopenhauer1

That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like?

(thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc — schopenhauer1

I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages.

As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? — schopenhauer1

We reproduce for the same reason all other animals reproduce. It is nature, not an ideology that leads to reproduction. All animals do it. Marriage is about who is responsible for whom, and it is only common, not universal.

What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? — schopenhauer1

It is not about carrying out a society's ideology to a new generation unless there is a war and then reproduction becomes very important. Then it is important to have as many people as possible or the whole society will become extinct. Your own survival is in danger if your defense is weak. Isreal and Palestine are a good example of the importance of outnumbering "them". Israel's claim to democracy is especially difficult because if the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Jews would loose control of decision making. This forces Israel to increase its population faster than the Palestinians. It can not assimilate Palestinians into its culture, unlike the US that gladly assimilated most but not all immigrants. You don't become a Jew like you can become a citizen of the US. And this is about "us" and "then" not exactly ideology. A better subject might be why do divide between "us" and "them"?

Christians were super excellent at assimilating everyone they came into contact with. Jews are the reverse of this. One does not just decide to be a Jew. This is why there are more Christians than Jews.

While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is. — schopenhauer1

That is not just another subject. It is stating you don't have an argument because the US is an example of a society that has not preserved its ideology.

Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one). — schopenhauer1

Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers.

Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more. — schopenhauer1

No, we procreate because of nature not because of ideology unless we are in a conflict with others and have to outnumber them. The drive to procreate drastically decreases when people start living in cities and most of the young survive. Now if you are a male Hindu, you must procreate to be sure you have a son to help you pass into the good life. For most men, it is important to have a male child because of ego reasons, and women, in general, want a girl child for ego reasons. It just isn't right to dress up a boy like a girl and teach him to cook and sew like a girl. Only recently did it stop mattering that boys be as boys and girls be as girls. This is about ego, not ideology. Give us the ideology that you are talking about. I don't think there is a universal ideology. There is "who I am" and "who I am not", and there is "us" and "them". What gets passed on is not an ideology! The US is not passing on its original ideology.
People living in the US think of themselves as belonging, even if they are children of illegal immigrants or criminals sitting in a prison. We think we are us and not them. But we do not share an ideology.

Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game? — schopenhauer1

Well in the US they are not playing the same game that started with the democratic republic. I would say the original is about dead. What are we doing about it? We are talking about our past as in such a way that we think the present is much better.

Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Do you think that would have always described what is important?

With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I don't think it does.

What is it that this game must be continued? — schopenhauer1

The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true?

But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? — schopenhauer1

Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought?

Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot.

You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted.

It appears this was the last activity for Jonmel. I want to raise awareness of sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is easy to diagnose. It is a condition that prevents a person from having deep sleep and the result is excessive tiredness because effectively it is equal to not sleeping at all. What happens is the air passage closes when a person goes into a deep sleep and this keeps the person in a light sleep. That, of course, interferes with essential body functions such as the work of hormones in repairing the body and mind. The problem is corrected with a small machine that uses air pressure to the airway open.

I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?

In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life?

I disagree that society itself is an ideology.

I’m currently reading Aristotle’s Politics and he clearly states that the state is a community.

A community is composed of families that formed a larger social group. Typically for mutual support and survival.

I believe our ancestors hardly had the time to debate ideologies when they formed the earliest societies along lines following instincts. — Agathob

We should not assume our family is universal and determines our social order for all time. Sparta did not value families. In Sparta males in barracks and in the end were defeated because they could not reproduce fast enough and their enemies overwhelmed them.

In some cultures, there is no word for "father" because they are not organized around fathers. Not being sure who the father is, it is the mother's brother who holds the father's position.

In some areas in China, a child's father may be the guest in the mother's home but it is the women who rule not the men.

Since we destroyed the value of mothers and said they were just housewives, the number of women who refuse to have children has increased. And throughout modern countries the number of children a couple has greatly decreased, some countries barely reproducing enough to have a sustainable population.

The decision is not a political one, but an identity one. In this place and time, what do I need to do to have high social status? That can mean getting as many females pregnant as possible or not becoming a mother. However, the decision does have political ramifications. The US is no longer ordered by family order, but a New World Order that is very different from the democracy we defended in two world wars.

However, to decide to have a child is a choice. — schopenhauer1

For whom is it a choice? Is abortion an equally legitimate choice and should we make sure family planning and abortion services are available to everyone?

Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control.

They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society" — schopenhauer1

BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control.

Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood.

However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology?

I knew a young man who was diagnosed with ALS at age 28 and he chose not to have children because the disease could be inherited, but later he regretted making that choice. It was not an ideology he wanted to preserve, but dying without experiencing beginning a parent seemed to be a regret. I think also that he would have liked to have had a child to extend his short life. But as things seem to be getting worse, I think increasingly people are hesitant to bring a child into this world. For sure people are choosing to have fewer children compared to having 8 to 14 children.

When the currency will be gone, in all practical terms, the government will be gone too. — alcontali

That is why I talk so much about liberty and democracy. In the beginning of all civilizations, people have nothing but a determination to work together and manifest a good life for all. I do not fear an economic collapse. I fear facing one without a shared ideology favoring democracy and liberty. Our way of life can not be sustained so I expect the worst to happen, but if our democratic ideology is strong, I believe we can maintain our civility and adjust to having a good life with less.

Where are the few remaining families that could still fall apart? — alcontali

:grimace: The remaining families are in the mothers fighting to give their children good lives. The problem is there are too few good men, and hopefully, we can change that. OMG that was sexist :lol: to be fair, our modern young ladies could use some improvement too. I am sorry for being so bad but hang with me okay?

Where does our idology come from and how is it transmitted?

That will only keep flying as long as the corporations do. The corporations will be gone in Venezuela/Zimbabwe type of situations. In fact, they may already be mostly closing, just in a corona-virus situation. — alcontali

Agreed, but this Military-Industrial Complex is nothing like the democracy we defended in two world wars and it is not our only possible reality. This is why I had to jump into this thread. What ideology are you all talking about when you talk about having children to maintain the manifestation of the ideology. We are what we defended our democracy against. Having children does not maintain an ideology. Only educating children for an ideology maintains the ideology.

We can also expect that the security situation will deteriorate drastically. I expect to see riots and looting. Things have been too good for too long. Some people have become way too arrogant, and it is time to pay the bills now. — alcontali

Yes, we educated for that and we elected Trump. :lol:

It is past time for me to get in the pool and exercise. While I am gone, please tell me what ideology you all are talking about. It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. Otherwise, the ideology could be any tribe of native Americans, or any religion. If the people die, so does their culture and consciousness. Sparta became extinct because it could not reproduce fast enough to outnumber their enemies and it was their ideology that created this problem.

All in all, you're right on the money about how empty the ideology of procreation is. — TheMadFool

I should use the user name Ms. Contrary because no matter what is said, I can take the opposite side. I think what we think of having children is dependent on several factors. Our age is one of those factors.

When I came of age, females went to college to find a good husband and then they stayed home to have children and care for the family. Homemakers did more than care for their families, as they cared for everyone in the community, or in large cities, got involved with volunteer work. It is all about being a good woman, and that can be considered a part of an ideology.

I love our brief mother goddess period following on the trail of the Hippie movement. I loved identifying with the movement and baking homemade bread, gardening and preserving food, being creative. I was a woman and women are mothers. That was most important to me at the time. I am not sure what that had to do with politics but I am sure it was not an empty ideology because it lives in me with great joy.

Later as I learned of Athens and Sparta, I came to the conclusion that family values are very important to democracy and our liberty. I can understand having a sense of patriotic duty in being a traditional woman. This is highest in my priority of importance but I would be surprised if that is what you all are talking about.

Well I appreciate a reply to my thoughts and an explanation of the new economic slavery.

What I have read of the Great Depression totally disagrees with

In fact, men even like it when the shit hits the fan, because that allows us to creatively find solutions, rise to the occasion, and show our mettle. Hard times tend to be good for men. — alcontali

For me, the great recession following the OPEC embargo of oil to the US was very different from men benefitting from economic collapse.

I want to be careful to not derail this thread but economic collapses tend to destroy men's self-esteem and they abandoned their families, leaving the women alone to provide for their children and care for them too. It is nothing like your notion of the effect of economic collapse. Now let us speak of having children to pass on an ideology. :gasp: I DON'T THINK SO. Only a sheltered woman without much life experience would think that is sound thinking. Mothers rarely enjoy the freedom of men and if she does assume the freedom of a man, I think the children are in trouble. So if a woman wants freedom, she doesn't have children. At least not intentionally.

An Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, thought a goddess granted him his mathematical genius. As you think it so it is because we create that in ourselves and it is projected back into our shared reality.

I don't think Pythagoras should get too much credit for the math discoveries in the relationship between physical properties, movement, and sound. I can not prove it, but I would bet he learned from someone familiar with Chinese concepts. Much earlier in time the Chinese had metal bowls and noticed the size of the bowl determined the sound of the bowl and their math took this into consideration. It is possible to control the size of the bowls and get the full scale of musical notes.

This you tube demonstrates a relationship between the physical world and invisible vibrations. I am prone to believe it was women who made these discoveries because of cooking and cleaning and men who then attempted to write of explanations of them.

All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place. — alcontali

That was before women's liberation and different forms of birth control. Life may choose life, but we should not take it for granted that woman choose to give birth.

I know I am not of line in this thread, but I would like to know how many women are in this thread? It troubles me that until recently extremely few women were allowed to participate in philosophy or anything else besides bearing children and caring for them. For centuries males debated truth without a woman's point of view. When the subject is having children, I certainly think a woman's point of view is an important one, so please tell me, how many women are contributing to this thread's understanding of truth?

Case in point to question in quote 2 is the statement in point 1: If there is no line between good and moral, then the first quote becomes "The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have good good judgment," or else "The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have moral moral judgment," both of which necessarily follow the reasoning of why we need line, because both of them necessarily make no sense. — god must be atheist

How can wars be possible? Spread the God of Abraham religions and leave the moral training to the church. I hate Christianity because it has so screwed up the understanding of morality. Please, this can very politically hot and that might not be appreciated here? I hate Christianity because it has so screwed up our understanding of secular morality and everything else! Education for technology has lead to the "Christian good" being ignorance and superstition, and not good! And without the Christian Right, Bush would not have had the support to invade Iraq and seriously make global matters much worse :vomit:

Good or bad, are qualities of moral, not something separate from it. To have good moral judgment is the ability to determine what will get good results. The inability to do this results in things going wrong, such as the invasion of Iraq and what has followed. That is bad moral judgment. Ignorant people are doomed to have bad moral judgment. They can be very good people and have very bad moral judgment because of their ignorance. Understanding this is essential to understanding secular morality and having a moral justice system and a moral economic system. It is essential to our liberty and democracy.

I wish we always worked with the word "moral" as we did in the recent past. We read children moral stories such as the "Little Red Hen" and asked, "what is the moral of that story". The answer is the cause and effect. That outcome can be bad, such as the fox did not get the grapes because he gave up. The "Little Engine that Could" did because he did not give up. Good moral judgment is the ability to understand those things. If we make the wrong choice things will go bad and Cicero tells us, sacrificing animals, saying prays, burning candles will not get good results from a bad choice.

When we left moral training to the church (1958) we made a terrible mistake! Christians now think their God will save their sorry asses, no matter what they do as long as they are pleasing to this God. You can be a good child of God, destroy this planet and get rewarded with heaven on a new planet. We don't need to understand how this can happen, you just need faith. And we think that education for technology that brought us to this ignorance is a good and necessary education. :rage: And Texas republicans want to be sure education continues this ignorance and the whole nation bows to it, while we ignore the needs of humans and pour money into military spending and act as though the only people who matter is US, the people blessed by God. That is bad moral judgment.

So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.

As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic. — schopenhauer1

Good luck having children if women are not valued as mothers. Trump has not promoted having children as national patriotism as Hitler did.

Who in a religion determines what the religion should do? If we can identify that person, perhaps that person can turn to science to explain the psychological reasons for why today's religious teachings work.

I think if we look at what science has done to our understanding of religion, we would realize, religion today is nothing as it was before the modern age.

God was more a fearsome and punishing God than a loving God, before our bellies were full, most children lived to adulthood, and our life expectancy doubled. It was science that over came the evils and that is what leads to us worship a loving God instead of fear and punishing God.

↪Athena Pythagoras thought number is the primary substance and I do not agree with him. Being, as described by Parmenides, is the primary substance. My father would always scold me because he thought I wasn't understanding basic arithmetic when I was only four years old and couldn't do so at that age because my mind wasn't prepared for it. — Michael Lee

I am listening to a show now that is attempting to answer what math is. Is math just in our minds or does it exist like Plato's forms?

It is not normal for very young children to comprehend math. While parents mean well to push their children to learn, they lack knowledge of the development of the brain, and lack knowledge of how to teach, and unfortunately have unrealistic expectations. I think this hurts children.

Yes, the question of free will matters - and that's because it serves as the basis for accountability. That doesn't imply accountability is only appropriate if there is LIBERTARIAN free will, it just means that we we are sufficiently free so that accountability is appropriate and makes a difference.

Holding people accountable serves as a mechanism for encouraging proper behavior. That's true even if determinism is true. Our (deterministic) decision-making process will then tend to take the societaly imposed consequences into account. — Relativist

That is basically the argument I would make. However, when people are mentally disturbed we should not expect them to have good judgment and incarcerating them as criminals is just wrong. Same goes for young people. We should not expect them to have the judgment of adults and punishing them as adults is just wrong. So a person's accountability is not one size fits all.

Religions generally abhor humour as it can expose the absurdity of their tenets. — A Seagull

I agree with that notion.

People who can't laugh at themselves are scary. Can you imagine a laughing suicide bomber?

↪Athena I am a so-called "bipolar" man, and I possess knowledge. — Michael Lee

Okay. My daughter says I am bipolar and that could be. But a bipolar god? I was joking when I suggested God is bipolar.

↪alcontali
OK. We are saying that in some sense Islamic law is a formal system. However, I think you would agree that it is not a formal system in the same sense as in math. I did a quick search and pulled out this from a different thread:
Mathematics is pure symbol manipulation, i.e. language expressions. It does not take any sensory input. Therefore, it is pure reason.
— alcontali
This seems accurate to me. So when we say that Islamic law is a formal system it seems to me that we are making an analogy: Islamic law mirrors some /many of the attributes/behavior/qualities of a formal system. Your thoughts? — EricH

Wow, are we in favor of robots ruling because they would be pure reason without sensory input? If we are judging religions, I think it is very important to value sensory input. Not to do that would so be as cold as the extermination of Jews. Simply a practical decision. "This year bad weather destroyed the crops so we need to kill 5000 people so those who remain will have enough food and stay healthy".

All truths can be found in the Bible. That means it also contradicts itself. The biggest contradiction is God is jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, to God is loving and forgiving. Maybe He is bipolar? :lol:

:lol: You didn't get I speak of cohorts and cultural change because I have lived through that? Women my age over 70, are homeless and dying on the streets because they obeyed social dictates to get married and have children and stay home to care for the family. That is what a good woman did and few of them had any other choice because of discrimination against them. Do you have any memory of that past? I got a good grade in one of my college classes, where I did absolutely nothing to get a good grade, not even attend class, because I got married and it was the professor's policy to give us a good grade if we got married. That was a junior college that didn't matter. Women were not allowed to enter some colleges and even after getting a degree, they were not allowed the same job opportunities as men. Now you tell me what choices would you make in that reality?

Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them.

Individual people disagreeing is not the whole story though. People do disagree, all the time, but if they want to be part of a moral community they have to accept that the group can come to a different agreement about a particular matter. The way those disagreements get settled is the group coming to an agreement, by whatever process that is. — ChatteringMonkey

The gods argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning and democracy is an imitation of the gods. Ideally, we argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.

I felt the need to create this tread as a reaction or continuation to some of the recent discussion on morality, and specifically the anscombe thread.

So the problem secular morality faces, is, I think, that it is the successor of religious moralities where morality was founded in metaphysics, with God as the pinacle of that metaphysics. Every tradition not only had it's prescriptive rules, but also it 'discriptive' myth where the morality flowed from. Now this is important I think, not only did they say "you have to do this because God says so", they invariably embedded it in a story so people would buy into it more readily. So the purpose to all of this, is to give a morality authority. You need to follow it because it's true.

Now historically, christianity, with it's valuation of truthfullness, was involuntarily the germ from which the scientic method sprung. Faith in God wasn't enough anymore, God needed to be proven with reason, just to be sure. In came Hume who was fed up with spastic scolastic attempts to prove God, and he showed that ought didn't follow from is. (as an aside, he meant this only as a rebutal of direct logical deduction of ought from is, as rationalist were prone to do in his time. I don't think this implies that 'was is' can't have an effect on 'what should be').

So as scientific thinking progresses, what we end up with is a morality that had lost it's foundation. Kant, allegedly awoken from his slumber, thought he could step in and save to day by subsitituting God with pure reason. Apparently he was only half-awake though, as he didn't notice that God was indeed dead.

What this all means, I think, is that we need to bite the bullet, and reconcile with the fact that morality isn't and can't be true or false. Because what is even worse than a mere lack of Godly authority, is lying to people about the origins of morality and people finding out. And people will find out any new attempts at founding morality in made-up metaphysics because, by now, a scientific mindset is ingrained. But but... what are we to do then, we cannot accept the conclusion that anything goes. Surely relativism is even worse then lying to people? Well no, because if people find out, you end up not only with relativism, but with a relativism of the rebelious kind.

From an atheistic perspective one has to wonder how non-existing Gods managed to come up with reasonably functioning moralities through-out history. People did all of that even then, so surely it should be possible to do something like that now, content-wise. I'd argue we can do a lot better, because for the first time in history, we actually start to 'know' some things about the world. As to the question of how we are going to imbue those moralities with the necessary authority? Same as we allways did, we discuss these things with other people, come to some agreements and found institutions that can settle disputes if need be... this is basicly social contract-theory. The authority is in the morality being supported by the community.

And eventhough these are 'merely' created moralities, and so not true in any objective sense, I'm not all that worried of relativism. There's enough convergence in what people want - certainly now that we will have a progressively better understanding of humanity - that it will mostly end up in something that works fine if people are educated in and accustomed to the idea of it. — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is a better place to start a discussion of secular morality. Cicero studied in Athens and I think he made an important contribution to our understanding of why we are moral and why our judgment is sometimes wrong. Daniel Webster wrote "Education, to accomplish the ends of good government, should be universally diffused." I think our liberty and democracy depends on such education.

Has it been mentioned that we are born into a particular time and each cohort is different? We are all shaped by the historical events that occur when we come of age. I am a baby boomer and we experienced the protest of Vietnam. We learned we had been lied to. Also at that time there was talk of overpopulation and we had the birth control pill and sexual freedom. I think the hippie movement was a direct result of a booming economy and our parent's experience with the Great Depression and then war only now times were good and we thought "no one born white and middle class could experience poverty". It is not really poverty unless the economy collapses and there are no jobs and one doesn't have middle-class parents to call for help. We acknowledge the good life was dependent on being white.

My children's generation came of age during the Great Recession, and corruption was in the news, the young could not be assimilated into mainstream society because of there were no jobs for them and in Oregon, two-parent families could not get public assistance, so father's abandoned their families because they had to, and young lovers did not get married. All this lead to serious social problems. We announced a national youth crisis that swept the country as the Hippie movement did.

Without question, we live in a very different society today. Traditional values have been destroyed and few women want to be "just a housewife". More women are choosing not to have children at all. Instead of a focus on liberty, we have a focus on security and we have been giving up liberty ever since 911. We can't even talk about many things because the young have no memory of the past and the meaning of our words and values are so changed, we have lost the ability to communicate across generations.

I am horrified that after our commitment to liberty so many people look forward to a day when robots will control our lives!

Definition of liberty
1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice — Mayor of Simpleton

:lol: The definition of bread, does not provide the knowledge of how to make bread. That definition of liberty is just as lacking. Without knowledge and virtues, instead of getting the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges a person could end up in a personal hell incapable of accessing any or those benefits.

I wish everyone had as much contact with the homeless people as my granddaughter who works with the homeless. Trust me, these are not people who just don't want to work. They are mostly really messed up in the head. I challenge everyone to spend 6 months as a homeless person. It is a life-changing experience and for most people, it is like being trapped in hell and not knowing the way out. The middle-class people are dependent on the social benefits they take for granted and may lack the virtues that enable a person to pass through adversity and come out smelling like a rose.

That definition of liberty could be homelessness, no job, and no property to care for.

Yes, according to you, what does morality have to do with liberty and democracy? I am curious about your precise opinion. What is the core value in morality? Who put it there? Not god, please let's not get silly. How do we decide what is moral and what is not? What is it in a moral action that separates it from a simply good action? If I see a man drowning in a river, and I jump in the foaming waves, and save him, was that moral, or good? If either, why, and why not the other?

Put it to liberty and democracy. What is a good citizen to do that is moral? Why is his moral action moral, and not simply good? What is the difference between a good social act, and a moral social act?

And if there is a difference that you can find, Athena, who is the authority that decides with you? Are you the decision maker, or is there an objectively measured, always-true benchmark to separate the good from the moral? If not, why are we talking about morals in the first place? — god must be atheist

:lol: Is it necessary to draw a line between good and moral? I think our democracy starts with the reasoning of Greek philosophers and Aristotle gave us the category of ethics. Ethics according to Aristotle is a question of the good. When we go further along this line of reasoning it follows that ethical actions require virtues. Virtues may begin as a thought of what is good but that isn't enough. I may want to save the drowning man, but I am afraid I would recoil in fear of my own life. To do better requires the virtue of courage. That is a feeling, not just a thought. I would gain courage by acting courageously repeatedly and in time it would become a habit and a true feeling of courage.

The goal stated by Aristotle is human excellence. Aristotle believed it is human nature to strive for excellence and I agree with him. I have no doubt that are plenty of people how don't come anywhere close to excellent. Here we can fall back on Gibran who wrote when we feel good we do good. I went through a long period when I felt terrible about myself and life. I could not possibly have done much good at that time. It is like being lost in hell. However, feeling bad and failing in life is the flip side of wanting to be excellent. All that negativity is pain and not knowing the way out, and is not proof that it isn't our nature to want to be an excellent example of a human being.

Sorry for being so wordy but answering your questions is kind of explaining a loaf of bread. Bread is not just ingredients but also the interaction of ingredients, kneading, letting the dough rest and the yeast to rise. Morals, ethics, virtues, the moment in time and the act all go together like the ingredients of bread. If the process of making bread isn't done right, it doesn't come out right. That is so true for human excellence and when our culture embraces that, we optimize liberty and have democracy.

A moral is a matter of cause and effect. We used to read children stories like the Little Red Hen and the Little Engine that Could. At the end of the story, we would ask, what is the moral of that story. The answer would be a cause and an effect. No one would help the Little Red Hen make bread so she didn't share it. In a democracy, we must share in the work and we share the benefits.

Liberty is the right to determine what is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do. What will get good results? The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have good moral judgment, and that is what makes education, and culture, essential to good moral judgment, liberty, and democracy.

So we may not want the 1% running our government because decisions made for a profit might cost those who are not part of the decision making too much! That 1% might make decisions that cost people their lives, destroy the environment, or destroy the future of the following generations. Monarchies had that problem and democracy is supposed to be the solution, but without education for democracy and good moral judgment, democracy fails.

How did I do in answering your questions?

... and freedom does not? — Mayor of Simpleton

No it does not. If freedom has conditions it is not freedom. So it is desirable to stay in the parents home and be free as long as the parents don't interfere with that freedom.

That is equal to having a job that is defined by someone else without having a say in what the controlling policy should be. This is acceptable as long as s/he believes the money earned gives him/her freedom, or if everyone else is doing it. And if the employer is unethical and the business practices are causing people to become diabetic and die early, or increasing the number of people who develop diabetes, or people are loosing their homes and the rich get richer by buying up the property, etc. so what, we are just doing what we are told to do, and as long as we have the good life, that is all than matters and we can forget about the politics that can make a difference, because we are all free! That is freedom. It is not liberty. Go out and vote for the person you believe will give you the most freedom and live with your parents if they give you more freedom.

And education for that, does not defend our liberty and democracy. :chin:

"The single biggest obstacle to make progress in the war efforts in Viet Nam is presented by the public resistance at home", the White House announced. (News, 1980.)

As you can see, the danger lies at home, always at home, always, always, always at home; but what someone considers danger to be, is always different. "Where you stand is determined by where you sit."

So you see, Athena, there used to be a voice heard once in America; the voice of the people. But they poof-poofed them down, one-by-one, like they do rabid dogs: JFK, MLK, MTK, FTC. What are we left with? KFC and Walmart.
— god must be atheist

"How many would act morally if the law did not exist?" The answer is, it depends on their culture and their culture depends on their education. And the "they" that shoots me down is people in forums who don't get what morality has to do with liberty and democracy and don't want to talk about it.

The important question is, did humans evolve or were they created special by a God who then cursed them resulting all our suffering, because we are sinful and can not do better without supernatural intervention. Can human beings achieve excellence without the help of a supernatural power or are they doomed by a condition of sin and must they have authority above them and must that authority hold the ability to punish them to control them? And is education for technology enough?

I suppose 5 semesters at a university focusing what is now an incompleted BA in Political Science that was shifted to a B.S in Philosophy (seriously... a B.S. in Philosophy ;) ) doesn't count. — Mayor of Simpleton

I want to cancel the rest of my day and stay with you. :love: Oh my goodness shall we compare each other's education and see what get? Mine was gerontology and public policy and administration. I was never depressed as much as when I went into the public policy and administration program. Don't tell anyone but if I were to join a violent revolution, I would begin by burning the colleges down. Okay, my love, what did you learn? :grin:

Just as a heads-up for the future, take care in what you assume about posters in this forum. It was a bit hasty to make such an assumption about me based upon very little data. Perhaps the rub here is that I haven't read the books about politics that you have read or endorse or maybe I have? — Mayor of Simpleton

I am sure you have not. I am 15 credits short of a degree because I refused to bend to the system and instead chose to stand against it. OMG, I am more of a rebel than when I was young because of returning to school after having children, and from this more mature position, what I learned about our white middle-class education and public policy. Part of my passion is the result of buying old books about education to understand what it meant to defend democracy in the classroom and old books about Germany because I knew we adopted the German model of education. You said I should not assume, but I would really be shocked if we shared the same books!

I indicated that I'm not interested in turning this in the direction of a political debate, but rather stay closer to the topic. Especially one so obvious located in just current affairs in the US. — Mayor of Simpleton

:broken: What goes up must come down. I just crashed and burned. I think I better pick up my toys and go home. I don't know what meaning you all think this topic has if it is not our liberty and democracy and standing in the world, and I will not force myself on anyone.

To be clear, I still have abnormally high levels of passion. Aside from working my full-time job and generally keeping my life going ahead full steam, I've "written two books" (eh...) and "made a video game" (kinda) over the past three years. I'm just far less optimistic and energetic and bright and hopeful than I used to be, and I see that downward trend as leading toward what I've observed many other people had already become decades earlier in their lives; and from that, I conclude that the thing that makes so many other people so dulled and lifeless isn't some flaw internal to themselves, but just the result of life grinding them down a lot earlier than it did me.

And consequently, that we can get people to recover that childlike positivity by helping them to heal from the traumas of life. The penultimate essay of my philosophy book, On Empowerment, is all about that. — Pfhorrest

Ok, and that is exactly what my understanding of liberty and democracy is all about- having that wonderful feeling that we matter and we are capable of doing something important. That is the argument made in the Declaration of Independence. That was what education prepared our young for when my grandmother was a teacher. A favorite story in my home was of a retarded boy who found it hard to keep up in school (the meaning of retarded) but was amazing when it came to carving a monkey out of a pit. The teacher held up what he could do and made his accomplishment equal to any other. Our notion of equality had nothing to do with being the same, except under the sun we are all equal, however, each one of us is special in our own way. A teacher's job was to help a child discover his/her special interests and talents and then nourish them.

:cry: That is not what IQ testing and Core education are about. And the difference is a huge change in culture-making us the enemy we defeated in two world wars. Our liberty is being crushed as we prepare the young to be products for industry, and that industry is run by policy and we have absolutely no say in that policy. We are now marginalizing people as Europe did but we stood against, with privacy laws that really protected our privacy and prevented anyone from discrimination against us because of something we did in the past that is kept in a file.

What has happened to the US is extremely depressing and is exactly what the Prussians did to Germany. Our sense of powerlessness is a rational conclusion in this industrial and political climate. But in threads like this one, we can exercise hope of returning to the democracy, with liberty, that we once had. Here we can talk about what virtues and morals have to do with liberty and democracy. Here we can connect with other people who might pick up the cause and become a part of a new American Revolution which is not violent but a return to the intellectual revolution that began our democracy. AND THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY! . The more voices that repeat the messages, the more power the movement will have. Around the world, it is very important everyone stops seeing us as a Satanic evil and once again sees us as a highly moral nation that stands for liberty, truth and what is good and right (ethics).

I would say that the Western concept of enlightenment is quite different from that of the Eastern. The Eastern is based on emptiness, which may possess a liberating quality, however, it still exists within a religious framework and bound to a hierarchical authority system and dogmatism — praxis

Which religion?

I know I have a problem with Buddhism because I have a problem with being a passive observer and disassociating myself with social and political events but paradoxically my home is full of Buddha figures reminding me of serenity and joy. I must agree with you about east and west enlightenment being different. I did not think of that before posting. Actually I didn't think at all, but just reacted to my passion. My bad.

May I humbly suggest that a likely reason that people are like that is that life has beat them down too much. Children are naturally curious and love to learn, until life beats that out of them. I was fortunate to have maintained many (positive) child-like qualities into my early adulthood, and other adults around me seemed like they had been blunted somehow. I used to think that that was because I was better in some way than them, but as I've gotten older and older, life has begun to blunt me in similar ways that I remember seeing in others back then, and I realize now that most people just suffer too much trauma (at the hands of people who are themselves reacting to their own traumas, generation over generation) in their lives to maintain that child-like "innocence", that desire and ability to learn and teach and be helpful and useful to others. — Pfhorrest

Keep in mind those who thought democracy was a good idea were only a handful of people, but they united and shared the cause of throwing off the existing power, and then they remained devoted to manifesting a new way of life. That is simplistic, but it is possible to become passionate about liberty and democracy and to experience waking every morning to share that passion. Today books that give me hope of a new American Revolution are appearing in book stores. I had almost given up as moderators threatened to ban me and some did ban me, and people constantly attack me for what I say. But the books started to appear. I am not alone but right now we are outnumbered.

You may have a completely different passion. I am also passionate about teaching good health practices and if you look for something to feel passionate about and don't find it, check your health habits. It is hard to feel positive when our energy level is low and we just what to curl up in a cave and get away from it all.

The horse will go in the direction it wills?

A moral system is a system of principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective. — Mayor of Simpleton

A system is not unstructured. The God of Abraham religions have structured moral systems. Philosophy does not have that kind of structure, although Aristotle is responsible for structuring logic and dividing areas of thought in such a way that gives each area of thought a degree of structure. For example, Aristotle gave us physics, metaphysics, and ethics. Ethics being the study of what is good. I am sensitive to this distinction between structured and unstructured morality because democracy does not have a Bible, but is large collection of Greek and Roman classics and later books advancing western culture as it was shaped by Christianity. This important difference between structured and more or less unstructured morality leaves us not understanding what morals have to do with liberty and democracy. and leaves us stuck with a myth that our success is the result of Christianity and it is Christianity that makes us better than the rest of the world. :grimace:

Now as to how many morals system govern one's behaviour is a larger question. One can indeed have individual morals systems, yet find themself living within the matrix of a much larger morals system, such as a government of law. — Mayor of Simpleton

:gasp: You don't read many political books do you? The US government has not been about morals for many years. Defending that statement could take this thread way off-topic, so I will restrain myself, but government is more about power than morality. I think in our past literate people were far more concerned with morals than they are today but the war changed everything, just as war changed Athens.

It seems to me what you are pointing out is that we should indeed look into various sources in an effort to refine our ability to act virtuous... only problem here is virtue a fixed point of moral behaviour or is virtue something relative to the context in which one find's themself (as in what can in one case be a virtue prove to be a vice in a differing context)? — Mayor of Simpleton

A virtue is an internalized concept. There are many virtues. Assertiveness is one of them, I choose this one to demonstrate the importance of developing a virtue by intentionally acting on the concept until it becomes a habit and automatic response. We can understand assertiveness as standing up for ourselves and what we believe is important. We can know it by knowing its opposite, being afraid to speak up and feeling powerless and then perhaps becoming angry and acting inappropriately. It may take courage to be assertive, if one is not in the habit of being assertive, or has not gotten a good response to being assertive. In this case, speaking up is frightening and we have to muster all the courage we have to behave in a way we do not normally behave. However, with practice, we can gain confidence, and one day realize we are speaking up for ourselves and what we believe without fear.

We call our criminal justice system a correction system, but in most places, it does nothing to correct the problems that are manifested in harmful behavior. I am sure Socrates would declare our justice system unjust, because it is geared to punish and inflict pain, not to correct an individual's knowledge of life and self. Our education for good citizenship and good moral judgment, prevented social problems, but today we think education is about preparing our young to be products for industry, and we think someone who speaks against it is just old and doesn't value technology. :lol: Sorry I am ranting. Back to your thoughts....

It seems to me what you are pointing out is that we should indeed look into various sources in an effort to refine our ability to act virtuous... only problem here is virtue a fixed point of moral behaviour or is virtue something relative to the context in which one find's themself (as in what can in one case be a virtue prove to be a vice in a differing context)? — Mayor of Simpleton

:chin: To respond to your concern that a virtue could be a vice....

"Why Aristotle Was Right: The Power Of Balance - Anthony ...medium.com › why-aristotle-was-right-the-power-of-balance-b743f8...
Mar 6, 2017 - “Virtue is the golden mean between two vices, the one of excess and the ... in order to find happiness, people should always strive for a balance ..."

If liberty is to be the goal of individual empowerment, that would imply that liberty is a power and with maximum liberty often being the goal, so back to the maxim with this revision... — Mayor of Simpleton

Liberty is not freedom. Liberty comes with responsibility. It seems pretty clear to me the present problem is a lack of understanding. Just how much responsibility do you want? :smile: As a female, I could dodge a lot of responsibility by being an obedient wife. But when I became the president of the Toastmister Club, I took on a lot of responsibility. :lol: One might ask who is the slave, when realizing the responsibility of leadership is giving service and delegating duties to people willing to accept them. Leadership is not a power trip that flatters the ego. But not all people in power are good leaders, some are tyrants with big egos and when the majority do not understand what we are talking about here, it is likely the president will be a tyrant.

Others may view this good leadership as someone with a strong hand and making concrete decisions. — Mayor of Simpleton

They do not understand liberty and democracy and they probably rely on a Father in the sky and look forward to His kingdom. :zip:

↪Athena can you explain why you are talking about democracy? I didn't mention, or infer it. — Punshhh

I am sorry. It seems somehow the concept of enlightenment came up and from there I was compelled to mention what enlightenment has to do with liberty and democracy. If you would like I will see I can get the post deleted.

quote="Athena;386083"]What is a moral system? — Mayor of Simpleton

I don't really find this too difficult to answer on the surface.

Morals are value assertions related to what is good or bad/right or wrong.

Ethics is the field of study regarding these morals.[/quote]

I am quoting you so I can find this spot in the thread when I have time to read and respond. I wish there were a better way to do this. If anyone knows of a better way, please PM me.

Life can so interfere with our discussions. :worry: There must be a better way to identify our place in the discussions so it is easy to get back. :lol:

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1

You have missed something very important. The US is not the democracy we inherited because of the deliberate manipulation of a few and ignorance of the masses.

The US is what it defended its democracy against and thinking we are the democracy we defended in two world wars is a huge mistake! This change happened the same way Prussia took over Germany and turned it into the strongest military-industrial complex in the world, requiring a united world action to shut it down. If the US had not gotten involved, it would still be the strongest military-industrial complex, not the US. It was the Prussians who turned Germany into a military-industrial complex, not the whole of Germany choosing to take that path. It is people understanding that military-industrial complex, running the US today, not those literate in Greek and Roman classics and who are committed to an enlightened population capable of having liberty and being self-governing.

That is the importance of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Complete cultural change.

I think it would be worth pointing out at this stage that the word Enlightenment is a blanket term used to describe a wide spectrum of exalted states. It will cause numerous disagreements unless the users specify what they mean by it.
For example, does it mean one who attains Nirvana? Or does it refer to someone who achieves some degree of Samadhi? Both entirely different states, one requiring a Nirvanic realm of existence, the other requiring no spiritual realm at all, necessarily. — Punshhh

Excuse me, but I have to get political here. No one saw democracy in the bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Our Statue of Liberty holds a book because enlightenment is the result of gaining knowledge. The democracy we inherited came from the renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment= literacy in Greek and Roman classics and increasingly scientific knowledge. Modernity follows picking up where the Greeks and Romans left off when Rome fell and Christianity took over.

That argument may not fit in this thread but it is important to understanding the democracy we inherited and we need to defend it before we loose it. Enlightenment has everything to do with our liberty and a nation of human excellence capable of liberty and being self-governing. The Spirit of American brandishes the Sword of Justice in the mural of the gods in the US Capitol building. These are more eastern concepts than western Christianity. :zip: