By which time, of course, it will be too late. — Wayfarer

Too late for what?

Given this is so, it seems an obvious goal for intelligent life like humans is to manipulate the processes (evolution) to give the product (life) an increased chance of survival. To add, human objectives in life have gone beyond mere survival and now include the quality of life itself. — TheMadFool

I’ve been thinking about this and in relation to other posts, and from memory I may have disagreed. But on reflection there’s no reason that this shouldn’t happen.

Nothing is fixed. Morals can evolve in any direction if they no longer serve our survival. The way we view ourselves and the world can change. Like physical attributes, intellectual attributes, over time, can also change. We can override ideas. Like I said, we are moral creatures but we must chose to be moment to moment. Even if it’s only in terms of survival and not quality of life we can chose the next step, which is not choosing the future (where I think we disagreed) but will affect our future. How to chose is the problem, on what basis? Now I find myself returning to the beginning; on what basis do we make these decisions?

but i believe people who promote anti nomianism, their ideas should be carefully scrutinized. — christian2017

Okay, but do you feel like elaborating on this?

Edit: sorry, forget that. I was confused for a moment over pro and anti.

My issue is that failed moral ideologies are propping up a deeply problematic society. — Andrew4Handel

There is no failed moral ideology. There is a deeply problematic society. I would not assume what you call a ‘failed moral ideology’ is behind it. The problem with morality, from my perspective, is that there is an aspect of human nature that can chose to carry out acts that are a disadvantage to others, from theft to murder. That doesn’t mean we are not inherently moral creatures, it means we must enact that morality and at times we fail to. But having a moral code means that whenever we are faced with problems of this nature, what’s the right thing to do? we can refer to our moral code, that which has enabled us to become who we are and what we are over the last million years.

The source of our problematic society is not knowing what to do and not believing that there are morals to act on, even though we do so every day. As if you yourself are functioning successfully under some system alien to everyone else. And in fact if that was true it’s because of the moral nature of people that you could do so. It’s a great irony to me that having developed the great advantage of language we now seem to think that as soon as you give something a word to define it we then say the word is mere consensus and therefore means nothing. So by identifying something we then blast it from existence.

Well I’m not actually for it. But you raise some interesting points.

Yes, I agree there. We may be at that point now. But what should we do?

The more regulations, the more outdated the country tends to become. — alcontali

How do you see this panning out with licensing for parents? What would be the consequences?

Seriously, we simply do not need pilots. — alcontali

I do.

I do find the word ‘faith’ fraught with problems. Mainly because with some people it’s like a red rag to a bull? But I can still use it comfortably without the baggage of religion.

Ultimately I have faith in people and what I have faith in is that they are moral. That’s not to say that there are days I despair of their behaviour towards me and in general. History is spotted with unbelievably bad behaviour, unbelievable cruelty, but inevitably something rises up against what we might call evil and it comes from people, yet on a day to day level it’s not so apparent who we are. We can be polite, considerate and understanding, all the things that keep holding communities together. But the big things, the major disruptions require a total push back and its then the our morals are quite clear. Not only that but they defeat the wrong, even if it takes years. That morality does not waver and it’s the reason we are here and who we are. People may think we are no good, what do we have to be proud of, and so, what morality, they ask? But absolutely nothing would work without the morality, you would not be able to ask that question, you might not even know how to ask the question.

What is faith? I think it’s a leap, like Possibility mentions, into that world and to engage with it or interact with it. It’s no illusion, it’s apparent every day, you can feel it in you.

They can all get us pretty close, but I think in order to understand how all of these structures correlate into an objective reality, we have to take that last leap without them, and then look back... — Possibility

This almost reads like an act of faith. Should it?

i doubt that. I think many people assume they are open minded when in fact they are heavily influenced by hollywood and popular media. — christian2017

I can’t understand what your referring to. It’s like you’re addressing another OP.

The policy does not have to make substantial assumptions about what the best kind of parenting involves, only what the worst kind involves. Just as driving licences are not designed to ensure that only the best drivers drive, but to stop the worst kind from doing so. — Bartricks

In that sense you have a fair point. And I don’t doubt that the world would be a better place if we control who has children. I wish I could have more faith in the state and I obviously don’t. A interesting proposition all the same.

Lovely post.

Because if objective reality is a dream — A Seagull

Where did you get that from?

If morality is the objective reality, then we are all doomed. — A Seagull

How so?

Likewise, then, we should not permit those who lack the requisite skills to be a good parent (which would include things such as a healthy, demonstrably stable relationship, IQ above a certain level, and a stable financial and emotional situation) to breed. — Bartricks

The problem I have with this idea is what is the best way to raise a child. Once you were a poor parent if you didn’t instil Christian values in them. What sort of values should they have? And how would you prove someone has the prerequisites you mention? A licence suggests that the state knows what’s best for you.

[quote="Possibility;356455"
]The underlying impetus behind the actions are not subjective[/quote]

That’s enough for me.

Yes, when we address them it is subjective. But the underlying impetus is objective in the sense that it exists independently of the human mind. Even if we did not have the language to talk about it the impetus would still be there.

That graph and this one about the referendum demonstrate how there is a deep generational divide, in which the older generation wants to give the younger generation what they don't want and then go and die of old age and leave them with the mess to clear up. — Punshhh

I’ve read these sort of comments before. Why do you think that’s what’s happening? Why do you think it’s true?

Objective reality;
That which exists that is independent of the human mind.

In evolution the development of physical attributes is independent of the mind.

The human mind does not chose the attributes of the body that gives it the most advantage.

The future determines which attributes are advantageous.

In its primitive state, 1 million years ago, mankind’s needs were rudimentary: food and shelter.

Co-operation contributed success in achieving these aims.

Co-operation involves sharing and understanding. These are capacities we had. We did not and could not create them. As I quoted Midgley;

“To invent or create anything, you must already have both very specific wants and equally specific powers”.

How could you consciously create sharing or understanding if you were unaware of a need for it?

“The human Will is not a mechanism for generating new thoughts out of nothing.” (Midgley).

These things come from the working out over time the things individuals had in them “as their original character” (Midgley), from the development of combinations of the things individuals had in them.
Isn’t that like the development of a physical attribute?

So if you did not know of these things and they developed over a long period of time, in spite of yourself, from a combination of the things individuals had in them, could they really be called subjective actions or thoughts?

Sorry, I’ve read your post a few times and I can’t make sense of what you’re getting at. Can you summarise it?

Nor do we share them — khaled

Of course we share them. The fact that there are people who can commit acts of evil does not mean that the vast majority of people do not share similar moral values. Otherwise why the abhorrence?

I’m not sure if I’m saying people are dumb if they couldn’t separate subjectivity from objectivity. Even today there are people who cannot see past their own subjective view on things.

What I am suggesting is that people assumed God’s existence and his word as an objective truth without understanding what they were doing. Obviously there were people who understood this, but I doubt the general population had a grip on it, even in the late 19th century.

With my 'pragmatists hat' on, I don't do 'reality' ...only 'utility'. So for me the concept of 'morality' stands or falls on the basis of its utility, which is related to the context of its usage...i.e. the norms of 'good' interactional behaviour expected by a society. — fresco

Yes, I agree with this and it contributes towards the thoughts I have. But I also feel that in early stages the ‘good interactional behaviour’ was more from co-operation than what was expected. In time when that behaviour had contributed towards building, had actually established, a secure functional community, then it would have been expected as a set of

or 'humanity is special' due to its conceptualization behaviour via language which reifies concepts like 'morality' and 'existence' by the consensual use of persistent 'words'. — fresco

This I also agree on.

Why do you say they could not separate subjectivity from objectivity. — christian2017

I suppose I hadn’t made it very clear in my posts how far back I’m referring to. But I am talking about a period much earlier than the one you mention.

Edit: I’m not just talking about a Christian god but all gods and spirits.

what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed? — unenlightened

Responsibility and proud or ashamed, they’re not really the same are they? Feeling responsible for them doesn’t include pride or shame, does it? I don’t think I would feel pride or shame, but concern.

But only if she was miserable.

Edit: but to be fair, if she wished she had not been born then she could hardly be happy. Is this not similar to my post about the parents of a child in hospital with an untreatable or barely treatable illness?

I’m not saying that we don’t or can’t act immorally. History makes that very clear. And it’s a very tired argument that we know what is immoral because we are moral creatures. Why we do these thing is another matter, don’t you think?

Consensual norms are what fluctuates, not the individual moral view of things. — Brett

You said ‘of course consensus fluctuates’, but you did not address the remainder of the sentence.

So I’m assuming you believe morals fluctuate, or do not exist.

'morality' is a statistical bundle of empathic consensual behaviors which may have evolutionary advantages for species or group survival — fresco

What are empathic behaviours if not the beginnings of morals? As I understand your position agreement must be reached on the meaning of empathy before acting on it or before it can even exist. But empathy is something felt. It doesn’t need to be made real in words or agreement.

I looked at your topic history. Your ideas are obviously fixed. I’m not convinced, but I’ll do more reading on the subject.

, consensus evokes 'existence', — fresco

How so?

There have been times that couples preferred a male child and viewed a female child as a burden. There are cultures that still feel that way, and there are men in all all cultures who prefer to have a boy over a girl for reasons that are purely egotistic. There have been states where female children were killed or allowed to die. Some children, boys, are expected to carry on what the father had started: a business, a farm, or just ideas about living: honour, masculinity, patriarchy, etc.

It’s difficult to be really conscious in our own society, whatever it might be, about where this begins to creep into decisions about having children and raising them, and what purpose they serve, where it might be happening unrecognised because it’s so subtle.

So it’s difficult to determine whether there is an experiment going on or not, and if not an experiment than at least it’s determining the outcome of a child’s experience in life because of decisions made by others who do not have the child’s interests at heart.
A state that does not value females and chooses males over females is making a conscious decision on the structure of that society. They’re shaping society according to a set of ideas they hold, and more than likely serve their own interests.

Is all this an experiment? I’m not sure, but it is a situation where the actions have been, are being, justified on the grounds that society could not grow and thrive without it. That does seem to have some sort of totalitarian framework about it.

If we reach the point where we can chose to give birth to males or females, through abortion or genetic manipulation, what then is that?

I’m not sure that I can accept that there is an experiment going on, I’m unsure about this. But if there is no experiment then I would be questioning schopenhauer’s concern, but I find myself leaning his way. On the basis that I regard the universe as chaos then I would think of our lives as the result of chance, random connections. As a result our actions produce children. I don’t really know the core reason for having children, I have no proof of anything. I do know we can chose not to have them, and i do know that as a result of having them individuals are born into a world, in a condition, that no one would chose. I think schopenauer1 does makes a legitimate ethical point. It’s difficult to get your head around it, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

Life is an experiment. — ZzzoneiroCosm

With what objective and controlled by who?
If it is an experiment who gave permission for individuals to be used in that experiment?

Ownership also depends on the agreement of others.

I have interacted with him before, several times, and sometimes managed to have an interesting discussion, and sometimes I get bored. But there are many posters I engage for a bit and then get bored with. Actually, I find you preachy and boring more so because you preach a thoughtless conventional scientistic wisdom that is immune from any self criticism. Schop and I are about as opposed as we could be on this and many other topics, but that is valuable in a discussion to anyone who is interested in philosophy rather than following convention. — unenlightened

:clap:

What we call 'morality' is a statistical bundle of empathic consensual behaviors which may have evolutionary advantages for species or group survival. — fresco

Surely something must first exist before it can be consented to.

This is not the case for members outside of this group (the other, the stranger). These people can be killed with impunity. — ovdtogt

I understand that you are trying to demonstrate that man can kill others and how and why we do it.

But what I was getting at was that you personally could not walk out your door and kill someone in cold blood, even if it was ‘the other’, and if you did you would be judged harshly for doing so. Why is that?

'Conscience ' is the term we use for sometimes uncomfortable internal dialogue indulged in between different facets of 'self' with different agenda's not all of which correspond to consensual norms. — fresco

What might it be that creates this discomfort? The ‘different’ agendas’ which sometimes do not correspond to consensual norms are the the morals the individual cannot ignore, which causes the discomfort. It’s the consensual norms that can sometimes override the morality of the individual and cause the problems you allude to. Consensual norms are what fluctuates, not the individual moral view of things.

The consensus tends to shift historically according to access to resources, or in cases of intergroup conflict in which groups tend to 'dehumanise' each other and thereby suspend 'moral action' towards them. Selectivity also operates within society and gives rise to 'inequality' issues. — fresco

No one would suggest that we are perfect. There is obviously a discrepancy between what we hope for and what we do. That does mean that man is not a moral creature. Unless you’re saying that it’s only cultural influences that enables you to look back at history and make judgments about the shift in human behaviour. There does seem to be the ability to put our morals on ‘pause’, and no matter how bad things have got the moral position has eventually asserted itself.

I’m not sure what you mean.

I think you’re right about the points you make. I think mainstream culture is actually consumerism, or vice versa. Ultimately only the public can manage this problem by turning their backs on it. We don’t need more things, we need better things. The first step is to stop spending our money so carelessly.