Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make and re-make in terms of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion: to compete, to communicate, or to collaborate. — Possibility

That is an interesting point.

But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual. — Possibility

“Evolutionary biologists define exaptations as features of organisms that evolved because they served some function but are later co-opted to serve an additional or different function, which was not originally the target of natural selection. The new function may replace the older function or coexist together with it.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

I think this is interesting in regard to your post about evolution. That an exaptation can serve an additional or different function does not mean it is necessarily beneficial in the long term.

I’ve replied to and read a number of your posts in the past and have an idea where you’re coming from.

But each of those words “ perceived potential” even on their own sound very insubstantial. Perceived by who and potential of what? I’m guessing it would have to be something inherent in all people and apparent in all cultures. And is a means or an end, is it like permanent revolution?

it would be helpful if you could say briefly but a bit more clearly your point of view. — Jack Cummins

That we are ethical creatures:

“Darwin’s two most significant points concerning the evolution of morality are stated early in chapter III of The Descent of Man. The two points are (i) that moral behavior is a necessary attribute of advanced intelligence as it occurs in humans, and thus that moral behavior is biologically determined; and (ii) that the norms of morality are not biologically determined but are rather a result of human collective experience, or human culture as we would now call it ...

... I propose that the moral evaluation of actions emerges from human rationality or, in Darwin’s terms, from our highly developed intellectual powers. Our high intelligence allows us to anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people and, thus, to judge them as good or evil in terms of their consequences for others. But I will argue that the norms according to which we decide which actions are good and which actions are evil are largely culturally determined, although conditioned by biological predispositions, such as parental care to give an obvious example.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/


Ethics is the question of what should one do in a situation where there is a choice to be made, where we must “anticipate the consequences of our actions with respect to other people”.

How we answer that question is the moral action. Our environment, our culture, will have an impact on that decision. It’s only within a culture that the moral decision is consistent: the Catholic Church, or Marxism, as an example. All people are creatures of reason, that is consistent, and it requires them to consider which is the best course of action, to;

“ think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present (and, thus, anticipate future events and planning future actions),” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

Edit: I include these quotes not in an effort to bolster my thoughts with an expert opinion but because it explains clearly what I mean without spelling it out myself.

Can you explain in what way you believe that destructive elements of human nature will be righted. — Jack Cummins

Because we are ethical creatures. That may sound ridiculously simplistic, but what else can I say? Except, of course, that the morals based on those ethics can be bent according to culture. Which is the position I’ve stated in other posts.

The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success. — Possibility

So this “success” is what life is about. And what is that?

Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.

If, hypothetically, all our needs were catered for: food, shelter, etc, would we still be competitive?

Reading through your comments made earlier today it seems that you are concerned about the destructive potential of human nature. — Jack Cummins

I’m not sure how you got that impression, in fact I’ve received a considerable amount of flak on this forum for being positive about human nature.

As I said,

Human nature may be regarded as destructive because it has learned how to use nature and control nature to the degree it suits our purposes. — Brett

There’s no doubt many people today view human nature as destructive. In fact I find that position destructive. I have a lot of faith in human nature, it’s extremely adaptive and curious, and as I’ve said, we’re ethical creatures. Wrongs are eventually righted.

At our core, we need 4 basic things: eat, sleep, sex, drink. Everything we do revolves around delivering those 4 basic things at a particular combination specific to each individual. — 8livesleft

Yes, they are of a animal nature, common across the planet. Most of it is probably achieved by instinct, or association among other things. It’s repetitive and necessarily controlled by environment. This is not human nature. Human nature may be regarded as destructive because it has learned how to use nature and control nature to the degree it suits our purposes. But nevertheless right or wrong it’s clearly how things work. Reason serves man’s interests only.

Your view of “human nature” as something that exists as a “fixed” and “unalterable” structure of perceptual cognition easily falters under the mounting history of a fluidly changing cognitive and societal existence. Our “nature” wasn’t always as it exists today. As such it cannot be “fixed”. — JackBRotten

Reason responds in a fluid way. It’s fixed as a core attribute but it’s responses are fluid.

In fact our nature is exactly the same now as it was earlier.

If human nature existed, then it would imply that there is some part of all of us that our environment does not affect. I fail to see what this part of us is, or even possibly could be, so I doubt it’s existence. — Pinprick

I’ve only scanned the rest of this OP so my post may gave already been addressed, but I feel that the part of us that our environment does not affect is reason, and that is the core of human nature. Which suggests to me that there is a human nature.

So what you’re saying is we’re only free to be human. I’d go along with that.

In the way which you speak of ideology you could view ideology and the Kantian system of view. — Jack Cummins

If you’re suggesting that the Kantian system could be viewed as an ideology then I would agree. In terms of the C.I. it’s a way of addressing a problem, which is, what actions have moral worth? Of course if one finds nothing in Kant then all bets are off.

I come here these days with a specific purpose, which is to test some of my thoughts and find some redirection. Since putting up the OP I’ve gone back to some reading that has cleared a bit of a path for me.

It may be an indication of the complex world we now live in, and my thoughts about culture and morals and ideology are about that, and that the C.I. may not be good enough to help with the times we live in and how we live in it.

Edit: just on your comment about historical context: I’m guessing that Kant’s knowledge of the world and different cultures would have been very narrow and Eurocentric.

I think that the more all-encompassing term for weighing up the personal and the universal, and the tensions between the two is the term ethics. — Jack Cummins

I know many see ethics and morals as synonymous, and use them that way. But I see ethics as the foundation of morals. We evolved into ethical creatures (another discussion altogether).

“ I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

I still do not understand your concern about ideology over morality . If anything I would say that the possible problem with ideology over morality is that it is abstract and avoids details and particulars. — Jack Cummins

I had viewed a moral action and an ideological action as two different things. The moral action was rooted in our sense of ethics, the ideological action rooted in ideas about who we are. A moral act is not carried out with a thought about who we are, who we might become. It is not a means but an end. Ideology is an idea about who we are and what we might be, even who we should be. It is also cultural and varies from culture to culture.

So ideological actions are not necessarily, maybe never, moral. Even though we are moral creatures those morals can take slightly different forms according to them culture. Then they become maxims for that particular culture. So the morals now serve the ideology instead of the other way around.

So then any action taken ideologically is not the same as one that is moral, in the sense of C.I. If one is saying “it’s the right thing to do” in relation to any issue then it seems to me it’s an ideological statement.

Really? I didn't expect that! Great! I would've liked to hear your side of the story though. — TheMadFool

Part of my problem with C.I. was in defining, among my many thoughts, a way of clarifying a C.I. So having the idea of a contradiction works for me as a sort of formula I can apply. Sometimes it seems to be elusive in applying Kant’s formulations.

We are not free, — Mww

Commands of reason inform as to what an act ought to be, but has no power to force the act to be done. — Mww

So what determines the action?

We make moral choices because our very nature imbues us with moral agency, plain and simple. — Mww

I agree that we are imbued with moral agency, but that does not give us the answer to a moral dilemma, does it? Don’t you think we have to choose to be moral?

We make wrong moral choices because we, as humans, are susceptible to a plethora of opposing interests, desires, wants and needs. — Mww

Which we have to choose from. Or not. We can even abdicate any responsibility if we choose to.

The distinction between morals and ethics is ill-conceived. They are both one in the same thing. — creativesoul

I don’t agree with you there, but I’m not sure it’s worth it to prove myself right, or you to prove me wrong, in relation to the OP. It’s enough that we agree that we are moral. Assuming you agree with that.

This is just my opinion by the way. — TheMadFool

It works for me.

So, if anything I would reframe the question in terms of the Kantian categorical imperative: what if one chooses to have relationships with others but abandoning the whole idea of marriage? — Jack Cummins

My feeling is that it would lead to a breakdown in the structure of the family. That would be a concern, and a contradiction, if you thought family was an essential element of society.

I think that all cultures are ideological. They always have been. But today there are cultures within cultures within cultures. Each have their own ideology. How can the idea of moral actions based on C.I. work in this age?

In that case, you have found a contradiction. The maxim that everyone should marry who they choose, including children, includes a contradiction because it robs the children of that very choice. It cannot be universalised and hence is not moral. — Echarmion

So then it may be more of an ideological position.

But an ideology never actually has complete control over your thoughts. Ideologies don't permanently turn people into zombies. — Echarmion

If I consider Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies then I see people very much under control, when to go against the ideology means you may burn in hell or end up in a gulag. I might add for consideration the Stockholm Syndrome.

In this I regard the child as not having a choice.

I feel that morals are grounded in ethics, and suspect that morals can become modified by cultural conditions, hence slightly different takes on right and wrong among different cultures. It strikes me that culture is ideology and therefore morals are collective, not individual. Otherwise there exists a threat to stability.

So ideology is a set of ideas that bends morals to suit its intent. In the end those morals appear as maxims to support that ideology.

So the proof of the moral rests in the absurdity of the contradiction?

Only act in a way that you would be happy with if it was applied to you. Applying this to every action then makes it a moral action. This does not mean that some actions applied to you will be necessarily agreeable. True? But they may still be moral actions.

Edit: sorry poor logic there, didn’t think it through properly.

but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally. — Mww

Okay, then can you give examples?

Proper morality does not choose between outcomes — Mww

That’s not what I meant. Part of our reason is the ability to choose between two possible outcomes. That’s what makes us free, as opposed to animals. Being free we can make a moral choice. We can make the wrong one as well. If C.I. is at the command of reason then why the wrong choice?

but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally. — Mww

Any proof of that?

If it’s a command of reason then why so many bad acts in the world? A reason for doing something isn’t the same as reason/rational is it?

That seems reasonable, but if we apply it universally then it means an adult male can marry whoever he wants. It doesn’t say anything about age or consent. Nor does it address cultural differences,
— Brett

The categorical imperative does not account for cultural differences — Echarmion

It seems to me that the one thing we all have in common is reason. Reason cannot very according to culture, can it? There are no degrees of reason like skin colour for instance.

Edit: sorry, I might have misread you there. It as in response to this.

“ The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants.”

My query is that if one should be able to marry whoever one wants, and that is a universal maxim, is it moral if it involves marriage between an adult and a child in a culture that approves of it?

The c.i. Is not an application to the world; it is a command of reason, — Mww

Is “command” correct, a command of reason? Would you stand by that? Because isn’t reason a universal human faculty and from that comes the ability to choose between possible outcomes? It’s always a choice, unless you live by an stablished maxim, which is what cultures are. Can reason command anything?

An ideology is a collection of ideas that is weaved so tightly that it becomes an overwhelming framework for everything you think and do. This is usually a bad thing, but equality, freedom, humanity, are also ideas. — Echarmion

I would class both Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies. One is based on a set of morals (questionable) the other “ a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.” Wikipedia

Where an ideology is based and develops from a moral position it seems to me that the moral has been drawn into service of the idea. Which means it’s no longer a choice to be made by the individual but virtually a maxim to live by. If the choice is no longer made by the individual then that person is no longer free and if they are not free to choose between to alternative outcomes then they are not capable of making a moral position.

Okay, I could unpack this more but I don’t think it’s necessary because we can still move forward without doing so. We are free and therefore we can choose to be moral.

Echarmion

But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a
moral ... person. — Brett

That we can agree on.

But when you say “ CI is something you do, for yourself” do you mean you choose it yourself or you do it not for yourself but for others. Does it make you a moral person because you do it for yourself?

I still want to find out if morality is different from ideology. What is ideology? What is the source of ideology? If it stems from moral acts and thoughts, which is based on the categorical imperative, which is based on our intellectual faculties, then it is moral. And the only way I can think of it being connected to morals is if the categorical imperative can be applied to it.

But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a moral, and therefore a free, person. — Echarmion

Yes I agree with you on that. You choose to be moral. However to use a categorical imperative as a means turns it into a hypothetical imperative. A categorical imperative serves ends only. The moral crime of killing is not the means to be something, it is the end in itself.

The same with using it as a means to freedom. That is not why you do it.

In fact isn’t it the other way around; because we are free we can choose to be moral.

There is no higher authority here than your own reason. And there is no-one who puts you under any obligation except yourself. — Echarmion

Except the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is reason in action and this reason is universal.

I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision?
— Brett

Do you mean here whether the decision happens in a moral framework at all or whether it is the correct decision given a specific framework (e.g. the CI)? — Echarmion

My response here was to your comment; “ So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology.
— Echarmion

Can ideology really create a moral position?

it's supposed to help you make your own moral decisions. — Echarmion

This is a bit ambiguous. It’s true that we are responsible for making moral decisions, but it’s not a decision based on personal, or relative ideas of morality, it’s one that must be tested by the categorical imperative.

It's fundamentally a personal stabdard, — Echarmion

I feel that this is one thing a categorical imperative is not. It’s true that part of our intellectual development is the ability to choose between two alternative actions. But being moral us making the right decision, and, according to Kant,

“The categorical imperative is something that a person must do, no matter what the circumstances. It is imperative to an ethical person that they make choices based on the categorical imperative. Another way of saying that, is that an ethical person follows a "universal law" regardless of their situation.
Kant explained his ideas about following the categorical imperative by introducing one more idea he called a "maxim." A maxim is another way of saying what we want to do and why we want to do it in one sentence. We can learn ethical maxims by applying the test of the categorical imperative. And he said we can live ethical lives if we use these maxims whenever we make decisions.” Wikipedia

So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology. — Echarmion

I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision?

The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants. — Echarmion

That seems reasonable, but if we apply it universally then it means an adult male can marry whoever he wants. It doesn’t say anything about age or consent. Nor does it address cultural differences,

Is Kantianism an ideology? — Echarmion

Kantianism might be an ideology but it’s not a moral.

What defines an ideology in my mind is that it dominates your thinking, your worldview. — Echarmion

I don’t feel that this defines ideology well enough to decide if there is a difference. And the difference between morality and ideology, to me, is one of means and ends.

A Christian Fundamentalists who is opposed to gay marriage will obviously frame their decision in moral terms. For them it's a moral question with an obvious answer. — Echarmion

They may say they frame their their decision in moral terms, but is it really moral in Kant’s terms or just ideology.