You said this:

No, I don't agree that morality starts with axioms and definitions and categorical truths. Instead, I am convinced that the categorical truths follow the accepted moral behaviour, and that is based strictly on what is positive for society, or else for positive for segments of society. — god must be atheist

I read that as morality is “based strictly” on whats good for society. If thats wrong, please explain what else you mean by that.
Thats what law is for, whats good for the society. In the rest of your post you describe a distinction, which I accept, between law and morality but in your argument you are not making much distinction at all.
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands.
So I think where we disagree is what the best basis for morality is. I dont think we should consider whats best for society as morality because there are so many examples of the law being wrong, ignorant and/or batshit crazy. I think when those of us that figured out slavery Is awful and immoral we weren't just changing whats accepted, we were getting it right. (Morally speaking).
You disagree, right?

Ah, I think there is a moral reason for having and following the traffic law. Not having driving agreements, or violating the traffic agreements, can have very bad consequences. If the law says to drive on the left or the right does not matter. What matters is having a system of agreements and going along with it, That is being moral. Amorality is a failure to have laws. — Athena

Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. If you lived in a society without laws or with bad laws, your behavior would still be moral or immoral. It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it.

If there were a society of angels, no laws would be necessary since it would be perfectly moral anyway.

There is certainly a moral reason to follow the traffic laws, and the proof is that one’s conduct in the traffic matters even if there were no such laws. We should drive carefully, not because we are afraid of getting caught by the police, but because we want to avoid hurting other people. In fact, the presence of traffic rules blurs this fact since we are led to believe that the rules are important in themselves and not for moral reasons.

If there were no laws most people would probably follow the most important tendency of the laws we now have anyway. The laws are there to take care of those relatively few who wouldn’t. Social conventions would regulate much of our behavior in the absence of law, and the intuitive sense of morality that many people have, would stop them from being immoral. (For example, normal people wouldn’t kill even if there were no law against murder.)

In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands. — DingoJones

Right. I agree with your second approach ("what is good for society"), and disagree with your first approach (axioms are the guidelines for morality) as the BASIS for how morals are formed. In my opinion axioms are created after the morals have solidified, and they act as rationalization, as justification for the morals. Deceptively portraying themselves, these axioms pretend to be the root, the basis for morals. That is a mistaken view. Axioms may be the distilled truth of how the current morals work, and they may give them raison d'etre, the axioms may be logical and they may make sense, but stil, they are not the basis, not the root, not the reason for the current morals. These are my points.

I think thats true some of the time, that moral axioms are just ad hoc rationalisations, but thats not true of all moral systems. Having an ad hoc justification is an error in logic, a fallacy. Thats not the only way people come to moral stances or adopt moral systems, and its not the basis for all morality.
Also, why did you only respond to the middle paragraph of my last post? That comes off as bad faith engagement so if there is another reason Id like to hear what it is.

In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands. — DingoJones

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to?

If it is, okay. In our morals, cannibalism is out. Eating people, dead or alive.

In another society, cannibalism is in. Eating people, dead or alive.

What is the moral principle, or moral system, that covers both? that's why I bought up that example, and I had hoped you had read it and arrived at the conclusion.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. You somehow miss my point, which I may have not communicated clearly. MORAL SYSTEMS, MORAL PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT THEM TO DO TO YOU" AND ALL OTHERS COME OUT OF PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, AND THESE MORAL PRINCIPLES ARE AD ACTA JUSTIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE MORALS PERVASIVE IN A SOCIETY.
That is my view, not ad hoc moral decisions. I don't know how I could have miscommunicated that, but obviously I have.

I actually never attacked your point of view. If your point of view is that behaviour of individuals are guided in a society by moral principles. I also beleive you that moral principles can be summarized and systemized into moral systems.

But if your point of view is that moral principles are derived from moral systems, and the moral principles and the moral systems both preceed moral behaviour, and the principles were adopted before the behaviour was developed and adopted, then I challenge that view.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems.

Your post is excellent. We do not normally think of animals being "moral" but all social animals have agreements about good social behavior and they enforce them. In the book "Science of Good and Evil" this is called pre-moral. It is essential to all social animal's survival to be accepted by the group, and hopefully in the inner circle (high status), so even if we did not have language, we would have "natural law" compelling us to get along.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner, of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benefit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C).

(accounting for a central to path pointer, exclusive of the outer).

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to? — god must be atheist

Well no, that is the paragraph you DID respond to. Lol
You just quoted the exact same paragraph you already did.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. — god must be atheist

Right, Im didnt suggest you were advocating it. You were the one that made the point about moral axioms “after the morals have been solidified” as “justification for the morals”, and I was saying thats true some of the time but not all of the time. I used the term “ad hoc”, which wasnt the best way to describe what you were saying so Ill take the blame for the confusion on this part.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems. — god must be atheist

Yes, this is where we disagree....although the wording has changed to “acceptable” to society instead of whats good for society.
Just so we are clear, which do you mean?

I think we have agreements but I want to tweak on what you said.

Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. — Congau

Might we change the word "conduct" to individual "consciousness"?

It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it. — Congau

It is morally right to defend one's self, one's family, one's group. This defense may include taking another life, in times of war, it is mandatory. In the days of dueling, dueling was considered moral and the way to maintain morals. Not everyone agreed with that, but I think that is a legitimate point of view.

In Socrates' day, there was an argument that justice is an eye for an eye and this was met with Socrates' argument that justice never harms someone but always lefts the person up, and I like the way Greeks included Greek ideas in the teachings of Jesus when they wrote the Bible.

Maybe there is a morality and a higher morality? If we are amoral, moral, highly moral, it is a matter of consciousness, right? That makes morality a matter of education and until 1958 the US had education for good moral judgment. Back in the day, we had a very different culture, but we stopped transmitting that culture in 1958, in favor of preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values, an amoral education manifesting an amoral culture, leading to a police state and Christians being sure we are in the last days. :chin:

If there were a society of angels, no laws would be necessary since it would be perfectly moral anyway. — Congau

Satan is one of the angels, isn't he? People have fought wars over if Jesus is God or the Son of God, but how was He created differently than Satan? That could lead us off topic but confronting religion seems a necessary part of speaking of morals because education since 1958 has resulted in thinking morals are a religious matter not a matter of logic, and that is terrible for our understanding of liberty and democracy. :grimace:

The laws are there to take care of those relatively few who wouldn’t. Social conventions would regulate much of our behavior in the absence of law, and the intuitive sense of morality that many people have, would stop them from being immoral. — Congau

When I was young and learning to drive, I was a terrible driver! I was compelled to take corners way to fast until finally, I failed to make it around a corner. Anyone who has raised children knows they hear the words, but they don't understand the reasoning. "Stay out of the street" does not give the child an understanding of the command. We need to put a fence around young children and we need to leash our dogs because neither understand the reasoning for desired behaviors and they follow what they feel compelled to do, as I did until I didn't make it around a corner. Using words to declare a law, and attempting to enforce them with punishments, is somewhat useful but not always effective. A fully conscious person would be compelled to make the right decision (Cicero). There is your angel if you like, a fully conscious being. Young children can not possibly have that consciousness and even at age 30 we do not have as much consciousness as we hopefully have at age 70.

PS I think our education and criminal justice system suck. :rage:

Good point. I have to choose between "acceptable to society" and "useful for society". I choose "Whatever is useful," because it is acceptable. Whatever is neutral, is acceptable. Whatever is bad, is unaccepable. Thus, whatever is good, is moral; whatever is neutral, is amoral; whatever is bad (damaging), is immoral.

The above apply to practicalities in society. These practicalities are judged for moralilty or immorality by the society's ruling class, which could be a stratum of society, a person, or the entire society. The ruler (individual, class, or entire society) will force his or their or her will to make society accept what she he or they deem to be moral.

If you want me to reply to a specific paragraph, @DingoJones , then for my ease of reference, please quote it again. I can't go on a wild goose chase and randomly reply to your middle paragraphs not knowing which you actually mean. Just cut and paste or quote the paragraph, because on my wits alone, I can't possibly figure out which you mean. "Middle paragraph". Which post? I replied to a middle paragraph, and got strapped for getting the wrong one. Right me, by quoting it, please, @DingoJones.

Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing?

Its hardly a “wild goose chase”. I referenced the last post I made, if you cannot follow the discussion one post past, I dont know what to tell you. You dont seem to be paying attention to what Im saying...i mean, you responded to a quote of mine and then asked me if that was the quote you didnt respond too. When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass.

I dont know what to tell you. — DingoJones

Easy. Quote me the paragraph. It is obviously beyond me to find it. You are capable of it. Why stall the discussion with such technicality? Go, quote. I'm ready.

NUMBER TWO.

↪god must be atheist Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing? — Athena

Thank you for your compliment, Athena. What did I say that relates to education? I can't be held responsible to guess other people's thoughts. Please refer me to WHAT I SAID or summarize it, because as god is my witness, whether it exists or not I can't guess what I said that you consider beautiful. Honest. Not being funny, not trying to be funny. Just can't see your thougths, read them, or feel them.

The drawback of the cosmic arrangement of the self's spot in it. Don't blame me, please. Just summarize what I said that you are referring to, and I'll give it a go how that relates to education. No promises, though.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C). — Qwex

I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.

Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion. — Michael S. Schneider

There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.

I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C).
— Qwex

I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.

Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion.
— Michael S. Schneider

There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.

I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking. — Athena

I did not say any of this. You may have had Qwex in mind when you complimented me. I shall disown the compliment, as it clearly does not apply to me.

notice the pattern. A simple, walk along a path, there are four corners of a path. If you point to it, it's a reduction. And we're talking about theoretical points. If I point all of it out therefore I have selected the centre of a bigger concept. When studying the grander concept you select not the centre but at least a corner of the path.

Hence this mistake we keep making with morality is. One corner extrapolated to it's limit. There is at least a break point.

If you click on the red letter you will get your quote. You speak of your consciousness when making choices, or at least that is how I understand your words.

Socrates was most concerned with raising our consciousness so that we might have better judgment and before we became enthralled with the Germans and their powerful Military Industrial Complex, we were focused on Greek philosophy and had education for well rounded individual growth, focused on teaching concepts and preparing the young for good moral judgment. This goes with Cicero a Roman statesman who studied in Athens, and the observation that we are compelled to do the right thing and if we fail to do so, the problem is our ignorance of what is the right thing. Not that long ago, even those who dropped out of school in the 8th grade to go to work, thought ignorance was the root of evil.

When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass. — DingoJones

You also did not reply to my challenge.

I have no problem with that. You refused to quote your own self, fine, but then don't give me a hard time for not following through with the posts.

In fact, to me this site is fun, I don't use it as an exercise in responsibility to reply to all the lines of all the posts that have been written to me. If that's what it means to you, well, you are barking up the wrong tree.

thanks, Athena! This is what I got you found beautiful:
"Good point. I have to choose between "acceptable to society" and "useful for society". I choose "Whatever is useful," because it is acceptable. Whatever is neutral, is acceptable. Whatever is bad, is unaccepable. Thus, whatever is good, is moral; whatever is neutral, is amoral; whatever is bad (damaging), is immoral.

The above apply to practicalities in society. These practicalities are judged for moralilty or immorality by the society's ruling class, which could be a stratum of society, a person, or the entire society. The ruler (individual, class, or entire society) will force his or their or her will to make society accept what she he or they deem to be moral."

How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education?

Morality and the game/status quo are linked. Perhaps the reason for that is it's because how life is.

Oh, dear @Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school?

How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education? — god must be atheist

OMG :love: I may fall in love with you with questions like that. :lol:

Your answer begins with Socrates, and Cicero and finally the reasoning for our liberty and democracy and Thomas Jefferson's fight to have free public education and therefore an educated society capable of having liberty and being self-governing. Jefferson thought that education was essential to having a strong united nation. I wish everyone asked questions about education because I fully agree with Jefferson and if we knew the history of Germany and its Military-Industrial Complex and the rise of Hitler, we might have a better understanding of what is happening to our country. We replaced the education we had with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose in 1958. , and left moral training to the church as was done in Germany. We also replaced reliance on Greek philosophy with reliance on German philosophy.

That is major cultural change and increasing the power of the church to define good and evil, has us where Germany was as it manifested its Military Industrial Complex, or what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. We are no longer united but we are very divided and our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were. We are no longer the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. There is a moral lesson in what I am saying.

First of all thanks. I really cannot remember the last time I wrote anything where my head wasn't immediately chopped off. It kind of took my by surprise. (perhaps the years absence wasn't such a bad idea?)

My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals.

If notions of morals must procede the establishment of moral systems that would indicate that morals must indeed exist independent from the systems; therefore morals have to exist even if there is no moral system in play or yet developed.

Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals.

I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve.

The notion of natural law seems to also be a subsequent construction of a system of morals, as this might well be our desire to place a systemic order onto what might well not have any systemic order.

In many way humans are hardwired for seeking out patterns. This sort of recognition is crucial for the survival of the individual as well as the collective; thus in the face chaos humans will indeed seek out a pattern... even if the pattern is self-imposed for the sake of having an ordered pattern and not intrincic.

I'm not too clear on this part myself (or what I wrote prior to this bit), so please don't think I'm writng any of this in stone, but my take is that this hardwired pattern seeking in what is chaos coupled with the worldview experience (a constraint?), the given, of there never being a time or place without some sort of moral system in place we fall prey to an ideology that we don't really see well, as it's basically hiding in plan sight.

I find this the given to be for any individual very difficult to admit and next to impossible to try an overcome, yet this sort of "given" results in us asking question or making an accusation that without a moral system one cannot possibly be moral.

It reminds me of the religious folks who are baffeled at the thought "how can someone be moral who is not of my particular religious belief?", as they simply do not and cannot see the constraints of the ideology at work on them. They fall prey to the given.

Anyway...

This is just an incomplete thought rant. I should hit the brakes before I get so far off course so fast that I can't remember what we were speaking of and (as is usually the case for me) get my head chopped off.

Meow!

GREG

*** I believe what I'm hitting at here with the given is very similar to Pierre Bourdieu's Habitus: "...ingrained habits, skills and dispositions. It is the way that individuals perceive the social world around them and react to it. These dispositions are usually shared by people with similar backgrounds (such as social class, religion, nationality, ethnicity, education and profession). The habitus is acquired through imitation (mimesis) and is the reality that individuals are socialized, which includes their individual experience and opportunities. Thus, the habitus represents the way group culture and personal history shape the body and the mind; as a result, it shapes present social actions of an individual." - wiki

Also, I don't really believe that the given is always wrong or false pattern recognition, but as it is so strong within the individual via social conditioning there is very little critical review regarding the given maybe being an error or false.

Oh, dear Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school? — god must be atheist

:love: What is important is teaching the young how to think, not what to think. Education for technology is all about teaching them what to think, and Core education coming from Texas is a huge evil that is very destructive to our democracy. Now get in line soldier, for yours is to do or die, not to question why, and don't worry Trump has everything handled, and soon we will have robots controlling everything.. Isn't that wonderful? :smirk:

Thanks, Athena, for the clarification.

I both agree with you and not agree with you. I agree that people must learn how to think for themselves, and that we are all individuals. We are all different. (Well... I am not, but that's a different issue.)

But where we differ is the teaching of core subjects such as math, physics and chemistry. Those subjects are ridiculously under-taught in high school in north America. Especially in the USA.

If you want to teach independent thought, you must let the kids develop logical thinking and an ability to question, and an ability to answer. That can be fostered easily and almost automatically by challenging the kids with mental exercises. How to solve a math problem. How to solve a physics problem. These are things that develop the mind.

The mind is also a very flexible thing. It can transport skills from one area of the brain to another. If the kid learns how to quickly solve math problems, instead of being death scared of them, then he will gain confidence and brain power to solve moral dilemmas.

The problem with education in North America is not the heavy leaning on SAT subjects; it is a problem of heavy leaning on making the kids do mindless busy work. To give them homework that they can copy and paste from wikipaedia, instead of giving them age-appropriate logic problems that will exercise their brains, not their ability to cheat.

Yes, the USA has long been supporting an education system of mindless busywerk, that fosters kids to pull levers in factories all day long, go home and drink beer in front of the tv and fall asleep in a blissful state that they are doing the right thing for self, family and the nation.

If the law didnt exist than morality as we know it wouldnt exist and we would be naturally inclined towards whichever universal law holds sway in whichever dimension we are apart of. We are moral because it is a universal law, and nature compels us to be moral as an end in itself; Its not out of self interest. Those who are moral out of self interest like politicians are actually not moral in themselves but only appear to be moral.

You make me think it is a fool's game to compare that past with the present, but awareness of people being very concerned about morality is highly important to me. — Athena

While I certainly agree that concern for morality is important, life has beat me down when it comes to being optimistic about MOST people being INTERESTED enough to actually engage and analyze their morals (they would agree that morality is very important to them, but as soon as we begin to question and analyze, they want no part of it).

Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. — Athena

Dang, I like talking philosophy here much better than in real life! I can be very picky and annoying, and I could care less about my tone, so thank you for keeping things pleasant :smile:

This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think. — Athena

:up: And occasionally to confirm that I am not the only human to think what I think :smile:

What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government. — Athena

I am a little confused here, because your previous paragraph described a scenario where the power was illegitimate and tyrannical. So you agree with all those wives who just stuck with their horrifically abusive husbands until death? We don't think they should have left after day 1? I get the culture was different so that was not an option, but I don't see how that example leads to us learning the importance of submitting to power?

Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? — Athena

Surely we all have different opinions on "family duty" and "good"...?

I say too much but quickly I want to say, outside of the can of worms, we need to know of the Age of Reason to understand what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy. I really hope we can discuss this more. — Athena

I am happy to. Be warned that I don't accept any moral theory as "right" because it was popular in the past. Any people are "judged" within the time they lived, but any morals are analyzed as completely as possible (they can be "judged" from a modern perspective).

My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

I would love to invite everyone to the community room where I live and we could eat snacks while listening to lectures about Aristotle and then discuss them. This is essential to understanding our democracy and liberty and political aim.

The Puritans and Quakers were competing with each other to produce the most Saints. Methodist believed they had a method of manifesting excellent humans. The effort of manifesting excellent humans begins with Greek philosophy, not the Bible. Greek philosophy is about human excellence and so democracy.

Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

Back in the day when we thought literacy in Greek and Roman classics was essential to our democracy, we thought virtues were synonymous with strength. There is a Bahia' women who made and cards and videos to help people learn the virtues. Knowing a virtue is only the beginning of developing it in oneself. To become an excellent human requires knowing the virtues and practicing them. Through this process, a person finds it easier and easier to be a well developed virtuous person.

I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve. — Mayor of Simpleton

It became obvious to me that textbooks Americanized and updated the wording of essential information resulting in that information being disconnected from the past, and this results in a collapse of that knowledge because it looses its importance. It is important if God said it, or if our founding fathers said it, or this is the way of the tribe.... how do I say? In our ignorance, we stop valuing the words of the past and get the notion we are superior and don't need knowledge developed over thousands of years in the distant past.

Yipes time! I got to go.