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). — ZhouBoTong

That is a total bummer! Lets us work on that problem and see how much we can eliminate that in our lives. Some people may not like this but eliminating it in our lives, involves not associating with people who are not willing to think about what they think and lack an appreciation of virtues. Creating some social pressure on everyone to make the effort to strive for excellence and creating a support group that supports that effort.

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: — ZhouBoTong

Wow, that is not usually how people react to me. I am accused of being offensive, and condescending and other unpleasant things. I think how we are judged depends a lot on the people judging us. These people usually can not argue the subject but make personal attacks. They are fast thinkers and reactionary. There is a saying, "Do not argue with ignorance". To take care of ourselves, we need to avoid these people except maybe as friends to do simple things with, like go to a movie or play cards. For discussions, we need to find people who are thrilled to shared thoughts and have good virtues. They need to be slow thinkers who question what they think they know and are open to different insights. We have not educated for this since 1958, and this is causing a serious social problem as Germany had when Hitler took over.

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? — ZhouBoTong

Oh my, you opened another can of worms! Male and female relations, what it means to be manly and a woman and family responsibility and economics. :roll: In my grandmother's day well-bred women were closer to 30 years old before marriage and having children and they did not have sex outside of marriage. Can you think of any benefits for that?

I was bloody horrified to see my daughter acting as though virginity and marriage didn't matter, and then she had a slave/master relationship with her husband, several years after "women's liberation". How could she betray the movement like that? It has something to do with growing up in an amoral society where the young were taught, with today's technology they are smarter and superior to older people. Excuse me, but our society is in a real mess right now. We are functioning at the level of animals, not civilized human beings. I am not saying, the past you speak of, was better. I am saying the masses were poorly educated and we didn't have an economy to support independent career women, so acting on instinct, not reason, was part of the times. Human beings are not born nice. We have to learn how to be excellent human beings or that won't happen.

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

That should not be. Concepts of family duty are concepts of civilization. But then we are not living a shared concept of family, are we? A technological family is any combination of people we want to put together. There are some big problems with that notion. That subject needs its own thread. Warning that subject can be very ugly because when we are not organized by family, how are we organized?

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). — ZhouBoTong

Our democracy and liberty are defended by literacy in Greek and Roman classics and we have destroyed that, throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and wisdom gained from that accumulated knowledge, just as it happened when Christians took over when Rome became weak. :grin: The best way to learn history is to repeat it. :lol:

It is as Zeus feared, With the knowledge of the technology of fire we have discovered all other technologies and now we rival the gods. We are technologically smart but lack the wisdom essential to a good life.

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. — One piece

Universal laws exist but our knowledge of them is incomplete and most certainly the knowledge we have is not universally known. We are not born with this knowledge, only the ability to learn. Previous to 1958 public education in the US attempted to prepare the young for well rounded individual growth capable of independent thinking and good moral judgment. The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, as dogs are taught to obey commands. The void in their education was left to the church and now our democracy is in crisis.

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. — god must be atheist

Perhaps we should have a thread for education? Do you watch movies about teachers who have made a real difference in students' lives? I love these movies, besides having a library filled with books about education.

What has happened to education since 1958 is a horror story, and well-meaning writers of what has gone wrong with education have created a myth that is part of the problem. The myth is about industrial leaders wanting students prepared to do mindless work in factories. Before the first world war, those industrial leaders wanted to close the schools when we mobilized for war, claiming education was not giving them their monies worth, and that the war had caused a labor shortage. Child labor laws were relatively new, and industry would have loved to closed schools and return to child labor. This history is very ugly and well worth our attention because the autocratic mentality that exploits human beings is still with us. It is a history capitalist do not want us to think about.

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens was good for making patriotic citizens. We seriously need to be clear on this! Up to this time education as about Americanizing the mass of immigrants andpreparing the young to be good citizens in a democracy. The only technology children learned was reading, writing, speaking skills, and math. Our military force was in a huge crisis because the modern war, with typewriters, trucks and such things demanded a trained workforce that could use all this technology and build bridges, repair trucks. For the first time, in 1917 vocational training was added to public education. Later, it was the technology of the second world war that completely brought education for citizenship to an end with a focus on technology for military and industrial purposes.

If you care, please, come look at my books. :sad: I know that is not practical, but maybe I can figure out how to get the copier working and post pages from the books? In my mind, I am fighting to preserve the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. I would like to create a miracle before the next national election.

We have a serious problem in Texas that stands against higher order thinking skills, is behind things like no child left behind, increasing control of education and CORE education. This is the problem of which you speak and is about the Military Industrial Complex controlling education, our nation and the world. The most threatening danger to our country is not forgien. It is internal.

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. — Mayor of Simpleton

What is a moral system?

Just this morning while listening to a lecture about Aristotle and ethics, I got we can learn virtues and we can develop our ability to habitually react virtuously. But that may not be a moral system such as we may find a moral system in a holy book. It does, however, lead to liberty and good leadership.

We have forgotten in a democracy we seek to elect good leaders and leaders are made strong by our willingness to follow. While at the same time our own desire to be an excellent human being should mean preparing ourselves to lead. :chin: Hum, we need to be good followers and prepared to lead. Our ability to be a good human is based on virtues, and one of the virtues is to expand our consciousness so we have good moral judgment. That is not exactly memorizing the 10 commandments, nor praying to a god to make things right.

We can overcome being virtually weak by exercising a virtue until it is a strong part of who we are. We can expand our consciousness by traveling, reading books, going to college, carefully choose media that is informative. We seriously need to improve knowledge of this and then working conditions and salaries so the average person has the opportunity to travel and learn through various means.

A democracy is about enabling the most people to make their best contribution to the democracy. Our supreme court has not been ruling for this goal, when it rules in favor of large corporations and declares using money to get desired laws is freedom of speech. That ruling should make it instantly clear that it means the poor and unincorporated citizens, do not have freedom of speech because they can not pay enough to be heard.

My old books give lists of the characteristics of democracy. Would those lists be a moral system? If so shouldn't that moral system be taught?

Lets us work on that problem and see how much we can eliminate that in our lives. Some people may not like this but eliminating it in our lives, involves not associating with people who are not willing to think about what they think and lack an appreciation of virtues. Creating some social pressure on everyone to make the effort to strive for excellence and creating a support group that supports that effort. — Athena

I appreciate your optimism here, and I will try to keep an open mind. And I certainly was not suggesting that people like us stop engaging with philosophy. We like it...and it seems beneficial too :smile:

I guess you have not had the same experiences as I when it comes to talking philosophy with other people. I have exactly one friend, and one family member who are somewhat comfortable discussing this stuff. If you think people are comfortable try this, ask them why they identify with whatever political party they identity with. Some will already be uncomfortable, but many will answer. Then ask them "why" they believe those reasons are true. More will get upset and drop out, but for those who don't, ask "why" they believe those reasons...and so on. You don't have to argue at all. Just keep going deeper and ask them to explain their thoughts...most will get angry and end the discussion.

I started getting more excited about philosophy when I met people who challenged my beliefs and forced me to go 6 or 7 "why's" deep into beliefs (each time they asked further, I realized they were justified in asking further!). But normal people hate this crap...so much so that they cannot believe I am actually interested and I must just be messing with them.

I am accused of being offensive, and condescending and other unpleasant things. — Athena

I get that a lot too (well around here I am too uneducated to be accused of condescension, but I get it a lot in non-online life). I think it tends to happen when I think I am just being matter-of-fact. From my experience with you so far, you just come across as someone who is interested in the topic and likes to argue their opinion (we can recognize our own). I know a lot of the time I upset people is when I am getting excited about an argument and sort of forget the other person's perspective :grimace:

There is a saying, "Do not argue with ignorance". To take care of ourselves, we need to avoid these people except maybe as friends to do simple things with, like go to a movie or play cards. — Athena

Precisely. Just because they have very little willingness (or ability in some of the cases you may be describing) to engage with philosophy, doesn't mean they can't enhance other areas of my life (and hopefully the other way around too, so I am not completely selfish).

For discussions, we need to find people who are thrilled to shared thoughts and have good virtues. — Athena

Agreed, that would be ideal.

We have not educated for this since 1958, — Athena

Well I was born in 1981, so even my parents were educated in the 1960s and 1970s. While I agree it would be helpful for education to be more in line with what you are describing, I would not expect massive changes in people's mindsets. However, as I have only lived in the post 1950s America (with a god on the money and in the pledge of allegiance), perhaps I am wrong. I am certainly happy to try.

In my grandmother's day well-bred women were closer to 30 years old before marriage and having children and they did not have sex outside of marriage. Can you think of any benefits for that? — Athena

I can think of benefits and downsides. However, I would think in your grandma's day the vast majority of women were married much sooner than 30? But I think you are referring to the upper classes so that seems plausible. When was your grandma born (if you don't mind me asking)? Just trying to pin down the time period. Was she a flapper?

Dang, I have to run. I only responded to about half of your post. I should get to the rest tomorrow.

[quote="Athena;386083"]What is a moral system?[/quote]

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.

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

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.

Just this morning while listening to a lecture about Aristotle and ethics, I got we can learn virtues and we can develop our ability to habitually react virtuously. But that may not be a moral system such as we may find a moral system in a holy book. It does, however, lead to liberty and good leadership. — Athena

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)?

Another question would be liberty. Liberty seems good, but where does one draw the line?

This example is jumping a bit ahead, but there is the old maxim of The Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There seem to be a large number of arguments about claiming this is why we need to empower the people with liberty... but here's the rub.

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...

Freedom and liberty tend to corrupt, and absolute freedom and power corrupts absolutely?

I don't have an answer for this querry.

Good leadership is also something of a mess. Some view this as a benevolat, knowledgeable leader looking out for the common good of the common man. Others may view this good leadership as someone with a strong hand and making concrete decisions. There are various views upon what exactly this notion of what good leadership entails. How do we find something that serves all opinions? Afterall this leadership is suppose to represent the people... all the people, so how do you manage as a good leader when you can only represent a portion of the people?

Again, I have no answer to this one.

We have forgotten in a democracy we seek to elect good leaders and leaders are made strong by our willingness to follow. While at the same time our own desire to be an excellent human being should mean preparing ourselves to lead. :chin: Hum, we need to be good followers and prepared to lead. Our ability to be a good human is based on virtues, and one of the virtues is to expand our consciousness so we have good moral judgment. That is not exactly memorizing the 10 commandments, nor praying to a god to make things right.

We can overcome being virtually weak by exercising a virtue until it is a strong part of who we are. We can expand our consciousness by traveling, reading books, going to college, carefully choose media that is informative. We seriously need to improve knowledge of this and then working conditions and salaries so the average person has the opportunity to travel and learn through various means.

A democracy is about enabling the most people to make their best contribution to the democracy. Our supreme court has not been ruling for this goal, when it rules in favor of large corporations and declares using money to get desired laws is freedom of speech. That ruling should make it instantly clear that it means the poor and unincorporated citizens, do not have freedom of speech because they can not pay enough to be heard. — Athena

I really don't have a lot to say here, as it simply reads like a commentary, which is OK, but there are a lot of loose ends and sweeping generalizations that are in need to clearer evidence, clearer definition of terms and perhaps a bit less pleading of special cases. It does read as if one wishes to bend the topic into a very specific and political direction. At the moment I feel we haven't address the basis of terminology to get that far into the topic without fostering confusiion and possible lacks of objectivity; thus making things seem as personal rather than a discourse about ideas.

I believe I sort of understand what you are driving toward (probably agree with the vast majority... I left the USA over 25 years ago for various reasons one of them being I really could not handle the ultra authoritarian libertarians both "right" and "left"... why do I always feel that needs a rim shot? ;) ), but I wish not to assume that direction.

My old books give lists of the characteristics of democracy. Would those lists be a moral system? If so shouldn't that moral system be taught? — Athena

A list of characteristics is not the same a a code of moral actions of what is right/wrong or good/bad. The former is simply a description of what a thing is, whereas the latter is an interpretation of how one is suppose to act and live accordingly.

I'd say a list of the characteristics of democracy is not a moral system, but rather a description of a is found within such a system. If one were to subsequently take these characteristics and interpret them into specific notions of right/wrong or good/bad and set these notions into a systemic set of laws governing the actions of themself and others, then it would break into the field of a moral system.

Do you watch movies about teachers who have made a real difference in students' lives? — Athena

The movies that made a real difference for me were where the students made a real difference in their teachers' lives.

Don't ask me, please, for the titles, because I am hopeless at remembering trivial information.

One such movie was where a literature teacher comes home, brings home the homework assingments of his grade 11 students, and moans and groans to his wife as he reads them. The assignment was "What I did in my summer holidays" and the essays followed: "Watched TV." that was the entire essay. "I hate stupid homework assingments on what I did on my summer holidays." That was the essay. ETC.

Until the teacher starts to read a few lines of a more meaty essay, and his eyes bulge out. This kid produced a literary piece that the teacher (no doubt a writer-wannabe in his youth) only dreamed of ever writing.

In the rest of the movie he embraces the kids' education, but in my opinion the teacher's approach is stupid; he keeps on severely criticising the kid. That's not the way to foster creativity. The kid gets involved with a very good looking married woman, but nothing ever happens.The movie from there fizzes out, and I was fast asleep by the time the last ten-twenty minutes rolled out.

I bawled my eyes out at the moment when the teacher's eyes bulged out. The kid was so much what I had been.

---------

Another movie in which the student made a difference in the life of the teacher was where a female teacher has a physical affair with a boy, and she gets expelled by the profession. It was not so much focussed on the boy or on the effect, but rather on Judy Drench, who played the host for this hapless young teacher, whom the media was chasing down. Judy played her real life role, a closet Lesbian, who only kept the young lady who was straight, in her home, so that she (Judy) could live out her sexual fantasies on her.

--------

The third example is a song, by Sting:

You consider me the young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and Charybdis
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger

I have only come here seeking knowledge
Things they would not teach me of in college
I can see the destiny you sold
Turned into a shining band of gold

I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger

Mephistopheles is not your name
I know what you're up to just the same
I will listen hard to your tuition
You will see it come to its fruition

I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me
Vanish in the air you'll never find me
I will turn your face to alabaster
When you will find your servant is your master

You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger

It's by Sting, the song is called "Wrapped around your finger", and you can hear it here on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svWINSRhQU0

If you care, please, come look at my books. — Athena

I could look at your books, but I must warn you, that though I used to work in the audit department in a major bank, I am not an expert in accounting principles. If you need some advice re: taxes, or bank loans, I would suggest you talk to a CRA, or CA, or a RPA. If the problem is simple, maybe even an accounting student could help you. Or if it's really huge, such as you may suspect that a bookkeeper in your concern is embezzling, then you need a forensic accountant.

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). — ZhouBoTong

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.

The most threatening danger to our country is not forgien. It is internal. — Athena

"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.

Listen to some old and new Neil Young songs.

Also, watch this:

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:

Morality is the (a)intellectual triad of (b)judgement, (c)material and (d)age. You (A)learn (B)what (C)matters through (D)experience. It is actually a taller and more at an angle phenomenon that requires judgement, material and age. We could delve deeper and talk about social justice, law, but what's most cruical is ultimate morality, why good will is even worth it?

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:

The horse will go in the direction it wills?

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.

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.

:gasp: You don't read many political books do you? — Athena

I suppose 5 semesters at a university focusing upon 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.

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?

In short you might wish to avoid allowing topics being discussed to be linked with a personal indictment. Personally I don't care, but others might loose sight the words you are saying to communicate an idea in the face of an (hasty) indictment.

Anyway...

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.

One thing I would suggest is that you open another thread about wherther or not the US Government has become more or less concerned with morals over the past 40 years. I'd ask if the morals in question are simply the absence of (all) morals or the absence of morals one particularly has an affinity toward; thus one feel it is a moral vacuum due to lack of reprensentation or possibly something else?

In any event, I'd suggest that for another thread and not as a tangent here.

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. — Athena

This is more interesting than the politics.

That virtue is an internalized concept (an internalized notion of value - moral value) is what I wanted to illustrate. Internalized concepts tend to be relative to the standards/experiences of the individual who has them internalized; thus I fail to see how one can establish the notion of a virtue being all good or all bad in any absolute sense.

Let's look at assertiveness...

Of course there are circumstances where it does indeed have a postive effect/affect and we stand up an take a stand for what is right, but what if our efforts are founded upon false information or fallacies of logic? What if we are basing these efforts upon facts that once where the cutting edge, but have become outdated and no longer accurate? Is the assertiveness in this case still a virtue or perhaps a case of fools rush in?

"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 (***other of deficiency) ... in order to find happiness, people should always strive for a balance ..."

*** I filled in the rest of the Aristotle quote in your quote for the sake of clarity.

Here are a few questions.

By who's standard is a vice determined?
By who's standard does one determine if there is excess or defiency?
By who's standard is a "balance" determined and considered to be achieved?

Liberty is not freedom. Liberty comes with responsibility. — Athena

... and freedom does not?

OH... and then there's this:

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

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
freedom from care
d: unrestricted use
gave him the freedom of their home
e: EASE, FACILITY
spoke the language with freedom
f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
answered with freedom
g: improper familiarity
h: boldness of conception or execution


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Just how much responsibility do you want? — Athena

I'm not too sure that responsibility is simply a question of what one takes on. Quite often responsibility is thrust upon someone without them having a choice in the matter like it or not.

As a female, I could dodge a lot of responsibility by being an obedient wife. — Athena

As a human, I would try to eliminate the concept of an obedient wife.

Anyway...

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. — Athena

The problem here is some are and some aren't... some are on a power trip, some are not, some are like tyrants, some are not... where some clearly do not wish for a leader who is one a power trip or a tyrants there are some who actually do wish for this. Both types can be leaders and can both be either effective or ineffective... it is in the end a question of preference and individual standards of measure, as well as what one individually places as a priority when it comes to leadership and it's methods/effects/affects.

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

That could be the case with some (I'm assuming you're back to US politics again), but indeed there are many who simply look at the policies as being a easy way to make money or that the policies only negatively effect/affect others in a dog eat dog manner or simply want immediate answers even if those are answers for the sake of answers as to have no open questions and endless debates with pregnant pauses even if the answers are terrible or some people just want the certainty of knowing their place in a system, be it a good place or a bad place.

Meow!

GREG

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 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.

"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?

... 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 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? — Athena

Europe does not even ask this question. Obviously there is no supernatural power that is consistently interfering with the world's affairs on an individual basis or on group basis. This is a question to ask Americans. I live in Canada, but in this aspect I am very European.

what morality has to do with liberty and democracy — Athena

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?

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?

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.

The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have good moral judgment, — Athena

Is it necessary to draw a line between good and moral? — Athena

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.

In my esteem yes, we need to draw a line, because a lot of confusion can come from saying "ethical" or "moral" when one says "good". If the two concepts are interchangeable, then we don't need two concepts, and yet there has not been a separative declararion that separates good from moral.

If Aristotle wanted us to have virtues that drive us to do good (moral) things because we strive for excellence, then how can wars be possible?

A man H, of country Hungary, is brave and wants to do good, which is to feed the people of Hungary.
A man A, of country Austria, is brave and wants to do good, which is to feed the people of Austria.
Virtuous people are good, and a good person shalt not harm another virtuous person.

Yet H will fight A.

This is how Aritstotle's (the great, the genius) model breaks down. His model of what makes one engage in moral actions is faulty.

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.

That is a good point. Ethics and morality still at their core are ideals ,and there for are up for free from discussion and debate. To furhter that point can you really claim to have one with out the other. I personally am of the mind that you can not. Ethics and morality are so interwoven and integral to the fabric of society. You would have to agree at the very least they play a part in understanding parts of the same field of humanity. Right? I could be wrong. This coming from someone with no schooling beyond high school.

Reason is not faith based. That is why we still have religion and science, and why they want to be distinguished as mutually exclusive.

To furhter that point can you really claim to have one with out the other. I personally am of the mind that you can not. Ethics and morality are so interwoven and integral to the fabric of society. — LuckilyDefinitive

That depends on the decinition. THe definition I used bases morality on a religion, and ethics simply as a societal standard. So yes, if you do not believe in religion, you can have ethics without morality. But of course if you use a different defintion, you get to a different conclusion.