Your body feels their fear is what I meant. Their fear generates hormones and other chemicals which you then consume. I'm not referring to empathy, but chemistry. Not making a moral point, just a biological one. — Hippyhead

So that's why my Body is so uptight. That's OK, as long as my Mind doesn't feel the fear. :joke:

Seriously though, I'm in favor of the current move toward more humane slaughtering techniques. Not because I can taste the difference between cage-raised and free-range chickens, but simply because they are our fellow animals, even though low on the moral agency totem pole.

For those who are concerned about hormones in their food, Kosher & Hallal foods may be good choice. The ancient Jews seemed to be like Native Americans, in that food animals should be treated as respectfully as possible, in order not to offend their spirits, or God. :smile:

Humane Ritual Slaughter : https://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html

Well, something inside me tells me I should agree with regarding some ideas like Ahimsa being too idealistic but then how does one make sense of the difference between humans and other animals? I mean how come, considering the fact humans are basically animals, we've made so much progress in the moral department? if you ask me, expecting good, moral behavior from animals is, by your standards, just too idealistic and yet here we are - Jesus, Buddha, J. S. Mill, Kant, etc. We were, at one time, apes and it would've been the heights of idealism to expect an ape to write the Bible and yet we have.

We were, at one time, apes and it would've been the heights of idealism to expect an ape to write the Bible and yet have. — TheMadFool

Interesting to see how Darwinism filters through to popular culture.....

Interesting to see how Darwinism filters through to popular culture..... — Wayfarer

Well, suppose evolution is false. Let's look at slavery - it was practised worldwide by all cultures at one time. If we were to go back in time to peak slavery it would've been, without doubt, just too idealistic to abolish it and yet we've managed, with great difficulty of course, to end this terrible chapter in human history. The great difficulty was, in no small part, due to impracticality of the abolitionist spirit in the face of how common and widespread keeping, mistreating slaves was. Slavery, despite the fact that the desire to end it, at one time, being too idealistic or too unrealistic, has come to an end. Any ideas what this means for those who think Jain ahimsa is too idealistic?

Well, suppose evolution is false. — TheMadFool

I'm sure that biological evolution occurred just the way science says that it did (although that account is by no means fixed). But it has not much to do with religion, unless you believe religion is a literal account. If you don't believe religion is a literal account then the fact that it's not a literal account is of no particular significance. I myself have never doubted for a second the veracity of evolution by natural selection, but what it means is a wholly different question. I think those who say that it necessarily means something 'against religion', like Dawkins and Dennett, suffer from a kind of fundamentalism of their own.

In respect of slavery, William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, was one of the principle founders of abolitionism.

As far as Jaina is concerned, I find it too culturally remote to practically engage with it. More so than Buddhism, for example, although even that is a challenge.

I myself have never doubted for a second the veracity of evolution by natural selection, but what it means is a wholly different question. — Wayfarer

So, you're saying that you don't see the problem with shooting down good ideas based on the belief that they're too idealistic? While I don't disagree that some ideas are ahead of their time, I feel change is impossible if this were true and change we have, right?

The Too Idealistic Paradox: Every point in human history is characterized by a set of predominant worldviews that is its zeitgeist. Given this is the case, any divergence from the beliefs and practices of the majority would be, quite naturally, too idealistic and yet our history is riddled with countless instances of movement away from majority opinion. How does one explain that?

Well, something inside me tells me I should agree with regarding some ideas like Ahimsa being too idealistic but then how does one make sense of the difference between humans and other animals? I mean how come, considering the fact humans are basically animals, we've made so much progress in the moral department? if you ask me, expecting good, moral behavior from animals is, by your standards, just too idealistic and yet here we are - Jesus, Buddha, J. S. Mill, Kant, etc. We were, at one time, apes and it would've been the heights of idealism to expect an ape to write the Bible and yet we have. — TheMadFool

Ideals are great as hypothetical goals to aim for, but they are by definition, not Real, or realistic, in the sense of practical. The Garden of Eden was an idealistic myth, where Lions apparently age veggies, despite having teeth unsuited for that kind of food. But the myth-makers were not concerned with such mundane practical matters. Likewise, the Jains did not take into account that human digestive systems are best suited for an omnivorous diet. Or that, according to anthropologists, the large human brain was a result of pre-humans who flourished on a diet that included meat protein. Ideals are like Infinity, we may approach it, but never reach it.

The fact is that humans are not mere animals. They are animals-plus. That "plus" allows humans to make moral choices --- such as to eat meat or not --- that animals cannot. I doubt that most animals can even conceive of Ideals. Yet humans can imagine such heavenly standards of perfection for narrowly-defined cases. In the real world though, such high goals require trade-offs. For example, if Lions were originally vegetarians, they must have fallen short of Edenic perfection, and somehow evolved digestive systems adapted to meat eating. But in that case, they would lose the ability to eat grass, which requires multi-chambered stomachs. Moreover, even perfectionist humans --- like Peter Singer --- have lost the ability to eat grass, and are forced to eat a limited range of foods that their puny teeth and single-chambered stomachs can handle. How does he know that carrots don't have feelings, and silently scream when roughly plucked from the bosom of Mother Earth? If he was really an Idealist, he might become a Breatharian, and live upon a diet of feelingless air for nourishment.

By my standards, Idealism is a state much to be desired, but only Jesus (reportedly) ever achieved that level of moral perfection. And it was not reported that he abstained from the flesh of animals. So, was that paragon actually immoral, or merely human? Your use of "apes" to describe the Bible-writers is disingenuous. They may have been anthropoids, but they certainly were not apes. Instead they were apes-plus, who aspired to ideals beyond their reach. I too, can imagine impossible Ideal standards, but I don't deceive myself that they are within my grasp. :joke:

Breatharian : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

Jesus -- imperfection? : Another perspective characterizes Christ's perfection as purely spiritual and moral, while his humanistic traits are subject to flaw, potential, and improvement as part of the current human condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection_of_Christ

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? ___Robert Browning

Ideals are great as hypothetical goals to aim for, but they are by definition, not Real, or realistic, in the sense of practical. The Garden of Eden was an idealistic myth, where Lions apparently age veggies, despite having teeth unsuited for that kind of food. But the myth-makers were not concerned with such mundane practical matters. Likewise, the Jains did not take into account that human digestive systems are best suited for an omnivorous diet. Or that, according to anthropologists, the large human brain was a result of pre-humans who flourished on a diet that included meat protein. Ideals are like Infinity, we may approach it, but never reach it. — Gnomon

Yes, I fully agree that some ideas were/are/will be far ahead of their time - impractical or too idealistic for the times they were born in. However, if we take this view to its logical conclusion, no change was/is/will be possible. Yet, as you and I know, our history is defined by change - as an example, life in the 21st century is radically different from life in 30,000 BC, presumably a time when we were hunter-gatherers living in forests and grasslands. How can we explain this change? After all, the ideas that drove this change from hunter-gatherer to civilized man would've surely been impractical and too idealistic back in 30,000 BC.

The fact is that humans are not mere animals. They are animals-plus. That "plus" allows humans to make moral choices --- such as to eat meat or not --- that animals cannot. I doubt that most animals can even conceive of Ideals. Yet humans can imagine such heavenly standards of perfection for narrowly-defined cases. In the real world though, such high goals require trade-offs. For example, if Lions were originally vegetarians, they must have fallen short of Edenic perfection, and somehow evolved digestive systems adapted to meat eating. But in that case, they would lose the ability to eat grass, which requires multi-chambered stomachs. Moreover, even perfectionist humans --- like Peter Singer --- have lost the ability to eat grass, and are forced to eat a limited range of foods that their puny teeth and single-chambered stomachs can handle. How does he know that carrots don't have feelings, and silently scream when roughly plucked from the bosom of Mother Earth? If he was really an Idealist, he might become a Breatharian, and live upon a diet of feelingless air for nourishment. — Gnomon

Again, you need to offer a good explanation of the tangible change that has occured over human history. The too-idealistic, too impractical philosophy of yours fails to explain facts as they stand.

By my standards, Idealism is a state much to be desired, but only Jesus (reportedly) ever achieved that level of moral perfection. And it was not reported that he abstained from the flesh of animals. So, was that paragon actually immoral, or merely human? Your use of "apes" to describe the Bible-writers is disingenuous. They may have been anthropoids, but they certainly were not apes. Instead they were apes-plus, who aspired to ideals beyond their reach. I too, can imagine impossible Ideal standards, but I don't deceive myself that they are within my grasp. :joke: — Gnomon

Jesus and our ancestor homininds are worlds apart. Again, your too-idealistic, too-impractical philosophy can't explain how animalish homininds led to someone as non-animalish as Jesus.

Breatharian : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

Jesus -- imperfection? : Another perspective characterizes Christ's perfection as purely spiritual and moral, while his humanistic traits are subject to flaw, potential, and improvement as part of the current human condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection_of_Christ

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? ___Robert Browning — Gnomon

:up:

The Too Idealistic Paradox or The Impractical Paradox:

At every point in history, there have been a set of existing philosophies, religions, political structures, scientific knowledge, etc. that determined the difference between what's practical and what's too idealistic or impractical. However, those very things that were, at one time, considered impractical have, at a future time, not only become practical but also so easy as to be child's play. Accepting the fact of a philosophy that deems some ideas too idealistic or too impractical, no change should've been possible. Yet, history is defined by change.

After all, the ideas that drove this change from hunter-gatherer to civilized man would've surely been impractical and too idealistic back in 30,000 BC. — TheMadFool

What "ideas" are you referring to? I don't suppose that you think cave-men were making utopian plans for turning their caves into high-rise cities. Anthropologists, who study the few remaining "primitive" peoples, have found that they tend to live very pragmatically, one day at a time, with "little thought for the 'morrow". Incremental technological improvements, such as better arrow-heads, resulted from the practical work of hands-on craftsmen, not arm-chair theorists. And incremental moral changes were often inspired by hundreds of "enlightened" Religious Founders. But the implementation of their perfectionist Ideals (Heaven on Earth; Nirvana -- the peace of nothingness) into a Utopian society is still, after thousands of years, an impossible dream.

I apologize for the mild sarcasm. Any "ideals" of human societies in general seem to be mostly for short-term improvements that, over time, add-up to major changes in how societies inter-act with each other, and with their environments. I suspect that the very idea of "Progress" and "Ideals" came into existence with the early philosophers (8,000BC), and as a result of the enhanced opportunities afforded by the power of complex civilized living (10,000BC). Clearly, the pyramid builders had idealistic motives, but very narrow Pharaoh-centric applications.

The modern notions of idealistic entrepreneurs is also typically narrowly focused on specific applications. Elon Musk may have stars in his eyes, and spreads his idealism across a variety of ventures, but he is also pragmatic enough to focus on each step up the stairway to the stars. Again, I'm not denigrating the inspiration of Idealism, but merely noting that without incremental Pragmatism, those "sky castles" never get built. :joke:

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. Great accomplishments depend not so much on ingenuity as on hard work." ___Thomas Edison.

“Ideas are a dime a dozen. People who implement them are priceless.” ___Mary Kay Ash

Again, you need to offer a good explanation of the tangible change that has occured over human history. The too-idealistic, too impractical philosophy of yours fails to explain facts as they stand. — TheMadFool

The explanation for how impractical ideals resulted in practical results is summed-up in the Edison & Ash quotes. :smile:

Again, your too-idealistic, too-impractical philosophy — TheMadFool

Again, I'm not proposing a fatalistic philosophy. Back to the context of this thread, I'm merely noting that expecting humans to live like Jains --- sweeping their path to avoid stepping on ants, and wearing a mask to avoid inhaling a gnat --- is not a practical path to a non-violent society. Instead, we will have to continue the incremental moral progress that has been going on for thousands of years. :nerd:


The Moral Arc : "[Hume] also said that “reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions.” But Shermer argues that those truths cannot deter us from imagining a better reality, and like MLK, working to implement that dream against all odds."
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page62.html

Progressing or Backsliding? : "One prominent sign of human moral progress is the expansion of the “circle of sympathy” beyond family, tribe, and state, to encompass all of humanity, and of the world in general. This is the goal of philosophical Humanism, . . ."
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page42.html

Paradigm Shifts : "But all Paradigms require a foundation in some eternal truths, even if they are assumed for their theoretical value, not their proven truth value."
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page71.html

I don't suppose that you think cave-men were making utopian plans for turning their caves into high-rise cities. — Gnomon

Too idealistic and impractical right? Yet, in this day and age, we live in a world where every city has high rises. If we were to take your position that we should ignore ideas that, according to some, are "too idealistic" then such things should've been impossible.

but merely noting that without incremental Pragmatism, those "sky castles" never get built. :joke: — Gnomon

First you say some ideas are impractical then you introduce the notion of "incremental Pragmatism". :chin:

The explanation for how impractical ideals resulted in practical results is summed-up in the Edison & Ash quotes. — Gnomon

:chin: Doesn't this confirm what I've been saying?

Again, I'm not proposing a fatalistic philosophy. Back to the context of this thread, I'm merely noting that expecting humans to live like Jains --- sweeping their path to avoid stepping on ants, and wearing a mask to avoid inhaling a gnat --- is not a practical path to a non-violent society. Instead, we will have to continue the incremental moral progress that has been going on for thousands of years. :nerd: — Gnomon

Your idea of "incremental moral progress" is a good explanation for why there's change in the world but it refutes your belief that there are things too idealistic to implement.

Your idea of "incremental moral progress" is a good explanation for why there's change in the world but it refutes your belief that there are things too idealistic to implement. — TheMadFool

I never said that "there are things too idealistic to implement". What I did say was "It's an idealistic idea, but hard to implement in the real world.". You were generalizing my specific skeptical response to the notion of modern people in the West adopting the extreme "idealistic" values of ancient Jains : "an obsession with purity". Thoreau, Gandhi, and M. L. King were all inspired by non-violent ideals. But they all found that implementing those "impossible dreams" takes time . . . lots of it. The Golden Rule is an ancient ideal, and modern people are still inspired by its implications for an ideal society. But innately selfish human nature (the Selfish Gene) is resistant to top-down control. Maybe, in a Utopian future, when humans are replaced by vegetarian robots, violence will become extinct. :joke:

The bottom line is, I was not objecting to Idealism, but to Extremism. However, I didn't think you were suggesting that Americans actually convert to Jainism, but that we can add their example to those of Jesus, Thoreau, Gandhi, and King, to serve as inspiration for our personal values. With that I can agree. But I am not convinced that animal-loving vegetarians are inherently non-violent toward humans. I have included the image below, with tongue in cheek, merely to illustrate that the ideals of Non-violence and Vegetarianism are valid moral positions --- equivalent to the general moral imperative, Thou Shalt Not Kill --- but subject to various interpretations in practice. My interpretation is moderate, not extremist. :joke:

Impractical Jains : In a religion that entails a strict vegetarian diet, daily meditation, and taking vows that most would see as impossible to uphold, it may prove difficult to see how Jainism can relate to the modern concept of nonviolence.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1018&context=tdr

Vegetarian Violence : "But any intuition that vegetarianism and humanitarianism go together was shattered in the 20th-century by the treatment of animals under Nazism. Hitler and many of his henchmen were vegetarians, not so much out of compassion for animals as from an obsession with purity, a pagan desire to reconnect to the soil, and a reaction to the anthropocentrism and meat rituals of Judaism". ___Steven Pinker, Better Angels of Our Nature

The bottom line is, I was not objecting to Idealism, but to Extremism — Gnomon

Good distinction my friend but you're ignoring it. Every idea is at one point in its history is/was/will be extremist but some, not all, have managed to become, how shall I put it, the new normal

Good distinction my friend but you're ignoring it. Every idea is at one point in its history is/was/will be extremist but some, not all, have managed to become, how shall I put it, the new normal — TheMadFool

I can quibble with the notion that "every new idea" is extremist. Many are quite moderate, but are rejected due to the polarized & uncompromising attitudes of the times. Yes, some seemingly extreme or unorthodox ideas have become "the new normal". My own Enformationism worldview may seem to be extreme --- in its blend of Eastern & Western philosophies, along with Quantum paradoxes --- relative to both rational Materialism and emotional Spiritualism. But I like to imagine that its moderate & consilient attitude toward the world will eventually become the new Standard Model for future Science and Philosophy.

By contrast, as with many religious doctrines, I view Jainism as uncompromising & extreme in its black & white worldview. How can you have too much non-violence, you ask? Remember presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's assertion “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue”? I suspect that Hitler would agree. But Aristotle's Golden Mean finds beauty, truth, harmony, symmetry & proportion in the middle way between extremes. This flexible rule applies in both personal and interpersonal dealings. That means you and I can get along, even though you are an animal-loving strict vegetarian, and I am an animal-loving casual meat-eater. :cool:


BothAnd Philosophy : From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue”? — Gnomon

But this speaks in my favor??!! You describe Jainism as an extreme point of view and you quote someone who sees extremism as a positive force for change, good change.

But Aristotle's Golden Mean finds beauty, truth, harmony, symmetry & proportion in the middle way between extremes — Gnomon

I can't square this with what you said above.

But this speaks in my favor??!! You describe Jainism as an extreme point of view and you quote someone who sees extremism as a positive force for change, good change. — TheMadFool

Apparently, you don't know who Barry Goldwater was. As presidential candidate in 1964, he was the Donald Trump of his day, and had been characterized as "a right-wing extremist who would plunge America into a war and do away with Social Security and other essential social programs . . ." Of course, that was a political "spin" by his opponents. But for progressives and liberals his espousal of extremism was reminiscent of Hitler : "Martin Luther King, Jr., saw “dangerous signs of Hitlerism” in Goldwater’s programs." And of course, Liberals can also be extremists.

But the point here is that I was not endorsing his view of "extremism as a positive force for change". Instead, in his case, it was a force for countering the "extremist" Liberal changes in the 60s. I'm not in favor of extremism from Left or Right or zealous religions. Like Aristotle, I prefer moderation in all things --- including moralistic dogma. :smile:

Goldwater Extremism : https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/

Aah, I see. You're in favor of the Arisotetelian golden mean but isn't the idea of extremes something relative. We don't do so well in the Antarctic cold but penguins call it home. In a similar manner Jain nonviolence appears extreme for you but to Jains it's something as normal as breathing

You're in favor of the Arisotetelian golden mean but isn't the idea of extremes something relative. — TheMadFool

Yes, the Golden Mean is relative to the mode and range of the values under consideration. I this case, I am relating the Jain morality to my own personal context in 2020 America, not to penguins in their frozen wasteland. Compared to all the other meat-eaters in my cohort, I'm pretty average. I killed a few animals in my youth -- mostly fish and squirrels. but very few since then -- mostly roaches & flies; no humans. My personal meat consumption is moderate, so my carbon debt is fairly low.

Also, since I don't consider animals raised for fur & meat & milk equal in moral value to humans, I don't believe that "fur is murder". But, like most of my fellows, I draw the line at animals raised for pets. They may not be morally equal to humans, but they have value to humans that I must respect. Moreover, relative to non-Jain Indians, about 31% are vegetarian and 9% ovo-vegetarian. So, in their own context their values are pretty far off the mean. :cool:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=vegetarians+in+india

PS__I don't have any animus toward Jains. I'm just not inclined to go quite so far in search of absolute moral purity. Above average purity is OK for me. Does that laxity make me evil? :joke:

What say you? — TheMadFool

It isn't surprising that throughout history, jainists are only diminishing in number through conversion to Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, and even Buddhism. A religion that doesn't defend its own people or territory is fated to fail.

Yes, the Golden Mean is relative to the mode and range of the values under consideration. I this case, I am relating the Jain morality to my own personal context in 2020 America, not to penguins in their frozen wasteland. Compared to all the other meat-eaters in my cohort, I'm pretty average. I killed a few animals in my youth -- mostly fish and squirrels. but very few since then -- mostly roaches & flies; no humans. My personal meat consumption is moderate, so my carbon debt is fairly low. — Gnomon

So, you agree, the matter of what's extreme and what's normal in re an issue depends on one's own locus on the spectrum of possible positions one can assume on that issue. Since there's no absolute sense in which one can be described as an extremist, to say Jains are moral extremists is wrong unless you happen to subscribed to a different moral tradition that allows meat eating. Your whole idea that Jain morality is too idealistic unravels at this point; after all, it's only that for you and others who think like you. No?

Also, since I don't consider animals raised for fur & meat & milk equal in moral value to humans, I don't believe that "fur is murder". But, like most of my fellows, I draw the line at animals raised for pets. They may not be morally equal to humans, but they have value to humans that I must respect. Moreover, relative to non-Jain Indians, about 31% are vegetarian and 9% ovo-vegetarian. So, in their own context their values are pretty far off the mean. :cool: — Gnomon

Take a closer look at the trend: we were killing each other in countless wars in the past, we've more or lesss stopped doing that; we used to keep slaves, we've put an end to that; we keep and kill animals in cruel ways, now there's animal rights groups... Do you see where this is going? The rest of the world is just playing catch up with the Jains.

PS__I don't have any animus toward Jains. I'm just not inclined to go quite so far in search of absolute moral purity. Above average purity is OK for me. Does that laxity make me evil? :joke: — Gnomon

No, it doesn't make you evil but it shows you that you can do better.

It isn't surprising that throughout history, jainists are only diminishing in number through conversion to Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, and even Buddhism. A religion that doesn't defend its own people or territory is fated to fail. — Gus Lamarch

Read above. Jainism as a formal religion maybe losing ground to other faiths but Jainism's core idea of ahimsa/non-violence is becoming increasingly popular.

Take a closer look at the trend: we were killing each other in countless wars in the past, we've more or lesss stopped doing that; we used to keep slaves, we've put an end to that; we keep and kill animals in cruel ways, now there's animal rights groups... Do you see where this is going? The rest of the world is just playing catch up with the Jains. — TheMadFool

The trend is peace, prosperity, plentyness, bloom. Humanity at is original and most beastly state is war, fear, famine, etc... Just take a look at history, we are not natural loving people, we are raiders, warriors, not sedentary fools that we are liking to pretend we are for the last couple of thousand years.

I surelly would love a world where everyone could say they are "humans" without differences, but that dream is a long way ahead, and until there we still are mere, humans...

The trend is peace, prosperity, plentyness, bloom. Humanity at is originial and most beastly state is war, fear, famine, etc... Just take a look at history, we are not natural loving people, we are raiders, warriors, not sedentary fools that we are liking to pretend we are for the last couple of thousand years.

I surelly would love a world where everyone could say they are "humans" without differences, but that dream is a long way ahead, and until there we still are mere, humans... — Gus Lamarch

:ok:

Your whole idea that Jain morality is too idealistic unravels at this point; after all, it's only that for you and others who think like you. No? — TheMadFool

Yes. If you have a need for absolute moral purity, then go for it. But most people are not so angelic. I do my best, but it's never good enough to qualify me for heaven. :smile:

Do you see where this is going? The rest of the world is just playing catch up with the Jains. — TheMadFool

Like Steven Pinker, and Michael Shermer, I see historical evidence that cooperative human morality is gradually progressing, despite the inherent US vs THEM attitudes built into us by the evolutionary algorithm of competitive "survival of the fittest". However, I don't look backward for traditional religions to pave the way for a more peaceful future. They played their part in the past, but modern societies are much more diverse, with more moral pitfalls, for their simplistic idealistic doctrines to have much impact. Buddhism is a good model for non-violence, but it focuses on the individual, and idealizes a self-centered monastic lifestyle. Not a recipe for world-wide revolution in morality.

Even my own personal BothAnd philosophy is a drop in the bucket for moral change. So I doubt that any one religious or philosophical model will do the trick. Instead, continued application of Reason (as suggested by SP and MS) to control our innate Emotions, may create a less competitive Us/Them environment to allow whole societies to become more peaceful. Given time, humanity may evolve into a tranquil egalitarian Star-Trek-like culture, instead of a Star-Wars-like continuation of the status quo. Does that sound too idealistic to be possible? :nerd:


Rational Moral Progress : Like Steven Pinker, in the Better Angels of Our Nature, Shermer thinks that too many people are pessimistic about the notion of moral progress in humanity, and about the prospects for the future of civilization. One indicator of that dark mood is the pounding waves of post-apocalyptic and natural disaster movies since the turn of the 21st century. Most of them either blame Science for the problems (alien attacks, nuclear war, global warming), or show no confidence that Science can solve them.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page62.html

The BothAnd Principle : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html
Note the conflicting Goldwater quotes.

However, I don't look backward for traditional religions to pave the way for a more peaceful future. They played their part in the past, but modern societies are much more diverse, with more moral pitfalls, for their simplistic idealistic doctrines to have much impact. — Gnomon

Well, in my humble opinion, the refutation of your position lies in the past; looking backward serves the critical function of revealing, showing you, the evidence against your hyper-pragmatism. Perhaps I'm guilty of the straw man fallacy but convince me that you're not committing an argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Well, in my humble opinion, the refutation of your position lies in the past; looking backward serves the critical function of revealing, showing you, the evidence against your hyper-pragmatism. Perhaps I'm guilty of the straw man fallacy but convince me that you're not committing an argumentum ad antiquitatem. — TheMadFool

"Hyper-pragmatism" is not pragmatic, it's idealistic. That's one problem with "hyper-idealists", they tend to view pragmatic moderates through a reverse telescope that makes them look farther away than they actually are. :smile:

Regarding the "argumentum ad antiquitatem", all I can say is that I respect most religious traditions of the past for their relevance to their own place & time. But the world today bears little resemblance to the isolated cultural pockets that most religions evolved in. So the solutions of yesterday need to be updated to suit the ethical milieu of today. Secular Humanism is one attempt to provide the benefits of traditional religions without the negatives that result from blind faith and magical thinking. Of course, no man-made system of ethics will ever be perfect, hence the necessity for a compromising consilience of Pragmatism and Idealism. :cool:


Pragmatic Idealism : This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html


Dalai Lama on Secular Humanism : There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all. The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

"Hyper-pragmatism" is not pragmatic, it's idealistic. That's one problem with "hyper-idealists", they tend to view pragmatic moderates through a reverse telescope that makes them look farther away than they actually are. — Gnomon

:up: I did admit I could be caricaturing your position on the matter at hand. It appears that I've been hoisted with my own petard :smile: . Nevertheless, it goes to show that it's all relative - you're as hyper-pragmatic as Jains are hyper-idealistic. There's no right answer to the question, who, you or a Jain, is in error?

Secular Humanism is one attempt to provide the benefits of traditional religions without the negatives that result from blind faith and magical thinking. — Gnomon

In my humble opinion, the world is in the middle of a moral revolution which began with a rudimentary sense of right and wrong at some point in our distant past and human history can be viewed in the framework of its (our sense of morality) evolution. One possible reason why we differ in opinion on moral issues is because some of us have made great strides, others are somewhere in between, and still others are quintessential stragglers. This present discussion between us is a scale model replica of a much a wider, global, phenomenon. The situation we're in is inevitable for, as you will agree, constitution & circumstances erect obstacles that either prevent, delay or even reverse progress made in morality. In other words, me calling you a hyper-pragmatist and you labeling the Jains as hyper-idealists is part and parcel of this moral revolution.

In other words, me calling you a hyper-pragmatist and you labeling the Jains as hyper-idealists is part and parcel of this moral revolution. — TheMadFool

I didn't call Jains "hyper-idealistic", I called them "idealistic". It was not intended as a put-down, but as a description of their uncompromising Dharma. The "hyper" part was added by you, to indicate your extremist (black vs white) perspective from the lofty moral mountain-top. :joke:

I didn't know much about their religion before we started this thread. But I've been doing a quick overview, and discovered that Jainism and Buddhism have much in common. The primary difference seems to be that Buddhists rely on Meditation to purify their minds, while Jains rely on physical Asceticism to purify body & mind. One requirement for physical purity is that monks and nuns are required to literally pull-out (not shave) all of their hair. That is just one example of what I refer to as going to extremes in pursuit of an ideal. Is the billiard ball look still "in" for balding males in the West? :grin:

I noted that one worldly advantage of an ascetic religion may be that their individual frugality tends to lead to communal wealth. Incidentally, the Sikh community in India is also noted for their high moral standards, but not for non-violence. Since weapons are sacred to them, they are often employed as armed guards. With so many paths to purity, how can I keep-up in this "moral revolution"? :smile:


Jain Wealth : https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/india/14876/75508/people-in-delhi-punjab-richest-in-india-report

I didn't call Jains "hyper-idealistic", I called them "idealistic". — Gnomon

Nevertheless, idealistic relative to you.

Since weapons are sacred to them, they are often employed as armed guards. With so many paths to purity, how can I keep-up in this "moral revolution"? :smile: — Gnomon

It's a relay race - you do your bit and hope your team mates make it to the finish line. To be fair, the extremely prolonged nature of this moral revolution - kicking off before recorded history and I don't think we're faring any better than our iron age forefathers - is, in all likelihood, due to the impractical nature of morality taken to its logical conclusion but...in my defense I'd like to point out that there was a time, not too long ago, when flying from one place to another was impossible and yet, here we are, the globe crisscrossed by air traffic.