What studies. Without that your post is vapid. — Banno
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on the Flynn Effect. — T Clark
Tom, now that you said that, we can look at philosophy to know that misery is actually a modern problem. But, good point. lol.I hope you are right about this. Look how much trouble and misery humans have caused just by being Sapien. Some brain cell loss may just the ticket to slow us down. :wink: — Tom Storm
Mostly spatial skills and tasks-driven abilities. They contend that our ability today, such as computer knowledge, is the result of those early primitive skills.How do these studies define and measure intelligence? — pfirefry
Meaningless in what way? Is living all about meaning? Whatever happened to getting out of bed, getting ready for work, and coming back home and having a nice meal? Funny because if there's anything in life that gets such a high demand, it is this thing called meaning. Big deal!Some say if we lived forever even in perfect health that it would eventually be meaningless. — TiredThinker
Okay, I agree. I should use sex.Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex". — Olivier5
You can't use an assumption to argue against what you call an "assumption". I was speaking in terms of achaeological evidence anyway, not assumptions. So, if you're going to disagree, please produce a counter-factual evidence.I’m not assuming this occurred, I’m casting doubt on your assumption of a binary model of segregated male and female roles prior to the forming of socio-cultural groups — Possibility
(Thanks, Tutorials Point)Heinz can steal the drug and no law should punish him.
This decision lets Heinz save his wife and both of them can live happily. This thinking is based on the thought that the rigidity in law should be rejected and justice should be done on moral grounds.
This is a Post-conventional level of Moral thinking.
(Thanks, verywell mind).In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.
He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"
Gilligan's work, which focuses on sex differences in moral reasoning, the perception of violence, the resolution of sexual dilemmas and abortion decisions, poses a major challenge to Kohlberg's theory by introducing a feminist perspective of moral development. Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights. Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. Kohlberg's scoring criteria give the interpersonal care orientations of females lower ratings than the principled justice orientation. Hence, Gilligan identifies different developmental stages for females. However, she does not claim that one system is better; both are equally valid. Only by integrating these complementary male (justice) and female (care) orientations will we be able to realize our full human potential in moral development.
Well, if you put it that way, of course, one is inferior than the other. I'm talking in terms of necessarily. The difference I'm talking about is gender differences.Why not? Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi? — baker
And this is what I've been trying to explain. Are we confusing causation here? Is it culture or gender?Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men — Olivier5
So, after criticizing my use of primitive humans as "making a lot of assumptions", you went ahead and made your own -- Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be.And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.
Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. — Possibility
What proof are you looking for? Please explain this.Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. — Bitter Crank
Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? You don't hold any values yourself, about your family? Friends? Your livelihood? I find it controlling whenever one says talking about a particular subject is dumb. It is intellectually annoying, let alone unoriginal.Stop acting as if bad empericism saves flagrantly sexist claims from being sexist. We are, I hope, sophisticated enough on this forums to understand that universal claims about morality are dumb, that discussing a particular morality as if it is a stand in for all possible moralities is dumb, — Ennui Elucidator
andSexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different. — Raymond
There are other experiments/studies that could at least suggest that there are fundamentals differences in moral traits that have nothing to do with having power.In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power. — Olivier5
"When it comes to negotiating a deal, “Males more readily justify moral misconduct by minimizing its consequences or otherwise excusing it,” write Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Haselhuhn of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Their study finds “a robust pattern by which men are more pragmatic in their ethical reasoning at the bargaining table than women.
--Men's Morals Are Malleable, Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard“Men’s competitive behavior, more so than women’s, appears to be motivated by situational threats to their masculinity,” the researchers write in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. “When men feel like they have something to prove or defend against, they become more aggressive and competitive.”
The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education?So what you refer to as ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ are socio-cultural constructions, highlighting the fact that these binary models ‘masculine-feminine’ and ‘good-bad’ are both an oversimplification of reality. — Possibility
I have no objection to you forming your own opinion. This thread is as much pointing out the facts that most wouldn't want to talk about as it is expressing one's dissatisfaction about anything.To be good people, we need to get in touch with the woman inside us. What say you? — Agent Smith
This is neither technical nor colloquial. So, no need to make a notation.All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk). — I like sushi
In fact, it is the women's dislike of being seen as bad or uncaring that drives them to do charitable giving. So, you are correct to question the motivation.The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well. — baker
Incorrect. Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction.The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. — I like sushi
I'm saying that morality and ethics for men and women are different contextually based on gender/physiology. So, while we can generally say that people believe in morality, the divide between genders reveal that the emphasis of moral actions between men and women are different. You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild?I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders. — Hanover
No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved.Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. — Possibility
So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't?So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world. — Possibility
Another attempt at confusing the above point -- women recognize that it is an illusion to ignore their gender in relation to the world.Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion. — Possibility
You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies.For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking. Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events? — Possibility
What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word?That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc). — Possibility
There is. scientific americanThere is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. — Possibility
I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer?The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction. — Possibility
And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. Why do you sound so much like Possibility? Are you and Possibility the same posters?Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.
Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear. — I like sushi
Trust me I have consulted findings and studies to back my OP. I'm just lazy right now to provide the links. It is a touchy subject because we get posters like Possibility who start mincing and dicing educational words so that gender becomes the enemy here. There are other things to fear -- zombies, for one. Ax murderers, another.I am skeptical of the characterizations you have made. I'm even more skeptical about the rationales you have provided for the differences between men a women. Since you say you know this thread deals with a touch subject, it's hard to accept you making claims with no justification. — T Clark
Hyperbolic? So everything that's said on this thread is just..exaggeration?It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine — I like sushi
The point is to point out there is a class of low wage earners. I know, funny. It's shallow and lacks imagination.What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious. — I like sushi
In western economies, there are people who get paid this way -- artists, for example. That's not a white collar job. It's artistic.It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course. — schopenhauer1
Because we were made to believe that economies can only be one way, and not another. I mean, look at the parents who start telling their children before birth what the children are going to be -- an engineer, a doctor, a teacher, an architect -- in other words, salary-earners! Everyone is supporting the economy as it is now. The blue collar work are there to catch us in case we don't want to be one type of salary-earner -- we become the wage-earners. Amazon warehouses abound.and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them. — schopenhauer1
It's all about necessity. If that ability is taken away from you, there is a salve for your psyche: your life is much more comfortable if you don't have to work your muscles or brains for the things you need. Do you agree?Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell. — schopenhauer1
I don't know. In western societies, the "necessities" are different than in other countries. For example, creative self-expression and low unemployment rate are necessities in the first world. By creative self-expression I mean, the freedom and opportunity to be able to do things that one enjoys outside work, or to be able to be employed according to one's passion. Being a middle class but controlled by business owners is not satisfying. A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer).Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for? — schopenhauer1
In western societies it's a crime.What do you mean it's a crime? If the economy is weak and people are poor, how can it be a crime? — ssu
So you assume the same poor people occupy the low income class. They might be able to move up, but then there will always be other people who would just occupy that place. Are you really not getting this? The state of being low income is what's permanent, not necessarily the people.In fact, that there isn't widespread abject povetry shows that things can indeed improve. Likely if prosperity increases, in the future people with low income will enjoy a lifestyle that now is limited to upper middle class and even upper class. — ssu
I agree. I'm mostly vegetarian by choice.I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting. — Cobra
That's not happening now. Covid-19 has brought out the worst in people. Have you tried looking at the prices of stupid used cars these days? What about housing? Overpriced real estate, realty companies/realtors hording...houses!There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. — Cobra
Yes, one indicator of the state of well-being is how long do poor people remain in that same economic level, as in how many years or generation. Another indicator is the existence of the middle class -- if it shrinks or expands.The poor are screwed because once they are poor they are generally going to stay that way, unless their economic environment changes--which it might, or might not. In general the same is true with people who are have reasonably stable, if barely adequate income. — Bitter Crank
Drum roll....If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank
I second the motion! The threat of capture is scarier than being already inside a prison.One method of preventing crime is to increase police presence (the threat of capture deters). — Agent Smith
Someone once said, the only certainties about life are death, taxes, and mental illness. Scary shit.As a result in this wealthy city there are people who eat out of rubbish bins and sleep in parks and under bridges, etc. This I have seen in cities all over the world. — Tom Storm
This is where we are. We're not free to commit a crime.That is to say ex-ante ethics/laws (free will negated) — Agent Smith
Did you really not read my OP where I said logical argument on this thread is irrelevant? It is irrelevant because the rule is, society dictates morality, which is enforced by the law.See where you began with "therefore"? We use that term to indicate that a logical conclusion comes next. What you wrote after "therefore" did not follow from what I said and you agreed to. — creativesoul
Abject poverty no longer exists now because it is a crime. I am talking about low income, as in minimum wage. So, normally this would be single income, minimum wage earner, in western society. But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government.I think it's important to notice that if absolute poverty has decreased (especially on the long time scale), many can be worse off than before even if they aren't literally starving. It is important to define what low income or poverty means. Just taking a segment of people who earn the least and declaring them to be poor doesn't tell much. — ssu
What doesn't follow? Does anything at all follow from a morality by reason of majority?Well, that doesn't follow from what's written, — creativesoul
Therefore, talks about objective or subjective or relative morality is moot.We agree that morality is enforced. What next? — creativesoul
Sometimes you irritate the heck out of me and I don't even know why.Maybe your plan is to convince the poor of the value in ending their life of meaningless suffering. — Book273
I think I should have said in my OP that before you could post in my thread, that you must have calibrated your estimates about history. There were no average income indicators during the late 19th c or early 20th c. because there was no law about wages or labor. You could work and make zero dollar per hour back then. Your equivalent is grossly incorrect.Now that would be the equivalent of having a meal of 4 000$ to 5 000$, which is way much more that a full meal costs in any Michelin restaurant. But of course, I'd guess you could blow that amount of money by drinking the most expensive wines, which likely the restaurant has purchased just for your kind of sucker that comes around every once in a while and orders the most expensive they have. — ssu
Many people can't. There's just too much worship of billionaires and multi-millionaires. Notice that you see rationale here and there defending the accumulation of wealth by the very few, while at the same time, berating the low income people for being...well..low income. lol.Go ahead and acknowledge it. Admit it: you've been had by your capitalist employers. — Bitter Crank
I looked up the definition of trailer trash. Perhaps, you are correct. My OP is directed towards those with jobs, but earning at poverty level or below that.you are acting as if trailer trash is the only social grouping of low-income people there is when that's not the case. — MAYAEL
True that.It's essential to have some unemployed and low-income workers in the economy to serve as a reserve and a warning, A reserve in that the non-employed can start working when there is a big demand for unskilled labor (not so much these days). — Bitter Crank
And society's answer to the severity of crimes is appropriate punishment. Obviously, not wearing a seat belt, you get a ticket. You get more tickets and they suspend your right to drive on public roads.So, while I generally agree with what I think your saying, I suspect that there's some much needed refinement so as to avoid painting the picture with too broad a brushstroke. — creativesoul
Yes, tyranny of the minority exists. It's been addressed by many political scientists.There are also very different kinds of societies where the majority do not have much say in the laws. — creativesoul
Did I not repeatedly say in the beginning of this thread that the majority is what makes the decision of society? Even the supreme court decide by majority votes. A society's laws do not have to be 100% approved by all of its members.No society has a complete buy-in by all of its citizens. In fact, most laws, directives, decrees and executive decisions by any government encounters more resistance than not. — god must be atheist
I concur.Agreed. Getting an education and a job would be a decent start. — Book273
Am I? How so?↪L'éléphant
you're confusing low income with trailer trash — MAYAEL
No. And no again.Are crowdsourcing companies causing the unemployment rate to go up because we now have another option besides W2 employment? — TheQuestion
No they don't need to rethink. Contract employment/self-employment has a much different commitment to an employer than an employee. It is this commitment, besides dependable skills, that set an employee apart (by employee, I mean the definition set forth by the employment bureau). And the employers know this.Will the employer need to rethink there strategy since the dynamics of how we see employment changed? — TheQuestion