Of course you can have evil thoughts. Everyone does and we all - non psychopaths - know they are evil when we have them. Having them doesn't make a person evil; it simply reminds him that we all have in us the capacity for evil. That's why we invented the term. Externalizing it as an imaginary person or force doesn't change the fact.
But we usually don't act on them; the moral person resists that temptation.
Fantasy, especially deliberate indulgence in fantasizing, is a step toward evil. The next step is wishing, and after that, intention, followed by planning and execution. The healthy response to evil fantasies is not to suppress them, but to analyze and thereby disarm them.

The obvious questions are when the pendulum will start to move the other way and how much damage will be done before that finally happens — Ludwig V

Maybe it already has, and a lot of damage is already done. Trouble is, you're right: it's not so much a pendulum as a long spiral staircase upward and a steep slide down. Things take more time and effort to build than to destroy.
Other trouble is, we're running out of time.

What's it to do with logic?
Reasons aside, you either believe something or you don't.
Sometimes it's rational to refrain from identifying as an atheist. If you don't believe, but fear persecution for your disbelief, it's logical to pretend that you believe.
Whatever rewards there might be in Heaven for believing, you don't get them: I've heard you can't con God. If he exists, it would be illogical to lie about you unbelief. Anyway, if you die and discover that he exists after all, you'll believe, so you won't need to lie about it.

What if somebody is in their last moments of life. — Scarecow

What would they have left to deny?

Capitalism has been in crisis practically ever since it was invented. — Ludwig V

You'd think somebody would've twigged that it's not the best possible system?

The obvious alternative is Socialism, which is as polymorphous as capitalism. — Ludwig V

That's not an alternative; it's a modification, an attempt to cushion the impact of a profit-driven economy.
All monetized systems - all shades of capitalism - are subject to the same internal and external dangers, but the Socialist versions are more sustainable, just because they eliminate the lower extreme where most of the casualties occur. In fact, if democracy is allowed to operate unhampered, all monetized societies tend toward Socialism, because the beneficiaries - i.e. the majority - vote to keep their benefits.
As for Communism, in a monetized economy, that's an oxymoron; a chimera at best. Money is infinitely corruptible and it tends to infect people who control too much of it.

We seem to be working out how to blend the two, and that seems to me to be the right way to go — Ludwig V

We were on the right track - UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, most of Europe and even the US - for a large portion of the 20th century. (Chastened by the depression, governments curbed big capital and invested in the population at large) Then, starting about 1980, the political pendulum was pushed hard to the right. Now, the far left is where the moderate right (remember them?) was in 1976. Now, we're heading toward fascism at a fair clip.




Side-bar, Your Honour
interesting bulletin from New York City

Continued declines across most major crime categories prevailed during January
2024, compared to the first month of last year, and included substantial drops in murder, rape, burglary, and felony assault. And for the second month in a row, the number of vehicles stolen in New York City was reduced by at least 3.8% (1,178 vs. 1,224).

It seems the upticks are in transit crime and hate crime - sign of the political climate, I imagine. That, of course, is what FUX news reports, without mentioning the overall decline.
You'd almost think New York was doing something right.

In a news release, the NYPD said “uniformed presence in the subway system was expanded in hot-spot areas and will be supported further over the coming weeks using a combination of Transit Bureau personnel and officers usually assigned to administrative duties department-wide.”

I haven't found any mention of the crimes that do occur being committed by miscreants who had received civil summonses due to Criminal Justice Reform of 2016 https://council.nyc.gov/legislation/criminal-justice-reform/ but then, public urinators were never dangerous. The big issue seems to be

The City Bar supports enactment of the Communities Not Cages suite of bills[/url]. These three sentencing reform bills are a long overdue overhaul of the most pernicious aspects of New York’s sentencing laws.Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Act - Judges would be able to consider sentences that would be most effective in addressing the individual’s behavior and the unique circumstances of the offense;
The Second Look Act (A.531 AM Walker / S.321 Sen. Salazar) would enable those currently incarcerated with long sentences to petition judges for reduced sentences.
The Earned Time Act (A.1128 AM Kelles / S.774 Sen. Cooney) would enable those serving long sentences to earn credit to reduce their sentences by complying with prison rules and by participating in treatment, education, vocational training, and work programs. — https://www.nycbar.org/blogs/criminal-justice-reform-new-york-2024-nys-legislative-agenda/

And here it comes:

A number of proposed laws that advocates say would make the criminal justice system more fair for people charged with crimes face an uncertain future in Albany this year, as the Democrat-led state house grapples with backlash from critics who say reform measures have made New Yorkers less safe.

Reform is an uphill battle.

Do you think that denial can be helpful? — Scarecow

For a while, maybe. Depends what you're denying.
"Mom's not dead, she just went to visit Grandpa in heaven" is good for a few days.
"No, that's not smoke, probably just my sneakers I'm smelling" Not more than a minute.
Most things you don't want to acknowledge have to be dealt-with sooner or later.

Can people choose to change their beliefs, or do beliefs choose people — Scarecow

No, but they can learn new things and question the things they believe. If enough information comes in to convince them, they will change their belief. Bonus: if a person has gone through that process once, they're more likely to keep questioning and learning.

For example, let's say that I received a cancer diagnosis. If denial helps me process, then, is it still irrational for me to go into denial — Scarecow

No. That will kill you.

Money represents resources. — Ludwig V

Therein lies the rub. When dealing with symbols, you're dealing with abstracts: the interpretation is more important than the thing being represented. If a loaf of bread has a price tag, that figure doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of wheat, yeast and water it contains, nor the amount of time someone spent on preparing and then assembling the ingredients plus the energy it took to bake the bread. It represents, instead, an arbitrary value placed upon it by an arbiter - usually not the baker nor the consumer. Monetary values are assigned to things according to desirability or rarity or branding of some kind. The price can be at great variance to the resource-content of the item.
When it comes to remuneration for work, the time/effort component is the least consideration: it's valued according to a wholly arbitrary standard - stockbroker starting salaries (before bonuses and perks) are approximately double that of a teacher or construction worker (no bonuses or perks) You judge their relative contributions to the society. Or, you could always go back to the 400/1 ratio between the assembly line worker who actually makes the profitable product and the CEO who attends meetings and makes decisions. Not figuring in the people who do nothing but lend/invest money at interest.
Then factor in the cost of money itself: printing, storing, guarding, counting, shipping, tracking, exchanging, accounting, taxing and redistributing, litigation over it, stealing it and punishing the thieves... All those costs to society are added on to the price of commodities.

Add to this, the portability and morphology of money. A wagon load of turnips, you can readily calculate its nutritional value and the labour, time and land it took to produce. You can't disguise it as something else, can't spirit it out of the country, hide it in a vault or turn it into a gold coin and pocket it. When money exists mainly in electronic form, any kind of magic tricks can move it, transfer it or disappear it. A painting of two hazy orange squares by John Smith is worthless. A painting of two hazy orange squares by Mark Rothko is worth $45,000,000 - same canvas, same paint, same aesthetic. Not a resource-base valuation!

The practicality is not yet upon us. I don't think reform is feasible.
House-of-cards economies like the one we're living in periodically collapse. The last depression adversely affected much of the world and was followed by a crazy big war. This time the global interconnections are even less extricable. When one economy defaults on its debt, all the still viable ones have to rally round with loans and service-reducing, tax-hiking regimens - they have to, because the whole edifice is in danger. Debt is accumulating everywhere at a rate that bodes imminent collapse. Add the damage of climate events and the pressure of human migration.... Does the current system implode or explode?
There will be casualties. Lots of them. Maybe whoever's left standing can start over with a different model. I hope they get it right, but won't be here to see it.

describes the present socio-political situation; I am not making a moral judgement. — Ludwig V

Where? In Australia? I don't know who the 'sides' are there. It would take me a while to catch up. In Canada, I think the sides do understand the problem but are uninclined to work together, since one side wants to eliminate the problem, while the other wants to reinforce it. Most of the political spectrum fall somewhere in the middle, groping their way from crisis to crisis, dispensing duct tape on the Titanic.

The fallacy I'm asking you to avoid is the fallacy of stereotyping groups of people. Deal? — Ludwig V

I didn't think I was. I meant to describe political positions. I'm quite aware of the magnanimous billionnaires who use their money for culture and charity, as well as larcenous beggars.

Do you know what the right distribution of wealth across our society should be? — Ludwig V

No. I have trouble dealing with the concept of wealth in any distribution. I'd rather think in terms of resource allocation and sharing.

I believe everyone should have enough food, shelter, security and leisure, a chance to contribute to their community and be recognized for their effort, access to education and the freedom to fulfill their potential. I believe nobody should have more of anything than they can use and enjoy in one lifetime.
I believe no child should start life materially better off than others of its cohort, and those who start life with a handicap should be offered all available support by the community, as should any adult who falls ill, is injured or grows feeble.
I believe we should not take from the Earth more than we collectively need, and dispose of our waste in a productive manner.
I realize it's a pipe-dream.

But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. — Ludwig V

Oh, please don't fall into the 'both are as bad as each other' fallacy. They're not. The billionnaires want to keep taking more and more; the wretched just want a little of it back. Some of the advocates of the wretched are bellicose, a few are even violently angry, but their violence is mere fleabites compared to the might of property-defending police and mercenaries. Not to mention all the upper middle class who benefit from enabling and stroking the super-rich, the portion of the middle class that fears being worse off if there is any change and - especially - the persuadable lower middle class buys into the system, in hopes of betterment, in fear of a potent underdog, in misdirected resentment of the very authority that tries to regulate their exploiters, in moral outrage over the reputed erosion of their cherished values, in defense of the little advantage they have over some other group.
At the present level of disparity compromise is impossible; the "sides" far too unequal to negotiate.

But if the difference was implemented, most of those problems would go away. — Ludwig V

Not without major reconstruction of the justice system. But that's doable - would save a lot of resources, too. This is the bit the right wingers don't get: it's cheaper for society to assure everyone a reasonable life than to protect the wealth of a few. Money is a very, very expensive commodity.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics — Jack Cummins

It doesn't - at least not in its own time-frame and place. The religious ideas of antiquity or the middle ages nay not seem ethical to us, but made sense to the people who practiced them. Religions are made to fit the circumstances of the people who adhere to them. While the skeletal structure of a belief system may last 200 years, its practical beliefs and practices change and adapt over time to the needs of changing societies.

and make it ever harder for small businesses to compete with the larger ones. — Janus

Oh. So, the regulations are designed to protect customers and workers from exploitation. My guess is that the bulk of the abuses to which the government is responding was perpetrated by large corporations - not because they're worse people, but because of the machinery of profit - and the small ones who have no intention of short-changing their customers or abusing their workers get caught up in it.
OTOH, I'm aware of some pretty awful scams in the building trades that are perpetrated by small contractors, so I can imagine how regulation and oversight would be reassuring to customers. OTTH, a under-the-table deals are made all the time by small contractors and complicit customers to cheat the government and circumvent regulations.
It's not so easy, governing a monetized society!

It seems it's just virtue signaling designed to net votes—our governments certainly appear to be bought by the plutocracy.. — Janus

In a monetized society, where political campaigns run on money, officials can't afford to cross the people who finance their election. And of course, financial interests and entrenched privilege have their staunch supporters, not only in the press and broadcast media (which they own, and which control the reputation of officials) but also among the voting and tax-paying public. A whole lot of the victims of mega-capital are willing to attack anyone who moves against the status quo.

The critical factor is the extent to which the organization has consent, and has enough flexibility to give space to minority and unpopular interests. — Ludwig V

To a very large extent, this is a question of economic disparity. Where the gap between richest and poorest is minimal, all the people have common interests and points of agreement.
https://ssir.org/books/reviews/entry/spirit_level_greater_equality_societies_stronger_richard_wilkinson_kate_pic
Where the gap between the richest and poorest is an immense chasm, many are disenfranchised, marginalized and driven to despair. Not only because subsistence is hard won at the bottom, but because the bulk of the resources are concentrated in the numerically small upper tiers and there is not enough left for the much bigger lowest tiers. This means everyone in the second, third and fourth economic bracket is in constant fear of being displaced by someone from the tier below.
The advocates of capital depict an open field of competition, where anyone who "works hard" can achieve their goals and climb the social ladder. In fact, there is very little competition at the top, and a good deal of collusion. If the haves can keep the have-nots fighting over scraps, nobody will come for their loot.

As for the difference between police and armies - don't count on in it. Police forces in many countries are increasingly militarized, insulated and alienated from the community they're meant to protect; in many communities, the citizenry and the police are locked in a cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire.

Australia, from all I've heard, is a more democratic nation than the US. Maybe not every administration, but by and large, the governance has been more nearly equitable. Canada is similar in its cushioning of the blunt instrument of capital.
Why does government red tape make things difficult for small entrepreneurs but not for big ones? I hear the same complaint in Canada. I find it hard to believe that either government is deliberately trying to harm small businesses. What red tape is designed to hamper small business?
Is it, perhaps, that legislators try to make regulations for all businesses, and the big corporations can get around the regulations, while the small ones get caught?
(I don't know - I've only been involved in a tiny business and had no trouble with red tape.)

The trick is, to find something that is objective, or at least rational, or at least acceptable to those who are rejected. — Ludwig V

In a society that cared about its members, there would be no people rejected. You don't need a whole lot of objectivity to figure out what people need. What people are able to contribute, they do, if they're given the chance. Nobody wants to be left out; nobody likes being useless. A badly organized society creates many malcontents and disrupters; a well organized one tends to give rise to very little crime and abuse.

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. — Janus

In whose movie? How can you know what the capacities are of a child who doesn't get healthy food or adequate care? What good are capacities where honest work doesn't earn a living wage? What are people supposed to do with their capacities when a company closes its operations and moves to China, leaving entire towns up Shit Creek? Some turn their intelligence and agility to crime. Every economic and political system produces the kind and amount of crime that showcases the capacities of its neglected members. (Except for the mass shootings - that's about internal conflict. Eventually, it becomes civil war.)

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities. — Janus

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what.

Yes, them too, by and by. But first, the opposition.

Soon enough they will be recanting their views. I wonder what they will do if (when?) we go totalitarian. — Lionino

Die by the thousands, as usual. Evil always wins; it's not hindered by scruples, compassion or shame.

I should have seen that.

But I'm not sure it is money that is the problem. — Ludwig V

You're right. Money is just the thing that's being misused. The problem is a society founded on the concept of portable, cumulative wealth, that puts a monetary value on every thing, every place, every man, every idea.

It isn't possible to set up or compete in sport without any resources. — Ludwig V

A field. A road. A frozen pond. A set of hurdles made of trestled logs. People used to compete before arenas and giant monitors. Kids still do, if we let them.

It would be better to say that the tendency to measure the value of everything by reference to money that sucks the joy out of everything, — Ludwig V

I did say that. Everything but money - because joy also has a dollar value. Just watch the ads if you don't believe me.

The complication is that the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. — Ludwig V

In a society that monetizes everything, and sucks the joy out of everything but money, yes.

That was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be suprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. — Ludwig V

It's not. Modern Olympic games are business. Huge government contracts to build new arenas, huge financial losses for the public sector - but, hey, some jillionnaire will buy the arena cheap, plaster his name all over it and charge exorbitant ticket prices to the people who paid for the building of it. As for the athletes, if they survive with body and mind intact, their best hope is to sell their name to a corporation.

But the larger point is that you have heard about people these days who prefer equity to equality, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. — fishfry

I've heard of people who want equity, yes. I have no idea what all this "outcome" babble is about. What exactly is being demanded in terms of the "outcome" - that is result - of what endeavour? Is someone demanding that children should all have decent food and shelter and a safe environment, so that they can do well in school? Is someone demanding that adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
Is someone demanding that people who do the grunt work of society be compensated with a living wage? Or that claiming that a man who has four-hour lunches doesn't deserve 400 times the pay of the man who welds car chassis? Or that the people most likely to be arrested for crimes should not have the worst legal representation? Yes, I've heard those things. Yes, I want those things, too.

Do you follow New York City politics and current events? — fishfry

I have no reason to give a flying fig about New York politics.

Can you see how some people might think that compassion to criminals, no matter how well intentioned, can end up becoming a pronounced lack of compassion for their victims? — fishfry

The fucked-up criminal justice system is just another symptom of a generally fucked-up political and economic system. Far too big a topic for idle conversation.

Have I got that right? — fishfry

AFAICT, you ain't got nothin' right.

This news has not yet reached your province? — fishfry

Imagine the nerve of somebody demanding fair treatment for all kinds of people, even the designated victims! Appalling, innit?

If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way. — Benj96

Even the middle can have an opinion of what's right and wrong with his social arrangement and how it might be improved. Anyway, only one person can perfectly in the middle; all the rest of us are somewhere on the spectrum.

People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia. — Benj96

Games and sports don't always carry 'lucrative' prizes. The winner used to be content with the acclaim of his peers, a reputation for accomplishment in some specialized area, perhaps increased social status.
Material rewards turn games into business, to the detriment of both the players and the standard of fair play.

With art and issues of the ambiguous area of political correctness, there is the issue of it being art as opposed to 'real life' and how much influence does artistic representation have? — Jack Cummins

I think this is another instance of putting too many disparate elements into sentence. I have trouble understanding the subject under scrutiny and what is to be discussed. It would be helpful, I think, and might save misunderstanding and explanations later, to use shorter sentences with just one yes/no, either/or this/that pair of ideas in each.

But when there is enough food to feed everyone and some people are starving to death, it is not a problem of supply and demand, but a question of distribution and that's a complicated problem. — Ludwig V

That is one tremendous big problem.

Worldwide, one-third of food produced is thrown away uneaten, causing an increased burden on the environment. [4] It is estimated that reducing food waste by 15% could feed more than 25 million Americans every year. [5]

As for shelter and medicine, collectively, at the government level, we spend a whole lot more on things designed to make people dead than on things designed to make them well.

I’d suggest that all of us who could give did, it would make a huge difference. — Rob J Kennedy

There is a problem with that - a really big one. Remember, historically, all charity work, taking care of the sick and the aged, educating poor children, raising orphans, etc. was done by the church - and not always tenderly. The ruling elite took no responsibility for society's casualties.
The more slack we pick up with charity, the less government needs to redress social ills. So, the 'conservative' faction can claim that the human collateral damage is the purview of charities, so let's not tax the rich. This means that all redistribution of wealth takes place in the lowest economic tiers, while wealth keeps accumulating in the top ones.

We don't have the supply to meet their demand — Rob J Kennedy

Yes, we do, but we waste too much of it on non-essentials, and bury too much of it in useless accumulation of wealth.

When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? — Rob J Kennedy

No. It means a few people who have gained a great deal of excess - by whatever means - decide at some point to give away part of it. That's not a social contract; that's voluntary largesse: it can be give one day and taken away the next, without ever addressing the fundamental, systemic, entrenched inequities.

I give a small amount each month to a charity. — Rob J Kennedy

So do I, as and when I can afford to. But it only affects a momentary hurt, not the long-term problem.

Can they really return everything that has been looted even in just the last hundred years? — Ludwig V

Of course not - except some of the Native land claims. But they can recognize the consequence of those deprivations and benefits on the present generation of inheritors: that one group has unearned material and cultural advantages, because their forebears deprived another group of opportunity and property. To tip the imbalance, all that's required is something like Affirmative Action, or favourable zoning laws or low-interest business loans, or more equitable policing to let the dispossessed group catch up - by its own efforts, in fair competition. It's hard to win a race when your starting line is a 100 yards behind the other runners.

I don't think you and I live in the same reality — fishfry

This appears to be the case.

Perhaps, but refusing to try to reduce past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense to simple moral principles would have left us ignorant of the core of what makes us human. — Mark S

I cannot agree that reduction leads to greater understanding. Even if it were so, reducing all moral norms and precepts to simple principles leaves a brand new science with nothing left to discover, and that would be a waste.
As to "the core of what makes us human" - assuming there is such a thing - everybody and his uncle Mose has come up with answers. But why do you care?

Yes, it's the constant rope-pull between the concept of personal responsibility and social responsibility. People don't just "fall on hard times"; they are affected by economic and social forces far beyond their individual control - sometimes from conception onward. Putting a young offender in school instead of prison can be seen as coddling, or a sacrifice or an investment.

I advocate for scientific truth of the usual provisional kind. — Mark S

Yes, that's fine, insofar as the scientists go - assuming it's even possible to establish a scientific basis for the "truth" about moral precepts. But hand that scientific finding to a political ideologue, and it ends up like Social Darwinism and eugenics.

Why do you call the principles that explain virtually everything we know about past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense — Mark S

I didn't. I said reducing diversity to simple principles can lead to facile categorization.

Authenticity also involves questioning of social roles and norms. — Jack Cummins

I see. Personal reflection and perspective. That's something every intelligent adolescent does, whether they articulate their conclusions or not. In my circle, we wrote everything down in essay form and discussed our ideas ad nauseum. For less word-oriented people, it comes as rebellion against rules, against authority, against religious dogma. I think it's an important part of growing up, and essential to responsible citizenship: the unexamined principle tends to become dogma and dogmatism is dangerous.

It is questionable to what extent there is a place for philosophical martyrs within secular ethics, however, without the idea of rewards in the afterlife. — Jack Cummins

Martyrdom need not be sought deliberately. Many non-religious people put themselves in harm's way in order to uphold a principle - like, say, democracy, racial equality, national identity or economic justice - that they consider important enough.

How about understanding why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist? — Mark S

That's what Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and History are for. They record, observe and analyze human behaviours and relationships over time, so that we may discern patterns and explain events.
The sciences observe, experiment, measure and formulate.
If you reduce "the diversity, contradictions, and strangeness of our moral sense and past and present cultural moral norms" to simple principles, you're far too likely to end up with facile categorization or a rigid ideology.

The finding of a truly authentic morality is complex because so much is about values handed down during socialisation, with potential for modifications. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure what you mean by 'authentic'. Original? Personal? Unique? Effective?
As far as I can see, moral and ethical issues are always decided in the public sphere, rather than invented by individuals. The 10 commandments may have been carved by Moses, but they had to reflect the values of his people, or they would not have accepted either or the rules or the leader who announced them. I can't imagine humans learning to behave ethically, except through socialization in early childhood. I agree, however, that individuals do adapt the prevailing code to their own understanding of what's good and bad, and some individuals contribute disproportionately to changes in social mores, and that each generation brings a new perspective to the traditional belief system.

Do you not think that projection is an important aspect of hatred — Jack Cummins

Very likely. Of course, imagination and projection play a role in all of our complex emotional states, so this would be true of personal hatreds as well as ethnic or class ones.
As to the wars and oppressions, there is usually a practical motive behind the propaganda. Even if that unacknowledged goal only benefits a small minority, the populace can usually be persuaded to take out its frustrations and resentments on a designated scapegoat. There is always a segment that can hardly wait for permission to express its dark side.
But these motivations don't necessarily lead to the kind of governance we usually mean by totalitarian. They can move the loyal subjects of a 'good' king, the faithful flocks of a 'good' pope or the patriotic constituents of a democratically elected president.

As for potential totalitarianism, I see it as an authoritarian response to the existential fear of the panorama of the pluralism, in a multicultural and multifaith/worldviews. — Jack Cummins

I don't see that. North America was diverse all through the 19th and 20th centuries, and there were plenty of local rivalries, enmities and conflicts, but there was no threat of a megalomaniac taking over the Canadian government or tearing up the US constitution or outlawing opposition parties.

Now, there is a prevailing anxiety regarding the future - whether there is one - due to the imminent end of work, the unstable world economy, the pressure of mass migration, the prospects of more and bigger weather events, the threat of nuclear war and famine, and the lack of ideals to believe in. This is the kind of fear that calls for a protector, a father figure, a "strong man" who promises to fix things, restore the correct faith and return all your former security and privilege (whether you had any or not).

You have more faith in educators and literary figures than I do. — Ludwig V

It's not faith. I don't care if they were good or bad people, just so they contributed to the body of knowledge and literature, just as I think we should name hospitals after health scientists and airfields after aviators. It just seems appropriate to name things according their function.

don't you think naming schools after rich benefactors serves as a useful incentive to get them to donate? — flannel jesus

No, it just inflates their vanity. And they should neither donate to nor own schools and libraries: these institutions should be publicly funded and operated. Nobody should be immortalized for a tax write-off.
It's quite icky enough having to attend plays, concerts and sporting events under the giant name in lights of some robber baron.

You can read far quicker that you can listen to someone reading. — ssu

Maybe, but while someone is talking or reading to you, especially if it's recorded, you can do something else at the same time. A book requires you complete attention.

I'm not minimizing the importance of listening. For example, sewing or pasta-making circles where women's hands were busy, but their minds were idle. Taking turns reading aloud brought a little knowledge and pleasure into their lives. Reading to preschool children is even more important; as they crave independence, they're motivated to read for themselves. It was a good idea, too, to have students read aloud - it promoted reading facility and comprehension.

On the other hand, I gather there are some places in the world that still practice it, though perhaps under another description. — Ludwig V

Or another name.

An estimated 50 million people were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021, an increase of 10 million people since 2016. https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/

It would be better if we could recognize people as both. Very few are simply one or the other. — Ludwig V

Indeed. I'd also be grateful if we stopped naming schools and libraries after politicians and rich benefactors - I doubt we could find one of either in the world, dead or alive, without some dark deeds to hold against them. Let us name our schools for educators, our parks for the place they occupy and our libraries for literary figures, just as priests name churches for their saints.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Granted. We're a mad, bad species with moments of brilliant goodness. I was referring specifically to the statement itself: "Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak." That's what I was asking: Who are 'the weak' and how do moral laws disenfranchise them? I don't see this in any moral system I'm aware of.

The authentic morality would be based on wisdom, or some degree of self-mastery. — Jack Cummins

Does that mean all past and current concepts of morality are inauthentic? Or that they don't require self-mastery?

However, such self-mastery is not without awareness of one's weaknesses, as opposed to the perfectionism aspired to by the Abrahamic religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Aspiring toward perfection is at the center of all religious ideals. But none expect each individual to be capable of perfection; the Abrahamic religions have built in mechanisms to atone for wrong-doing and seek forgiveness for trespasses, in the full expectation that even the most fervent believers will fall short of perfection.

So much is projection of 'evil' onto others and this is happening in both the left and right of politics, including the backlash against political correctness. — Jack Cummins

How does that relate to secular ethics? Accusations and hyperbole are cheap, dishonest tactics in a conflict.
(BTW, you could perhaps examine that apparently balanced "both the left and right of politics" and compare the truth content of claims actually made by representatives of those factions.)

Such a backlash paves the way for Neo-Nazi totalitarianism and that worry is probably the basis for my incongruous mixture of sources for my initial outpost. — Jack Cummins

I understand your concern, but I think you misplace the origins of the problem. Totalitarianism is not about morality or ethics or law or civil discourse. It's the result of anxiety (insecurity and fear) caused by societal breakdown. Certainly, corruption in the pursuit of wealth and power play a large part in the slow implosion we're witnessing. But it's not because the principles were wrong; it's because the principles are slighted, breached, then abandoned altogether, first by the elite, imitated by the privileged classes, and finally the masses.