think that if you believe you can understand someone through empathy then you are virtually denying them their existence. — Brett

I’m not sure if it’s done to quote yourself, however, what I meant was that to believe you can understand someone through empathy is just projecting. Empathy is not a lot different from making soothing noises to a crying baby. Empathy makes the world a better place to live in but it doesn’t help you understand an individual. I’m not sure if a psychologist is really achieving much by empathising. Could he do the same thing without empathising? Maybe.

It might be hard to learn to love what you have when all it gives you is heartache,

Sorry, that sentence of yours is ‘learn to love what you have’, a big difference.

Learn to love what you have or work hard to get what you want, that kind of thing. — Judaka

Both of these seem valid to me. Working hard to get what you want is a very satisfying experience. But the thing you’re working hard to get can sometimes be for the wrong reasons and consequently fail to satisfy you.

Learning to love what you want is equally important. But again what is that? If you love making a lot of money, making deals, defeating the opposition, then your satisfaction, in time, could sour, or even finally, in an older more mature perspective, prove to have been a pointless.

If someone gave me a long list of things they believe would make them happy, I would question the size of the list first. I would almost bet there would be contradictions in such a list.

If you could change your culture to focus more on making more effort to sensibly plan and fulfil their pre-requisites to happiness or eliminate and downsize them, which would it be and why? — Judaka

Is this two different things?
I’m interested in what you’re suggesting, but I’m not totally sure, from your post, what you’re suggesting.

This seems to confirm for me the idea of there being, what I began calling morality, but is instead, but not contrary to, the idea of reaching out to the Ideal Ethic. This reaching out is the moral act. It’s a desire “to bring into existence something which is presently non-existent. This is the creativity of art.” But it’s also the resolution of differences, the act of doing it. The resolution, which is the moral act, doesn’t exist until someone operates between the differences and resolve them, or even fails in the attempt. Out of the action comes the resolution, the result of applying morality to daily life.

For me this may as well be the description of art. Not as it appears to us now, and not for a long time, but as it was in its origins, and art today has its origins there, it can’t come from anything else.
What I called “artefacts” is the work of early societies, tribes and cultures, making real these activities, or made real in terms of tales, myths, legends, or just basic storytelling, sitting around the fire while wild animals prowl around in the darkness. And who else could it be about but “us” battling with these activities, acting morally, whether in the form of gods, heroes, animals, monsters, speaking flames, wily fools, kings, idiots, princes or ghosts. Today the “artefacts” may not be there (Though the post about ‘Breaking Bad’ is interesting. But when people watch it what are they more tuned into? Is it ‘just television’?).

Art operated on a very primitive level, possibly because the world was very simple once. It was about living in the world caught between good and bad. Maybe it reaffirmed things, or instructed, or explained, but it operated on that level; even comedy had its moral. So there was a direct relationship between the story and listener.

In time everything becomes institutionalised. The stories did as well as the art, until they lost their power and became simply entertainment or tools of persuasion.
The forms for telling these tales still exist, and my proposition is that we still turn to them, instinctively, for this ancient relationship. But the content has changed and what we receive instead is something like a mirror that reflects our narcissism.

The storytelling is not entirely gone, but it’s read by a much smaller part of the population.

If our sense of morality is based on aspiring to the Ideal Ethic, then can this situation, if the aspiration towards the Ideal Ethic is no longer spoken of, or reaffirmed in a form no longer taken seriously, shift our sense of morality?

I understand and agree with all of this.

To be moral depends on the true existence of the Ideal ethic. This is aspirational, is it not?

“... if there is such a thing remains in the realm of not yet understood.”

There’s two things there: a) is it real?, and b) if it is real it’s not yet understood.

If it’s real, from where does it come?
If it’s not real, then who are we?
If there was no Ideal ethic then we would be immoral creatures because there would be nothing to chose from.

But we don’t know if we are moral creatures, because we don’t know if the Ideal ethic exists. Is that true?

I think that if you believe you can understand someone through empathy then you are virtually denying them their existence.

So you say that it's an objective fact that human's have morality, that they distinguish bad from good. — Metaphysician Undercover

But they do, we see it all the time, you know you possess it, so do your friends. It’s not something we make up day to day.

And, you seem to want to say that since the classifications, of which sort of actions are good, and which sort are bad, haven't changed much over the years, these distinctions which we make concerning bad and good, are to some extent, objectively true. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, if those distinctions between good and bad haven’t changed These morals are evolutionary, through a set of preferences that contribute to the wellbeing of a society. They have developed in a singular vein to what they are now. They have not swung off on some crazy tangent then returned to begin again. In modern times there have been cases of cannibalism, and those people tried to conceal what they’d done. In the case of Eichmann, he knew he was transgressing a set of moral, otherwise why run to South America?
Do you really believe you have been taught not to kill, not to rape? Do you really think that’s the reason you don’t? In your life did you ever get a message from anyone that rape was wrong! Did you ever think, at any age, that causing pain to others was okay? It’s not necessary for each and every generation to learn morality all over again from scratch. Not only is it not necessary, it’s unlikely. Our evolution would be too slow, if not actually reaching a dead end. It’s part of you, just like your thumb.

But doesn't this really exclude the possibility of moral differences and the difference of opinion on moral issues, which exists between us? — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if you can prove they have changed. First you’re suggesting that they’re not objectively true without proving it, you only suggest it might not be true, and then using that claim as a fact to argue the second point, that moral differences exist, as if it was proven.

And if we downplay these differences, don't we also downplay the need to make the effort to resolve these differences? — Metaphysician Undercover

You continue as if your point was proven: that there are differences, and that we need to resolve them. But what do we need to resolve

Wouldn't you agree that a big part of "morality" is being able to negotiate these differences, and work out solutions, compromise? — Metaphysician Undercover

You begin to partly define “morality’ as the ability to negotiate these differences. Even if it were true that there are moral differences, where does the idea of resolving them come from. If there are such differences that clash why would we feel the need to resolve them without possessing some sense of morality? If it wasn’t morality then what would you call it? If you call it co-operation then I suggest you have to consider where the idea of co-operation springs from. Co-operation requires an understanding of reciprocity, empathy and fairness.

Is your conclusion that there must be differences, there has to be differences, because without those differences to be resolved there would be no morality?

It’s like a trick question; if I agree that there are differences then there can’t be a singular morality, and if I don’t agree to the idea that there are differences then there can’t be a morality.

How can this be the case though? It is quite common that two different people, or two distinct societies disagree on moral issues. And it's not just small things, some societies used to practise human sacrifice. Even in the Old Testament, God was portrayed as jealous and vindictive, He'd smite you if you were unfaithful. These are not good moral traits by today's standards.

So you say that it's an objective fact that human's have morality, that they distinguish bad from good. And, you seem to want to say that since the classifications, of which sort of actions are good, and which sort are bad, haven't changed much over the years, these distinctions which we make concerning bad and good, are to some extent, objectively true. But doesn't this really exclude the possibility of moral differences and the difference of opinion on moral issues, which exists between us? And if we downplay these differences, don't we also downplay the need to make the effort to resolve these differences? Wouldn't you agree that a big part of "morality" is being able to negotiate these differences, and work out solutions, compromise? — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m going to think about this for a bit.

I’m being a bit flippant there. The whole idea of creativity itself is a big enough subject, let alone whether an A.I can be creative. My point was that an A.I. Is not independent. Can it even create and turn on its own power source? Like so many other areas I suspect the idea of creativity will be redefined so that an A.I. can then be said to be creative. Even a lot of people who regard themselves as creative are not. Nor is the primate who daubs paper with paint. Creativity seems to be an impulse that must be made real. Going from the impulse to the material and carrying that impulse successfully forward is the difference. Of course it can all be called subjective. But I don’t believe the A.I. can have that impulse. And anyway, who is going to declare that, yes, the A.I. has been creative, an artist or a scientist, or god help us, a critic. Maybe what is an essential point here is that man alone owns art and does not understand it.

Am I straying too far from the subject here?

Who is the artist, the pencil or the artist?

These are all pretty high expectations I’ve seen here. And there’s nothing wrong with setting a bar. But what is realistic? There are only so many years, so many moments between teacher and student, however good that teacher may be, and enough things working against education to make those expectations unrealistic. So how long should teachers persevere with students who refuse help, who disrupt classes and put pressure on the students keen to learn? If class numbers are too big then should disruptive students be in those numbers? What sort of return should taxpayers expect on their investment? Is it an investment?

a: that morality exists as an objective set of guides on our behaviour (I await the howls).

b: that art, primarily writing, explains it: Homer, Shakespeare, Doestoevsky.

These were written at the beginning of the conversation.

I would clarify them a bit more now as;

a) that morality exists in people as “a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups (that) includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness”. (Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce). These have evolved and are no less a part of being human than having a thumb. I regard them as being objective in the sense that we did not chose to grow a thumb.

b) art reminds people of their essential nature and that one must always chose from this suite of behaviours, primarily because they are responsible for who we are and for our evolutionary success and are therefore ‘good’. (Some might maintain that we are not the shining light we think we are and only subjectively good). Also, as an artist, if you are not addressing morality then you are not really telling a true or real story of a character.

But, this morality as we understand it, is essentially the same as it’s always been.

This means that ancient mores and customs, may now be determined as "wrong". But also we need to respect the fact that any mores and customs at any time, may be "wrong", and this applies even now. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mores and customs are not the same as morals. Mores are customs and convention of a particular society, not of mankind. Morals are an integral part of being human.

If we are going to say, then, that these morals, or parts of them, are wrong, or relative, then we are choosing to be different from who and what we are. The case of Eichmann and Nazi Germany might be regarded as a case where they decided that morals could evolve in a direction, could be changed, because they are no longer relative to their objectives.

I guess my only question is why is Shakespeare's discussion of human nature more informative than "Breaking Bad"? — ZhouBoTong

Good point. Supposedly Shakespeare’s plays were performed for the general public, a rowdy,barely literate audience. So, yes, I don’t see why ‘Breaking Bad’ is any different in terms of portraying human nature than Shakespeare.

This doesn't sit well with the notion that morality is objective, because Dostoevsky's morality - which is essentially deontological and divine-command-based - is a thousand miles from that of Homer, which is that of an honour society where bravery meant everything and compassion nothing. And neither of them would agree with the secular, compassion-based morality that we see in Steinbeck, and that imbues most of Western culture, when it can be bothered to be moral. — andrewk

Whatever the distance between authors, it seems to me that the characters of each narrative face a very similar dilemma in terms of moral choices. The stories are about that dilemma, which might be defined as human nature.

Shakespeare for morals? Really? I have actually tutored a little shakespeare (high school level - I don't know crap, as is probably obvious in this post), and it is blowing my mind to think that students were supposed to be learning morals. — ZhouBoTong

The point of students studying Shakespeare is not to teach today’s students morals, it’s to study the work of a particular period. I remember a lecturer telling me about a student who said he didn’t like Shakespeare “Because it’s full of cliches”. The lecturer replied that, “Its full of cliches now.”

Shakespeare was written for a particular audience, as was The Odyssey. But the actual morals themselves do not change that much over time, hence my including Doestoevsky. But they are presented in a form relative to the times: as a myth, as a play, as a book.

I guess this means that we must always chose to be moral.

No, the desire to be moral is definitely not the same as being moral. This is demonstrated by those who desire to be good, and learn what is good, but cannot resist the temptation to do what is bad, despite knowing that it is bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you’re right about those who desire to be good but can’t resist the temptation to be bad. Except I’m not sure that they’re giving into a temptation to be bad. That’s like being bad for the sake of it, choosing to be bad. It’s possibly more like something overriding their morality, like making a decision which will enhance their position, like Eichmann, who made a career move and put his morals aside for the moment. But did he actually have morals to ignore, for instance had they not been cultivated enough by his environment? I imagine he simply pushed them aside. So the desire to be moral was not there at each one of those decision making moments.

To be moral you would at least need the desire to be moral. Otherwise to act morally would just be an automatic action instilled in you from outside, an unquestioning act, which is not morality.

Education as a whole should also further develop resilience, emotional intelligence and physical and mental health awareness, as well as spiritual awareness and interconnection within an ever widening sense of community. But without sufficient grounding in this area (from parents and community in the first five years), students begin school life at a serious disadvantage, and teachers are not equipped with time or resources to bridge this gap within the year and the hours they have with each child (on top of all the other requirements of teaching). — Possibility

I’ve been wondering about the period of education. Are those years in high school enough for students to be educated in all of those aspects, plus the subject matter itself? This seems more than a teacher can impart whose job it is to teach English, maths, etc. This also includes a lot of specialists. So should education be compulsory on into university. Should students be leaving school at the age they do? Should they be leaving at all if they are not educated?

Is the desire to be moral itself moral?

it is these emotive features, like empathy, which are conducive to morality which existed prior to social structure. The problem is that these innate tendencies toward various emotions are very difficult to describe, — Metaphysician Undercover

Is it your thought that empathy has contributed to morality? That feelings come before morality?

Your posts keep reading to me, without you saying as much explicitly, like you're really just wanting to express that you're relatively "conservative" when it comes to morality, and you're doing to ol' "Look at how awful this modern culture is" (a la an old man yelling at people to get off of his lawn) thing, where you want or think we need it to change or we're going to hell in a handbasket . . . which I don't empathize with at all--because I'm basically the complete opposite. I'm extremely libertine/freewheeling/laissez faire in disposition. I strongly dislike people wanting to control others (aside from prohibiting things like murder). — Terrapin Station

You raise an interesting point here.

It seems to me that you would be more likely to agree with me, because you are born with a set of morals for living in this world, you possess them, as opposed to having them imposed on you.

You'd have to explain to me what you mean by "our morality is innate". I find this statement to be very vague, ambiguous, and actually not representative of empirical evidence. Let's start with a definition of "morality" as the capacity to distinguish bad from good, and let's assume that this capacity is innate. How is it that we are sometimes wrong in distinguishing bad from good? And why are we taught, as children, to distinguish bad from good, if we already innately know this? — Metaphysician Undercover

People are always making the wrong moral decisions in life, despite being instructed in what is right and wrong. Why is this? It’s because it’s a continuous necessity to address it in ourselves, to consider our decisions and consequences, to look at the problem we’re confronted with by addressing previous concerns and experience and weighing up our choices. That’s who we are.

We are not taught as children to distinguish between right and wrong. What parents, teachers and society does is remind us of what we already know when we do something wrong. It does not have to be explained to us from scratch every time we confront a moral dilemma. There is plenty of research out there demonstrating the sense of empathy among young children as young as 12 months. Behaviour also observed in primates. If the answer is that it is something learned then it has to have existed prior to learning, it had to exist to enable small communities to form and thrive.

Furthermore, if morality was truly innate, wouldn't all this work by the artists, putting forth the material, and creating an audience, all be for nothing? Isn't the moral message, within the art, there for the purpose of teaching morality? This would be unnecessary if morality was innate. — Metaphysician Undercover

It’s not there to teach morality, it’s to demonstrate the continuous endeavour required by people to be moral, that the problems people may face in themselves have been around a long time and that people overcome their doubts and eventually take the moral position, or they refuse to and pay the price.

The flotilla of boats is evolution, the seeds dispersed, because the future exists. Less risk of the idea dying.

The single boat is God’s world, one idea; we all get through or none of us do. There is no future, there is only now. Greater risk in terms of the flotilla’s view, but no risk in the eyes of the single boat.

As you can see, I disagree with this. I don't know how you would support or justify "our morality is innate". It seems quite evident that morality is learned. It is what we are taught when we are young. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is why we differ so much on the artist and the audience.

If you were to agree with me on morality (and I’m not asking you to) would you then agree with my views on audience and artist, would that then make sense?

, then the most important things to teach are how to use our rationality to understand ourselves and society. This is something our brains find naturally difficult - as opposed to interpersonal social interactions say - and something that only effortful training can achieve. He suggests that an understanding of evolutionary psychology, scientific method and a feel for statistics, for example should have first call on the curriculum - — Kippo

So the purpose of education is to create rational human beings. Because it does not come naturally, or because they do not live in a rational society?

I’m trying to keep in the air three different cultures and ages here. 1) a small tribe, 2) Christianity, and 3) let’s say post enlightenment or today.

The tribe and Christianity are similar in terms of the audience and the level of importance. In both of them the people are raised within the confines of a particularly confined culture.

The church has no need of ambiguity to reach a wider audience (except as missionaries, maybe, so I see what you mean about creating a wider audience, and that’s another interesting subject; converting) or to create an audience. Each member is raised to be a member of the audience, they’re believers. As are members of the tribe.

The values and morals are instilled in them on a regular basis by, priests, elders or shamans. These values hold the community together.

They hold the community together because it was those values that formed the tribe. The values came before the tribe because it was the values that, in evolutionary terms, “cultivated and regulated complex interactions within social groups (Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce), enabled their successful development, growth and survival.

The ‘artists’ of these communities created work that contained and expressed these values. The so called art or ‘artefacts’ they created served the purpose of expressing through myths, legends or tales the importance of living those values, and never forgetting them.

But then we get the enlightenment as my bifurcation. The tribe remains untouched, lost in the jungle. But in the Western world the church is challenged; God is dead. Now the audience of the church, the priests, the bible, no longer have the same audience sharing the same sense of importance. The church can never work with ambiguity; you believe in God or you don’t.

However, the values and morals are still there among the potential audience because it’s those values that successfully formed the society. The church didn’t create them, it only institutionalised them. As did the Shamans and elders of the tribe.

So, who are to be the new priests, the new Shamans, the new storytellers that the audience seek?
My position, which I hope I’ve been able to make clear, is that our morality is innate. And we once were part of an audience that responded to the artist/Shaman/priest and their artefacts. The relationship was unambiguous.

The artist/priest/Shaman would create an audience by creating a sense of importance about those morals that the audience already held. But the potential audience is lost, they can’t find the artist who connects. Where is he today? The connection is gone, the inspiration, the tales are gone. There’s a vacuum. The vacuum must be filled. Now there’s room for real ambiguity, and only ambiguity can appeal to a wide audience.

Whether teachers are good or not, the problem is they are required to teach the curriculum. The government determines the curriculum through the department of education. So even the most highly skilled and highly paid teacher would still have to teach the curriculum, and if they did not then their students would fail their exams.

So I feel we’re back at the start; what should the curriculum be and who should determine it?

If you're talking about telling stories, then I think that you have to take into account the historical limitations on written language. — Metaphysician Undercover

In this conversation I have being trying to refer back to earlier times where most stories were passed on verbaly or visually. But what I’m exploring is the idea that, being the creatures we are, we regard the written work, and the visual work that we see today, as a continuation of that telling, we respond instinctively to it, maybe not so consciously as our forebears, but it’s still there. Language and the telling of stories, from the Indians of the Amazon, to Sophocles ‘Antigone’, to Shakespeare’s ‘ King Lear’, carry this message that I’m calling our morality.
This morality presented in the form of tales, myths, or plays and then the written form, would have reached a wide audience, which was its purpose, done in such a way so as not to be elitist, performed in special institutions, separated from the people, as Shakespeare is today for instance, compared to its origins.

There are always a few writer who still do this, but how big is their audience? How many people can they turn away from the television that people watch, seeking instinctively the message and receiving instead the narcissistic morality of modern times.

So I think that this movement of art away from God and the Christian message, is a reflection of the Church's release of control over written expression. Changes in artful expression coincide with the Church's relinquished control over publication. — Metaphysician Undercover

I tend to think the control over expression was taken from them rather than relinquishing it.

When there are severe limitations in relation to what can be put on hard copy, then only what is deemed as the most important will get that privilege. But when there is much freedom and the restrictions are far less significant, we'll get a much wider variety of "artefacts". — Metaphysician Undercover

My feeling is that it’s the opposite. The tales of the past were not privileged by their importance but by their ability to reach out directly to the people. The ‘artefacts’ of today are homogenised and lacking in the sense of morality that was inherent in the tales and plays of the past, and virtually owned by institutions, who then ultimately own the message.

Seeing a bifurcation there seems like oversimplifying and cherry-picking to me. — Terrapin Station

But it would be fair to say that the Enlightenment was exactly that; a bifurcation.

No, not all art was about telling stories, But it was the primary means of transmission and modern art has moved away from playing that part, because modern art became more about personal expression, about the ‘artist’. It’s true the some modern artist: writers and visual artist, might produce works that focus on the dilemma of morality, but what’s relevant in terms of this discussion is how many people they reach; nothing in comparison to television.

I don't see how this example is substantially different. — Metaphysician Undercover

This part is not really about morals or subjectivity. I’m trying to establish the way these original ‘artefacts’, as I call them, are the precursors to what we now regard as art. Modern art did not spring fully formed to life. For a long time these artefacts played an important art in culture: telling stories, interpreting, instructing, nurturing, as it did in Western culture with Christianity, possibly up until the Enlightenment.

When things moved on from the Enlightenment art took on a different purpose. It moved away from God, the Christian message, the bible, the established view of man and his place in the universe, caught up in the idea of reason and science. It began to exist in itself. Eventually we had the idea of the ‘artist’, who produced art expressing his subjective world of feelings, perception, interpretation and so on. It no longer played the same part in society as the ‘artefacts’ did.

And yet it seems possible that instinctively we still turn to these things for some inspiration, just as they did with the ‘artefacts’: the masks, chants and dances. But art is no longer like that. Commercial interests now drive art: film, television, novels, plays. The content is inspirational but in a form that does not contribute to our lives or society as a whole, it targets our narcissism and encourages the worst aspects of our nature.

education is suppose to teach us how to function in society. however it no longer serves that function because we are using the Prussian system which was meant to create conformity. this worked in the industrial economic system but in the information economic we need the exact opposite set of skills. however we don't fix this because democracy. — hachit

It’s worth remembering that this forum is international. Down here in Australia and New Zealand I don’t think the Prussian system ever played much of a part in education and it certainly doesn’t now.

It occurs to me that through education some people are trying to shape the future as opposed to being prepared to adapt to it. By shaping it we then know what we’re entering. But I don’t believe that works because you have to reshape everything in society around that idea.

For a while in business there was the whole idea of ‘future proofing’ the business. Probably in response to the rapid and constant change we had found ourselves involved with in, maybe, the late nineties. It became a bit of a catchword, like ‘grow this ’, that everyone began throwing around. However surviving and adapting became a real thing. Some managed it, some didn’t.

It seems to me that education today is, or should be, preparing children to successfully cope with the near future, enough to at least cope with the beginning of this future before they then begin to get the hang of it. It seems to me that so far only successful business has been able to do this.

Which brings me to private schools. These parents know exactly what the purpose of education is; it’s to give their kids a head start over the others, to maintain their ideas of success, which is material, and to help those kids go on to build better life’s along those lines, and then stay in the top strata of society.

The moral principles, being the most abstract, would be more difficult to find physical evidence of. — Metaphysician Undercover

Except that they exist today in our culture.

In my opinion, it should be a combo of:

* Acquiring general knowledge/familiarity with culture, in a very broad, varied regard
* Acquiring critical thinking skills
* Acquiring practical life skills
* Acquiring more specific skills useful for making a living — Terrapin Station

Should we hope for, or expect, every pupil to achieve all of this, or is it realistic to expect only a percentage to achieve it? If so what’s essential for the others? What do we accept them failing at?

However that is not the purpose, that’s the strategy.

You could say that early education was about opening doors to knowledge and modern education is about exploring the rooms these doors open to. — TheMadFool

Actually, I’m not sure by what you mean by ‘early education’, but early education, those years 5,6,7,9,10 would be about opening doors, and the following years about exploring those rooms.