5 ms·

It's frustrating because unless it's written in stone Americans won't even pretend to agree on it, we're a very chaotic culture that craves the predictability o

by edrxty 3y ago

It's frustrating because unless it's written in stone Americans won't even pretend to agree on it, we're a very chaotic culture that craves the predictability of rules and laws (unless they impact me specifically). There's no concept in American society of a universal ethical standard at even the most fundamental level, probably stemming from how much inequality exists.

rgrieselhuber 3y ago
I think the reason for this is because natural law assumes individual responsibility, and things have gotten far too comfy for most people to want that. So they outsource it to text and there are many experts at manipulating text.
- edrxty 3y ago
  That's an incredibly good way of putting it. As long as you can justify your comfort over someone else's, you golden.
sixstringtheory 3y ago
Do you have some alternative in mind? If you don't communicate an idea, you don't even have the chance to agree on it because many people may not even consider it. I really fail to imagine how a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard without writing a couple ideas down here and there. You're asking for a utopian society of mind readers, which hits me as just a touch unreasonable.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I'm not convinced a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard, period. I was about to say, "we can at least agree that murder is bad", but I'm not sure that's even the case, given that it seems like some people would think it's ok to murder their political opponents if given the chance.
- rgrieselhuber 3y ago
  The standard used to be the concept of Imago Dei. Regardless of one’s individual beliefs it sets up an axiomatic basis for the worth of every individual and balancing that with the needs of a society.
  - greedo 3y ago
    I'm sure that'll work well in a polytheistic world. Oh wait, we've already tried that.
memefrog 3y ago
> There's no concept in American society of a universal ethical standard at even the most fundamental level When I grew up, which was not long ago, we viewed America as that curiously Christian country of the West. Everyone else was very secular, but those American? They're all Christians, they're crazily religious. Maybe this has become less true over the last decade or so, but I think that you'll find that the percentage of Americans that describe themselves as Christian is still very high. It seems that there is a pretty universal ethical standard at the most fundamental level. It just turns out that, like all things in life, people disagree about how to translate broad, abstract moral claims into concrete policies. You might agree on a 'separation of church and state' or 'free speech' but that doesn't mean you agree on what that means in practice. Does it mean that public officials shouldn't be allowed to display religious symbols, like it does in France? Does it mean that Islamic headscarves on women and crucifix necklaces are banned in schools? Does the UK have separate religion and state? Certainly its political process is less influenced by religious voting blocs than America's. But its head of state is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. These things are complicated.

by edrxty 3y ago

rgrieselhuber 3y ago

I think the reason for this is because natural law assumes individual responsibility, and things have gotten far too comfy for most people to want that. So they outsource it to text and there are many experts at manipulating text.

edrxty 3y ago
That's an incredibly good way of putting it. As long as you can justify your comfort over someone else's, you golden.

sixstringtheory 3y ago

Do you have some alternative in mind? If you don't communicate an idea, you don't even have the chance to agree on it because many people may not even consider it. I really fail to imagine how a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard without writing a couple ideas down here and there. You're asking for a utopian society of mind readers, which hits me as just a touch unreasonable.

kelnos 3y ago
I'm not convinced a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard, period. I was about to say, "we can at least agree that murder is bad", but I'm not sure that's even the case, given that it seems like some people would think it's ok to murder their political opponents if given the chance.
rgrieselhuber 3y ago
The standard used to be the concept of Imago Dei. Regardless of one’s individual beliefs it sets up an axiomatic basis for the worth of every individual and balancing that with the needs of a society.
- greedo 3y ago
  I'm sure that'll work well in a polytheistic world. Oh wait, we've already tried that.

memefrog 3y ago

> There's no concept in American society of a universal ethical standard at even the most fundamental level When I grew up, which was not long ago, we viewed America as that curiously Christian country of the West. Everyone else was very secular, but those American? They're all Christians, they're crazily religious. Maybe this has become less true over the last decade or so, but I think that you'll find that the percentage of Americans that describe themselves as Christian is still very high. It seems that there is a pretty universal ethical standard at the most fundamental level. It just turns out that, like all things in life, people disagree about how to translate broad, abstract moral claims into concrete policies. You might agree on a 'separation of church and state' or 'free speech' but that doesn't mean you agree on what that means in practice. Does it mean that public officials shouldn't be allowed to display religious symbols, like it does in France? Does it mean that Islamic headscarves on women and crucifix necklaces are banned in schools? Does the UK have separate religion and state? Certainly its political process is less influenced by religious voting blocs than America's. But its head of state is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. These things are complicated.