4 ms·

Beware Moral Fashion

2 points by jger15 2y ago

082349872349872 2y ago
> * Centuries ago, when the world had 100Ks of small poor cultures amid frequent famines, pandemics, and wars, cultural selection was strong, assuring that morals were adaptive.* Hanson often asserts this, yet I've yet to see him justify it? EDIT: If you are an optimist, "Do unto others as you would like they do unto you" is an evergreen, the Torah on one foot. If you are a cynic, the true evergreen is "Do unto others, then run".
- illuminant 2y ago
  And another thing. It was often recounted that cultures (Turks, Greeks, Asians, etc.) were benevolent and generous and gracious God(sic.) fearing hosts during peace time. And savage, ruthless, murderous demons during wartime.
- krapp 2y ago
  Centuries ago, cultures tended to be far more rigidly defined and centralized along authoritarian (royalist) and religious hierarchies, and deviations from proscribed norms were punished far more severely. Therefore the premise that morals were more "adaptive" in the past than the present seems specious to me. Also I don't believe the distinction between what the author considers 'moral fashion' and the natural process of moral evolution exists, the former naturally leads to the latter. Yet they seem to believe there is some objective means by which one can judge the quality of morals and predict their long-term adaptability.
  - illuminant 2y ago
    Objective means: protecting those unculpable from violation. Putting to an end the violation of others at every expense of those culpable (even their life to *some extent.) Apart from the OP perspectives, both sides have credibility. An objective empirical measure is available (Reality and how we treat each other,) and we're only "subjectively" qualified to dispense law (those who are not will behave as so, those who are may be negligent or incompetent, and every combination of qualified that is available in a case of for-instance. And I think "moral relativism" has more to do with one local states 18 is the age of consent, in some parts it's 15, and until recently in Japan it was 12. 12 is presumed to be universally morally repugnant by widest spread convention.
illuminant 2y ago
Ultimate Objective Morality comes down to those who will violate others, and those who know outright that it is WRONG. We make up these things called laws upon which we prop civilization. Cultures, fashions, and conventions do play a role in contemporary laws and base line local morality. A "righteous rule of law" is simply one that is principled upon Truth (for if it is not True it has no place in law.) One that serves to protect those unculpable (the innocent) from breach (violation) by will or neglect. Freak acts of chance among us are ideally forgivable, though even that is a culture. We scoff the shaky foundations of Man's law, yet without some moralistic higher law we are doubly screwed.

2 points by jger15 2y ago

> * Centuries ago, when the world had 100Ks of small poor cultures amid frequent famines, pandemics, and wars, cultural selection was strong, assuring that morals were adaptive.* Hanson often asserts this, yet I've yet to see him justify it? EDIT: If you are an optimist, "Do unto others as you would like they do unto you" is an evergreen, the Torah on one foot. If you are a cynic, the true evergreen is "Do unto others, then run".

illuminant 2y ago
And another thing. It was often recounted that cultures (Turks, Greeks, Asians, etc.) were benevolent and generous and gracious God(sic.) fearing hosts during peace time. And savage, ruthless, murderous demons during wartime.
krapp 2y ago
Centuries ago, cultures tended to be far more rigidly defined and centralized along authoritarian (royalist) and religious hierarchies, and deviations from proscribed norms were punished far more severely. Therefore the premise that morals were more "adaptive" in the past than the present seems specious to me. Also I don't believe the distinction between what the author considers 'moral fashion' and the natural process of moral evolution exists, the former naturally leads to the latter. Yet they seem to believe there is some objective means by which one can judge the quality of morals and predict their long-term adaptability.
- illuminant 2y ago
  Objective means: protecting those unculpable from violation. Putting to an end the violation of others at every expense of those culpable (even their life to *some extent.) Apart from the OP perspectives, both sides have credibility. An objective empirical measure is available (Reality and how we treat each other,) and we're only "subjectively" qualified to dispense law (those who are not will behave as so, those who are may be negligent or incompetent, and every combination of qualified that is available in a case of for-instance. And I think "moral relativism" has more to do with one local states 18 is the age of consent, in some parts it's 15, and until recently in Japan it was 12. 12 is presumed to be universally morally repugnant by widest spread convention.

illuminant 2y ago

Ultimate Objective Morality comes down to those who will violate others, and those who know outright that it is WRONG. We make up these things called laws upon which we prop civilization. Cultures, fashions, and conventions do play a role in contemporary laws and base line local morality. A "righteous rule of law" is simply one that is principled upon Truth (for if it is not True it has no place in law.) One that serves to protect those unculpable (the innocent) from breach (violation) by will or neglect. Freak acts of chance among us are ideally forgivable, though even that is a culture. We scoff the shaky foundations of Man's law, yet without some moralistic higher law we are doubly screwed.