3 ms·

I think that humanistic moral universalism (or simply humanism) - a moral philosophy which is a basis for e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - requires

by js8 2y ago

I think that humanistic moral universalism (or simply humanism) - a moral philosophy which is a basis for e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - requires the moral axiom that "not hurting humans is above all else". This obviously begs a question "who is considered a human?" in this moral philosophy. For this to work as intended, things like human cells (we can kill cells to save a human being) or societies like nation states (we can destroy or mutilate states to save a human being) have to be considered lesser than individual humans. But it gives rise to Russell-type paradox of how to include as many humans as possible without creating contradictions. (A similar problem is with democracy, it cannot be instituted or destroyed democratically.) These logical problems seem to come from the fact that you need some axioms at all. In the same way, you can be "dogmatic in your non-dogmatism". I also think if you accept the universalist moral position above, the questioning and distrust towards experts (authorities) becomes obvious conclusion. Authorities asking for humans to be killed or harmed (for example, going to a war) need to provide a strong justification. I also consider it very doubtful that the moral universalism was first invented by "Western civilization" or "enlightenment". Yeah, somebody was first, but it's not that a difficult idea. What might be new is the universal acceptance of it, but I am not so sure when I look around. However, in practice, the Russell-style paradox is rarely a problem. Yeah, there are edge cases like dolphins, or intellectually disabled people, but mostly we can figure it out.

082349872349872 2y ago
> [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Eg Aristotle (ca 300BC): Some people think that all rules of justice are merely conventional, because whereas a law of nature is immutable and has the same validity everywhere, as fire burns both here and in Persia, rules of justice are seen to vary. I'd guess it was common over the last 10k years for educated and/or travelled people to be aware that their neighbours had different* dogmas, and in pre-colonial times (when it was far more likely that these neighbours were similarly located on the tech tree) the parochialism of colonialists ("Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.") would not have been as facile. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1134b http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... * Tacitus seems to have written De origine et situ Germanorum partly as an objective description of germans, and partly as a subjective reproach of his Roman compatriots; during the XIX (which established many of the tropes we've inherited as "common knowledge") the germans flipped this around: germans and french were in superpower conflict, and as the french —with a significant advantage in language— had laid claim to inheriting the (centralised) Roman tradition, the germans retorted by digging up all the old arguments the (decentralised) greeks had made along the lines of "maybe the Romans have all the money, but we've got all the culture". (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter ; τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει )
- js8 2y ago
  > > [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Actually I mean moral universalism here, but thanks for your comment.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    My bad. For moral universalism, how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence_(ahimsa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence_(ahimsa) for an older example? (although their protected class is a bit wider than humanity) Looks like it goes back a ways, either infinitely (if you ask the Jains) or at least thousands of years (if you ask current historians), but both agree to further back than the Age of Pisces covered by Brin's essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parshvanatha#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parshvanatha#Historicity
    - kragen 2y ago
      my lagniappe for you today is 兼愛 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/#inclusive https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/#inclusive which probably you are familiar with but have forgotten
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        thanks for the anamnemetic reminder! according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investiture_of_the_Gods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investitur... the list of gods (姜太公封神——漏了自己) came via working group from the 3 (three) religions, which doesn't seem to leave much room for Mohism, but on the other hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investiture_of_the_Gods#The_missing_names_in_the_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investitur... suggests that as we can't be sure the list itself hasn't been tampered with, we certainly oughtn't be confident of its provenance. confirmed: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/封神榜三百六十五位正神#封神榜缺失问题 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/封神榜三百六十五位正神#封神榜缺失问题 (but unless I'm missing something, no ecumenical wg mentioned in the zh. article)

by js8 2y ago

082349872349872 2y ago

> [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Eg Aristotle (ca 300BC): Some people think that all rules of justice are merely conventional, because whereas a law of nature is immutable and has the same validity everywhere, as fire burns both here and in Persia, rules of justice are seen to vary. I'd guess it was common over the last 10k years for educated and/or travelled people to be aware that their neighbours had different* dogmas, and in pre-colonial times (when it was far more likely that these neighbours were similarly located on the tech tree) the parochialism of colonialists ("Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.") would not have been as facile. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1134b http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... * Tacitus seems to have written De origine et situ Germanorum partly as an objective description of germans, and partly as a subjective reproach of his Roman compatriots; during the XIX (which established many of the tropes we've inherited as "common knowledge") the germans flipped this around: germans and french were in superpower conflict, and as the french —with a significant advantage in language— had laid claim to inheriting the (centralised) Roman tradition, the germans retorted by digging up all the old arguments the (decentralised) greeks had made along the lines of "maybe the Romans have all the money, but we've got all the culture". (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter ; τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει )

js8 2y ago
> > [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Actually I mean moral universalism here, but thanks for your comment.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  My bad. For moral universalism, how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence_(ahimsa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence_(ahimsa) for an older example? (although their protected class is a bit wider than humanity) Looks like it goes back a ways, either infinitely (if you ask the Jains) or at least thousands of years (if you ask current historians), but both agree to further back than the Age of Pisces covered by Brin's essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parshvanatha#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parshvanatha#Historicity
  - kragen 2y ago
    my lagniappe for you today is 兼愛 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/#inclusive https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/#inclusive which probably you are familiar with but have forgotten
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      thanks for the anamnemetic reminder! according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investiture_of_the_Gods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investitur... the list of gods (姜太公封神——漏了自己) came via working group from the 3 (three) religions, which doesn't seem to leave much room for Mohism, but on the other hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investiture_of_the_Gods#The_missing_names_in_the_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods_in_the_Investitur... suggests that as we can't be sure the list itself hasn't been tampered with, we certainly oughtn't be confident of its provenance. confirmed: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/封神榜三百六十五位正神#封神榜缺失问题 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/封神榜三百六十五位正神#封神榜缺失问题 (but unless I'm missing something, no ecumenical wg mentioned in the zh. article)