#4099095 - 03/30/15 01:04 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,700
Peally
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,700
Wisconsin, USA
|
I think they need to change the "100 years" in the article to 1000
Scully: Victim died of multiple stab wounds. Mulder: *throws her a file* Ever heard of the knife alien?
|
|
#4099116 - 03/30/15 01:31 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
What I disagree with is the notion that human beings are children that must have morality imposed on them by some greater authority, by threat of force, because they are too immature to realize the benefits themselves. It has always been dictated by the culture and enforced by the authorities in that culture, authorities made up of those same human beings. As the culture changes, the morality changes. For literally all of recorded history it has been that way and it's worked well enough that there are now 7 billion people on this planet and still increasing. Personal opinions on the efficacy of these morals or those morals are irrelevant because the mechanism has been shown to work. There are more people now, living longer, healthier lives, with more advanced capabilities, than ever before in history. In localized areas things will change, civilizations will rise and fall, but the greater framework continues to function for the benefit of the species as a whole.
The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
#4099125 - 03/30/15 01:37 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,794
adlabs6
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,794
Tracy Island
|
Given a free hand, a people will tend to create something they like. What that may be, as Panzer mentions, will vary widely with cultures. One can imagine a point at which such could diminish, however. It was once unthinkable that so many millions of children could be schooled under such a unified education system in one country. Some of the world eventually moving from a nationalized education standard to a globalized one, not unthinkable. As ever, though... "Predictions" are a great way to be wrong!
WARNING: This post contains opinions produced in a facility which also occasionally processes fact products.
|
|
#4099138 - 03/30/15 01:45 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
PFunk
SimHQ Redneck
|
SimHQ Redneck
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
N. Central Texas
|
I remember when Paul Erlich wrote "The Population Bomb" back in 1968. Erlich was an entomologist. He should have stuck to observing butterflies because his observations on people couldn't have been more wrong. When none of his predictions came true, like most alarmists of any stripe, he doubled down.
I don't see globalization becoming the norm, if anything, I see the opposite happening. We seem to think we're in some sort of inexorable progression to utopia (someone's read The Hunger Games and other works of teen fiction once too often) and I believe that exactly the opposite will happen. I think that balkanization is the new future.
The article pretty much strides past everything that makes humans...well, human. It completely ignores the sociology of people and how we think, behave, and our intent. I'm trying to imagine a society like the one described in the article lasting very long with such a complete lack of innovation. One illness would wipe it out because of its complete lack of ability to adapt.
"A little luck & a little government is necessary to get by, but only a fool places his complete trust in either one." - PJ O'Rourke www.sixmanfootball.com
|
|
#4099208 - 03/30/15 04:05 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Jayhawk
Silastic Armorfiend
|
Silastic Armorfiend
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Docking Bay 94
|
Let me restate that it's worthwhile to read the whole article. I get the impression that one or two who have already commented did not read the whole article, but only the first "chapter". The interesting part starts after the captital "W". The opening paragraph IMO is merely a teaser.
Why men throw their lives away attacking an armed Witcher... I'll never know. Something wrong with my face?
|
|
#4099226 - 03/30/15 04:44 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
PFunk
SimHQ Redneck
|
SimHQ Redneck
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
N. Central Texas
|
I read the whole article. I agree with the basic premise. Morality will change. It might even revert to an even more draconian morality than anyone suspects. I think it's all going to depend on where you live.
"A little luck & a little government is necessary to get by, but only a fool places his complete trust in either one." - PJ O'Rourke www.sixmanfootball.com
|
|
#4099234 - 03/30/15 04:57 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Timothy]
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Jayhawk
Silastic Armorfiend
|
Silastic Armorfiend
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Docking Bay 94
|
I'll wait till this takes the trip to the other forum. Why not copy the link to the other forum and start a parallel discussion for those who would want to delve into the political side of it? Could also serve as a "lightning rod" to keep this thread Community Hall friendly.
Why men throw their lives away attacking an armed Witcher... I'll never know. Something wrong with my face?
|
|
#4099242 - 03/30/15 05:15 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
Mechanus
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
|
That content is based on a simple and ancient idea: that morality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of others as much weight as ones own self-interest. Moral behaviour in this sense can be found in any society, because it is the glue that sticks individuals together and so makes society possible. Indeed, the basis of this morality altruism is innate to humans, as many recent studies have shown. Without ever having been told to do so, even toddlers are willing to help and to share with others.
There is a lot to debate in this paragraph. If someone wants to invoke The Golden Rule, which is found in some form or another in every society, it doesn't mean in and of itself that's what morality is based on, rather, that is a moral itself. In other words, it's a specific moral rather than what morality as a whole is. Morals appear to be practical rules of thumb that are developed in response to situations we've met before, i.e., "The moral of the story is people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." This is different than ethics, which analyzes and debates morals: "Sure it might be a moral act to do those things, but are those morals in and of themselves good or wise or ethical- is there a time for example when it is good to disobey a moral, or why is this moral a good one in a different context?" People have pointed out that morality is inherent when they point to toddlers, but it's a self referential thing to point out that a toddler does something moral by giving something to someone else. I don't know if this is morality, since animals can do the same thing and are not necessarily referred to as moral agents. Having empathy isn't necessarily what I would call morality, in other words, since morality often tells us to do things that might be contrary to what we empathize with and vice versa.
|
|
#4099270 - 03/30/15 06:10 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
|
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
|
I agree that it's ethics, not morality, that they're discussing. They are often mutually exclusive. A moral man thinks stealing is wrong. An ethical man doesn't steal. I also think they're ruling out a different trend possibility: (O)ur descendants will be appalled that we let 19,000 children every day die from preventable, poverty-related causes. Or, possibly, they'll be amazed that we had only 19K kids die every day for those reasons. The thing about "Golden Ages" is that people living in them rarely are aware of them. Certainly the article is focused only on the West. The morality and ethics they describe are perfectly alien to much of the globe; the people in Darfur would hardly scoff at a sausage, and homosexuals aren't embraced in any way in western Iraq and eastern Syria (unless one counts grabbing them in order to throw them off of high buildings onto pavement).
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events. More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.comFrom Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
|
|
#4099280 - 03/30/15 06:27 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
Mechanus
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
|
An argument could be made in ethics that the most obvious examples that what shouldn't be done can and ought be done in another circumstance or situation i.e., situational ethics.
So blanket moral prohibitions against lying or stealing might be unethical. Would it be for example unethical not to steal from or lie to the Nazis if it could be done?
Ethics is an ongoing discussion, morals really are just more like 'laws' without necessarily being laws. Some people equate them with duties. A duty you owe to others not to steal from them.
There have been some people (like Plato) who aren't satisfied with that, and have presumed there is something deeper in all of this, that there is something Good and formal and eternal interwoven in reality. But by definition, they tend to not be very sophisticated explanations when dealing with sophisticated situations, particularly in situations where no matter what you do, you will transgress some rule, when you have to weigh which is the better between two or more bad options.
|
|
#4099293 - 03/30/15 06:43 PM
Re: Morality in 100 years?
[Re: Jayhawk]
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
Mechanus
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,989
|
What's really astounding is that if you want to see a blueprint for the first borderline totalitarian state, look in Plato's Republic, in fact people have taken note of it and it shows when those things have been produced.
The reason where it comes from is that Plato tried to come up with a definition of justice. After a time debating it, the definition appears to be futile, since it either always presupposes itself in circular reasoning or it's impossible to come up with a practical definition that fits in every occasion. So he comes up with this: justice is staying where you belong in your station, that is, everyone is born into a specific class or station, that's where you belong, you cannot leave your post. Born a farmer, die a farmer, that's justice. From there he sets up a very stratified, although supposedly enlightened state without any kind of mobility, like an ant colony.
|
|
|
|