A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Tassman]

Where did I say it was a bad thing (it may be but not for the reasons you believe). And what are you talking about - of course it works well in human society - for most of human history that is exactly how it worked - the few and powerful controlling the masses. You know, like liberals try to do today...



Good, then you have no problem with Trump, how nature determined him to think and act. I will remember this on the Civics board



Really? How do you know? Democracies, as practiced today, are fairly new - they may not survive into the future. We know that Totalitarian systems did work in history, for very long periods of times.

Liking or disliking a system of government is irrelevant to the fact that we are social animals and must live in organised communities in order to survive. How we organise our societies is via a system of rules or ethics which we devise and which are an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory. There’s no need for imaginary gods laying down rules of behaviour. The history of religion-based morality has been dire. Look around.

[seer]

Liking or disliking a system of government is irrelevant to the fact that we are social animals and must live in organised communities in order to survive. How we organise our societies is via a system of rules or ethics which we devise and which are an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory. There’s no need for imaginary gods laying down rules of behaviour. The history of religion-based morality has been dire. Look around.

No Tass the history of religion-based morality is not dire as long as it prompts social cohesion.

[Tassman]

No Tass the history of religion-based morality is not dire as long as it prompts social cohesion.

All social cohesion is equal but some is more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell.

[seer]

All social cohesion is equal but some is more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell.

Really? That is your come back.

[Tassman]

Really? That is your come back.

It's all your assertion warrants.

[seer]

It's all your assertion warrants.

I did not assert anything, I stated a fact. Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact. Democracies are much more messy with different factions at odds with each other. Much less cohesion.

[Roy]

Really? How do you know? Democracies, as practiced today, are fairly new - they may not survive into the future. We know that Totalitarian systems did work in history, for very long periods of times.

Because the majority will always rise up against the injustice of the immoral few.

We that is just silly Jim, first that doesn't always happen - look at Cuba, China, North Korea or the Roman empire for that matter.

Students of history know that the Totalitarian systems you use as your main examples - China, Rome, Cuba, etc - did not work for very long periods of time, but experienced frequent violent upheavals. China, for example, has had three major civil wars since 1850, one of which produced more casualties than WWI, as well as many smaller rebellions. Cuba and China are particularly good examples where the majority did rise up against the injustice of the immoral few, leading to the dethroning of Batista and Chiang Kai-shek respectively. The current totalitarian regimes in China, Cuba and North Korea are actually all younger than the western democracies you say may not last.

All this has been pointed out to you before.

[Roy]

I did not assert anything, I stated a fact. Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact.

Name three.

[seer]

Name three.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain...

[seer]

Students of history know that the Totalitarian systems you use as your main examples - China, Rome, Cuba, etc - did not work for very long periods of time, but experienced frequent violent upheavals. China, for example, has had three major civil wars since 1850, one of which produced more casualties than WWI, as well as many smaller rebellions. Cuba and China are particularly good examples where the majority did rise up against the injustice of the immoral few, leading to the dethroning of Batista and Chiang Kai-shek respectively. The current totalitarian regimes in China, Cuba and North Korea are actually all younger than the western democracies you say may not last.

All this has been pointed out to you before.

Nonsense Roy, I listed quite a few totalitarian regimes/empires some of which lasted for centuries. And China and Cuba are still totalitarian, the few ruling over the majority. Totalitarianism works - thanks for making my point. And Rome did well for centuries.

[Roy]

I did not assert anything, I stated a fact. Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact.

Name three.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain...

So your idea of a socially cohesive country is one which had a civil war in 1992 that included violent civilian massacres and more than 100,000 casualties, and which led to a 19-year state of emergency.

Or a country which immediately after becoming an Islamic republic experienced several rebellions and uprisings that were violently subdued with tens of thousands of executions, and then promptly invaded its neighbours, and which more recently saw widespread protests against electoral irregularities and fraud.

Or a country in which unemployment, poverty and corruption led in 2010 to intensive civil resistance followed by the overthrowing of the government and exile of the president.

Not convincing

[seer]

So your idea of a socially cohesive country is one which had a civil war in 1992 that included violent civilian massacres and more than 100,000 casualties, and which led to a 19-year state of emergency.

Or a country which immediately after becoming an Islamic republic experienced several rebellions and uprisings that were violently subdued with tens of thousands of executions, and then promptly invaded its neighbours, and which more recently saw widespread protests against electoral irregularities and fraud.

Or a country in which unemployment, poverty and corruption led in 2010 to intensive civil resistance followed by the overthrowing of the government and exile of the president.

Not convincing

Oh stop, they are all relatively cohesive now no matter their history. We in the west have a lot of violence in our histories too.

[Tassman]

I did not assert anything,

What you asserted was that “the history of religion-based morality is not dire as long as it prompts social cohesion”. It’s been pretty dire, look at the history of religious wars and the state of religion-based nations today.

I stated a fact. Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact. Democracies are much more messy with different factions at odds with each other. Much less cohesion.

You’re confusing social cohesion with the demand for social conformity.

[siam]

You’re confusing social cohesion with the demand for social conformity.

Social conformity is an important element of social cohesion---the tensions between Europeans of Muslim heritage and non-Muslim heritage is partly because there is a perception of non-conformity....

social cohesion comes about because a group gives assent to a particular paradigm---theistic or non-theistic---which gives rise to "values" upon which social rules and expectations are based....for example, the American dream and/or American exceptionalism of the U.S....or Yamatodamashi of Japan....or "Chosen People" of Judaism...or the concept of Ummah in Islam.....etc....Because these are identity-constructs, they tend to have an element of exclusion built-in....which supports and enhances social cohesion. Patriotism (love of nation-state) is also enhanced when there is an "other" preferably an enemy....

Theism is not a necessary requirement for exclusion or tensions that lead to war....rather it is entitlement---any group theistic or non-theistic, that feels it is superior to another and thereby dehumanizes the "other" will go to war much easier.

As long as identity-constructs are an element of social cohesion, there will always be tensions with other groups--it is an unavoidable aspect of human nature and group dynamics----however, if there are ways to resolve these tensions justly, with reciprocal respect---there will be less chances of war. This requires that all groups give assent to the notion that human dignity is an equal right of all humanity.

[Tassman]

Social conformity is an important element of social cohesion---the tensions between Europeans of Muslim heritage and non-Muslim heritage is partly because there is a perception of non-conformity....

Yes it’s an important “element” among many other elements such as tolerance.

social cohesion comes about because a group gives assent to a particular paradigm---theistic or non-theistic---which gives rise to "values" upon which social rules and expectations are based....for example, the American dream and/or American exceptionalism of the U.S....or Yamatodamashi of Japan....or "Chosen People" of Judaism...or the concept of Ummah in Islam.....etc....Because these are identity-constructs, they tend to have an element of exclusion built-in....which supports and enhances social cohesion. Patriotism (love of nation-state) is also enhanced when there is an "other" preferably an enemy....

True, but our modern multicultural societies must find ways to incorporate diversity otherwise we’re looking at totalitarianism, which has never been the most desirable form of governance.

Theism is not a necessary requirement for exclusion or tensions that lead to war....rather it is entitlement---any group theistic or non-theistic, that feels it is superior to another and thereby dehumanizes the "other" will go to war much easier.

The problem with theism is its tendency to regard those of different faiths (or none) as offending against the one true god and therefore deserving of discrimination or even death.

As long as identity-constructs are an element of social cohesion, there will always be tensions with other groups--it is an unavoidable aspect of human nature and group dynamics----however, if there are ways to resolve these tensions justly, with reciprocal respect---there will be less chances of war. This requires that all groups give assent to the notion that human dignity is an equal right of all humanity.

I agree.