Good humans

[drugo]

Is humanity, as a whole, evolving or getting better at being moral or ethical? It appears that technology is constantly growing, mutating, complexifying and 'evolving' to better things (or at least to quicker, more efficient, powerful, helpful and unbelievable things); planes, trains and automobiles kick-ass compared to horses or feet (for traveling that is) and electric fridges are much better than a hole in the ground with salt crystals preserving meat.

But, what about the history of morality, ethics, and 'the good'? Are we humans now better, more respectful, more integral and dignified than we were 400 years ago? How about 2000 years ago? or 50,000? What is the 'universal decleration of human rights' all about? Does it indicate any type of evolution or adaptive success in humanity's moral standards? What about environmental laws against corporate toxification of nature? Or what about Ghandi criminalising the old Hindu expectation that widows must publicly burn themselves to death to show pure devotion to their dead husband?

Relativists would toilet the thought of this questions, but given the undeniable fact of globalisation, along with the reality that all humans 'relate' to the earth, it appears that the comparative history of morality (or moralities) should not be avoided with an over-the-top relativist escapism.

Are we more good than we used to be? If so or no, then in what ways?

[Quixote]

Huge and difficult topic. I think my opinion is that we are not "better" morally as a species than we were 1000 years ago. Wars are always fought for some greater cause, at least that's what we're told.

But I think we are much more educated now, so we have a broader perspective.

[santiago]

morals do not actually exist, they are only a form of expression born from complex animal interaction, the unwritten rules of life. all well and good to aknowledge they exist but none the less through countless evolution the peer group inhabiting that time period has self adjudicated the important-ness of their combined self worth and potential versus the alter choice of barbarism.

these great forces are locked in a never ending battle of energy consumption and planetary forces such as we know being nature. when nature conspires to prove harsh problems to certain species apon the planet, then animals, plants and minerals must adhere to the strict relationships of universal forces, these being that living organisms must live and die according to speciality. the minerals however being non organic provide the overall safety blanket and firestarter for organic birth and change. these are the fires of life, the opposite and equal forces exist because you cannot possibly have any matter without not having anti matter. it is within this struggle that means that if we humans being only one half of a whole cosmically, we lose our energy force which for humans is food and water, then you will see that morals

morals do not actually exist

they are a mere sub conscious function of the organism to adhere to universal principle and to exist.

the existing is a paradox of non existing

thus your question is answered, but it is not answered.

[Roopey]

Is humanity, as a whole, evolving or getting better at being moral or ethical? It appears that technology is constantly growing, mutating, complexifying and 'evolving' to better things (or at least to quicker, more efficient, powerful, helpful and unbelievable things); planes, trains and automobiles kick-ass compared to horses or feet (for traveling that is) and electric fridges are much better than a hole in the ground with salt crystals preserving meat.

To those who see black and white, who are polarized, you might say that our technology is "better" than it ever has been, yet there are many other colors in the spectrum than just the two extreme opposites. What about the psychological implications of these technological advances? Plato warned against the use of the written word, because he saw that it would greatly affect our ability to remember, look around you now. What about the environmental implications of these technological advances? Nuclear fallout from testing done all over the world isn't going to be going away any time soon and has increased infant mortality rate exponentially, along with other things as well, obviously, oil spills come to mind. Which brings up another question, what about the energy requirements to run these technological advances? How long do we expect to be able to run these advances with finite resources?

So when you say "better" you quite obviously mean "more convenient," and the sacrifice that we are forcing the planet to make for our convenience is repugnant.

But, what about the history of morality, ethics, and 'the good'? Are we humans now better, more respectful, more integral and dignified than we were 400 years ago? How about 2000 years ago? or 50,000?

Comparing a whole species in the present to that whole species in the past is so irrelevant. Your questions are unanswerable, as none of us were alive 400 years ago so know nothing of what life was like then other than the second hand accounts that happened to be written down, and since most educated people in those days were educated by the Church, I'm going to largely discard most written accounts anyway due to their large bias. Words on paper are not people. I can sit here and type that I think that we should all just get along and love each other all the times!! Does that mean that I am practicing that philosophy, day in, and day out?

What is the 'universal decleration of human rights' all about?

Making people think that they are free and have rights, when they aren't, and they don't. None are more enslaved than those who don't even know that they are.

Relativists would toilet the thought of this questions, but given the undeniable fact of globalisation, along with the reality that all humans 'relate' to the earth, it appears that the comparative history of morality (or moralities) should not be avoided with an over-the-top relativist escapism.

To be truly ethical, to me, is to act only according to what the whole needs, to be truly humble and compassionate. Not just towards other humans, but towards every living being in the universe. Crucify the ego, before it's far too late.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Roopey

[drugo]

existing is a paradox of non existing

thus your question is answered, but it is not answered.

 

I'm sure you could slap this conclusion to any question, but does it really say much, or anything, beyond a fun play of words?

I don't agree that morals are simplpy illusionary. You seem to imply that all concepts are illusions, but then go on to conceptualise systems of nature. I tend to see mind and body as slices of the same cake, thus perceive the forces of organic/natural sociality (minerals relating to animals to geology to plants) as, in a way, particpating in and experssing unique forms of morality. If a river erodes a new direction for its livelihood then this is 'good' and/or 'bad' for the survival of certain life-forms that are nourished by the river. Or, nature conspiring to prove harsh conditions for minority species (such as Tsunamis' killing humans) is like governments raising business rental taxes and destroying independent shops and culture.

Surely certain moral rules are conscious and some but not all are subconscious? After all, we are here consciously discussing examples of moral standards with examples ranging from the destruction of nature, war, religious principles to family honour...

[drugo]

To those who see black and white, who are polarized, you might say that our technology is "better" than it ever has been, yet there are many other colors in the spectrum than just the two extreme opposites.

Thought is nothing but simplified binary structures, metonynms, and metaphors, and theory is but putting these mental styles into a kind of poetic narrative. So, yes, thought works with black/white, is/isnt, and true/false structures, and don't these other colours you speak of have moral opposites to? We always decide (consciously or uncsoncsiouly) that something is good or bad, valuable or not-valuable, relevant or irrelevant, using a variety of standards and assumptions, do we not?

I agree that technology may be better and more efficient in some ways, yet destructive and 'immoral' in other ways. However, is it the tech or the humans weilding the tech that we should put on trial? Or perhaps they reflect each other.

Why not take advantage of historic records for insight into humanity? You say you can't trust people from 400 years go, but why do you take on board some of Plato's thought>>??

It appears to me that morals are relative to motivations and desires; the forces of will, power, survival, domination, freedom and success. I'm particularly interested in the nexus of where and how motivations are negotiated, what is the collatoral damage, or (in)equality, when morals are established and destroyed? For instace, the emergence of first wave feminism at the turn of the 20th century and the motivations of women to have more social freedom being meet with strong resistence. Or the the way that the 'terrorism' meme in the media over the last decade has activated certain racial, religious, and national morals, thus allowing certain political and economic motivations, not to mention murder, theft and manufactured misery.

If we 'crucify the ego' (Roopey) too much people will eat us for breakfast.

Edited November 6, 2011 by entheophanic

[Roopey]

Thought is nothing but simplified binary structures, metonynms, and metaphors, and theory is but putting these mental styles into a kind of poetic narrative. So, yes, thought works with black/white, is/isnt, and true/false structures, and don't these other colours you speak of have moral opposites to? We always decide (consciously or unconsciously) that something is good or bad, valuable or not-valuable, relevant or irrelevant, using a variety of standards and assumptions, do we not?

No, not all of us do. I did at one point, as I was trained to do, but eventually my eye opened and now I can see that things are not so black and white. It's too vague. When I say, I think that apples are good, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Is it good because it's healthy? Is it good because it's tasty? Is it good because it's red? Is it good because I was told that they are good? When you ask if something is better than something else, better can mean anything! Does it mean more advanced? More convenient? Stronger? Faster? Harder? More beautiful? More destructive? More efficient? More eco-friendly? What are you trying to ask?

Seeing the world as right and wrong, good and evil, left and right, black and white, limits your expression and limits your thoughts. Especially when you consider that everything is inherently contradictory. If someone breaks into my house and tries to hurt my family and then I kill him, is that right or wrong? If you see someone getting pummeled to death, and you are a father of three, is it right to run into certain doom to attempt to help and leave your three children fatherless? When it comes down to it, good and bad are opinions, and because of that are completely subjective; There is no one "good" nor one "bad."

You owe it to yourself to stop being so vague, how else do you intend to find any clarity on these matters.

If we 'crucify the ego' too much people will eat us for breakfast.

If that is how you choose to see it, then by all means keep going down this destructive path and keep cutting everything right down the middle. Who am I to stop you?

[drugo]

No, not all of us do. I did at one point, as I was trained to do, but eventually my eye opened and now I can see that things are not so black and white. It's too vague. When I say, I think that apples are good, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Is it good because it's healthy? Is it good because it's tasty? Is it good because it's red? Is it good because I was told that they are good? When you ask if something is better than something else, better can mean anything! Does it mean more advanced? More convenient? Stronger? Faster? Harder? More beautiful? More destructive? More efficient? More eco-friendly? What are you trying to ask?

 

If you say that the apple is beautiful, then it is not not-beautiful, if you say that it tastes good, than it does not taste bad (to you). I'm not saying that there are ultimate standards of good and bad that transcend and inform everything. I don't believe that at all. But, it is obvious that in day to day life we are constantly performing value judgements (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) about what we feel is good/bad (or, to complexify the same logic with a spectrum: (ad infinitum) really good, pretty good, good / bad, kinda bad, really bad (ad infinitum). "Is it a good crunchy and juicy apple?". "It is crunchy but not juicy, so kinda".

The question is how has morality changed historically, 'are we more respectful, dignified, and integral than we used to be'? Obviosuly these qualities may (and do) mean different things to different people, yet, in this online forum most of us have somewhat similar linguistic-cultural backgrounds and the differences in definition may become fleshed-out and understood in examples, such as, what do you think of the historic peroid when staunch male resistance challenged female social rights in the feminist movements (which included 'evolution' propaganda, violence, and social stigma)?

To say that 'better' can mean anything is to deny yourself and the possibility of commincation and perhaps to stupify social life with an escapist relativism --- maybe to divert the reality that we are all called (sometimes condemned) to personally make some choices and value some things in life.

The comparative history of morality is not an easy question, and of course I do not expect us to nail any sort of clear answer. It is more an experiment in contemplation than a hard science. And given the current rapid flux in population growth and globalisation (and social technologies) it is something real and pressing to contemplate.

I think that the philosophy of morality is often so difficult for thinkers to engage in because it demands the philosopher to take political positions, which demands not simply logic and thought, but feeling, emotion, and often large amounts of responsibility.

Seeing the world as right and wrong, good and evil, left and right, black and white, limits your expression and limits your thoughts.

I once fully agreed with this, and I still do partially. But, i now think it is a little bit more complex. As previsouly stated, obviously there are no meta-narratives or godly standards dictacting any sort of ultimate right or wrong. But, we are constantly in positions with the world that demand us to say "hmmmm, i don't (or do) agree with that" (to whatever degree). For an extreme example, "I don't feel that that guy should bash and rob that old lady". This is not to say that the offender is absolutely evil or an absolutely wrong person. But it is to say "Bad!!!, stop that you weak fuck", and to take a politial position. Obviously this is not a limiting way of seeing the world, but an engaged way of being in the world.

If someone breaks into my house and tries to hurt my family and then I kill him, is that right or wrong? If you see someone getting pummeled to death, and you are a father of three, is it right to run into certain doom to attempt to help and leave your three children fatherless? When it comes down to it, good and bad are opinions, and because of that are completely subjective; There is no one "good" nor one "bad."

 

I fully agree that there is no one good nor no one bad. But in particular moral-crisis situations we are called to define what we feel is good, which is expressed in the way we respond (or don't respond) to the situation. And I'm not sure if this good/bad modus operundi is simply in the subjective domain. Yes we may each decide things for ourselves, but is it not also intersubjective, social or political? After all, we are pack animals whose whole is more than its parts combined.

Humanity is now in an increadible globalising sitation. While our personal and particular moral perspectives should not rule the world's affairs (in a totalitarian absolutist sense) we are left soul-less and impotent without the right to bring our subjective morality to the arena of intersubjectivity. Or in the words of Fat Freddy's Drop "If you choose to do nothing, you take all the blame" ( this is a bit extreme but you get the idea).

Roopey, much thanks for the stimulating ideas and demands of clarification. I think we may have crossed wires a tad. I am not proporting any absolutist definitions of right and wrong, nor simply asking for any, but I am asking for moral opinions and constructions of the past and present --- We may all have particular histories, in particular cultures, communities and families, but we are all part of the globe. Thus, a hermeneutic dialogue on morals is the quest. And exploring the moral views and actions of the "Other" (including the friend, the enemy, the neighbour, the politician, the primitive, the civilised, the superhero, the god, the angel, the anscestor, and the interdimensional insect) is to also enter the depths of the self and its position in the world.

Edited November 6, 2011 by entheophanic

[Roopey]

I think you'd rather enjoy the book The Philosopher's Secret Fire by Patrick Harpur. Fascinating read, he is very alchemical in his writing.

But, we are constantly in positions with the world that demand us to say "hmmmm, i don't (or do) agree with that" (to whatever degree).

Why are there only two options? Why can't you just not take a stance? Not judge the situation or people involved, and just take it in for what it is? Neither good, nor bad, right, nor wrong. Just reality in it's whole.

[woof woof woof]

I always separate humanity in 3.

the top part,.. the people that live mainly in the head area.

the middle,.....the people that live mainly in the heart.

the lower,......the peeps that live in the lower animal regions.

It has always been like that,... and will always be like that no matter if it is 2 million years back on the African steppes or 2000 years in the future when we have populated Mars.

Buddha-hood is total liberation. And is the standpoint of when those 3 divisions are in a perfect balance. And it is not impossible to achieve that state.

[drugo]

Why are there only two options? Why can't you just not take a stance? Not judge the situation or people involved, and just take it in for what it is? Neither good, nor bad, right, nor wrong. Just reality in it's whole.

 

Thanks for the link, the book looks interesting!

Why should we not judge situations (and really, how can we not)? First of, without severity or judgement the world would have excess corruption and evil (and without mercy existence would be unbearably rigourous).

Surely we can accept reality in its whole (acknowledging suffering, corruption, misery, oppression etc) without denying our bonafied will to take a stand for that which we feel is just (such as your (Roopey) values on actions that are 'best for the whole', 'humbleness', 'compassion' --- all great things if you ask me).

To be in a place of non-judgement when in moral crisis is to dissociate (to not be associated with the situation) and is perhaps a kind of passive doing or allowing (an inherent association to other-than-the-situation). Isn't 'not taking a stance' a stance in itself? Saying "I have no judgement towards female circumscision in Kenya" is itself a judgement that implicitly says probably something like, "it is irrelevant to me", or "I don't care", or "I don't want to think about it", or "I know so little about it I fear to judge" (a judgement that there is lack of knowledge), and all of these are supported by an overall judgement that the situation doesn't require judgement.

Why try to deny the fact of judgement? We judge that the table is in front of us when we go to sit for dinner, we judge the design of a garden to the sun and water resources (generally), we judge the man robbing the old lady, and we judge the elegance and grace of birds in flight (with our hearts). While some poeple may be (and are) completely unreasonable and corrupt in their judgements, judgement also allows freedom, love, beauty, kindness, compassion and all those lovely currents of life.

Edited November 7, 2011 by entheophanic

[Roopey]

The ego judges, not your Self.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Roopey

[drugo]

The ego judges, not your Self.

 

The ego is not all bad news. It is simply your conception of yourself, how you 'see' yourself, including how you place yourself in intersubjective fields and what sort of relationship you have with the act of thinking.

To alienate the ego from the heavens and to banash the act of judgement with it is preposterous

Does the (higher angelic divine-twin super) Self not inform and attune to the ego by way of certain dialectical or mutual embodied harmonies? Thus, this is why the divine 'voices' in your head, the visions on your way to sleep, or in dreams, or with entheogens, inform, answer, and shift-with your will and thought structures (including your judgements or discernments). Surely a conversation with your Self is better than a divine dictatorship? Contrsucting the latter more than likely invites forms of social subordination, ego-inflation and guruitis (as disciple or master) otherwise known as .

To judge medicine as poison or poison as medicine is to live a dangerous life indeed.

[Roopey]

How do you see yourself then? Are you just a body? A mind? A spirit? Where is your boundary, where do you stop and the rest of the world begin? Your skin? Your electromagnetic field? Your range of influence?

If all matter is really energy vibrating at different speeds, doesn't that mean everything is just a giant energy field, constantly fluctuating it's vibrational frequencies?

I think we get too caught up in this pseudo-reality that humans have created. Reality is not as literal as we think it is.

I personally choose to view myself as a cell. I am a cell that is made up of tinier cells, which are made up of even tinier cells, so on and so forth. It also expands outwards, I am a cell of a much larger organism, which is the cell of an even larger organism, so on and so forth. Everything is a fractal. I am not just this body, I am an integral part of an organism that needs me to be open to her communications so that I may serve the needs of the whole effectively. I choose to see myself this way because to me it is one of the most productive ways for me to look at myself.

The ego needs to be integrated into the whole, in order for it to realize it's role. How can it effectively attune to the needs of the whole when it is merely concerned with itself?

On to judgment. To say that something is either this or that is 100% of the time inaccurate. I've said this before, but I will rephrase it.

Everything is always good and bad, right and wrong, but what we do is determine which it is more of. Is it more right? Or more wrong? Once we decide which it is more of, then we say, "It was wrong." Is that statement accurate? No. It's not.

I like the example of defending yourself and your family against an attacker, as this situation happens frequently and is full of moral gray areas.

So, a man breaks into your house and tries to rape your daughter. You hear some commotion from the other side of the house and you get up to see what's going on. You grab an umbrella from next to the front door, just in case. You get to your daughter's room and there is this naked man-ass staring you right in the face. You decide to act quickly and shove the umbrella up the rapist's ass and run into the kitchen for a knife. When you get back you can see the man struggling to reach for something in his pocket. You decide not to take any chances that he has a gun and slit his throat.

Now, if you were to ask someone if what you did was right, almost everyone would say, "Yes, it was." Does that mean that it was 100% right? No, it just means that it was more right than it was wrong. So, we get back to how polarization forces us to be vague. None of us can ever really see the world in all of it's intricate beauty and wonder if all that we see is in black and white.

So again, I ask, how do you see yourself?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Roopey

[drugo]

How do you see yourself then? Are you just a body? A mind? A spirit? Where is your boundary, where do you stop and the rest of the world begin? Your skin? Your electromagnetic field? Your range of influence?

If all matter is really energy vibrating at different speeds, doesn't that mean everything is just a giant energy field, constantly fluctuating it's vibrational frequencies?

I think we get too caught up in this pseudo-reality that humans have created. Reality is not as literal as we think it is.

 

I tend to relate to the world as being simultaneously unified-to and distinct-within it. A paradox yes, but it is the best way I can account for the experiences of 5-meo and other moments of seemingly becoming or being everything. However, truth be told, I am far more interested in the ‘distinct-within’ part, and, in particular, the ‘with’ part of ‘with-in’; in other words, exploring the miralce of incarnation including the interpersonal and interbeing currents of life that stream with fragrance, beauty, terror, compassion, eyes, wonder, movement, love, plants, pain, misery, joy… that type of jazz.

It is clear that a good portion of people in contemporary spirituality movements are attempting to live a reality that virtually destroys or denies the self. A person overly consumed in themselves is an ugly sight indeed, yet so is a person who is radically not interested in themselves. To not believe in yourself and what you’re doing is to starve yourself of life-force. Yet, at the same time, to not be open to alterity, otherness, diversity or transformation, is to rob life-force of its novelty-engine and to perhaps avoid the human project. The notion of balance in Aristolean ethics is probably well suited to this particular quandary.

The locus of ‘alterity, otherness, diversity or transformation’, I think, is best probed in the domains of morality and politics, given that truth and reality are often so damn malleable. How else is our global community organised? We believe all sorts of completely contradictory things, yet it appears that the contradictions in thought, symbols, and narratives of the past-future (creation, cosmology, soteriology) that help make the world such a rich, beautiful and wondrous place to inhabit are largely shaped by forms of political organisation (‘politics’ as simply the position and relationship of beings to other beings). [*read with Sean Connery tour-guide voice] “Welcome to human life and the organising moment. If you look around you will see forms coloured by endless spectrums and creative displays of the aesthetic-grotesque value continuum --- an undeniable spectacle of absolute importance”.

Studying mythologies, including Hollywood---as the stories that animate the living-stories of life---shows how social groups are constantly politically organising themselves with different truth claims and reality assumptions, allocating certain levels of respect and indignation to different ‘characters’ of the social imagination. For instance, look at the grotesque depictions of Africans, Asians and Indigenous Americans in most 20th century Westerns ["Yeehaa!"]. Or ‘white’ people in Yoruba myths during and after the African slave-trade movement. Or look at the aesthetic eroticisation of Hawaiian Hula girls in early 20th Century Westerns or African women in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Or look at the radical changes to Egyptian god-forms and myths that were introduced during political crises (wars) each time the 3000 year civilisation moved through its 31 distinct dynasties. Or look at how the Superman meme in the 1920s was shaped to help motivate Americans out of the depression then was re-hashed in the Cold War as a type of mythological force to help the American imagination combat the Soviets and the threat of nuclear holocaust.

It seems clear that ‘objectivity’, ‘absolutism’, ‘god’, 'ancestors' and ‘freedom’ are often evoked as forces to colonise, convert, pollinate, and expand or destroy different politicised realities (and sometimes, in particular circumstances, we each personally agree with certain creative hybrids of reality, politics and moral frequencies). Morality is in our blood and in the smell of flowers and gun-grease. To avoid politics and morality is to avoid the novelty-engine of the human project (and, of course, we are here engaging in this forum as political agents, whether we like it or not, we are doing it).

[CβL]

I haven't time to read the entire thread and post a suitable reply, but I have seen many 'errors of certainty' within this thread. To use the word 'is' wantonly is usually to ask for trouble. ;)

[Distracted]

Good read.

I've nothing major to input here so i'll just leave you with these two quotes

"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt."

"I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is"

If we use the second quote as an example I would have to say that we are less moral now than we are in the past as we know what we're doing is wrong but we still do it.

edit: I guess what I may to say is never before have we had such a defined set of ethics before in a society (governmental laws and the UN, geneva convention etc,) yet we still seem to break them, whereas in older times I could imagine the laws and rules on ethics were a lot more of a gray area.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Distracted

[Roopey]

However, truth be told, I am far more interested in the ‘distinct-within’ part

You answered this one for me already.

The notion of balance in Aristolean ethics is probably well suited to this particular quandary.

It is clear that a good portion of people in contemporary spirituality movements are attempting to live a reality that virtually destroys or denies the ego.

I changed the quote to fit what I think you meant to say, as obviously my sense of self is neither destroyed, nor denied, but rather expanded.

In one of James Endredy's books, he describes this practice he calls, Counter-Practice. It is where you take any view or perspective you have on something, and switch it to the opposite for a while. I personally find it to be an essential practice of life, now, as it helps you look at things from multiple angles at the same time. It might be interesting for you to try and flip your interest from the "distinct" differences we all have and try to focus more on how we are all the same.

This practice can obviously be done on many different levels, and can really get anyone to understand more about the inherent contradictions that life and the universe are full of.

To avoid politics and morality is to avoid the novelty-engine of the human project

I never said that we shouldn't debate morality, nor did I avoid politics. Obviously, if I felt that way, I wouldn't be on here typing this right now, or any of my other responses for that matter. The point I have been trying to make was that the questions in your initial post were very vague, and the way that you phrased them was very black and white. I do tend to run in circles a lot, maybe I just think in spirals.

[drugo]

In one of James Endredy's books, he describes this practice he calls, Counter-Practice. It is where you take any view or perspective you have on something, and switch it to the opposite for a while. I personally find it to be an essential practice of life, now, as it helps you look at things from multiple angles at the same time. It might be interesting for you to try and flip your interest from the "distinct" differences we all have and try to focus more on how we are all the same.

This practice can obviously be done on many different levels, and can really get anyone to understand more about the inherent contradictions that life and the universe are full of.

 

Cool, thanks for the practice, sounds interesting, i look forward to spending more time as the 'other' and contemplating contridictions.

. roop, this is not directed at u, but with u, i get bored of strict debates sometimes and am called to where mystery and imagination fuel the glories structures of knowledge.

Grant Morrison -- The Invisibles

Edited November 9, 2011 by entheophanic