Normative Ethics

Del Ivers wrote

As one of the others, I will have a few if not many last words.

Del Ivers wrote

Everyone who’s malignant is always fact checking Trump or cheering for those who fact check Trump, breathlessly awaiting reports of Trump’s lies. He hasn’t lied about very much unless you count context and word changes made by the press in regards to what he said. When the press pulls a phrase out of context or changes a word or two then the truth is lost, yes, but Trump gets blamed, not the press who pulled a fast one.

All the images of immigrant children in cages the media played were actually taken during the Obama administration and the entire separation policy was put into effect during Obama’s reign. Trump’s administration only separated children from the adults who could not prove that the child was theirs with paperwork like birth certificates and such. Obviously, the fake news did not divulge that the children in cages images were stock footage taken from the previous presidency or the fact that the policy originated with Obama.

I have a lot more to say (but this site times out when you type as slow as I do), however if you wanted the truth you would not have taken the lying liberal leftist media’s word for it.

Sorry Gloom for getting off topic. Sick and tired of the Trump slammers who refuse to know shit from shinola.

Continue in the Political section in a new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194957

Prismatic

That a mention or two of politics may be necessary or caused by some philosophical inquiry is okay. But I have no interest in rehashing politics, especially Trumpian politics. As I previously said, anyone trying to justify Trump to me is on a hopeless crusade.

This is not only about Trump, it is about politics in general. I already had my experience in political forums some time back. Apart from the players changing, the milieu is the same with people trying to prove their positions based on interpretations rather than any real and factual proximity to the actuality of whichever matter.

There’s already enough to actually deal with currently with government and society than having to deal with in forum discussions which usually devolve to invectives whether stated or implied.

But I will answer one of your statements in the new topic: “I noted your views are rather emotional and psychological, i.e. not objective and rational.”

I am not the one who felt an urgent need to make an entirely new topic on the matter.

Nonetheless, thank you for the invite. No doubt others will like to join you in the new topic. :neutral_face:

Trump killed isis in the ME.
Anyone trying to see him as less than excellent is a bad person.

The fact is that ISIS is alive and well in the Middle East: It is thriving in parts of Iraq and Syria. It also is active in Africa, and is underground in Sri Lanka and in parts of India.
It’s false to claim it has been “killed.”

Also, since Trump assumed the Presidency ISIS has new competitors who push for both the concepts of guerilla warfare and of Sharia Law, but many, many Moslems resist living under Sharia Law.

Once someone knows their ethics they will instantly recognize Trump for what he is.

If you met someone who is a slick con-artist, a racketeer, a grifter, a frequent liar, someone who had authoritarian tendencies, who could not accept responsibility and was always looking for someone else to blame if anything goes wrong, and is an extreme narcissist, wouldn’t you diagnose him as having a malignant personality disorder?

Isis is thriving in which parts of Iraq and Syria? As far as I know Africa, Sri Lanka, and India are not in the Middle East which was the claim.

@Prismatic

Do you think humanism is objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism, and if so, in what respect, or is humanism just what you believe your preference is?

While me, my friends and family are more valuable to me than others, how many others?
While my race is more valuable to me than another race, is my race more valuable to me than every other race taken together?
While my species is more valuable to me than another species, is my species more valuable to me than every other species taken together?
I’m not sure how I feel about such things.

My focus is on Team Humanity not on ‘humanism’ as it is understood at present. I do agree with many aspect of ‘Humanism’ as defined at present but not totally.
The limitation is the current ideology of Humanism focus on human beings as individuals and in loose groups but not in the sense of a ‘Team’.

A ‘team’ is generally defined as;

“[a] team is a group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team

In the case of Team Humanity, the team comprised on every individual humans on Earth [or in space] aligned to common goals with the best of their ability.

Note I mentioned such a Team Humanity is not efficient in the present circumstances but I am confident it is possible in the future.

Actually it is possible to sense such a possibility of Team Humanity. For if suddenly the astronomers discovered a rogue asteroid the size of the USA heading towards Earth and which could split the Earth into pieces, such knowledge if announced to the world will definitely trigger a sense of Team Humanity to try to work as one to save the Earth and the humans therein. Unfortunately having a sense of Team Humanity out of emergency is not the way to go and in addition this is not sustainable if the asteroid missed Earth.

To strive toward achieving, maintaining and sustaining Team Humanity, a lot of strategies and processes need to be done and I think they are feasible given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [esp IT and AI].

Here are some of the targets that need to be achieved for the average human being;

If the average IQ at present is 100, then we need to increase to 150, 200, 250 incrementally over a certain period of time.

It the same for emotional intelligence [EQ], if the average is 100, then we have to increase to 500, 600, 1000 over a certain period.

It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.

We have already has a trend of increments for the above average quotients if compared to 1000 years ago, so it is possible to achieve the targets above given the current knowledge and technological advances.

Once the there is an increasing trend for the various quotients, then there will emerge Team Humanity spontaneously with continual increments.

Note if the average theoretical and practical philosophical quotient including morality and ethics is increased by 1000%, then we can ensure the strategies will be fool proof against evil and will be continually optimized.

In the above sense, yes, Team Humanity [with subset humanism] will be objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism.

Btw, Team Humanity must not survive at the expense of other living things since all living things are interdependently connected to all.

We can rely on thinkdr and Dr. Hartman’s axiology to provide the objective measures in terms of quantified values on the above.

Prismatic wrote

I kind of feel that those below average and those well above average are the dangerous ones to your team humanity concept. The goal should be to raise IQ and EQ to at least average so those people can be reasoned with. The crazy superior people either trample human affairs with their creativity to humanities detriment or avoid using their intelligence to push progress knowing that their inventions are often manipulated to do greater harm in the long run. It always amazes me to meet people with IQs over 160 working construction or some other normal labor intensive jobs, but I can understand the appeal to do something with your hands as they say an honest days work.

Yeah, this society doesn’t provide for a lot of healthy work for supreme IQs.
High IQ gives a lot of strain, high strung nerves, as thinking is incredibly energy consuming.
To work with the hands, especially lifting heavy stuff and all that, is the most relaxing thing for an all too intelligent person.

I would give less weightage to IQ - perhaps 5%.

What is more critical and carry higher weightages are EQ - emotional intelligence, Moral Quotient, spiritual Quotient, encompassing philosophical Quotient [40%], and wisdom quotient.

My condition is these average quotients should be increased by > 500% as compared the current status of the average person. Then an efficient fool proof Team Humanity will emerged spontaneously.

When there is a critical comprising the average of >500% then those in the minority will not be powerful to create problems for the majority.
In addition, the majority will contribute to increase the various quotients of those in the minority.

There will come a time in the future, where those in the lowest 10% will have a score of 500% over the current people today.

What is a high EQ officially anyway? What sort of beliefs and actions constitute it?

With all the untreated and rampant mental illness today as well as societal degeneracy in general, how would these extremely high EQs for all come into being?

Also much of what we breathe and consume is poisoning our nervous systems which controls the EQ. Sounds like nice pie in the sky the IQ and EQ improvements.

I try to be fair in my dealings with others, whether they’re friends, family, associates, acquaintances or strangers, whether they’re white or non-white, it’s just I’m more likely to be generous with friends, family and whites, and of course there’s nothing abnormal about that, yet conventional consequentialist ethics like utilitarianism don’t take friends, family and race into account, even tho it’s human nature to do so, because there’s a left-wing bias in philosophy, not just in political philosophy, but even in strictly ethical, perhaps even in epistemological and metaphysical.

The right uses these feelings of kith and kinship we have to manipulate us, but my feelings are my own, as far as I know myself, I won’t support their wars just because they tell me it’s in our best interests to, it’s usually only in the elite’s best interests, and even if it were in ours, like we wanted their oil or some other resource for our collective benefit, I would never support a war against another people unless we were desperate and there was no alternative, I’d rather cut back on consumption.

With the left it’s the opposite, since they’re anti-white, they’ll guilt trip us into thinking we need to invade this or that country to spread democracy.

Of course liberals and conservatives will invoke nationalism, anti-nationalism or some combination thereof in order to justify war and further subjugate us, I’m speaking more archetypally than practically.

Btw, I am not stating my proposals will work immediately today and now.
Humanity must start right now and hope to reap benefits within 50 years, if not 75 or 100.

What is Emotional Intelligence?

At present the EQ models are quite crude and this will be improved with greater precision in the future.

One promising view of EQ is its dependence on empathy.
Empathy is in one way related to mirror neurons in the brain, thus providing a possible objective basis to EQ.

Note many of the above hypothesis are work in progress but there are high optimism due to the current trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and AI] leveraged on two significant fields, i.e.

The Human Genome Project | NHGRI​
genome.gov/human-genome-project

The Human Connectome Project
humanconnectomeproject.org/

Note beside EQ, I mentioned;
It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical, philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.

I think humanity has about as much chance of destroying itself and life as we know it in our post/transhumanist quest to expand our capabilities, as we have of expanding our capabilities.

When it comes to the physical sciences and understanding the here/now, I think science is pretty reliable, but when it comes to understanding the distant past/future, I think it’s just guessing.

I don’t know how life began (abiogenesis, panspermia, Abrahamic or Vedic creationism, something else?), I don’t know exactly how it evolved, I don’t know how many mass extinction events there’ve been, or whether we’re on the verge of one because of some earthbound asteroid, or because of our greed, not only greed for wealth and power, but greed for knowledge.

There’re some truths we can’t handle…there may be some truths we’ll never be able to.

But I know science is hiding loads of stuff about UFOs and prehistory.

Life may be far more ubiquitous than they want us to believe.

So in light of all that, I’m not in a rush to expand our capabilities.

I think we should tread carefully, or stay put.

And I don’t think valuing oneself, one’s tribe and one’s species over others is in any way, shape or form irrational, or on its way out for that matter anytime soon, if ever.

For me, results precede actions in importance for determining good, bad and right, wrong.
It’s not that actions aren’t intrinsically important, just not as intrinsically important.
It’s intrinsically good to be honest, reciprocative and noncoercive with others, but if you or someone you care about is in need, and there’s no alternative, there’s such a thing as white lies, white theft if you will, and under extraordinary circumstances, even white murder.
essentially there’s such a thing as, necessary evils.
While it’s better for people to meet their needs honestly and noncoercively by helping others meet theirs, this’s not always possible, for society is corrupt and resources are limited.
While it’s better for people to turn to government to fairly and/or necessarily redistribute resources, that’s not always possible either, for the same reasons, and in such cases, theft may be justified.

In determining what is good, we don’t always have the time and energy to carefully weigh situations out, sometimes we need to rely on our intuition.

And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There’s no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we’d have no motivation to act.

Tell that to your computer, or cell phone, or the change counting machine at your local bank.