If Agriculture is an objective science, then so is Humiculture (objective morality).
Agriculture is the science that studies:
The nature of plants.
What conditions do plants need to flourish?
What values do plants need to thrive?
What actions lead to a successful crop?
Humiculture (morality) is the science that studies:
The nature of human beings.
What conditions do human beings need to flourish?
What values do human beings need to thrive?
What actions lead to a successful life?
How does it differ from anthropology? Is it the measure of applied morality and direct outcomes?
Good question, Niall. It certainly is closely related, but it is a much broader study. It studies what humans have done throughout history and currently, including moral systems. Morality is narrower: the study of what human beings ought to do.
How would the initial data be collected? Is it based on national standards, or global? Does environment play a big factor?
Sorry bout all the questions..
By studying the nature of human beings and what their nature requires to survive. How do we gather data about plants? We observe plants. We put them in different conditions and see the results. How much water? What kind of soil is best? We observe humans. What kind of values does human life require.
So what’s an agreeable outcome? Is it simply survival, or is it a positive measure of happiness?
Well, when we grow a crop, do we want it to merely survive, or do we want it to reach its full potential and produce a lot of fruit?
So would the main focus be on societies and environments that produce favourable results in that regard? Is much consideration given to factors that don’t produce favourable results?
Before we can talk about what societal structure, we need to understand what conditions the individual needs. Think of what a human would need to survive on a desert island vs. in a society. You are talking about politics, that comes later. I’m making an analogy designed to show that the method of discovering moral principles is exactly the same as the method of discovering farming “morality.”
I wasn’t actually. I assumed that both politics and religion would muddy the waters, especially to begin with, and didn’t take them into consideration.
But what about cultural differences? What is morality to one group might be considered immorality to another. For example, one group may keep the corpses of their dead close to the tribal habitat, out of a sense of morality, but then it makes them all sick and decreases their chances of survival. Where would that factor in?
I welcome questions, Niall, so don’t apologize. I understand this is a new conceptual structure in considering morality.
That’s very true, because many people don’t have a conceptual understanding of morality. My analogy is meant to show the structural similarities between the science of agriculture and human morality without all the baggage. It’s a work in progress so if you could point out any errors, I’d much appreciate it.
Put it this way. If I ask this many questions about something, then there’s a very good reason for it.
I find it very interesting and want to know more. I’m not at the errors stage, not even close, it’s more the questions stage right now..
Makes me think of “Lord of the Flies”. But I suppose they were already tainted by suppositions of morality (and immorality) beforehand, so it probably doesn’t provide what you are looking for.
I might have an example though. If I am placed on a desert island, and there is a very small group of wild pigs there, that gives me options. I can kill and eat the pigs one by one (immoral), or I can observe what they eat as fellow omnivores and try to consume the same (morality). In that case, morality would increase chances of survival. Is that relevant?
Ask away. Answering will be helpful to me as well.
Actually, Lord of the Flies, if taken as an experiment, is all about gathering data about what conditions humans need to flourish. It has been a long time since I read the book (45 years or more). It is relevant. It’s all about the method. You could take some time to observe the pigs. Watch their habits. See if there are any piglets. Maybe discover what types of foods they are using. You might capture some and breed them, and you’d know what they ate. You might cultivate some of it. Alternatively, you can kill them one by one until there are none left. One is sustainable, and one isn’t. One is short-term, and the other is long-term. Since the analogy concerns the method of discovery, it is highly relevant.
Is it accurate to suppose then, that humiculture focuses more on the essence of morality, and the benefits that provides?
It focuses on the method. Agriculture is about the study of plant flourishing. “Humiculture,” or morality, is about the study of human flourishing.
No. Humiculture and morality are one and the same. I’m using the alternate term to indicate the similarity to agriculture. Agriculture is an objective science, and so is morality. The essence of agriculture is about studying what actually causes crops to flourish. Morality is about studying what actually causes humans to flourish. It’s about studying how a volitional being (us) must act in order to live an a reality that does not bend to his wishes.
The make it and break it form of conversation on this subject is, democracy or no democracy?
Can the masses decide what is best for themselves, or should others decide for them?
