The absurd emotionally irrational social order of things.

Diekon · February 27, 2010, 7:08am

Depends on who you are asking, doesn’t it? If your are gay in an Islamic country, the system, the created symbolic order probably doesn’t make much sense. If you are a heterosexual male on the other hand…

Those systems probably allways end up being speedways for the common denominator, the majority rule. It’s seem there are allways people trying to nit together an overarching system, looking for sameness, and people trying to pull that apart, emphasing difference. Both with good reason i think.

Xunzian · February 27, 2010, 9:52am

Naw man!

That is where we disagree! I think that minorities are acutely aware of the broader system which seeks to oppress them! Having spoken with friends who lived in pre-invasion Lebanon and Saddam’s Iraq it isn’t that they could be themselves. That would be just silly! But they knew the right places to go and as long as they obeyed the rules they weren’t bothered. A male hetero buddy of mine currently living in Saudi Arabia tells me that dating is similar for him (and in all cases, there is good statistical data to support my generalizations).

I mean, I agree with your broader thesis, which is that we don’t notice defects in our tools until they fail at their task. But I’d argue that such a stance doesn’t actually provide any new information since it is the same as saying that something (in this case, the system) works until it doesn’t. I mean, I agree with that statement but I also don’t think it transmits any meaningful information either!

[youtube]
youtube.com/watch?v=WH6Ajowg … 97&index=4
[/youtube]

Diekon · February 27, 2010, 2:06pm

Yeah, it was just an example. I didn’t mean to imply that they weren’t aware of the broader system, or even that they don’t see some sense in it from a societal perspective. Just that they wouldn’t agree with it. Maybe they are even more aware precisely because they don’t fit in.

It’s not only that we only notice that it doesn’t works until it doesn’t, perhaps i’ve should’ve been more clear. I think such a system is bound to work less for minorities, because it naturally gravitates towards majorities, it has to, otherwise there’s no advantage to it. And it can’t amend for all particularities, otherwise there’s no general system anymore.

Moral_Jeff · February 28, 2010, 8:31am

I stated that I didn’t personally believe in morality, but that doesn’t mean that I set out to be amoral, because if I did, then I’d still be believing in morality, wouldn’t I?

However, a society without morals or ethics probably isn’t very far from the United States. Of course, some people do have morality and ethical standards, but most people seem to be held into place only by the legal system. Seem to be. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

My point is that morality is an extremely unstable and flawed system; it isn’t very concrete and it doesn’t relies on facts to support its purpose. It is rightly said that the legal system relies on facts, but that’s just the enforcement of morals and ethics, and not really a description of how they came about in the first place.

Take the law out of a society for 30 minutes; how does your allegedly ‘improving’ human morality/ethical standards hold water?

I’m contesting to you that the law is holding most of these ‘morals’ together, and that most people don’t actually adhere to them. Also, morality has too many contradictions, as Obnoxious Cynic stated (and I agree fully).

Kind Regards,
~Moral Jeff

Kriswest · February 28, 2010, 3:20pm

Moral_Jeff:

Kriswest:

I am picturing a society without morals and ethics, its invisible. Because it can’t exist. Without standards of morals and ethics we would destroy ourselves. We are but an infant species lacking self control and self discipline. We must have the parenting of ethics and moral standards to tech control and discipline. Its working, we are more civilized and less likely to go into feuds of violence, we are less likely to walk past a starving creature and not help. As each generation passes we become less selfish and more social. It will be a long time before each person can live up to being civil. It has yet to be truly passed on or ingrained that violence is not the answer, that selfish acts cause ourselves more pain then gain.

I stated that I didn’t personally believe in morality, but that doesn’t mean that I set out to be amoral, because if I did, then I’d still be believing in morality, wouldn’t I?

However, a society without morals or ethics probably isn’t very far from the United States. Of course, some people do have morality and ethical standards, but most people seem to be held into place only by the legal system. Seem to be. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

My point is that morality is an extremely unstable and flawed system; it isn’t very concrete and it doesn’t relies on facts to support its purpose. It is rightly said that the legal system relies on facts, but that’s just the enforcement of morals and ethics, and not really a description of how they came about in the first place.

Take the law out of a society for 30 minutes; how does your allegedly ‘improving’ human morality/ethical standards hold water?

I’m contesting to you that the law is holding most of these ‘morals’ together, and that most people don’t actually adhere to them. Also, morality has too many contradictions, as Obnoxious Cynic stated (and I agree fully).

Kind Regards,
~Moral Jeff

Morals and ethics are laws. Wether legal or held within the soul it is irrelevent. Humans need laws to be able to reside side by side and be totally different from each other. We are not a mature species. We need our hands held by one thing or another to keep us from being utterly destructive. Try telling a two year old to leave candy alone after giving it a taste of it. That two year old will pitch a fit, it will scream cry and destroy things then it will rationally wait til you are not looking and take it, then it will lie about taking it. That is the nature of humans.

That laws , morals and ethics are flawed is not surprising at all. Flawed creatures cannot make perfection of living. We have emotions we have trends we have desires wants needs we have everyone wanting something else different. No law, no moral, no ethic can be perfect or strong as long as humans are primarily individuals. Take away individuality and then you can create a perfect system. The USA has tremendous pressure on it as it consists of humans from across the world. So many different cultures converge here in the US that the system struggles to make things some what fair and even. It can’t work, because there is no way to do that. The best thing our Government ever did was to create civil rights. It is probably one of the worst things it ever did too. We have here people living side by side from differenet cultures. As long as they are not killing each other and many do become friends what does it matter about the system wether it is because they fear the law or abide by a moral code?

How many other species on this earth can do such a thing? Other species tend to kill one of their own if it is not of its pack, herd or community. Only humans accept strangers willingly and happily, Only humans reach out to help strangers, only humans care for those not within their community. I would say Haiti is a prime example of that.

Its easy to find flaws , we are a flawed species. We are a very young sentient species that has no manual , no parent, no guidence to teach us, we have to learn as we go. Would you let that two year old kid raise itself? Wellll, that is what we are , a toddler species struggling to survive in a harsh environment without outside help. Me, I think we ain’t doing to bad on the whole. Could be better but, it could certainly be a crap load worse.

Moral_Jeff · March 1, 2010, 4:57am

That is true. But wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t need laws and we were a mature species? Of course. I am not an anarchist, by the way. Actually, I believe that directly and physically violent acts, along with abuses of authority, should be against the law. Still yet, it is a mystery to me where morals come from. Perhaps it is a biological mechanism that has evolved in the human species? Maybe we are evolutionarily calibrated to have morality. It is an interesting thought, and it is probably right, because humans are indeed the only species in which morality actually exists.

Again, you are correct. I personally wish it was a ‘perfect’ thing. If only we had an objective, non-religious code of morality… well, secular humanism comes very close to that. Now, there are also religious people, but I don’t believe that their morals come from scripture, or else they’d obey it more than they do. Just where does it come from? I will hypothesize that it comes from human evolution, but it cannot truly be tested, can it? Other than surveys?

How is it bad? I mean, civil rights is the closest thing to freedom that humans have historically had. Without hesitation, I’ll state that ‘civil rights’ is a step in the right direction, but maybe that’s only because I am a secular humanist. Well, I do believe that secular humanism is the closest thing to a perfect human system of how we should treat others. Of course, that’s why. What are some negative things about ‘civil rights’, other than people attempting to use it in a different way that it was intended (e.g. black guys getting jobs over white guys due to a threat of law suit about ‘racism’… we’ve all heard that before). Just name some negative aspects of ‘civil rights’ without including the unnecessary political war of people wrongly using it. I look forward to this discussion.

Well, because fear isn’t a positive experience, in the view of most people (perhaps everyone). But, do I have an alternative solution? No, but I’d like to think of one, wouldn’t you?

Secular humanism is the best thing that I can think of. Just think of how much our world would improve if the majority of its population was secular humanist. On the flip side, I’d like to see you point out some negative things about a world population who embraces that, unless of course, you agree that secular humanism would make humankind a much warmer and better species.

It certainly is a prime example. If I had the resources, I would’ve been there to help them as well. And, no doubt, if it was possible for me, I’d be in Chile right now, helping people in every way that I can. Unfortunately, all of my career goals would have to be accomplished first, because otherwise, I’d waste away myself while helping people. So, it is a difficult thing to see; a large amount of humans in suffering to natural disasters and you can’t do a damn thing to remedy it. Would you have liked to have been there to help those people, if it was safe and possible for you?

It is easy, and I am glad that you are transitioning the discussion to something more useful than I had originally offered.

Certainly not, assuming that I was the child’s father, which brings me to another problem in humans… how can parents shamelessly abandon their children? And if it is a financial thing, then how can parents create children while knowing for a fact (nearly) that he/she will suffer due to poverty, starvation, or some other thing that is completely out of the child’s control. Why do children have to suffer in light of parents who just haven’t gotten their shit straight, so to speak?

It could be better or worse. I proposed that secular humanism would make things much better (but of course, still not ‘perfect’). Also, I do think that a reversal of human civil rights movements would make things far worse. What do you propose would make things better and/or worse?

Kind Regards
~Moral Jeff

P.S. Finally a real discussion. Everything doesn’t have to be a debate. I’m glad you responded.

Kriswest · March 4, 2010, 1:18pm

Moral_Jeff:

That is true. But wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t need laws and we were a mature species? Of course. I am not an anarchist, by the way. Actually, I believe that directly and physically violent acts, along with abuses of authority, should be against the law. Still yet, it is a mystery to me where morals come from. Perhaps it is a biological mechanism that has evolved in the human species? Maybe we are evolutionarily calibrated to have morality. It is an interesting thought, and it is probably right, because humans are indeed the only species in which morality actually exists.

Morality and ethics are a part of survival instincts. It is in our best interest to have them. We know its possibly harmful to deadly to attack, harm or steal from other humans, without morals and ethics we would probably get killed before maturity. As children we learn that provoking other children can cause us harm, right? Well we learn from experience. The rest is passed on in nurturing our parents (hopefully) explain why we should not commit crimes. Such as shoplifting, it raises costs , which in turn harms the family/friends. It is stealing from your own. That is bad survivalism. Bad morals/ethics=risks of self harm, good morals/ethics = increased chances of survival.
Actually morality exists in many creatures because of survival instincts and devotion to family/herd/ group/ whatever. For instance in my home we have many felines and canines, the elder animals voluntarily allow the infants to eat or drink first. Its not something we taught them nor did we ever encourage it. Dogs allow kittens and pups to take first as do the elder cats with pups and kittens. Interesting interspecies actions. It is about survival of the family. the elder animals in a group teach the younger ones how to behave, horses, apes, elephants etc. Acceptable behavior is a form of morality and ethics, it maybe crude compared to ours but then again they do not accept strangers into their groups. Since we do, we must have a more complex system to accomodate strange humans.

Again, you are correct. I personally wish it was a ‘perfect’ thing. If only we had an objective, non-religious code of morality… well, secular humanism comes very close to that. Now, there are also religious people, but I don’t believe that their morals come from scripture, or else they’d obey it more than they do. Just where does it come from? I will hypothesize that it comes from human evolution, but it cannot truly be tested, can it? Other than surveys?

Religious morals and ethics are the cornerstones for secular morals and ethics. It is not the religion at fault it is the interpretations of text that creates issues. If you read the religious texts that dominate humanity you would see that they are set up to teach social ethics and morals in such a way that many parts are left up to the enterpritors discretion. That is why there are so many different sects for each main religion. We cannot agree on anything if it is left up to interpretation. Unfortunately with lawyers running our Government the same holds true for secular laws. Many laws are left up to interpretation, they are not black and white, if they were we would not need a judicial system like the one that exists. We call all of these ambigious morals,ethicals laws, loopholes. Loopholes in religion and law have been around since the beginning of human society. Words written in such a way leaves room for squirming. this causes issues.

Kriswest:

Take away individuality and then you can create a perfect system. The USA has tremendous pressure on it as it consists of humans from across the world. So many different cultures converge here in the US that the system struggles to make things some what fair and even. It can’t work, because there is no way to do that. The best thing our Government ever did was to create civil rights. It is probably one of the worst things it ever did too.

How is it bad? I mean, civil rights is the closest thing to freedom that humans have historically had. Without hesitation, I’ll state that ‘civil rights’ is a step in the right direction, but maybe that’s only because I am a secular humanist. Well, I do believe that secular humanism is the closest thing to a perfect human system of how we should treat others. Of course, that’s why. What are some negative things about ‘civil rights’, other than people attempting to use it in a different way that it was intended (e.g. black guys getting jobs over white guys due to a threat of law suit about ‘racism’… we’ve all heard that before). Just name some negative aspects of ‘civil rights’ without including the unnecessary political war of people wrongly using it. I look forward to this discussion.

Refering to the above, the civil rights act are highly ambiguous. The loopholes in it are huge, it has caused many battles in courtrooms and on the streets. Lawyers wrote the act. Can you doubt that they wanted confrontaion evolving from it? In it you see mentions of minorities recieving superior benifits over majority. Equal hosing equal pay equal tretment etc etc.

Now if a person of minority is up for a job that a majority is, the pressure to higher the underqualified minority is strong. If a company feels pressured to hire people that are not qualified what happens to the company eventually? I am not saying that minorities are underqualified in general, but, it does occur often. One argument that firefighters and military personnnel have is women on the front lines of battling fires, rescuing, and being under fire is dangerous not to the women as such but to the men that have been taught to protect women. According to the civil rights act women cannot be disqaulified from these positions. The problem is that the women when being tested , they are given a different test then the males. In sports it would be called a handicap.

I have no problem with equal rights /civil rights . I do take issue with how ambiguous it all was written , giving lawyers room to gain money from court cases. It all depends upon interpretations of the laws. Right now with the census coming up where will the races stand on majority and minority? Is the caucasion human still in the majority? Or has it become a minority? If it falls into the minority what happens then? Considering that many feel that the black descendents of slaves should be compensated, what happens when they become a majority? Old animosities die hard. The civil rights acts have left the door wide open for trouble due to the way it was written and lawyers know this.

Well, because fear isn’t a positive experience, in the view of most people (perhaps everyone). But, do I have an alternative solution? No, but I’d like to think of one, wouldn’t you?

Actually fear is a positive experience if used correctly. Like anything it can be abused. Fear is a survival instinct that brings us positive knowledge if used correctly. Most humans are not afraid of being arrested they have no fear of breaking laws. They only fear being imprisoned if by chance they make a bad decision. Just like a kid that sees a candy jar. The candy is good , the jar is good because it holds the candy but taking the candy without permission will cause punishment. That’s not abuse of power. That is keeping the kid from getting sick or running amok high on a sugar fix. Both are bad.
To have any other source of self control in play we would probably have to be born with all social knowledge, since we are not insects or fish I don’t really see that occurring and if scientists make it possible , that thought does not sit easy.

Secular humanism is the best thing that I can think of. Just think of how much our world would improve if the majority of its population was secular humanist. On the flip side, I’d like to see you point out some negative things about a world population who embraces that, unless of course, you agree that secular humanism would make humankind a much warmer and better species.

Secular humanism is just another system with faulty greedy corrupt humans. Secular laws do not gurantee happiness not by far. As long as humans are at this level of evolution in their mind. No system can be without corruption. If it were only the religious commiting crimes I might agree with you but since religion is not a natural trait but a nurtured trait I would have to disagree. Religion does not promote hate and violence it is the interpretations that people use to commit hate acts that are within their paranoid hating souls. That is not caused by religion that is caused by experience within their social realm.

Kriswest:

How many other species on this earth can do such a thing? Other species tend to kill one of their own if it is not of its pack, herd or community. Only humans accept strangers willingly and happily, Only humans reach out to help strangers, only humans care for those not within their community. I would say Haiti is a prime example of that.

It certainly is a prime example. If I had the resources, I would’ve been there to help them as well. And, no doubt, if it was possible for me, I’d be in Chile right now, helping people in every way that I can. Unfortunately, all of my career goals would have to be accomplished first, because otherwise, I’d waste away myself while helping people. So, it is a difficult thing to see; a large amount of humans in suffering to natural disasters and you can’t do a damn thing to remedy it. Would you have liked to have been there to help those people, if it was safe and possible for you?

ROTFLMAO, Hon I and my family survived Katrina. Her eye passed right over our home. We barely survived. We were spared the wrath of tornados that passed close to our home. Cat 3 and 4 winds hit us. Our windows imploded our roof was torn up a large branch went straight through our roof like a missile. Afterwards it took around two months to get power and water out here in the boonies. MREs for us were rationed to one a day per person, drinking water only. The people that helped us the most were the churches and the military. Safety was not a concern for them. To help others safety would not be a concern for me, now. The thousands that came here are and were heros. I could do no less if I had the way to do it or could forsake my resonsibilities here.

It is easy, and I am glad that you are transitioning the discussion to something more useful than I had originally offered.

Certainly not, assuming that I was the child’s father, which brings me to another problem in humans… how can parents shamelessly abandon their children? And if it is a financial thing, then how can parents create children while knowing for a fact (nearly) that he/she will suffer due to poverty, starvation, or some other thing that is completely out of the child’s control. Why do children have to suffer in light of parents who just haven’t gotten their shit straight, so to speak?

An over worked overstressed underfunded unsupported system that lacks the ability to educate fully and supply the understanding of how to behave is the root cause , not the uneducated undernurtured people that do such things.
there are far too many humans for the system to work fully, so humans behave as sickened animals at times.

It could be better or worse. I proposed that secular humanism would make things much better (but of course, still not ‘perfect’). Also, I do think that a reversal of human civil rights movements would make things far worse. What do you propose would make things better and/or worse?

The issue is rewriting laws and putting honest caring people into leadership positions, as I said before it does not matter if its secular or not. Honesty and caring must be the hallmark of leaders, not anything else.

Kind Regards
~Moral Jeff

P.S. Finally a real discussion. Everything doesn’t have to be a debate. I’m glad you responded.

Sorry it took so long its been a busy week and not much time to respond to such an indepth post. I look forward to it.