Can there be shared community values?

I agree completely, but for me if an approach to these virtues is based on this…

…then my take, to the question…

…is that it’s difficult to see how it’s possible to build the virtues noted when any consensus on the proper virtues underpinning an ethical system arrived at in a meeting are potentially null the moment everyone walks out the door. It seems to me the notion of holding ethics meetings–a good idea in itself–if based on a perceived deterioration of societal ethical/moral values and behaviors, can never be repaired if the fix is to serve up more of what plays a big role in causing the problem in the first place. Just my two cents.

It seems that Thinkdr is an “ethical Prismatic” and that Prismatic is a “religious Thinkdr”. Their “progress” is regress. At least, what they want to be realized is dangerous. It is similar to what certain humans have already experienced. Look at the history of communism. Communists are always saying that they want to “make the world a better place” and that therefore “adult-education seminars” and many similar things are needed (also the belief in the false conclusion “God is impossible”), thus: they want even more dictatorship.

Currently, liberalists and communists are in the same globalistic boat called “humanitarianism” - not knowing what “humanitarianism” means, what “humanity” means, what “human” means. They are confusing “good” and “bad” (“evil”), “true” and “false” (“wrong”), “objective” and “subjective”, “ideal” and “real”, “possible” and “impossible”, “progressive” and “regressive”.

From your post it is very obvious the infection of the "zombie parasite’ is very critical and serious that is resulting in your very strong resistance to improvement and change.

Your ‘Their “progress” is regress’ is very intellectually stupid.
What I had introduced is all humans has an inherent drive for higher morality and ethics and this is proven in the progress with the Laws on killing and slavery.
It is obvious such views do not has any direct relation with communism, the regressive left and all the vitriols you are throwing at me.

What is real is your illusory belief ‘God is real and possible’ makes you [& all theists] complicit with all the terrible terrors, violence and all other evils committed by a percentile of theists who are evil prone and inspired by immutable evil laden verses from the same illusory God you believe. Btw, the Abrahamic God [4+ billion believers] is the worst and vile dictator besides whatever good it has.

So, Prismatic 567, you have again proven that you have proven nothing.

Your emotional response makes it clear that I have nailed it: You are regressive. And you use words that mask this fact.

You use one of the nihilistic “programs” in order to try a transvaluation of values, and the result is always: failure.

We know from all communistic experiments how regressive communism is. I am not throwing this against you, it is not necessary, because you yourself are doing that for me.

So, thank you for your stupidity. :smiley:

Frankly, I am posting my views and it is you who is feeling the threat [against your groundless belief] and responding in a typical offensive manner. I was responding to Thinkdr and not you but you busybody yourself and intruded to condemn.
If your posts has any thing substantive to counter my arguments I will definitely take note for intellectual and philosophical sake.

So, Prismatic, you do not read your own posts. But that does not help you either.

You have no arguments. You have never had any argument.

Pseudo-arguments, wrong conclusions, insubstantiality, misuse of great philosophers and other stupid swindels - it has always been the same with you. You are failing on the most fundamental level. (See all your threads.)

I have proven you wrong. And many other ILP members have proven you wrong.

Also, one of your problems is that you are not capable of knowing that the term “God is a possibility” is not the term “God is real”. You do not even understand the simplest statements. We were talking about possibilities and impossibilities in your God thread (but obviously, you do not even know this) and not about realitiy as such. So, you do not know the distiction between reality and ideality.

No wonder that you are not capable of understanding Kant who was a philosopher of two eras: (1) the era of the German Enlightenment and (2) the era of the German Idealism.

And by the way: You were responding to me - even two times (see above).

I think this is a commonly mistaken view of ethical reality. The “higher drive for morality” is more accurately a “cumulative effect” or moral beacon impressed as a collective “societal compass”. I.e., we know intuitively [and thus collectively] that to seek truth and good trumps the pursuit of falsehood and evil. But this doesn’t mean all humans have this inherent drive. Obviously very many do not. The alleged seeking of “higher morality and ethics” might only be a front designed more to generate freedoms from certain moral and ethical constraints than to actually pursue moral truth for its own sake. And this of course renders the whole claim to push for a ‘universal morality for all’ into a “moral farce” intent in establishing an agenda.

Do ALL humans has an inherent potential for a sexual drive DNA? a hunger drive?
I don’t believe you will argue against this inherent ‘potential.’
The point is this potential is not fully activated in all humans, some with an inactive dormant sexual drive are asexual and there are various forms of sexuality.

Whilst the sexual, hunger, security, [Maslow’s basic needs] are instinctual, the drive for morality is a later development in terms of evolution [cumulative through generations] but the drive for morality is nevertheless inherent and embedded via the DNA. One clue is the presence of mirror neurons in the higher primates and humans.

Research on babies of less than one year old [to discount ‘nurture’] has demonstrated babies has an inherent inborn drive and propensity for morality.

Because this potential drive for morality is a later development embedded in the higher cortical regions of the brain, it is easily suppressed by inherent and nurturing evil elements as the child grows up. At present, this inherent drive for greater morality is suppressed within the brain of the majority.

But this inherent potential drive for morality is continually driving humans towards greater degree of morality within humanity, like the beautiful lotus flower that is pushing through mud, dirt and muck to bloom. Note the various examples of morality [banning of slavery] I have given to demonstrate this.

It is the understanding of the full mechanisms of the system and processes supporting morality that we are able to continually improve it and accelerating this knowledge [within the brain] will expedite the processes and the results of good.

I believe yours is a mistaken and deliberately blinded view not to recognize and the understand the inherent potential morality drive within all humans. Such a blinded view do not provide any room for one to release this potential where it is not activated or suppressed by nurture.

I can understand your apprehension and reservation that SOME people will invent their own standard of morality and pursue that to the detriments of humanity. Btw, this has already happened with the Abrahamic religions with their immutable moral laws from a God which is illusory an impossibility.
What I am proposing is humanity must learn the above lessons from the rigid Abrahamic morality, evil secular ideologies, etc. so as to establish a foolproof and abuse-proof Framework and System of Morality and System in the future based on accelerated multiple intelligences.

So there is a potential morality drive that is inherent within ALL humans which can be active or dormant in various people. What is critical is humanity must recognize and understand the processes involved within this inherent potential and activate it in as many people as possible. This potential give humanity the assurance that ‘good’ will always prevail over ‘evil’.

Being that sharing doesn’t exist in our stratified societies I would say no.

The concept of societal sharing has been dead for thousands of years. All values are imposed and strictly enforced by force. There are only ultimatums and the illusion of social contracts.

If you are relying on casual observations and experiences, yes I agree there are obvious distrusts and selfishness among individual[s] and groups.

But if you were to research, analyze and review the whole of humanity since humans emerged you will note there is an inherent trend towards the sharing of common values within humanity.

If you were to note re evolution of living things, the earliest living things were very selfish individual[s] in ensuring their own survival which is limited.
In time, organisms evolved to co-operate as a group [insect colonies, tribes, etc.] to facilitate a greater degree of survival for the individual and also the groups, thus the species. To enable effective co-operation imperatively entails shared-values.

As one will note within evolution, the higher the cognitive consciousness of living things the greater the power of co-operations [shared-values], i.e. the highest are by human beings.

Therefore there is an inherent drive and trend towards shared-values as observed within evolution and this is present in human beings.

Can there be shared community values?
With the above existing potential and trend, we can assert there are already shared community values within human beings and the degree of sharing of values is progressing continually.

Since living things and human beings has evolved fundamentally from being selfish, this drive for selfishness is still active and dominant as an instinct. As such the acts of selfishness [individuals and groups] is more prevalent and obvious within our societies.

The critical point is, we must not be blinded by the obvious selfishness instinct and ended being ignorant of the trend of increasing and progressing co-operation and sharing common values within. We must recognize this potential for the sharing of common values and expedite this process via philosophy-proper [applying its knowledge, wisdom, principles, techniques and tools].

The agricultural revolution changed all of that and most of the shared values you see since then historically are imposed or coerced violently not happening naturally on their own.

You are referring to forms, I was referring to substance/essence of the inherent propensity within humans to share and co-operate which is not changing.

For example while humans will practice different ways of producing and consuming food over its history, the digestive system of humans to get nutrients as essence is not changing.

Shared community values is an impossibility in today’s world.

You are confining your point to a fixed period of time, i.e. today, present, now, whereas what I have presented is there is a existing potential and positive trend towards greater sharing of values among people towards the future.
This trend of sharing values is progressing as evidenced by greater sense of co-operation between people and Nations, e.g. ISS and many other global projects.

Why do you state “impossibility” when sharing of community values are already happening?

Examples of an impossibility is like the existence of a square-circle, an absolutely perfect God [as argued],
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

We’re having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn’t cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn’t to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn’t once exist, it did, it just hasn’t existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

How would you envision a shared-values community living day to day during technological times?

Yes, if there is coercion, it cannot be co-operation in this intended sense of shared-value.

Note the natural effect of synergy, i.e. the total effect is greater than the sums of its parts.
It is this natural principle that drive co-operation and has nothing to do with coercion.
Because it is a natural principle it has always existed since human were made aware of it as justified with evidence that support this principle.

The potential towards the future is what is most critical, what is present and past is relevant as guidance only for the future.
This is why it is critical we recognize the inherent potential towards morality [which has justified evolutionary grounds] and expedite a greater realization of this inherent potential to prevent, reduce or eliminate evils.

I don’t, stratification and specialization makes it impossible.

If you have faith in the future I would say you’re sorely going to be disappointed along with all the other hopefuls. The agricultural revolution destroyed natural cooperation by my perspective.

Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?

And if those were magically eliminated?