what moral issue willl we look back on in 100 years and go WTF?

[DiscoBiscuit]

In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily). These series of wars were known as the Wars of Religion.

In the first half of the 17th century, the German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict.

Not unlike the Hatfields and McCoys where fighting and death occurred. But not declared war within (civil) or between countries. I think we're confusing violent religious intolerance with warring nations.

I could list dozens more, continuing right up to the present day, all over the world......

Sorry, I don't agree with your opinion that religion is the crux for histories bloodiest wars.

Somebody already mentioned that religion is "sold" as pretext for war. It plays on our logic and reasoning abilities when we're led to believe that religion is the basis for conflict.

Religion was a way of getting man to follow (other men.) Whether it be salvation or pay day, many confuse the sale as legit.

 

[PIZZA GUY]

Westboro Baptist Church!
So much hate WTF

 

[supermanlives]

we wont look back at anything in 100 years we will be long dead.

 

[Weird]

our own individual perception that we have no culpability in the shaping of world and creating harmony among ourselves and the world around us

its amazing how many people posses another persons perception of a given philosophy instead of possessing a genuine understand from first hand study

most of modern day stupidity can be mitigated with common sense

for example lets take religion. philosophy vs science

think about these schools of thought relative to our being

most people see stark differential

but think about it for a moment and you may conclude that both evolution and creationist both hypothesis that man kind has purpose

i think its clear to see that if we are a product of evolution, through our evolving relationship with this planet that we have become an organism that can sense homeostasis and achieve it, that we are on the cusp of replicating life in foreign environments, which requires an intelligent articulation and product of evolution to achieve

everything in our collective ecosystems have place and purpose we just dont understand all the underlying relationships yet

religion.philosophy cultivate the higher capacities of our being such as conscience and the ability to reason the unseen

they try to explain the cause and effect of our actions relative to the society they are born from providing a point of purpose relevant to that day and age

the collective of those who cultivate understanding and conscience knowledge and wisdom, religious, scientific or philosophical are rightly using the gifts we as humans are born with

reason

there are those that are "of themselves" only that will never truly unlock the potential of any of these and simply use them to achieve greedy or evil purpose and this negatively promotes even sound religions philosophies and sciences

read all the placement of blame on religion for all of our pains yet think about it

was it religion or science that created

the nuclear weapon?

or firearms?

or how about cancer?

all of our problems and all the solutions lay within and are born from us

and regardless of how we got here and why it is how this world operates

maybe in a 100 years we will figure this out

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

A great post, weird.

 

[Space Ghost]

morals vary from individual to individual therefor nothing can be conclusively morally right or wrong, there can be a majority consensus, but that's about it...

 

[El Toker]

I think that asking the same question of someone 200 years ago would have invited wildly inaccurate predictions. Nobody could have foreseen my current situation surrounded by technology, communicating instantly with people thousands of miles away and and the ability to access effectively limitless and instantaneous data and information. Most of the gadgets around my house would look like powerful witchcraft to a 19th century observer.

I'm optimistic enough to think that in 200 years people will wonder how intelligent literate people could have subscribed to any of the medieval belief systems that exist today as religion.

I'm also optimistic enough to believe that there's a good chance that I could be around to see it. Perhaps the thing that will make people in the future shudder is the horror that the whole world lived with a terminal illness known as ageing that pretty much killed everyone within 100 years of them being born, after slowly robbing them of their strength and faculties. Check out this highly qualified hippy who makes a much more convincing case than I ever could.

 

[greenmatter]

I think that asking the same question of someone 200 years ago would have invited wildly inaccurate predictions. Nobody could have foreseen my current situation surrounded by technology, communicating instantly with people thousands of miles away and and the ability to access effectively limitless and instantaneous data and information. Most of the gadgets around my house would look like powerful witchcraft to a 19th century observer.

I'm optimistic enough to think that in 200 years people will wonder how intelligent literate people could have subscribed to any of the medieval belief systems that exist today as religion.

I'm also optimistic enough to believe that there's a good chance that I could be around to see it. Perhaps the thing that will make people in the future shudder is the horror that the whole world lived with a terminal illness known as ageing that pretty much killed everyone within 100 years of them being born, after slowly robbing them of their strength and faculties. Check out this highly qualified hippy who makes a much more convincing case than I ever could.

if humans lived 500 years they would take better care of their planet.(at least you could see how things we do effect her long term) might have some time to get smarter as a group also. population control ? hmmmmm ....soylent green anyone?

 

[thingshappening]

morals vary from individual to individual therefor nothing can be conclusively morally right or wrong, there can be a majority consensus, but that's about it...

Disagree. I think moral truths exist, and science has everything to say about it. I think morality will become compulsary due to technological advances.

 

[Weird]

morals vary from individual to individual therefor nothing can be conclusively morally right or wrong, there can be a majority consensus, but that's about it...

i believe that while our interpretation of morals varies from individual to individual that in every given societal scenario there is a relative moral right and wrong

above and beyond that there is a "relatively eternal (at least relative to our individual existences)" morality in which all mankind shares

a raw example would be the heartfelt love between mother and child is relatively eternal human emotion that feels the same to those who were before and those who will come after, and it is these human qualities that in our own society continue to evolve

a more difficult to identify with but as tangible as a mothers love would be humanistic compassion as cultivate by religions and philosophies

the share the same algorithm however, cultivating the evolving individual consciences of men as they develop into the evolving collective conscience of mankind

 

[Space Ghost]

Disagree. I think moral truths exist, and science has everything to say about it. I think morality will become compulsary due to technological advances.

Disagree. "Moral Truth" if such a thing exists is best left to the poets and philosophers, science has nothing to do with it. The scientific method is a way to test a hypothesis and is completely objective, (if it's not completely objective, it ain't science) nothing more. There are no truths in science, only ever evolving best explanations. Morality on the other hand... is completely subjective, the complete opposite of what science is "meant" to be.

Who's moral views will become compulsory? yours? mine? what the bible or any other holy text supposedly says? and what does this have to do with technological advances? People in some areas of the world are being stoned to death for "crimes" that would not even raise an eyebrow in western culture, and the people casting the stones have cellphones. Morality is deeply ingrained with culture, but also with personal beliefs. These personal beliefs of moral superiority or any type of superiority are what lead to war, bigotry, and ethnocentrism....


SG

 

[Space Ghost]

i believe that while our interpretation of morals varies from individual to individual that in every given societal scenario there is a relative moral right and wrong

above and beyond that there is a "relatively eternal (at least relative to our individual existences)" morality in which all mankind shares

a raw example would be the heartfelt love between mother and child is relatively eternal human emotion that feels the same to those who were before and those who will come after, and it is these human qualities that in our own society continue to evolve

a more difficult to identify with but as tangible as a mothers love would be humanistic compassion as cultivate by religions and philosophies

the share the same algorithm however, cultivating the evolving individual consciences of men as they develop into the evolving collective conscience of mankind

"every given societal scenario there is a relative moral right and wrong"

This may be, but there are stark contrasts in moral "correctness" from culture to culture and even person to person within a given culture or from another.


"morality in which all mankind shares"

could you give me some examples of this all encompassing moral truth?

"heartfelt love between mother and child"

This feeling of love is chemical in nature, and is hard-wired into the primitive parts of our brains, so this has little if anything to do with the wholly learned ideas of morality.

"they develop into the evolving collective conscience of mankind"

There is (to the best of my knowledge) no collective conscience that can be tapped into by any force or craft that humans have developed. And within this "collection of consciences" there are views that people have that are polar opposites, some extremely core views too. Such as slavery, woman's rights, cannibalism (both exo and endo) ect....


What I'm trying to say mostly is that morals are learned traits and behaviors that will die with the individuals that possess them... There is no great moral umbrella under witch EVERYONE will say action A is right and action B is wrong.


SG but i do like your thinking!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Disagree. I think moral truths exist, and science has everything to say about it. I think morality will become compulsary due to technological advances.

:jawdrop:​

 

[thingshappening]

Disagree. "Moral Truth" if such a thing exists is best left to the poets and philosophers, science has nothing to do with it. The scientific method is a way to test a hypothesis and is completely objective, (if it's not completely objective, it ain't science) nothing more. There are no truths in science, only ever evolving best explanations. Morality on the other hand... is completely subjective, the complete opposite of what science is "meant" to be.

Claims about morality and well-being are claims about the architecture of our minds. As such, they are claims about facts. A person can be right or wrong, or more or less informed with regard to them. In this way, morality is like food; there can still be a lot of good foods, but there is still a clear distinction between food and poison. Objectively. As such, one moral choice will be "truer" than another if it's view of the relationship between thought/emotion/well being/behavior is truer than another. And because human well-being is realized at the level of the brain, brain science will have a lot to say about right and wrong.

More succinctly perhaps, a direct quote from Sam Harris: "If there are truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish; consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil."

and what does this have to do with technological advances?
SG

Advances in lie detection via advances in neuroscience will require more scrupulous truth-telling.

 

[Space Ghost]

Claims about morality and well-being are claims about the architecture of our minds. As such, they are claims about facts. A person can be right or wrong, or more or less informed with regard to them. In this way, morality is like food; there can still be a lot of good foods, but there is still a clear distinction between food and poison. Objectively. As such, one moral choice will be "truer" than another if it's view of the relationship between thought/emotion/well being/behavior is truer than another. And because human well-being is realized at the level of the brain, brain science will have a lot to say about right and wrong.

More succinctly perhaps, a direct quote from Sam Harris: "If there are truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish; consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil."


Advances in lie detection via advances in neuroscience will require more scrupulous truth-telling.

Morality is learned, 100%, it has little or nothing to do with neuroscience.... Entertain this thought: imagine a human being that was raised from birth with no stimulus what so ever except a tube going in one nostril to the stomach providing basics chemical needs, when this person was... let's say 30 years old (at an age that most if not all cultures on earth would say a person should know right from wrong) what moral structure would this person have? essentially none...

and what does lying and the ability to quantitatively measure truth-telling have to do with morality? I just don't understand your reasoning at all there....

 

[thingshappening]

Morality is learned, 100%, it has little or nothing to do with neuroscience....

I know that's your view. You said that. I don't agree that the initial statement makes a case for the latter claim. It is very clear to me that certain people are wrong about morality, just as people are wrong about mathematics and physics. There is such a thing as moral expertise. The criterion is given above; mostly various pieces of the human flourishing pie. So, can you expand on your disagreement with the validity of my criterion?

Entertain this thought: imagine a human being that was raised from birth with no stimulus what so ever except a tube going in one nostril to the stomach providing basics chemical needs, when this person was... let's say 30 years old (at an age that most if not all cultures on earth would say a person should know right from wrong) what moral structure would this person have? essentially none...

That disposition says nothing about said human beings ability or lack thereof to be objectively closer to moral truth, as measured by the criterion listed in my previous post. As I'm sure you see, I'm arguing directly against the validity of moral relativism. Which is not to say I dispute that different conclusions about morality are, as of now, inevitable. Which I think is the point of your thought experiment.

and what does lying and the ability to quantitatively measure truth-telling have to do with morality? I just don't understand your reasoning at all there....

In better quantifying morality, we can then monitor truth-telling in important life situations. Deception is a huge problem in the pursuit of morality.

 

[KSP]

Is it OK to yell "MOVIE!!" in a crowded fire station, if there is no movie?

 

[compost]

Why was our generation so selfish that we thought we couldn't damage the earth.

Why we treated people with different sexual orientations as 2nd class citizens.

Why did so many people have to die for religions.

Why so many people died hungry well a lot of us wasted so much.

 

[Space Ghost]

"It is very clear to me that certain people are wrong about morality"

to you, yes, but not to everyone...

"There is such a thing as moral expertise"

really? I'd love to hear some of your examples.

"Which I think is the point of your thought experiment"

The point of the though experiment is that the resulting human being would not be a moral individual simply because morality has to be learned... they would just have no concept of it because they were not exposed to these supposed rights and wrongs.... is morality written in our DNA?

"In better quantifying morality"

again, you cannot quantify morality... it has nothing to do with science.... there are no 100% correct morals viewpoints... nor are there any 100% wrong moral viewpoints...

 

[Space Ghost]

Also, who's set of moral views are "correct" and why?