Conflicting Ethical Systems

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

The above experiment deliberate selected babies less than 12 months old to isolate other factors to prove that there is the nature [contra nurture] of morality.

Yes. Morality is evolved. But it's evolved in a social context!

There is no such thing as "individual morality" it says so right in the article you've posted.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.

Compassion towards who?
Empathy towards who?
Fairness towards who?

You missed the critical point, deliberately I guess.

What I stated is morality is confined to the personal self-development of the individual so that his activities are spontaneously net-positive to his well being and that of humanity.
In this case a person with a good moral compass will act morally spontaneously and do not need to be threatened with enforceable Laws [politics] to act without evil.

I never implied only hermits will develop morality. That was your ridiculous rhetoric.

[Skepdick]

You missed the critical point, deliberately I guess.

What I stated is morality is confined to the personal self-development of the individual so that his activities are spontaneously net-positive to his well being and that of humanity.
In this case a person with a good moral compass will act morally spontaneously and do not need to be threatened with enforceable Laws [politics] to act without evil.

I never implied only hermits will develop morality. That was your ridiculous rhetoric.

You need to unconfuse yourself.

You keep trying to frame morality around the self-development of the individual; and you keep trying to stip away the fact that this "moral self-development" can ONLY take place in a socio-political context.

If you frame the discussion strictly around the personal self-development of the invidual then there is nothing to be said about morality.

A person will act however a person acts. Without a socio-political context to judge those actions as "good" or "bad" - they aren't either.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed the critical point, deliberately I guess.

What I stated is morality is confined to the personal self-development of the individual so that his activities are spontaneously net-positive to his well being and that of humanity.
In this case a person with a good moral compass will act morally spontaneously and do not need to be threatened with enforceable Laws [politics] to act without evil.

I never implied only hermits will develop morality. That was your ridiculous rhetoric.

You need to unconfuse yourself.

You keep trying to frame morality around the self-development of the individual; and you keep trying to stip away the fact that this "moral self-development" can ONLY take place in a socio-political context.

If you frame the discussion strictly around the personal self-development of the invidual then there is nothing to be said about morality.

A person will act however a person acts. Without a socio-political context to judge those actions as "good" or "bad" - they aren't either.

Note the link to Babies and morality.
So morality is fundamental inherent within human nature, it is not imperative there must be a socio-political environment to judge what is 'good' or 'bad'.
Whilst morality is fundamental, given the multivariate humans, yes the social environment will facilitate some to improve on their morality.
My emphasis is morality is fundamental to the individual while for politics to work the fundamental imperative is it must involve a group of people.

[Skepdick]

Note the link to Babies and morality.
So morality is fundamental inherent within human nature, it is not imperative there must be a socio-political environment to judge what is 'good' or 'bad'.
Whilst morality is fundamental, given the multivariate humans, yes the social environment will facilitate some to improve on their morality.
My emphasis is morality is fundamental to the individual while for politics to work the fundamental imperative is it must involve a group of people.

You can't utter two coherent sentences in a row.

"morality is inherent in human nature" is such trite and boring bullshit when it's obvious to any non-idiot that we have evolved as social creatures.

If morality is about the individual's progress the who or what decides whether you are progressing or regressing after you are born?

[Belinda]

Note the link to Babies and morality.
So morality is fundamental inherent within human nature, it is not imperative there must be a socio-political environment to judge what is 'good' or 'bad'.
Whilst morality is fundamental, given the multivariate humans, yes the social environment will facilitate some to improve on their morality.
My emphasis is morality is fundamental to the individual while for politics to work the fundamental imperative is it must involve a group of people.

You can't utter two coherent sentences in a row.

"morality is inherent in human nature" is such trite and boring bullshit when it's obvious to any non-idiot that we have evolved as social creatures.

If morality is about the individual's progress the who or what decides whether you are progressing or regressing after you are born?

Harmony with nature?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the link to Babies and morality.
So morality is fundamental inherent within human nature, it is not imperative there must be a socio-political environment to judge what is 'good' or 'bad'.
Whilst morality is fundamental, given the multivariate humans, yes the social environment will facilitate some to improve on their morality.
My emphasis is morality is fundamental to the individual while for politics to work the fundamental imperative is it must involve a group of people.

You can't utter two coherent sentences in a row.

"morality is inherent in human nature" is such trite and boring bullshit when it's obvious to any non-idiot that we have evolved as social creatures.

If morality is about the individual's progress the who or what decides whether you are progressing or regressing after you are born?

When one put the moral machinery to work, the progress is autonomous self-learning and spontaneous relative to the individual. Btw, what I proposed is not effective for the present generation, especially not in your case when the brain is already damaged.
Generally with progress in morality, there will be growth in more mirror neurons and this can be measured. In addition, one's conscience [..I believe measurable] will also be developing. The whole moral faculty will improve on a continual basis.

The measure of progress can be done by the individuals and on a collective basis.
With moral progress the individual will be indifferent to any intentional and impulse of evil.
For many they can track reducing trend their impulses and thoughts of evil over a period, e.g. a person initially may have impulses [which you are very familiar with] to commit killing of humans, rape and other forms of violence, and if such impulses disappear over time, then there is moral progress as understood by the individual.

On a collective basis, that can be measured by the lesser and lesser acts of evil within humanity.
For example, the progress of the focus on chattel slavery since 10,000 years to the present is a sign of moral progress within the individuals and thus humanity as a whole.

Whether measured collectively or individually, moral progress must be activated from the individual's brain and self.

[Skepdick]

Harmony with nature?

Who determines we've attained the goal and how?

[bahman]

Principle ethics, such as that of Kant's, emphasizes adherence to certain moral principles regardless of the consequences. On the other hand, Consequence ethics, such as that of Bentham's, emphasizes attainment of the best consequences, even if they violate the moral principles of principle ethics. Finally, virtue ethics, such as those of the ancients, emphasizes the development and practice of virtue. Principle and consequence ethics tend to have situational, specific, and narrow application; while virtue ethics tend to have general and broad application. Which ethical system to do you prefer?

Non of them. You should follow the nature you have accepted.

[Belinda]

Harmony with nature?

Who determines we've attained the goal and how?

Power is at the root of who decides. There is no way of avoiding conflict.

Next question: "Can there ever be a just war?"

[Skepdick]

Next question: "Can there ever be a just war?"

Sure. The one you start in self-defence against an invading force.

You could always welcome them (and avoid war).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Next question: "Can there ever be a just war?"

Sure. The one you start in self-defence against an invading force.

You could always welcome them (and avoid war).

That is where your thinking is shallow and narrow.

Since we are within a discussion of Ethics, we must differentiate politics as independent from Ethics/Morality.

Within politics there can be debates by politicians and philosophers whether a war is just or not.
But in many cases, wars are triggered & instigated deceptively by the dominant conqueror for the victims to react and then they claim their so called-counter attack as self-defense.
In this case we cannot agree such a supposedly "self-defense" is a just war.
So there is no absolute just-war, but only subjective views which will perpetuate more wars.

However, from the independent perspective of Ethics/Morality all wars, where killing of humans are inevitable, are evil acts thus immoral.
So the moral principle [as justified and objective] will be 'no human shall go to war against other humans' period! which is only adopted as a moral guide for moral progress.

Regardless of the objective moral principle, humans being-human [as evolved to the present state] will naturally go to wars with other humans in reality and actuality.

But because there is an established Moral Principle and Standard, i.e. ZERO War, there will be moral-Gap between the moral objective [ZERO] and number of actual wars that happened.

Thus the role of morality and Ethics is to set standards to compare with what-is-actual and therefrom drive humanity to close the moral gap in the most optimal and effective means on the basis of continual improvement [inherent].

You are a moron, idiot, stupid, and the likes if you disagree with the above very rational argument.

[Skepdick]

Next question: "Can there ever be a just war?"

Sure. The one you start in self-defence against an invading force.

You could always welcome them (and avoid war).

That is where your thinking is shallow and narrow.

Since we are within a discussion of Ethics, we must differentiate politics as independent from Ethics/Morality.

You keep trying to draw this distinction without a difference.

However, from the independent perspective of Ethics/Morality all wars, where killing of humans are inevitable, are evil acts thus immoral.

So the moral principle [as justified and objective] will be 'no human shall go to war against other humans' period! which is only adopted as a moral guide for moral progress.

Regardless of the objective moral principle, humans being-human [as evolved to the present state] will naturally go to wars with other humans in reality and actuality.

But because there is an established Moral Principle and Standard, i.e. ZERO War, there will be moral-Gap between the moral objective [ZERO] and number of actual wars that happened.

Thus the role of morality and Ethics is to set standards to compare with what-is-actual and therefrom drive humanity to close the moral gap in the most optimal and effective means on the basis of continual improvement [inherent].

You are a moron, idiot, stupid, and the likes if you disagree with the above very rational argument.

And you STILL can't tell the difference between the amoral act of killing and the immoral act of murder and the moral act of human defence.

Your moral compass is a spinning top.

[Belinda]

Next question: "Can there ever be a just war?"

Sure. The one you start in self-defence against an invading force.

You could always welcome them (and avoid war).

When the invading force is superlatively strong as were the Romans at the height of their power, Jesus recommended the native Palestinians to render unto Caesar what was his, while retaining their own version of spirituality.

It seems the Romans avoided conflict when possible so they permitted the Palestinians to retain their culture as long as it did not affect Roman rule. The Romans behaved similarly in their British colony, except for some badly done incidents such as the cruelty against Boudicaa and the Iceni. It was therefore appropriate for the British to accommodate themselves to Roman rule. Indeed when the Romans departed our national hero Arthur ,who was a Romanised Briton, fought against the Picts and other invaders.

In the 20th century we warred against Hitler's Nazis and other fascists whose ideology would have wiped out the culture of democratic civilisation over Europe, so there was little choice but to make war.

My point is that sometimes it's better to accept the status of colony and sometimes not. It depends on profits and losses, so I agree with you about self defence but with reservations.