Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:56 pm
Well, being consistent
within a proposed moral framework is a good thing; but it's not enough. Moral frameworks can
themselves be wrong. Certainly, the Nazi or Stalinist moral frameworks would not be adequate just because they were
internally-consistent...they were objectively wrong, regardless of how much
merely-internal consistency they may have evinced, as I'm sure you'll agree.
So how do you propose we find the objective basis to judge a
bad framework, like that of Nazis and Stalinists?
First, political and theological Frameworks are not moral framework per se.
Actually, political ideas are dependent on a moral framework, though they are something less precise. Politics
derives from moral frameworks, which they often only tacitly presume are true, without having shown they are. Political projects, we might say, are
ethics in action, not
ethics in theory. But they are
expressions of ethics, nonetheless...and making those tacit and presumptive frameworks explicit and stated is key to judging whether or not the political project in question is a moral one at all.
So there's no separating those from morality. Not if one is a self-aware or moral person, anyway.
To counter your point I have given the example of Science-proper.
Science's etymological origin is "to know" i.e. for knowledge.
Before Science-proper, whatever is seeking knowledge, i.e. "Scientific" were practiced by philosophers, monks, shamans, alchemists, quack-doctors, astrologers, etc.
It was only when Bacon and others who took the effort to establish Science-proper around 500 years ago till its present effective and reasonable credible 'formal' framework.
The present Scientific Framework can be better if humans are more moral competent.
All humans has an 'independent' inherent moral function but it has not been active within the majority of people who are more driven to the more dominant religion and politics.
so morality is NOT from politics nor religions.
Morality is a Johnny-come-lately mental function but from evidence of human acts and mirror neurons, the dormant inherent moral function is getting more active in the present within the majority.
Given the terrible evils that is going on at present, it is about time we follow the steps of Science-proper in attempting to abstract from evidences and pseudo morality to formalize morality-proper as a specific branch of knowledge and practice with a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
What is morality focus on avoiding 'evil' acts and the 'good' that will contribute to the well-being of the individuals toward the survival of the human species.
That's the problem. Without first choosing a framework, we have no basis on which to premise a conception of "good" and "evil." We do not know, for example that "individuals surviving" is compatible with "survival of the human species," and how to weigh the relative good of preserving one or two lives against that of serving the interests of one or two thousand. And for that matter, if we listen to today's environmentalists, we're not even sure that survival of the human species can be said to be an uncontroversial "good." In their framework, it's superseded by survival of the planet and the other species on it.
They may be wrong -- I certainly think they are, and have reasons to say so -- but absent a metaframework, an overarching worldview to tell us which contradictory framework is actually right, we would have no way to know.
What is that metaframework?
This is why I have been advocating for an efficient Framework and System of Morality & Ethics with justified true moral facts are grounds.
There is no need for a meta-framework rather just follow the Framework and System like Science.
In contrast to morality, in politics, killing is acceptable if it favor the political interests but it is not universally condemned.
From what framework are you speaking when you make that claim? I think it's wrong, so you'll have to convince me you're right. What you say there, taken at face value, would justify the massacre of a minority if it were said by the majority to serve their view of the public interest -- just as when Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in Poland for their presumptive possibility of colluding with Communists. That was done in the
majority public interest, and was certainly not
universally condemned, so it was viewed as
acceptable killing.
Would you be content to side with that?
Note the Framework that I explained above, i.e. like Science preferably and others.
You missed my point?
What is acceptable in Politics and religions is not universally condemned, thus cannot be morality.
For morality, all maxims [laws, principles] must be applicable to ALL humans regardless.
I have said many times, one of the moral maxim is,
'
No human ought to kill another human'
thus there is no room for anyone to kill the minority or any human.
...which are not totally 'moral' in all cases.
Again, "not totally moral" from what framework? Are you speaking as a Kantian? A Utilitarian? A Zoroastrian? What?
When I proposed the following moral maxim;
'No human ought to kill another human'
you could say that is of Christianity??
Nope! the Framework will not be related totally to any past models but its architectural plan will be different and new, adopting various parts from other models.
Critical point: Whatever is accepted as grounds, they must be justified empirically and philosophically.
The majority of the moral framework elements will be from Science, neurosciences, philosophy, Buddhism, Kantian, and others.
I agree Christianity has many elements which are parallel to "good morals",
Whose "good morals"? It's the same problem: you're taking for granted that we all share a simple concept of what is "good morals" and what is not; but it's only your concept, and you don't even say what concept it actually is. What's your framework?
Whose??
There are good morals within Christianity that are universally accepted as 'good' thus considered as good moral elements, e.g.
- the golden rule,
love all and even your enemies,
thou shall not kill,
no adultery,
no stealing,
But like a say, the main purpose of theology is salvation with obeying God's command under the threat of hellfire. The holy text and doctrine are immutable so are the negative ones therein like condoning slavery, false creationism claims, etc. and worst as in Islam.
This is why we need a new Framework and System of Morality and Ethics without the negatives like those within theological and other pseudo-moral models.
The purpose of the new Moral F/S is not enforcing moral rules on individuals with threats and punishing them but rather develop fool proof self-developments programs and practices that will enable the individual to activate their inherent moral functions internally so that their actions are spontaneously moral.
