Discussion:
There is often scientific progress in SF, but what about moral progress?
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-09 13:46:15 UTC
Permalink
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.

If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.

There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.

Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"I am a contradiction,
there is no logical solution"
Peter Trei
2019-05-09 15:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.

pt
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-05-09 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel
and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality to protect everyone's rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality.
Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
might encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
That said, in many SF books the society (or a society) is said to have moved
past such & such. Such & such could be "war", "eating meat", "money",
"jealousy" or whatever, but the claim is that progress was made.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Ahasuerus
2019-05-09 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
[snip-snip]
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
That said, in many SF books the society (or a society) is said to
have moved past such & such. Such & such could be "war", "eating
meat", "money", "jealousy" or whatever, but the claim is that
progress was made.
Some utopian works are quite explicit about "moral progress". For
example, Bellamy mentions "a moral and material transformation" of
the human society during the 20th century in the introduction to
_Looking Backward_ (1888) and goes on to talk about it in the body
of the book:

"Probably humanity never before passed through a moral and material
evolution, at once so vast in its scope and brief in its time of
accomplishment, as that from the old order to the new in the early
part of this century."

"...stupendous change which one brief century has made in the
material and moral conditions of humanity..."

etc.

Alexander Bogdanov's [1] _Red Star_, written 20 years later, offers
an interesting contrast. Its protagonist is a Russian socialist
taken to Mars where he tours their utopian socialist society. There
is only one teeny tiny problem: the ever expanding Martian population
is running low on food. Their choices are:

1. start using birth control, or
2. colonize another planet

Earth and Venus are the only realistic targets, but Venus has a very
inhospitable environment -- earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
hurricanes, monsters, etc.

A leading Martian scientist comes up with a perfectly logical
solution: since humans are backward and worthless, Martians should
exterminate the human race and colonize their planet. Discussion
ensues.

[1] Alexander Bogdanov (Malinovsky, 1873-1928). Russian physician,
SF writer, socialist philosopher and revolutionary. Lenin's deputy
within the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party
in 1904-1908, head of a rival Party faction in 1909-1911.
Experimented with blood transfusion in 1923-1928, which eventually
got him killed.
Lynn McGuire
2019-05-09 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
Yup, my thought exactly. Whose moral system: The God of the Jews, The
God of the Christians, the enlightened human who needs no God, the
Lucifer worshipers, The Global Warming worshipers, etc, etc, etc (this
list could go on for pages) ?

Lynn
Peter Trei
2019-05-09 18:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
Yup, my thought exactly. Whose moral system: The God of the Jews, The
God of the Christians, the enlightened human who needs no God, the
Lucifer worshipers, The Global Warming worshipers, etc, etc, etc (this
list could go on for pages) ?
As events in Brunei, Pakistan, and many other countries demonstrate, the notion
of what constitutes moral 'progress' varies, and can different versions can
flatly contradict each other.

pt
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-09 21:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the 20th century.

Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be shared among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and three more attributes according to a recent book I read, which I can't remember the name or author.

According to the book liberals and conservatives have different understanding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground, like caring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.

Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body and mind? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?

Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to pursue happiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding happiness in the happiness of others.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
Quadibloc
2019-05-09 21:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making forward progress in
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, illustrates this.

John Savard
David Johnston
2019-05-09 21:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making forward progress in
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, illustrates this.
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
Quadibloc
2019-05-09 21:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making forward progress in
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, illustrates this.
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
Oh, I disagree with that particular aspect of their "progress" myself. Since it
is clearly considered to be progress, though, my issue is with the morals of
whoever created the show. Given Kirk's take on the Prime Directive, I don't
think that means Gene Roddenberry.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-09 22:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
Oh, I disagree with that particular aspect of their "progress" myself. Since it
is clearly considered to be progress, though, my issue is with the morals of
whoever created the show. Given Kirk's take on the Prime Directive, I don't
think that means Gene Roddenberry.
I lost count of how many times Kirk violated the Prime Directive
long ago. He would, however, have had to report his actions to
his higher-ups, who would have held something between a
performance review and a court martial on each action, and
evidently they decided in each case that his actions were
justified, *or he would not still have a command.*

Roddenberry described himself as an ardent peacenik. Way back in
the day, Bjo Trimble let me know that he wanted a
genuine-from-Berkeley peace symbol, so I went over to Telegraph
Avenue and got him one. He was very happy with it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
J. Clarke
2019-05-10 00:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
Oh, I disagree with that particular aspect of their "progress" myself. Since it
is clearly considered to be progress, though, my issue is with the morals of
whoever created the show. Given Kirk's take on the Prime Directive, I don't
think that means Gene Roddenberry.
I lost count of how many times Kirk violated the Prime Directive
long ago. He would, however, have had to report his actions to
his higher-ups, who would have held something between a
performance review and a court martial on each action, and
evidently they decided in each case that his actions were
justified, *or he would not still have a command.*
Roddenberry described himself as an ardent peacenik. Way back in
the day, Bjo Trimble let me know that he wanted a
genuine-from-Berkeley peace symbol, so I went over to Telegraph
Avenue and got him one. He was very happy with it.
Remember that several of the principals in the production of TOS had
first hand experience of war. Roddenberry flew 89 B-17 missions,
Freiberger was shot down over Germany, and Doohan lost a finger at
Normandy. De Kelley and Gene L. Coon also served but I don't believe
they saw combat.

People who have experienced war first hand generally don't have much
to say in its favor.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-10 00:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
Oh, I disagree with that particular aspect of their "progress" myself.
Since it
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
is clearly considered to be progress, though, my issue is with the morals of
whoever created the show. Given Kirk's take on the Prime Directive, I don't
think that means Gene Roddenberry.
I lost count of how many times Kirk violated the Prime Directive
long ago. He would, however, have had to report his actions to
his higher-ups, who would have held something between a
performance review and a court martial on each action, and
evidently they decided in each case that his actions were
justified, *or he would not still have a command.*
Roddenberry described himself as an ardent peacenik. Way back in
the day, Bjo Trimble let me know that he wanted a
genuine-from-Berkeley peace symbol, so I went over to Telegraph
Avenue and got him one. He was very happy with it.
Remember that several of the principals in the production of TOS had
first hand experience of war. Roddenberry flew 89 B-17 missions,
Freiberger was shot down over Germany, and Doohan lost a finger at
Normandy. De Kelley and Gene L. Coon also served but I don't believe
they saw combat.
People who have experienced war first hand generally don't have much
to say in its favor.
"War is hell."
--General William T. Sherman
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Kevrob
2019-05-10 02:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
People who have experienced war first hand generally don't have much
to say in its favor.
"War is hell."
--General William T. Sherman
Or "War is all hell." He used both.

"It is good that war is so terrible, or we should
become too fond of it." - R E Lee

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

Kevin R
(never had to serve)
Juho Julkunen
2019-05-10 17:08:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <qb27cb$17t0$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making forward progress in
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, illustrates this.
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
I think literally in every situation we see where following the Prime
Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent species it
gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider it right and
proped.

The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
--
Juho Julkunen
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-05-10 17:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next
Generation, for example, illustrates this.
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now
consider it right and proper to cross their arms and let entire
intelligent species die of preventable natural catastrophes if
they don't qualify as sufficiently technologically advanced to
bother with.
I think literally in every situation we see where following the
Prime Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent
species it gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider
it right and proped.
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's
messed up.
And have telepaths on board ships to force people to be "happy" at
all times.

Many consider ST to be a dystopian setting.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-05-10 17:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
says...
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
I think literally in every situation we see where following the Prime
Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent species it
gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider it right and
proped.
Not if you count "Enterprise", although at that point I guess it was
Phlox being an ass more than a future Prime Directive, clearly his was
the kind of thinking that got it established though.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Juho Julkunen
2019-05-10 19:15:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@loft.tnolan.com
says...
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Juho Julkunen
says...
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
I think literally in every situation we see where following the Prime
Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent species it
gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider it right and
proped.
Not if you count "Enterprise", although at that point I guess it was
Phlox being an ass more than a future Prime Directive, clearly his was
the kind of thinking that got it established though.
I admit I haven't seen more than an episode or two of "Enterprise".
--
Juho Julkunen
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-11 12:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Juho Julkunen
says...
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Certainly there is science fiction that shows humanity making
forward progress in
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
its moral behavior. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example,
illustrates this.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Assuming that is, one regards it as progress that they now consider it
right and proper to cross their arms and let entire intelligent species
die of preventable natural catastrophes if they don't qualify as
sufficiently technologically advanced to bother with.
I think literally in every situation we see where following the Prime
Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent species it
gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider it right and
proped.
Not if you count "Enterprise", although at that point I guess it was
Phlox being an ass more than a future Prime Directive, clearly his was
the kind of thinking that got it established though.
I somewhat recall the case and it wasn't so simple.
There was also a different species on the planet whose
development would advance when the species whose disease
Phlox refused to cure were no longer a problem.
So you'd be picking sides.

And there was a case in Next Gen - possibly in a novel
or a comic, I don't remember - where Federation colonists
needed to get rid of a strange layer of material
underground, which turned out to be alive - I also
forget about sentient - and entitled to protection.

Charging around the universe saving the people who
look like you (1) may be how the universe got to
/have/ so many different species that look like you
and (2) ignores that there are still lots of people
in the universe who don't look like you. Even if
they only get to be crew in the Animated Series
or the comic.
Quadibloc
2019-05-10 17:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
I think literally in every situation we see where following the Prime
Directive would lead to the extinction of an intelligent species it
gets bent, so I'm not sure that many people consider it right and
proped.
Not in ST:TNG.

The episode "Homeward" shows it getting... well, yes, bent far enough to prevent
the extinction of the *species*, but not far enough to save the lives of the
vast majority of its members.

John Savard
Thomas Koenig
2019-05-12 12:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
Bad news for identical twins, then. (They only counted as one
person in "The Flying Sorcerors", IIRC).
Juho Julkunen
2019-05-13 12:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
Bad news for identical twins, then. (They only counted as one
person in "The Flying Sorcerors", IIRC).
Did you ever see identical twins in TNG that weren't the result of a
freak transporter accident? (Also a phasering offense, I'd expect, but
somehow one slipped through the cracks.)

In truth, plenty of clones survived in that one episode. It's possible
that only unlicenced clones can be mudered at will, or maybe they live
on the sufferance of the original. Or maybe clones can be freely
terminated within a certain term, even though they can be grown in
days.
--
Juho Julkunen
Kevrob
2019-05-13 15:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
Bad news for identical twins, then. (They only counted as one
person in "The Flying Sorcerors", IIRC).
Did you ever see identical twins in TNG that weren't the result of a
freak transporter accident? (Also a phasering offense, I'd expect, but
somehow one slipped through the cracks.)
In truth, plenty of clones survived in that one episode. It's possible
that only unlicenced clones can be mudered at will, or maybe they live
on the sufferance of the original. Or maybe clones can be freely
terminated within a certain term, even though they can be grown in
days.
I take it they were made illegal because they ran up
the SFX budget? :)

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-14 00:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
Bad news for identical twins, then. (They only counted as one
person in "The Flying Sorcerors", IIRC).
Did you ever see identical twins in TNG that weren't the result of a
freak transporter accident? (Also a phasering offense, I'd expect, but
somehow one slipped through the cracks.)
Would you count the Bynars?

Or Data and Lore? Remember that they've swapped
parts and spent varying intervals deactivated
or travelling through time the hard way, so despite
one being older and differently designed originally,
by now who knows.

I think I also recall either twins or close sisters
represented as romantic interest for either Tom Paris
and Harry Kim, or William Riker on his own.

In an early Deep Space Nine episode, someone killed
a clone of himself and, as far as I recall, was charged
with murder for that.

Incidentally, there were a lot of duplicates of
Captain Kirk, really; transporter incident,
android duplicate, mirror universe version,
villainous shapeshifter - did I miss any?
But Dr McCoy got duplicated first...
Quadibloc
2019-05-14 01:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
But Dr McCoy got duplicated first...
At first I thought, what? But then I realized what you were referring to. The Slat
Vampire _disguised herself_ as Dr. McCoy.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-14 09:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
But Dr McCoy got duplicated first...
At first I thought, what? But then I realized what you were referring to. The Slat
Vampire _disguised herself_ as Dr. McCoy.
John Savard
Don't call her a slat just because she had needs. ;-)
Kevrob
2019-05-14 12:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Don't call her a slat just because she had needs. ;-)
Like her problem vowels?

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-14 09:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
Bad news for identical twins, then. (They only counted as one
person in "The Flying Sorcerors", IIRC).
Did you ever see identical twins in TNG that weren't the result of a
freak transporter accident? (Also a phasering offense, I'd expect, but
somehow one slipped through the cracks.)
Would you count the Bynars?
Or Data and Lore? Remember that they've swapped
parts and spent varying intervals deactivated
or travelling through time the hard way, so despite
one being older and differently designed originally,
by now who knows.
I think I also recall either twins or close sisters
represented as romantic interest for either Tom Paris
and Harry Kim, or William Riker on his own.
In an early Deep Space Nine episode, someone killed
a clone of himself and, as far as I recall, was charged
with murder for that.
Incidentally, there were a lot of duplicates of
Captain Kirk, really; transporter incident,
android duplicate, mirror universe version,
villainous shapeshifter - did I miss any?
But Dr McCoy got duplicated first...
Footnote: I just got the urge to argue that
Captain Pike got duplicated first.

And the second pilot episode apparently featured
"James R. Kirk". Another mirror universe case?
It's been suspected.
Quadibloc
2019-05-14 01:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
The Federation does straight up murder clones, though. That's messed
up.
In one specific case, where:

the clones had not yet awakened to experience consciousness after being created,
and

they were produced by taking genetic material without obtaining the consent of
the original.

I believe the scene was intended as an effective way to present a pro-choice
argument.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-05-09 23:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the 20th century.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be shared among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and three more attributes according to a recent book I read, which I can't remember the name or author.
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different understanding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground, like caring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body and mind? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to pursue happiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding happiness in the happiness of others.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-05-10 00:27:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 May 2019 18:48:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the 20th century.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be shared among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and three more attributes according to a recent book I read, which I can't remember the name or author.
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different understanding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground, like caring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body and mind? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to pursue happiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding happiness in the happiness of others.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
And in another version butting into other people's business unasked is
a killing offense.
Quadibloc
2019-05-10 03:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 May 2019 18:48:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
And in another version butting into other people's business unasked is
a killing offense.
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.

Thus, if a fetus is as much a person as a new-born baby, abortion is homicide,
and therefore is no more only the expectant mother's business... any more than
the principle that "a man's home is his castle" means he can get away with
beating his wife there.

Thus, thinking that talking about "butting into other people's business"
concludes the abortion debate... is forgetting that the whole abortion debate is
about whether or not the unborn child is a *person*, with the same right to
legal protection against acts of violence as any other human being.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-10 11:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 May 2019 18:48:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
And in another version butting into other people's business unasked is
a killing offense.
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.
And in another version (the real one actually) people of all races
were sold into slavery.
Post by Quadibloc
Thus, if a fetus is as much a person as a new-born baby, abortion is homicide,
and therefore is no more only the expectant mother's business... any more than
the principle that "a man's home is his castle" means he can get away with
beating his wife there.
Thus, thinking that talking about "butting into other people's business"
concludes the abortion debate... is forgetting that the whole abortion debate is
about whether or not the unborn child is a *person*, with the same right to
legal protection against acts of violence as any other human being.
If it didn't ask you to butt into its business . . .
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-05-10 15:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.
And in another version (the real one actually) people of all races
were sold into slavery.
Now you're talking about a version of history rather than a version of morality.

Certainly, in *history*, people of all races were sold into slavery, like in
Ancient Greece. Slavery in the United States was different, though. It was
"chattel slavery", for one thing. For another, since slavery was difficult to
reconcile with *inalienable* rights, in much of the South, the contradiction
_was_ resolved through the claim that the Negro was a creature of a lower order
that was not fully human - and, thus, buying and selling one was fundamentally
no different from buying and selling a horse.

I mean, I suppose I could look up details about how free black people were
falsely rounded up as escaped slaves, or how some states outlawed manumission,
but I see no need to educate you in history of which you should be fully aware.

Plus, I'm not sure where I should go here because I can't even see what your
*point* is.

John Savard
Mike Van Pelt
2019-05-10 18:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Plus, I'm not sure where I should go here because I can't
even see what your *point* is.
It seems to me the point is, when you talk about the "A" word,
you're talking about the Sacrament of some people's religion,
and they don't take kindly to any hints of Blasphemy.

Rational discussion with anyone at either extreme of the
issue is impossible.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
J. Clarke
2019-05-10 22:24:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 May 2019 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.
And in another version (the real one actually) people of all races
were sold into slavery.
Now you're talking about a version of history rather than a version of morality.
Certainly, in *history*, people of all races were sold into slavery, like in
Ancient Greece. Slavery in the United States was different, though. It was
"chattel slavery", for one thing. For another, since slavery was difficult to
reconcile with *inalienable* rights, in much of the South, the contradiction
_was_ resolved through the claim that the Negro was a creature of a lower order
that was not fully human - and, thus, buying and selling one was fundamentally
no different from buying and selling a horse.
I mean, I suppose I could look up details about how free black people were
falsely rounded up as escaped slaves, or how some states outlawed manumission,
but I see no need to educate you in history of which you should be fully aware.
Plus, I'm not sure where I should go here because I can't even see what your
*point* is.
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
Kevrob
2019-05-10 23:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes* and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation

[quote]

Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.

The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.

[/quote]

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/

Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/

* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."

See:

https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/

Scots were sent too, of course.

http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean

Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.

The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.

[quote]

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[/quote]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13

Kevin R
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-05-11 00:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes* and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
Paging Dr. Peter Blood on white courtesy phone!
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 01:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes*
You mean like the Jews in Nazi Germany were convicted of crimes?
Post by Kevrob
and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
There seems to be a certain amount of revisionism in fashion with
regard to the Irish in the time of Cromwell.
Post by Kevrob
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/
* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."
https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/
Scots were sent too, of course.
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean
Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.
The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.
[quote]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13
Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 01:36:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 May 2019 21:01:03 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes*
You mean like the Jews in Nazi Germany were convicted of crimes?
Post by Kevrob
and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
There seems to be a certain amount of revisionism in fashion with
regard to the Irish in the time of Cromwell.
I'm going to add that the people who keep shouting "it wasn't slavery"
remind me of "I heard you use that term 'sold' once before. You must
realize that it is not correct. After all, the serfdom practiced in
the Sargony is not chattel slavery. It derives from the
ancient Hindu guild or 'caste' system—a stabilized social order with
mutual obligations, up and down. You must not call it 'slavery.' "
uttered by Thorby's grandfather in Citizen of the Galaxy. The book
opens with "'Lot ninety-seven,' the auctioneer announced. 'A boy.'".
Lot 97 was Thorby.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/
* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."
https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/
Scots were sent too, of course.
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean
Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.
The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.
[quote]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13
Kevin R
David Johnston
2019-05-11 02:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 21:01:03 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes*
You mean like the Jews in Nazi Germany were convicted of crimes?
Post by Kevrob
and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
There seems to be a certain amount of revisionism in fashion with
regard to the Irish in the time of Cromwell.
I'm going to add that the people who keep shouting "it wasn't slavery"
remind me of "I heard you use that term 'sold' once before. You must
realize that it is not correct. After all, the serfdom practiced in
the Sargony is not chattel slavery. It derives from the
ancient Hindu guild or 'caste' system—a stabilized social order with
mutual obligations, up and down. You must not call it 'slavery.' "
uttered by Thorby's grandfather in Citizen of the Galaxy. The book
opens with "'Lot ninety-seven,' the auctioneer announced. 'A boy.'".
Lot 97 was Thorby.
The difference is that actually was slavery. There was no limit on the
term of service, not even death since their offspring were also held in
forced servitude. But go ahead and campaign for the liberation of
professional football players.
Kevrob
2019-05-11 03:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes*
You mean like the Jews in Nazi Germany were convicted of crimes?
No, I don't. Do we need to call Godwin, here? I footnoted "crimes*"
specifically to point out that what were called crimes would not
necessarily be considered that in our modern world. Amnesty for
defeated rebels is common in Anglo-American history. Some ex-
Confederates who refused to sincerely give their parole left the
US for places like Brazil. CSA troops were taken as prisoners of war,
and not tried for treason.


The Penal Laws(*)were designed to reduce the Catholic Irish to
landless peasants.

I'd compare the two types of oppression, but it would be a stretch.
The Jews had all avenues of escape gradually closed off. British and
Ascendancy Irish landlords would subsidize the emigration of tenant
farmer to ease conversion of land from subsistence farming to raising
of cash crops, or raising livestock for export.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
There seems to be a certain amount of revisionism in fashion with
regard to the Irish in the time of Cromwell.
If you mean that some are trying to make out "Irish slavery" as bad,
or worse, than the chattel slavery imposed on African people, I'd say
the partisans of "the Irish were slaves, too" overstate their case.
The only thing that strikes me as worse for the Irish was their lack
of resistance to malaria. Africans have some protection from that,
liked to the same genetics that allows sickle-cell anemia. Local
tribes like the Carib were also vastly reduced by that lack of
immunity, or by European diseases such as smallpox. Otherwise, the
Africans had it much worse. In both cases, we are talking about
those who survived the passage. If your death penalty was converted
to 14 years indenture and transportation, and you died of Gaol/ship
fever (Typhus) before your indenture was auctioned, you died a slave
just as the African captive who died on a ship did.

The Irish, Scots and other "white folks" who survived their term of
indenture could have children born free. African children were born
slaves. There's bad, and there's worse.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/
* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."
https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/
Scots were sent too, of course.
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean
Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.
The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.
[quote]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13
(*)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)#Stuart_and_Cromwellian_rule

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-11 12:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes* and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/
* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."
https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/
Scots were sent too, of course.
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean
Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.
The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.
[quote]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13
Kevin R
I could be misinformed, but I think I understand
that in the U.S. you can buy a prisoner /now/ to work
for you, unpaid (there's a charge for the service),
and you probably get to pick what color.

But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.

I don't know if the following story about prisoners of war
in Britain in 1945 is credible. It says it appeared in
a newspaper, and I can believe that.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/21/a2120121.shtml>

Quote:

Mrs Irene Graham of Thorpe Avenue, Boscombe, delighted
the audience with her reminiscences of the German
prisoner-of-war who was sent each week to do her garden.
He was repatriated at the end of 1945, she recalled.
"He'd always seemed a nice friendly chap, but when the
crocuses came up in the middle of our lawn in February
1946, they spelt out, 'Heil Hitler'."
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 12:53:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
The Irish were people who had been convicted of crimes* and
sentenced to transportation, the same system used in later
years to send convicts to Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[quote]
Before transportation most criminal offences were punished by death, a fine
or whipping. Transportation provided an alternative punishment for crimes
which were considered serious, but not worthy of execution. The usual period
of transportation was 14 years for convicts receiving conditional pardons
from death sentences or seven years for lesser offences.
The American Revolution of 1776 meant that transportation to North America
was no longer possible. Sentences of transportation were still passed,
with convicts held in prison while the government considered alternative
destinations. The prisons soon became overcrowded and extra accommodation
had to be provided in derelict ships (or hulks) moored in coastal waters.
The solution was to develop new penal colonies in modern day Australia, and
on 13 May 1787 the first fleet set sail.
[/quote]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-transportation/
Irish transportees, along with those from the nations of Great
Britain, were sent to N.A. mainland colonies, but also to
British Caribbean possessions.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irish-indentured-labour-in-the-caribbean/
* Some Irish on the losing side of the Cromwellian wars were
sent as convict labor to the Caribbean. Other indentured servants
went voluntarily, as they did to what is now the USA. It might
not be fair to call the convict labor "slavery," as the sentences
were not for life. However, being convicted for fighting against
an illegitimate foreign power bent on imposing its religion on you
and yours, with a death sentence being the alternative to exile,
is hardly "justice."
https://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/shipped-for-the-barbadoes-cromwell-and-irish-migration-to-the-caribbean/
Scots were sent too, of course.
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/caribbean
Once out from under sentence, and managing to get a bit of land, did
many of these oppressed Celts take part in owning, overseeing and
trading in captive Africans? Sadly, yes. "It's unjust when done
to _me_ ....." has always been a common attitude.
The US constitution outlaws "involuntary servitude," but not as
a criminal sentence.
[quote]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13
Kevin R
I could be misinformed, but I think I understand
that in the U.S. you can buy a prisoner /now/ to work
for you, unpaid (there's a charge for the service),
and you probably get to pick what color.
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't know if the following story about prisoners of war
in Britain in 1945 is credible. It says it appeared in
a newspaper, and I can believe that.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/21/a2120121.shtml>
Mrs Irene Graham of Thorpe Avenue, Boscombe, delighted
the audience with her reminiscences of the German
prisoner-of-war who was sent each week to do her garden.
He was repatriated at the end of 1945, she recalled.
"He'd always seemed a nice friendly chap, but when the
crocuses came up in the middle of our lawn in February
1946, they spelt out, 'Heil Hitler'."
Kevrob
2019-05-11 17:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
There is prison labor making goods to be used by the prisons,
and "in-sourcing" where companies have work done in the prisons
at very low wages.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 17:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
There is prison labor making goods to be used by the prisons,
and "in-sourcing" where companies have work done in the prisons
at very low wages.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
That is different from what was described though.
Kevrob
2019-05-11 17:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
There is prison labor making goods to be used by the prisons,
and "in-sourcing" where companies have work done in the prisons
at very low wages.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
That is different from what was described though.
Yes, it is. The principle of "working for one's keep" and
being paid a pittance in preparation for eventual release
into free society is held out as a rationale.

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-11 20:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
There is prison labor making goods to be used by the prisons,
and "in-sourcing" where companies have work done in the prisons
at very low wages.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
That is different from what was described though.
Yes, it is. The principle of "working for one's keep" and
being paid a pittance in preparation for eventual release
into free society is held out as a rationale.
Kevin R
Referring to an article last year,
<https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/the-not-so-invisible-labor-prisoners-do-in-cities/568537/>
"In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas,
prisoners are traditionally paid nothing at all for
regular prison jobs. These wages are legal because of
a clause of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,
but explicitly allowed those convicted of a crime to be
forced to work for free."

Looking at the source, "regular prison jobs" appears
to mean administration of the prison itself; laundry,
kitchen work, mowing the lawn. Not mowing /my/ lawn.

It's therefore not clear that, as I claimed, I can
purchase a prisoner's labour and they are not paid.
But their earning may be nugatory and apparently
existing mainly so that fees can be deducted so
that they get even less. Pleasing to prison
shareholders, I'm sure. And, as stated, it isn't
directly necessary to pay the prisoner at all.
(As an indirect factor, the article deals with
prisoners going on strike.)

Although actually keeping someone in prison
is liable to cost as much as a reasonably good
lawyer's annual salary - though I haven't checked
those figures, either.
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 23:19:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 May 2019 13:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 May 2019 05:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But it's more a "buy in bulk" thing.
If you're talking about convict leasing, that ended in the '20s in the
US.
There is prison labor making goods to be used by the prisons,
and "in-sourcing" where companies have work done in the prisons
at very low wages.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
That is different from what was described though.
Yes, it is. The principle of "working for one's keep" and
being paid a pittance in preparation for eventual release
into free society is held out as a rationale.
Kevin R
Referring to an article last year,
<https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/the-not-so-invisible-labor-prisoners-do-in-cities/568537/>
"In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas,
prisoners are traditionally paid nothing at all for
regular prison jobs. These wages are legal because of
a clause of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,
but explicitly allowed those convicted of a crime to be
forced to work for free."
Looking at the source, "regular prison jobs" appears
to mean administration of the prison itself; laundry,
kitchen work, mowing the lawn. Not mowing /my/ lawn.
It's therefore not clear that, as I claimed, I can
purchase a prisoner's labour and they are not paid.
But their earning may be nugatory and apparently
existing mainly so that fees can be deducted so
that they get even less. Pleasing to prison
shareholders, I'm sure. And, as stated, it isn't
directly necessary to pay the prisoner at all.
(As an indirect factor, the article deals with
prisoners going on strike.)
Although actually keeping someone in prison
is liable to cost as much as a reasonably good
lawyer's annual salary - though I haven't checked
those figures, either.
You can, in principle, contract with a prison to produce a product for
you in the prison facilities. You can't contract to have convicts
come to your farm and pick your corn. You could once but that
practice ended.
Peter Trei
2019-05-10 23:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.
And in another version (the real one actually) people of all races
were sold into slavery.
Now you're talking about a version of history rather than a version of morality.
Certainly, in *history*, people of all races were sold into slavery, like in
Ancient Greece. Slavery in the United States was different, though. It was
"chattel slavery", for one thing. For another, since slavery was difficult to
reconcile with *inalienable* rights, in much of the South, the contradiction
_was_ resolved through the claim that the Negro was a creature of a lower order
that was not fully human - and, thus, buying and selling one was fundamentally
no different from buying and selling a horse.
I mean, I suppose I could look up details about how free black people were
falsely rounded up as escaped slaves, or how some states outlawed manumission,
but I see no need to educate you in history of which you should be fully aware.
Plus, I'm not sure where I should go here because I can't even see what your
*point* is.
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time. If they had been Irisn or German or French or
Russian or Chinese or Martian or Klingon they would still have been
slaves. A good number of Irish were sold to some of the same
plantations some time previously, and no, I don't mean "indentured
servants"--they were sold on the block same as the black people.
Cite, please?

I've heard this claim a couple of times, but all attempts to run it down fail. It seems to be an
fabrication from the 1990s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Just to be clear: indentured servants and transported criminals are not the same as chattel slaves.

Pt
Quadibloc
2019-05-11 03:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Plus, I'm not sure where I should go here because I can't even see what your
*point* is.
That slavery and racism are not historically related. That black
people were the majority of slaves in the early United States is an
accident of history--there were many black slaves available at low
prices at that time.
I do not need to minimize the sufferings of the Irish in order to argue *that*
point.

All you have done is submitted evidence that the cause-and-effect relationship
between slavery and racism may have been in the reverse order from that commonly
presumed: instead of the South first having a racist attitude towards blacks,
and then seeking out blacks to enslave, first the South sought slaves because
that was how it could get its cotton picked... and then, over time, racist
attitudes to blacks developed as a consequence of the existence of slavery.

That, I don't necessarily disagree with, although matters are a bit more
complicated than that.

There was a spectrum of attitude towards black people in the South even among
those who accepted slavery as legitimate. Some thought that the blacks were
human beings who happened to become slaves the same way the Irish did, through
being defeated in war, a time-honored practice dating from the ancient Greeks
and Egyptians, and acknowledged as legitimate in Holy Scripture.

Others felt that the Negro was not a human being like any other, but something
intermediate between the ape and the human. At first, this notion wasn't all
that common, but in the years approaching the Civil War, as the institution of
slavery seemed to be under siege, and its contradiction with the principles
expressed in the Declaration of Independence became harder to ignore... it
became more and more an attractive justification for slavery.

It might well seem unfair that the South in the ante-bellum days is now being
judged, as it wasn't *before*, by standards that the North never _had_ until
after the end of World War II. Some of us, though, feel that the reaction of the
American public to the horrors of Belsen and Dachau... was in no sense an
overreaction, in no sense a movement from an error of excess on one side to an
error of excess on the other, but instead was merely a long overdue realization
of what was true all along and apparent to any reasonable person of good will.

After all, political correctness took several decades *after* that to emerge. We
didn't even have it in the 'sixties.

John Savard
D B Davis
2019-05-11 02:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 May 2019 18:48:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
And in another version butting into other people's business unasked is
a killing offense.
In one version of morality, using slave labor for harvesting cotton is the
business of the cotton plantation owner. In another version of morality, human
beings with dark skin have exactly the same rights as human beings with light
skin.
And in another version (the real one actually) people of all races
were sold into slavery.
The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets that
were lucrative and vast on the Barbary Coast of North
Africa, which included the Ottoman provinces of Algeria,
Tunisia and Tripolitania and the independent sultanate
of Morocco, between the 16th and middle of the 18th
century. The Ottoman provinces in North Africa were
nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, but in reality they
were mostly autonomous. The North African slave markets
were part of the Berber slave trade.

Perpetrated largely on Europeans, and within in-land
routes to indigenous European inhabitants. These peoples
were systematically preyed upon and turned into slaves,
acquired by Barbary pirates during slave raids on ships
and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to the Netherlands,
as far north as Iceland and in the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

America's North African military campaigns originate with the
eradication of this slave trade.



Thank you,
--
Don
Quadibloc
2019-05-11 03:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
America's North African military campaigns originate with the
eradication of this slave trade.
But the poor black slave had no military superpower to defend him.

John Savard
Kevrob
2019-05-11 03:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
America's North African military campaigns originate with the
eradication of this slave trade.
But the poor black slave had no military superpower to defend him.
Not until Britain outlawed the slave trade, then slavery in all
its possessions. Anyone running slaves across the Atlantic
had to deal with the Royal Navy, and, to a lesser extent, the
USN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

Kevin R
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-10 08:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the 20th century.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be shared among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and three more attributes according to a recent book I read, which I can't remember the name or author.
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different understanding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground, like caring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body and mind? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to pursue happiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding happiness in the happiness of others.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different positions on abortion.

In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Is freedom an illusion"
J. Clarke
2019-05-10 11:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality. A
quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the 20th century.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be shared among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and three more attributes according to a recent book I read, which I can't remember the name or author.
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different understanding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground, like caring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body and mind? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to pursue happiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding happiness in the happiness of others.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different positions on abortion.
Would that be liberals and conservatives in India or somewhere else?
Post by a***@gmail.com
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Is freedom an illusion"
Cryptoengineer
2019-05-10 15:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.

Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.

In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.

pt
Quadibloc
2019-05-10 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
It's not clear why you're throwing that in his face; I didn't notice anything he
said that would hurt your feelings as an American.

America's enemies torture people; America fights against tyranny. (I didn't
notice anything to indicate that a nonstandard view of America which fails to
exclude Guantanamo from consideration, was being considered.)

John Savard
Cryptoengineer
2019-05-10 18:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written
into legistlation.
It's not clear why you're throwing that in his face; I didn't notice
anything he said that would hurt your feelings as an American.
You're right; that was a bit unfair. I'm just making the point that
'moral progress' is a very subjective term.
Post by Quadibloc
America's enemies torture people; America fights against tyranny. (I
didn't notice anything to indicate that a nonstandard view of America
which fails to exclude Guantanamo from consideration, was being
considered.)
I'm far less likely than you are to hold up America as a shining
beacon of moral progress.


pt
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-05-10 20:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right; that was a bit unfair. I'm just making the point
that 'moral progress' is a very subjective term.
It's as well defined as "what is science fiction." And as many times,
too.

(The originating post was nothing but a troll, dude. That's pretty
much all he posts.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2019-05-11 06:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written
into legistlation.
It's not clear why you're throwing that in his face; I didn't notice
anything he said that would hurt your feelings as an American.
You're right; that was a bit unfair. I'm just making the point that
'moral progress' is a very subjective term.
Post by Quadibloc
America's enemies torture people; America fights against tyranny. (I
didn't notice anything to indicate that a nonstandard view of America
which fails to exclude Guantanamo from consideration, was being
considered.)
I'm far less likely than you are to hold up America as a shining
beacon of moral progress.
pt
The USA is freaking disaster. It is just less of a freaking disaster
than anywhere else in the world.

We've got 330 million people running around in 330 million circles, none
of them alike.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-05-11 06:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written
into legistlation.
It's not clear why you're throwing that in his face; I didn't notice
anything he said that would hurt your feelings as an American.
You're right; that was a bit unfair. I'm just making the point that
'moral progress' is a very subjective term.
Post by Quadibloc
America's enemies torture people; America fights against tyranny. (I
didn't notice anything to indicate that a nonstandard view of America
which fails to exclude Guantanamo from consideration, was being
considered.)
I'm far less likely than you are to hold up America as a shining
beacon of moral progress.
pt
The USA is freaking disaster.  It is just less of a freaking disaster
than anywhere else in the world.
We've got 330 million people running around in 330 million circles, none
of them alike.
Keep that dream alive!
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-11 07:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"War is murder"
Post by Cryptoengineer
pt
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-11 07:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
Murdering people is much worse than murdering lower animals. But on reflection I see your point. Maybe nature is amoral. Life feeds on life. Is it immoral to kill animals for food?

We can give up on the concept of morality, or focus on treating humans morally. Of course people are selfish and think of themselves first, but they can have a higher purpose and look after the groups they belong to, like race, religion, nation, species etc.

I subscribe to a humanist philosophy. Others may not.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"War is murder"
Post by Cryptoengineer
pt
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 12:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-11 17:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.

There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies. But some governments act above the law, and use torture.

My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Is man a moral animal"
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 23:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-12 05:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress. Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery. As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others. More moral countries are generally happier. Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.

There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Is freedom an illusion"
J. Clarke
2019-05-12 05:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.

Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-12 13:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
If you don't care what I say, why are you replying to me?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Tell me, would you rather live in a liberal democracy, or in the Saudi state? Would you rather live in Finland or the Saudi state?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Immoral people may not believe in morality. Do you have a definition you believe in?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.
I think you know that the average South Korean is freer and wealthier, and thus happier. You are just avoiding the question because you don't like the answers, and losing the argument.
Post by J. Clarke
Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Leaders impose their morality on the people by making, changing, and enforcing laws. There is an unwritten social contract between the people and the government, that the people will follow the laws, and the government will protect their rights. When this contract is broken, there may be trouble.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
I am not a champion of morality. You seem more interested in insulting me then having a constructive discussion.

How would you know beforehand that the person you are torturing is guilty? Drugs or hypnosis can be used on people to discover the truth.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
Mass surveillance, hypnosis, truth drugs etc.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
J. Clarke
2019-05-12 18:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
If you don't care what I say, why are you replying to me?
Boredom.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Tell me, would you rather live in a liberal democracy, or in the Saudi state? Would you rather live in Finland or the Saudi state?
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer. Do you consider
my personal preferences to be the ultimate word on morality? The
point that you are persistently not understanding is that you like
something or that I like something doesn't make it moral. The
difference between us is that I am willing to entertain the
possibility that my judgment is imperfect and you are not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Immoral people may not believe in morality. Do you have a definition you believe in?
No, I simply try to avoid personal inconvenience, try to avoid
inconveniencing others, and try to avoid "isms" that lead to people
who haven't hurt anybody getting killed. I've toyed with "do unto
others as you would have them do unto you", but I know some "others"
who enjoy being on the recieving end of a medium-grade beatdown, so
I've tries "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", but
that leads to the problem of others who would have me give them my
life savings. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" is another possibility but that doesn't leave an opening
for dealing with someone else who is ignoring the "an it harm none"
part, and others may have a different definition of "harm" from mine.
So no, at this point I'm not a big fan of generalized moral
principles. The people who want to ban abortion are for the most part
well intended, so are those who want few or no restrictions on it, but
they both believe that they are Right and what happens between them is
getting very ugly. When people are inflexible on points of morality
other people die for their causes. I guess not making other people
die for my Cause would be another part of it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.
I think you know that the average South Korean is freer and wealthier, and thus happier. You are just avoiding the question because you don't like the answers, and losing the argument.
So? You weren't asking about "the average South Korean", you were
asking me what I would prefer. I do not have personal experience of
either culture nor was I raised in either. I'm a child of the Vietnam
era and I know personally people who were raised in societies that I
was taught were so horribly oppressive that they needed to be "freed"
possibly with use of nuclear weapons who tell me that they were taught
the same thing about us. So I know not to trust anybody's propaganda.
If I ever have a chance to discuss the matter with someone who grew up
in North Korea then I might be in a better place to give an answer
that actually means something.

However your tactic of acting as if my personal preference is the
final arbiter of morality is not effective and that you continue it
having had it demonstrated to you repeatedly that I will not bite on
it suggests unflattering things about your ability to learn from
experience.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Leaders impose their morality on the people by making, changing, and enforcing laws. There is an unwritten social contract between the people and the government, that the people will follow the laws, and the government will protect their rights. When this contract is broken, there may be trouble.
Wait a minute, a little while ago you were telling us that there is
something called "moral progress", suggesting that there is some
universal morality toward which society is progressing. But now you
are telling us that politicians have morals that are different from
that universal ideal? So which is it, is there a universal ideal or
is it an individual choice?

You seem to be conflating the notion of a social compact with the
notion of morality.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
I am not a champion of morality. You seem more interested in insulting me then having a constructive discussion.
If you are not a "champion of morality" then quit trying to defend it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
How would you know beforehand that the person you are torturing is guilty?
We don't care if he is guilty, we care where the bomb is and he won't
tell us. As for how we know, the video announcement by the terrorists
showed him assembling and arming the bomb.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Drugs or hypnosis can be used on people to discover the truth.
The guy can't be hypnotized, you tried, and before you shot him full
of drugs you had 24 hours--the last 12 have been wasted saving his
life after his adverse reaction to the drugs. So now what?

By the way, hypnosis and drugs are no more reliable than torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
Mass surveillance, hypnosis, truth drugs etc.
Ok, you are now officially stupid.

The bomb is already in place and armed. How is "mass surveillance"
going to accomplish anything?

I've already addressed your faith in hypnosis and drugs.
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-12 21:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer.
Do you consider my personal preferences to be the
ultimate word on morality?
Actually it's a quiz to find out, in an ideal society...
which people have to not be in it.

Wanting to be dictator is one of the contra-indications.
J. Clarke
2019-05-13 01:20:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2019 14:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer.
Do you consider my personal preferences to be the
ultimate word on morality?
Actually it's a quiz to find out, in an ideal society...
which people have to not be in it.
That is not the context in which he is posting it.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Wanting to be dictator is one of the contra-indications.
But being fine with blowing up 8 million people to avoid torturing a
terrorist is OK?
Quadibloc
2019-05-13 02:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
But being fine with blowing up 8 million people to avoid torturing a
terrorist is OK?
But that isn't what he is talking about. He is talkiing about being fine with
allowing 8 million people to be blown up to avoid torturing a terrorist.

One isn't doing the bad act of setting a bomb that will kill people.

One is only avoiding the bad act of torturing the terrorist to find out where
the bomb is, and prevent it from killing 8 million people.

So, if one's moral reasoning says that the 8 million people's deaths are all the
terrorists' fault, and your hands are clean of both their deaths _and_ the crime
of torturing a terrorist, it's a win-win.

Plus, if you argue that it is unreasonable to differentiate between acts and
omissions to that extent, he can come back and call you a murderer because you
haven't given all your money to the poor!

So, therefore, one has to be aware of the logic involved in order to penetrate
the errors with counterarguments that will be understood.

John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 11:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer.
Do you consider my personal preferences to be the
ultimate word on morality?
Actually it's a quiz to find out, in an ideal society...
which people have to not be in it.
Wanting to be dictator is one of the contra-indications.
I will answer my own question. I have been detained and tortured in India. I hope things will improve in the future, but I don't know.

I would gladly live anywhere where I am treated well, where my and others human rights are respected by the authorities and the people, and where there is freedom for me and others to do as you wish as long as you don't violate anyone's human rights.

And moral progress can be measured by various things like respect for human rights, freedom, equality of wealth, and lack of poverty. Also, I hope and believe, that death by human violence, has been on a declining trend over the centuries, and thus implies moral progress. So I would be happy to live in a place where these criteria for moral progress are met.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 05:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
If you don't care what I say, why are you replying to me?
Boredom.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Tell me, would you rather live in a liberal democracy, or in the Saudi state? Would you rather live in Finland or the Saudi state?
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer. Do you consider
my personal preferences to be the ultimate word on morality? The
point that you are persistently not understanding is that you like
something or that I like something doesn't make it moral. The
difference between us is that I am willing to entertain the
possibility that my judgment is imperfect and you are not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Immoral people may not believe in morality. Do you have a definition you believe in?
No, I simply try to avoid personal inconvenience, try to avoid
inconveniencing others, and try to avoid "isms" that lead to people
who haven't hurt anybody getting killed. I've toyed with "do unto
others as you would have them do unto you", but I know some "others"
who enjoy being on the recieving end of a medium-grade beatdown, so
I've tries "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", but
that leads to the problem of others who would have me give them my
life savings. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" is another possibility but that doesn't leave an opening
for dealing with someone else who is ignoring the "an it harm none"
part, and others may have a different definition of "harm" from mine.
So no, at this point I'm not a big fan of generalized moral
principles. The people who want to ban abortion are for the most part
well intended, so are those who want few or no restrictions on it, but
they both believe that they are Right and what happens between them is
getting very ugly. When people are inflexible on points of morality
other people die for their causes. I guess not making other people
die for my Cause would be another part of it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.
I think you know that the average South Korean is freer and wealthier, and thus happier. You are just avoiding the question because you don't like the answers, and losing the argument.
So? You weren't asking about "the average South Korean", you were
asking me what I would prefer. I do not have personal experience of
either culture nor was I raised in either. I'm a child of the Vietnam
era and I know personally people who were raised in societies that I
was taught were so horribly oppressive that they needed to be "freed"
possibly with use of nuclear weapons who tell me that they were taught
the same thing about us. So I know not to trust anybody's propaganda.
If I ever have a chance to discuss the matter with someone who grew up
in North Korea then I might be in a better place to give an answer
that actually means something.
However your tactic of acting as if my personal preference is the
final arbiter of morality is not effective and that you continue it
having had it demonstrated to you repeatedly that I will not bite on
it suggests unflattering things about your ability to learn from
experience.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Leaders impose their morality on the people by making, changing, and enforcing laws. There is an unwritten social contract between the people and the government, that the people will follow the laws, and the government will protect their rights. When this contract is broken, there may be trouble.
Wait a minute, a little while ago you were telling us that there is
something called "moral progress", suggesting that there is some
universal morality toward which society is progressing. But now you
are telling us that politicians have morals that are different from
that universal ideal? So which is it, is there a universal ideal or
is it an individual choice?
You seem to be conflating the notion of a social compact with the
notion of morality.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
I am not a champion of morality. You seem more interested in insulting me then having a constructive discussion.
If you are not a "champion of morality" then quit trying to defend it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
How would you know beforehand that the person you are torturing is guilty?
We don't care if he is guilty, we care where the bomb is and he won't
tell us. As for how we know, the video announcement by the terrorists
showed him assembling and arming the bomb.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Drugs or hypnosis can be used on people to discover the truth.
The guy can't be hypnotized, you tried, and before you shot him full
of drugs you had 24 hours--the last 12 have been wasted saving his
life after his adverse reaction to the drugs. So now what?
By the way, hypnosis and drugs are no more reliable than torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
Mass surveillance, hypnosis, truth drugs etc.
Ok, you are now officially stupid.
The bomb is already in place and armed. How is "mass surveillance"
going to accomplish anything?
I've already addressed your faith in hypnosis and drugs.
By calling me stupid because you disagree with me, you show your lack of morality and intelligence. I have been tortured, have you?

As I already explained, morality has a genetic component, and many attributes are shared among most humans including caring and fairness. Of course the environmental factors vary from place to place.

You can see that the direction of migration of people is generally from less moral to more moral countries. Of course morality can be subjective, but that doesn't we shouldn't try to improve our society morally.

Your hypothetical case has nothing to do with reality. If mass surveillance is now implemented, this will help uncover terrorist plots in the future. I don't see why hypnosis or drugs are not acceptable if as you claim, they are just as reliable as torture.

Is torture legal in your country? Do you want it to be?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Is man a moral animal?"
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 00:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
If you don't care what I say, why are you replying to me?
Boredom.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Tell me, would you rather live in a liberal democracy, or in the Saudi state? Would you rather live in Finland or the Saudi state?
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer. Do you consider
my personal preferences to be the ultimate word on morality? The
point that you are persistently not understanding is that you like
something or that I like something doesn't make it moral. The
difference between us is that I am willing to entertain the
possibility that my judgment is imperfect and you are not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Immoral people may not believe in morality. Do you have a definition you believe in?
No, I simply try to avoid personal inconvenience, try to avoid
inconveniencing others, and try to avoid "isms" that lead to people
who haven't hurt anybody getting killed. I've toyed with "do unto
others as you would have them do unto you", but I know some "others"
who enjoy being on the recieving end of a medium-grade beatdown, so
I've tries "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", but
that leads to the problem of others who would have me give them my
life savings. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" is another possibility but that doesn't leave an opening
for dealing with someone else who is ignoring the "an it harm none"
part, and others may have a different definition of "harm" from mine.
So no, at this point I'm not a big fan of generalized moral
principles. The people who want to ban abortion are for the most part
well intended, so are those who want few or no restrictions on it, but
they both believe that they are Right and what happens between them is
getting very ugly. When people are inflexible on points of morality
other people die for their causes. I guess not making other people
die for my Cause would be another part of it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.
I think you know that the average South Korean is freer and wealthier, and thus happier. You are just avoiding the question because you don't like the answers, and losing the argument.
So? You weren't asking about "the average South Korean", you were
asking me what I would prefer. I do not have personal experience of
either culture nor was I raised in either. I'm a child of the Vietnam
era and I know personally people who were raised in societies that I
was taught were so horribly oppressive that they needed to be "freed"
possibly with use of nuclear weapons who tell me that they were taught
the same thing about us. So I know not to trust anybody's propaganda.
If I ever have a chance to discuss the matter with someone who grew up
in North Korea then I might be in a better place to give an answer
that actually means something.
However your tactic of acting as if my personal preference is the
final arbiter of morality is not effective and that you continue it
having had it demonstrated to you repeatedly that I will not bite on
it suggests unflattering things about your ability to learn from
experience.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Leaders impose their morality on the people by making, changing, and enforcing laws. There is an unwritten social contract between the people and the government, that the people will follow the laws, and the government will protect their rights. When this contract is broken, there may be trouble.
Wait a minute, a little while ago you were telling us that there is
something called "moral progress", suggesting that there is some
universal morality toward which society is progressing. But now you
are telling us that politicians have morals that are different from
that universal ideal? So which is it, is there a universal ideal or
is it an individual choice?
You seem to be conflating the notion of a social compact with the
notion of morality.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
I am not a champion of morality. You seem more interested in insulting me then having a constructive discussion.
If you are not a "champion of morality" then quit trying to defend it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
How would you know beforehand that the person you are torturing is guilty?
We don't care if he is guilty, we care where the bomb is and he won't
tell us. As for how we know, the video announcement by the terrorists
showed him assembling and arming the bomb.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Drugs or hypnosis can be used on people to discover the truth.
The guy can't be hypnotized, you tried, and before you shot him full
of drugs you had 24 hours--the last 12 have been wasted saving his
life after his adverse reaction to the drugs. So now what?
By the way, hypnosis and drugs are no more reliable than torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
Mass surveillance, hypnosis, truth drugs etc.
Ok, you are now officially stupid.
The bomb is already in place and armed. How is "mass surveillance"
going to accomplish anything?
I've already addressed your faith in hypnosis and drugs.
By calling me stupid because you disagree with me, you show your lack of morality and intelligence.
Given that you don't even seem to understand why your statement
demonstrates that you are stupid, I have to revise my estimate of your
intelligence downward.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have been tortured, have you?
Reading this discussion is torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I already explained, morality has a genetic component
Sez you. Prove it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
and many attributes are shared among most humans including caring and fairness.
Sez you. Prove it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course the environmental factors vary from place to place.
You can see that the direction of migration of people is generally from less moral to more moral countries.
You are taking as a given that you have a viable objective definition
of morality and that countries that receive large numbers of
immigrants meet that definition.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course morality can be subjective, but that doesn't we shouldn't try to improve our society morally.
First you have to show what constitutes "moral improvement".
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your hypothetical case has nothing to do with reality.
In your opinion.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If mass surveillance is now implemented, this will help uncover terrorist plots in the future.
If the bomb goes off there won't be any more terrorist plots involving
Mumbai because there won't _be_ a Mumbai. I am starting to get the
impression that you do not grasp the concept of "200 megaton fusion
bomb".
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't see why hypnosis or drugs are not acceptable if as you claim, they are just as reliable as torture.
In addition to stupidity you now demonstrate lack of reading
comprehension. This was already addressed.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Is torture legal in your country?
Possibly. That is not clear. It has been used in recent years in an
attempt to force terrorists to provide information leading to the
apprehension of other terrorists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you want it to be?
I don't have any problem with it when used to force someone who has
already been found guilty to reveal information that may prevent other
acts of terror.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-14 08:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
There is such a thing as moral progress.
Sez you. Why should I or anyone else care what you say?
If you don't care what I say, why are you replying to me?
Boredom.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Human rights are now recognised in many countries, with an end to slavery.
The Saudis recognize the human right to not have one's pocket picked,
with the result that they cut off the hands of pickpockets. According
to you that's immoral, according to them the pickpocketing is immoral.
What makes you so certain that your morality is right? Are you a
pickpocket?
Tell me, would you rather live in a liberal democracy, or in the Saudi state? Would you rather live in Finland or the Saudi state?
You keep asking me which I would personally prefer. Do you consider
my personal preferences to be the ultimate word on morality? The
point that you are persistently not understanding is that you like
something or that I like something doesn't make it moral. The
difference between us is that I am willing to entertain the
possibility that my judgment is imperfect and you are not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I explained before, morality can defined as finding happiness in the happiness of others.
It can be defined as eating babies for breakfast too. That you can
make up some definition doesn't mean that that definition is true.
Immoral people may not believe in morality. Do you have a definition you believe in?
No, I simply try to avoid personal inconvenience, try to avoid
inconveniencing others, and try to avoid "isms" that lead to people
who haven't hurt anybody getting killed. I've toyed with "do unto
others as you would have them do unto you", but I know some "others"
who enjoy being on the recieving end of a medium-grade beatdown, so
I've tries "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", but
that leads to the problem of others who would have me give them my
life savings. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" is another possibility but that doesn't leave an opening
for dealing with someone else who is ignoring the "an it harm none"
part, and others may have a different definition of "harm" from mine.
So no, at this point I'm not a big fan of generalized moral
principles. The people who want to ban abortion are for the most part
well intended, so are those who want few or no restrictions on it, but
they both believe that they are Right and what happens between them is
getting very ugly. When people are inflexible on points of morality
other people die for their causes. I guess not making other people
die for my Cause would be another part of it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
More moral countries are generally happier.
If you accept a definition of morality that leads to happiness.
Stiff-necked Puritans claim to be very moral but their definition of
morality excludes "fun" and they consider happiness to be suspect.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Would you rather live in a tyranny like north Korea, or a democracy like South Korea?
That depends on whether I get to be dictator.
I think you know that the average South Korean is freer and wealthier, and thus happier. You are just avoiding the question because you don't like the answers, and losing the argument.
So? You weren't asking about "the average South Korean", you were
asking me what I would prefer. I do not have personal experience of
either culture nor was I raised in either. I'm a child of the Vietnam
era and I know personally people who were raised in societies that I
was taught were so horribly oppressive that they needed to be "freed"
possibly with use of nuclear weapons who tell me that they were taught
the same thing about us. So I know not to trust anybody's propaganda.
If I ever have a chance to discuss the matter with someone who grew up
in North Korea then I might be in a better place to give an answer
that actually means something.
However your tactic of acting as if my personal preference is the
final arbiter of morality is not effective and that you continue it
having had it demonstrated to you repeatedly that I will not bite on
it suggests unflattering things about your ability to learn from
experience.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Moral progress can be defined in many ways. That you consider it to
be something doesn't mean that someone else considers it to be the
same thing. Trouble comes when you try to impose your morality on
someone else who does not accept it. To you he's wrong, to him you're
wrong and it doesn't get settled until one or the other or both of you
are dead. The trouble is that you won't content yourselves with
killing each other, you always insist on taking a bunch of other
people who don't give a tinker's damn about _either_ of your precious
"moralities" with you.
Leaders impose their morality on the people by making, changing, and enforcing laws. There is an unwritten social contract between the people and the government, that the people will follow the laws, and the government will protect their rights. When this contract is broken, there may be trouble.
Wait a minute, a little while ago you were telling us that there is
something called "moral progress", suggesting that there is some
universal morality toward which society is progressing. But now you
are telling us that politicians have morals that are different from
that universal ideal? So which is it, is there a universal ideal or
is it an individual choice?
You seem to be conflating the notion of a social compact with the
notion of morality.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
Torture of one person is worse than murder of millions? And you bleat
about "morality"? But then you're in India, where I guess life is
cheap. What's a few million people to a champion of morality such as
yourself?
I am not a champion of morality. You seem more interested in insulting me then having a constructive discussion.
If you are not a "champion of morality" then quit trying to defend it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
How would you know beforehand that the person you are torturing is guilty?
We don't care if he is guilty, we care where the bomb is and he won't
tell us. As for how we know, the video announcement by the terrorists
showed him assembling and arming the bomb.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Drugs or hypnosis can be used on people to discover the truth.
The guy can't be hypnotized, you tried, and before you shot him full
of drugs you had 24 hours--the last 12 have been wasted saving his
life after his adverse reaction to the drugs. So now what?
By the way, hypnosis and drugs are no more reliable than torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
OK, tell us the "harder moral way" to find the bomb.
Mass surveillance, hypnosis, truth drugs etc.
Ok, you are now officially stupid.
The bomb is already in place and armed. How is "mass surveillance"
going to accomplish anything?
I've already addressed your faith in hypnosis and drugs.
By calling me stupid because you disagree with me, you show your lack of morality and intelligence.
Given that you don't even seem to understand why your statement
demonstrates that you are stupid, I have to revise my estimate of your
intelligence downward.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have been tortured, have you?
Reading this discussion is torture.
Post by a***@gmail.com
As I already explained, morality has a genetic component
Sez you. Prove it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
and many attributes are shared among most humans including caring and fairness.
Sez you. Prove it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course the environmental factors vary from place to place.
You can see that the direction of migration of people is generally from less moral to more moral countries.
You are taking as a given that you have a viable objective definition
of morality and that countries that receive large numbers of
immigrants meet that definition.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course morality can be subjective, but that doesn't we shouldn't try to improve our society morally.
First you have to show what constitutes "moral improvement".
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your hypothetical case has nothing to do with reality.
In your opinion.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If mass surveillance is now implemented, this will help uncover terrorist plots in the future.
If the bomb goes off there won't be any more terrorist plots involving
Mumbai because there won't _be_ a Mumbai. I am starting to get the
impression that you do not grasp the concept of "200 megaton fusion
bomb".
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't see why hypnosis or drugs are not acceptable if as you claim, they are just as reliable as torture.
In addition to stupidity you now demonstrate lack of reading
comprehension. This was already addressed.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Is torture legal in your country?
Possibly. That is not clear. It has been used in recent years in an
attempt to force terrorists to provide information leading to the
apprehension of other terrorists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you want it to be?
I don't have any problem with it when used to force someone who has
already been found guilty to reveal information that may prevent other
acts of terror.
Immoral and ignorant people like you don't have an understanding of morality.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"I will fear no evil"
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 22:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Possibly. That is not clear. It has been used in recent years in an
attempt to force terrorists to provide information leading to the
apprehension of other terrorists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you want it to be?
I don't have any problem with it when used to force someone who has
already been found guilty to reveal information that may prevent other
acts of terror.
Immoral and ignorant people like you don't have an understanding of morality.
That's the best you've got?

People would let millions die to avoid causing discomfort to one
shouldn't bleat about "morality".
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-15 05:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Possibly. That is not clear. It has been used in recent years in an
attempt to force terrorists to provide information leading to the
apprehension of other terrorists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you want it to be?
I don't have any problem with it when used to force someone who has
already been found guilty to reveal information that may prevent other
acts of terror.
Immoral and ignorant people like you don't have an understanding of morality.
That's the best you've got?
People would let millions die to avoid causing discomfort to one
shouldn't bleat about "morality".
Are you really this stupid, or only pretending to be?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"I will fear no evil"

Quadibloc
2019-05-12 09:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
Usually. But not absolutely always with a 100% guarantee.

The murder of an innocent person is wrong. Allowing an innocent person to die by
inaction is also wrong.

Regimes which use torture on, say, non-violent political dissidents, or even on
people involved in attempting to overthrow by force the illegitimate regime, are
doing wrong.

But that's because their victims are innocent.

If someone is involved in a terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear warhead in
Mumbai that would kill millions of people who cannot be evacuated in time, he is
not innocent.

Torturing him, therefore, is not seriously wrong. It can't be compared to
allowing _innocent_ people to die by failure to take the actions necessary to
rescue them.

By allowing "torture is wrong" to become torture is wrong independently of
whether its target is innocent or guilty, "torture is wrong" ceases to become a
moral statement identifying torture as a serious type of harm to a human victim,
and changes to a tribal taboo, obeyed in order to please some deity, rather than
a rule obeyed in order to respect the rights of innocent human beings.

John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-12 13:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
Usually. But not absolutely always with a 100% guarantee.
The murder of an innocent person is wrong. Allowing an innocent person to die by
inaction is also wrong.
Regimes which use torture on, say, non-violent political dissidents, or even on
people involved in attempting to overthrow by force the illegitimate regime, are
doing wrong.
But that's because their victims are innocent.
If someone is involved in a terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear warhead in
Mumbai that would kill millions of people who cannot be evacuated in time, he is
not innocent.
Torturing him, therefore, is not seriously wrong. It can't be compared to
allowing _innocent_ people to die by failure to take the actions necessary to
rescue them.
By allowing "torture is wrong" to become torture is wrong independently of
whether its target is innocent or guilty, "torture is wrong" ceases to become a
moral statement identifying torture as a serious type of harm to a human victim,
and changes to a tribal taboo, obeyed in order to please some deity, rather than
a rule obeyed in order to respect the rights of innocent human beings.
Torture is wrong. It is the law in many countries. Laws should not be broken. If the government breaks laws and does not respect the rights of its people, why should people respect the authority of the government.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Give me freedom,
or give me death"
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-12 18:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
So you are a realist who abandons human rights when it is not convenient. Torture is worse than murder.
There are usually harder moral ways of doing things which can solve the problems, but the immoral may prefer torture.
Usually. But not absolutely always with a 100% guarantee.
The murder of an innocent person is wrong. Allowing an innocent person to die by
inaction is also wrong.
Regimes which use torture on, say, non-violent political dissidents, or even on
people involved in attempting to overthrow by force the illegitimate regime, are
doing wrong.
But that's because their victims are innocent.
If someone is involved in a terrorist plot to detonate a nuclear warhead in
Mumbai that would kill millions of people who cannot be evacuated in time, he is
not innocent.
Torturing him, therefore, is not seriously wrong. It can't be compared to
allowing _innocent_ people to die by failure to take the actions necessary to
rescue them.
By allowing "torture is wrong" to become torture is wrong independently of
whether its target is innocent or guilty, "torture is wrong" ceases to become a
moral statement identifying torture as a serious type of harm to a human victim,
and changes to a tribal taboo, obeyed in order to please some deity, rather than
a rule obeyed in order to respect the rights of innocent human beings.
Torture is wrong. It is the law in many countries. Laws should not be broken.
So you're fine with slavery and genocide as long as it's the law? And
nothing should be done about it until the law is changed?
Post by a***@gmail.com
If the government breaks laws and does not respect the rights of its people, why should people respect the authority of the government.
If the government hides behind the law and does not preserve the
_lives_ of its people why should people respect the _judgment_ of
government?

Here's a book you might want to read:
<https://www.amazon.in/Civil-Disobedience-Other-Essays-Thoreau/dp/1945644206/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=civil+disobedience&qid=1557685045&s=gateway&sr=8-1>
Quadibloc
2019-05-12 18:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Torture is wrong. It is the law in many countries. Laws should not be broken.
If the government breaks laws and does not respect the rights of its people, why
should people respect the authority of the government.
That is true. And it is also true that extreme cases, while clarifying some
issues, tend to show unusual situations where what are sound general principles
need to be abandoned - without undermining the validity of those principles _as_
general principles.

If one accepts the hypothetical scenario as presented, though, people are going
to be upset, and less likely to respect the authority of the government, that
let their relatives in Mumbai be killed without doing things that were available
to prevent it.

If morality is just about following a list of rules, then you do get the
problem, which set of rules is the most moral? Why not say that the list of
rules set forth by fanatics like ISIS is the true morality?

I wouldn't prefer to live under that, neither would most people. But while that
is true, it's not enough - it fails to give a *reason* why, so there is no basis
on which to continue any discussion.

So if one is going to choose between lists of rules, morality has to be about
more than good compliance with the list of rules that has been chosen. It has to
be about some guiding principle, which some lists of rules serve better than
others.

I would say that morality is about justice.

We say some systems of morality and government are good, because...

they serve well the peaceful people who try to live through honest work,

and protect them from predators, from those who would steal from them or enslave
them and so on.

With such a principle in place, then one can criticize a set of rules; does it
protect the innocent, or does it make them into helpless victims and prey for
some privileged group?

John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 05:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
Torture is wrong. It is the law in many countries. Laws should not be broken.
If the government breaks laws and does not respect the rights of its people, why
should people respect the authority of the government.
That is true. And it is also true that extreme cases, while clarifying some
issues, tend to show unusual situations where what are sound general principles
need to be abandoned - without undermining the validity of those principles _as_
general principles.
If one accepts the hypothetical scenario as presented, though, people are going
to be upset, and less likely to respect the authority of the government, that
let their relatives in Mumbai be killed without doing things that were available
to prevent it.
If morality is just about following a list of rules, then you do get the
problem, which set of rules is the most moral? Why not say that the list of
rules set forth by fanatics like ISIS is the true morality?
That is what I am saying, certain sets of rules are superior to other sets of rules, according to my subjective judgement. Most, but not all, people would rather live under the set of rules in a liberal democracy, than ISIS.

Just because different people believe in different moral rules, doesn't mean there is no common ground. The laws in your nation are common ground, between the people in your country.

Is it alright to use torture as punishment? To silence your critics? Morally justifying torture is a slippery slope.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Follow the golden rule"
Post by Quadibloc
I wouldn't prefer to live under that, neither would most people. But while that
is true, it's not enough - it fails to give a *reason* why, so there is no basis
on which to continue any discussion.
So if one is going to choose between lists of rules, morality has to be about
more than good compliance with the list of rules that has been chosen. It has to
be about some guiding principle, which some lists of rules serve better than
others.
I would say that morality is about justice.
We say some systems of morality and government are good, because...
they serve well the peaceful people who try to live through honest work,
and protect them from predators, from those who would steal from them or enslave
them and so on.
With such a principle in place, then one can criticize a set of rules; does it
protect the innocent, or does it make them into helpless victims and prey for
some privileged group?
John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 00:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
Torture is wrong. It is the law in many countries. Laws should not be broken.
If the government breaks laws and does not respect the rights of its people, why
should people respect the authority of the government.
That is true. And it is also true that extreme cases, while clarifying some
issues, tend to show unusual situations where what are sound general principles
need to be abandoned - without undermining the validity of those principles _as_
general principles.
If one accepts the hypothetical scenario as presented, though, people are going
to be upset, and less likely to respect the authority of the government, that
let their relatives in Mumbai be killed without doing things that were available
to prevent it.
If morality is just about following a list of rules, then you do get the
problem, which set of rules is the most moral? Why not say that the list of
rules set forth by fanatics like ISIS is the true morality?
That is what I am saying, certain sets of rules are superior to other sets of rules, according to my subjective judgement.
Certain sets of rules are superior to other sets of rules in my
judgment as well. And in Putin's judgment. And in Ibrahim Awad
Ibrahim al-Badri's judgment. And in Kim Jong Un's judgment. And this
was also the case for Stalin's judgment and for Hitler's. The fact
that someone believes that some set of rules is superior to another
does not make it so.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Most, but not all, people would rather live under the set of rules in a liberal democracy, than ISIS.
That does not make the liberal democracy "moral". It may be the lack
of morality that is the attraction.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Just because different people believe in different moral rules, doesn't mean there is no common ground. The laws in your nation are common ground, between the people in your country.
That does not make them "moral", it just makes them popular.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Is it alright to use torture as punishment? To silence your critics? Morally justifying torture is a slippery slope.
Morally justifying anything can be a slippery slope. Why you keep
using the word "moral" is a bit of a mystery.
David Johnston
2019-05-14 00:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
pro
gress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to
torture
of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and
unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should
the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality
to protect everyone's rights.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality
. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets,
migh t encourage more moral behaviour.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of
morali ty. A quick look around the world suggests otherwise.
pt
The UN has a declaration of human rights from the middle of the
20th ce ntury.
Also, morality may be partially genetic, and those genes may be
shared
among many people. Morality includes caring, fairness, liberty and
three m ore attributes according to a recent book I read, which I
can't remember the name or author.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
According to the book liberals and conservatives have different
underst
anding of morality. I believe that there may be some common ground,
like c aring and fairness, but possibly liberals care more for liberty
and conservatives care more for authority and sanctity.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Do you believe in the right to control and protect your own body
and mi
nd? That you should be free of mental and physical torture? That
nothing should be done to your body or mind without your permission?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many liberal democracies share values, including the right to
pursue ha
ppiness. I believe that one definition of morality is finding
happiness in
the happiness of others.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
In one version of morality, human abortion is a right. In another
version of morality, human abortion is a crime.
Lynn
As I already explained, in general liberals and conservatives have a
different understanding of morality. Thus they may have different
positions on abortion.
In some countries the authorities torture people. In some countries
torture is a crime. Which version of morality do you support?
You started this thread asking for examples of 'moral development' in
SF, as there are of scientific progress. Do you now understand that
this is problematic, since, unlike science, there is no objective test
of 'moral development'.
Yes. But a more moral society is usually a happier society. I believe that factors like freedom, respect for human rights, wealth, and equality play an important role in securing happiness. Global surveys of happiness usually place, IIRC, countries like Denmark or Finland near the top.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Different moral standards can have an affect on the rate a society
progresses materially, but that's not what I think you mean by
'moral progress'.
In your own country, some very morally motiviated people have taken
to murdering others who like the wrong kind of meat. There are enough
that in some areas they are able to get their food taboos written into
legistlation.
You may be confusing morality with religion. If these religiously motivated people were moral they wouldn't murder anybody for transporting animals for slaughter.
They seem to disagree with you on what constitutes "morality". What
makes your morality the right one? That you believe in it? Sorry,
but your believing in something doesn't make it so.
So according to you if someone believes it is alright to torture you to death, because you have insulted them, it is alright. Because people have different moralities.
You are conflating what is "alright" with what is morally correct. I
object to being tortured, however any assertion that I made that
someone was morally wrong to do so would be my opinion, it would not
reflect any absolute.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are fundamental values which are shared between most liberal democracies.
Who said that liberal democracies have a power to define moral
absolutes though? That is just substituting the opinion of the masses
for the opinion of an individual.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But some governments act above the law, and use torture.
My position is that torture is wrong. What is your position?
My position is that disarming the 200 megaton fusion bomb that will if
not defused in 12 hours turn Mumbai into softly glowing green glass
with more than 8 million dead justifies whatever means are necessary.
"Something must be done. This is something, so it must be done."
Torture as a tool to fight terrorism is unlikely to accomplish anything
except to assure your superiors that you weren't being a wimp. In that
kind of short time window scenario your fanatical victim can probably
stall until it doesn't matter any more.
Quadibloc
2019-05-11 05:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality.
I think this is really a side issue, that only serves to derail the thread from an original topic which has much to explore. The members of ISIS may think their actions serve the truest form of morality, but there is no reason to concede their view any semblance of validity.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 12:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 May 2019 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality.
I think this is really a side issue, that only serves to derail the thread from an original topic which has much to explore. The members of ISIS may think their actions serve the truest form of morality, but there is no reason to concede their view any semblance of validity.
And if they win are you going to die for your cause or are you going
to go along to get along?
Lynn McGuire
2019-05-14 19:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality.
I think this is really a side issue, that only serves to derail the thread from an original topic which has much to explore. The members of ISIS may think their actions serve the truest form of morality, but there is no reason to concede their view any semblance of validity.
And if they win are you going to die for your cause or are you going
to go along to get along?
They will cut his head off like the rest of us.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 22:41:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 May 2019 14:17:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality.
I think this is really a side issue, that only serves to derail the thread from an original topic which has much to explore. The members of ISIS may think their actions serve the truest form of morality, but there is no reason to concede their view any semblance of validity.
And if they win are you going to die for your cause or are you going
to go along to get along?
They will cut his head off like the rest of us.
Only the ones unwilling to say "I believe in Allah and Mohammed is his
prophet". Of course then they expect you to start living by the
rules.
Lynn McGuire
2019-05-14 22:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 May 2019 14:17:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 May 2019 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
This relies on the notion that there is a universal standard of morality.
I think this is really a side issue, that only serves to derail the thread from an original topic which has much to explore. The members of ISIS may think their actions serve the truest form of morality, but there is no reason to concede their view any semblance of validity.
And if they win are you going to die for your cause or are you going
to go along to get along?
They will cut his head off like the rest of us.
Only the ones unwilling to say "I believe in Allah and Mohammed is his
prophet". Of course then they expect you to start living by the
rules.
Nah, they only allow a few people a day to take that road. The other
996 get their heads cut off.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-05-14 23:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Only the ones unwilling to say "I believe in Allah and Mohammed is his
prophet". Of course then they expect you to start living by the
rules.
To establish trust, one probably has to kill a few people at their order. And
actually, the Muslim profession of faith is "There is no God but Allah, and
Muhammad is His prophet".

John Savard
a***@yahoo.com
2019-05-09 21:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
In the book version of A Clockwork Orange, Alex grew up. Not so much in the movie version.
Michael Stone
2019-05-10 06:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"I am a contradiction,
there is no logical solution"
Who decides what is moral?

In *The Skylark of Space*, the Osnomians make everyone take an encephelographic examination before being allowed to marry, and "Anyone whose graphs show moral turpitude is shot." Unfortunately they don't give any definition of moral turpitude or explain how it is measured. Would a visitor from a cannibal society be executed for insisting that "eating people is wrong"?

--

Mike Stone, Peterborough England.

I regard veganism as a big missed steak.
Mike Dworetsky
2019-05-10 08:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral
progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end
to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to
cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the
worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on
morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human
morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few
secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
Heinlein's "Coventry" (ca. 1940) was about a man in a future society (some
time after the events of the revolt of 2100) sentenced to decide between
psychological treatment for his antisocial behaviour or being sent to
Coventry, a large reserve with no laws where people could behave as they
wished or their fellow citizens permitted. The United States operated under
a futuristic replacement (or supplement?) for the Constitution called the
Covenant.

Most people behaved themselves better than people today, but Heinlein seems
to have implied through his characters that life was much duller under the
Covenant.
--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Quadibloc
2019-05-11 05:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Moral progress in The Future is almost a science-fiction cliche, so there are
plenty of examples, at least in the pulp science-fiction of the Golden Age.

However, there are some issues to address besides dissenting views on what is
moral. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply assume that the
Declaration of Independence, the general sentiment of Americans who supported
John F. Kennedy as President, and the views of Britons of Whiggish political
stripe, with a nod to the Fabian Socialists, represent at least a good
approximation to what is absolutely moral.

One issue is the distinction between real moral progress and apparent moral
progress.

Let us say that in the future, wildlife habitat in Africa is greatly expanded. And so the lions have plenty of gazelles to hunt, as nature intended, and they no longer attack livestock and menace farmers.

Should we then conclude that the lions of Africa have now made moral progress?

Hardly. A lion is still a lion, but a lion with a full belly is less dangerous
than one with an empty stomach.

So one might see a future with very little war and crime... not because of any
fundamental change in what humans are, but simply because technology has
increased human prosperity.

This issue is often ignored in science fiction, and it also has been
occasionally addressed, in one form or another, in science fiction. One example
I can think of offhand is Heinlein's _Beyond this Horizon_, where racial bigotry
has become a forgotten thing of the past - but people who don't carry guns
because they'd rather not be challenged to duels are treated as inferiors, so
the human impulse to discrimination has only found a new target.

But there are also many people who believe that "human nature" makes even moral
progress of this illusory kind impossible. Basically, once technology makes
humans prosperous, that doesn't last, because population increase will bring
humanity back to being impoverished and quarrelsome.

I don't agree with their pessimism, but I do agree with one of their premises.
Since the "demographic transition" didn't really become a thing until *after
1968* in the dimensions required - the developed world had lower birthrates than
the underdeveloped world before 1968, but _not_ below replacement level, the
developed world was still undergoing exponential population growth...

my conclusion is that under healthy economic conditions, such as those which
existed when the postwar economic boom was in full swing, population growth is
exponential.

That it, and other factors, has now led to a state of human misery, where young
men don't find a steady job shortly after high school, and so on, just shows
that disaster indeed loomed ahead; that it has already arrived is not an
indication that it will never come. Just that it has perhaps been made milder
than feared.

I am not, however, so pessimistic to think that no future society can manage
family planning short of mass starvation. Our present situation proves
otherwise: just the economic pinch of a persistent recession is enough to cause
below-replacement fertility. So just a bit *further* advance in human foresight,
and we can achieve exact replacement fertility under optimum economic
conditions, such as those of the early 'sixties.

After eons without the war, boom, and bust cycle, new generation after
generation growing up without historical baggage to bedevil them, that _real_
moral progress might also happens hardly seems impossible.

Well, at least on the theoretical plane. On the practical plane, they might be
capable of quite a bit against anyone who tried to return things to the bad old
days, lacking any strength borne of experience to resist expedients in such a
fight.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-11 12:38:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 May 2019 22:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Moral progress in The Future is almost a science-fiction cliche, so there are
plenty of examples, at least in the pulp science-fiction of the Golden Age.
However, there are some issues to address besides dissenting views on what is
moral. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply assume that the
Declaration of Independence, the general sentiment of Americans who supported
John F. Kennedy as President, and the views of Britons of Whiggish political
stripe, with a nod to the Fabian Socialists, represent at least a good
approximation to what is absolutely moral.
One issue is the distinction between real moral progress and apparent moral
progress.
Let us say that in the future, wildlife habitat in Africa is greatly expanded. And so the lions have plenty of gazelles to hunt, as nature intended, and they no longer attack livestock and menace farmers.
Should we then conclude that the lions of Africa have now made moral progress?
Hardly. A lion is still a lion, but a lion with a full belly is less dangerous
than one with an empty stomach.
So one might see a future with very little war and crime... not because of any
fundamental change in what humans are, but simply because technology has
increased human prosperity.
If prosperity eliminates crime, explain Trump.
Post by Quadibloc
This issue is often ignored in science fiction, and it also has been
occasionally addressed, in one form or another, in science fiction. One example
I can think of offhand is Heinlein's _Beyond this Horizon_, where racial bigotry
has become a forgotten thing of the past - but people who don't carry guns
because they'd rather not be challenged to duels are treated as inferiors, so
the human impulse to discrimination has only found a new target.
But there are also many people who believe that "human nature" makes even moral
progress of this illusory kind impossible. Basically, once technology makes
humans prosperous, that doesn't last, because population increase will bring
humanity back to being impoverished and quarrelsome.
You totally ignore the issue of boredom. When everyone is prosperous
most people are going to have time on their hands that they need to
fill. The fantasy is that they'll all become great artists and
engineers and scientists and make the world a wonderful place to live.
The reality is that a good many of them will create chaos.
Post by Quadibloc
I don't agree with their pessimism, but I do agree with one of their premises.
Since the "demographic transition" didn't really become a thing until *after
1968* in the dimensions required - the developed world had lower birthrates than
the underdeveloped world before 1968, but _not_ below replacement level, the
developed world was still undergoing exponential population growth...
my conclusion is that under healthy economic conditions, such as those which
existed when the postwar economic boom was in full swing, population growth is
exponential.
Based on what evidence?
Post by Quadibloc
That it, and other factors, has now led to a state of human misery, where young
men don't find a steady job shortly after high school, and so on, just shows
that disaster indeed loomed ahead; that it has already arrived is not an
indication that it will never come. Just that it has perhaps been made milder
than feared.
Or maybe the disaster you fear is not the one that is going to happen.
Post by Quadibloc
I am not, however, so pessimistic to think that no future society can manage
family planning short of mass starvation. Our present situation proves
otherwise: just the economic pinch of a persistent recession is enough to cause
below-replacement fertility. So just a bit *further* advance in human foresight,
and we can achieve exact replacement fertility under optimum economic
conditions, such as those of the early 'sixties.
Sorry, but US population growth had a huge drop in the early '60s then
increased again later in the decade.
Post by Quadibloc
After eons without the war, boom, and bust cycle, new generation after
generation growing up without historical baggage to bedevil them, that _real_
moral progress might also happens hardly seems impossible.
And if your _real_ moral progress turns out to be a perpetual state of
war as bored rich people make things explode for no reason?
Post by Quadibloc
Well, at least on the theoretical plane. On the practical plane, they might be
capable of quite a bit against anyone who tried to return things to the bad old
days, lacking any strength borne of experience to resist expedients in such a
fight.
Or maybe they'll decide that "the bad old days" were the right way to
live.
Quadibloc
2019-05-11 16:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You totally ignore the issue of boredom. When everyone is prosperous
most people are going to have time on their hands that they need to
fill. The fantasy is that they'll all become great artists and
engineers and scientists and make the world a wonderful place to live.
The reality is that a good many of them will create chaos.
It's true that I didn't address some of the lesser potential issues.

I figured that between vat-girls and video games, it ought to be possible to
address this.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-11 20:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
I believe that scientific progress should be accompanied by moral progress, if humanity is to prosper and survive. That means an end to torture of the critics of the ruling class. That means an end to cruel and unusual punishment, like solitary confinement.
If human rights are not protected by the ruling class, why should the worker class support their legal rights. Law should be based on morality to protect everyone's rights.
There may be both genetic and environmental factors in human morality. Also, a more open and equal society, where people keep few secrets, might encourage more moral behaviour.
Can you give an example of moral progress in SF?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"I am a contradiction,
there is no logical solution"
Larry Niven's "The Warriors" portrays a human interstellar
culture that has mostly eliminated violence (a character
mentions the trauma of once seeing an actual fistfight),
which is awkward when a colony ship meets a spaceship of
aliens who haven't.
<https://larryniven.fandom.com/wiki/Angel%27s_Pencil_%28ship%29>

On present-day moral improvement... was it a specifically
British thing, or more general, that young adults this
year were polled for views on the hugely popular sit com
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends> (1994-2004) and
judged it shockingly regressive? (And, is that progress?)
Loading...