A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Roy]

Well no, since these upheavals are usually short lived, some lead to change, but others, like in China just lead to different totalitarian regimes.

You have now managed to completely reverse your premises from
1. The Chinese populace did not rise up against the government*
to
2. The Chinese populace did rise up against the government
without making the slightest change to your 'conclusion'.

Ergo, your views about social cohesion in totalitarian regimes are not based on fact, but are merely an assumed opinion that is maintained independently of reality, and can be rejected as being unfounded.



*"Because the majority will always rise up against the injustice of the immoral few."
"We that is just silly Jim, first that doesn't always happen - look at Cuba, China,..."

[seer]

You have now managed to completely reverse your premises from
1. The Chinese populace did not rise up against the government*
to
2. The Chinese populace did rise up against the government
without making the slightest change to your 'conclusion'.

Roy, where did I say that the the Chinese populace did not rise against the government - ever? Or are you fibbing again? And in the case of China, over history, it was just one totalitarian regime replacing another totalitarian regime.

Ergo, your views about social cohesion in totalitarian regimes are not based on fact, but are merely an assumed opinion that is maintained independently of reality, and can be rejected as being unfounded.


*"Because the majority will always rise up against the injustice of the immoral few."
"We that is just silly Jim, first that doesn't always happen - look at Cuba, China,..."

Nonsense Roy, where is the majority rising up against the Governments of Cuba, China or North Korea today?

[Roy]

Roy, where did I say that the the Chinese populace did not rise against the government - ever?

It's implied by the text I quoted. I'm not going to waste tim equoting it again.

Nonsense Roy, where is the majority rising up against the Governments of Cuba, China or North Korea today?

Today? No-one has said that uprisings happen continuously. That's a ridiculous caricature.

If the best you can come up with is that totalitarian regimes are social cohesive because there isn't a revolution happening today, then your arguments have become so diluted and divorced from your original claims that they aren't worth responding to.

If you feel up to trying to support your claim that majority have not and will not rise up in Cuba and China, then do so. Otherwise your claims are an assumed opinion that is maintained independently of reality, and can be rejected as being unfounded.

P.S. If you accuse me of fibbing again I'll report your post.

[seer]

In the text I quoted. I'm not going to waste tim equoting it again.

Are you being an idiot on purpose Roy, this is what you quoted:

Jim said: *"Because the majority will always rise up against the injustice of the immoral few."

I said: "Well that is just silly Jim, first that doesn't always happen - look at Cuba, China,..."

The majority doesn't always rise up. China, Cuba, North Korea have been relatively stable since their Communist Revolutions.

Today? No-one has said that uprisings happen continuously. That's a ridiculous caricature.

If the best you can come up with is that totalitarian regimes are social cohesive because there isn't a revolution happening today, then your arguments have become so diluted and divorced from your original claims that they aren't worth responding to.

Nonsense, like I said upheavals are generally short lived, and just as often as not it is one totalitarian regime replacing another - so it is still totalitarian governments that rule.

If you feel up to trying to support your claim that majority have not and will not rise up in Cuba and China, then do so. Otherwise your claims are an assumed opinion that is maintained independently of reality, and can be rejected as being unfounded.

P.S. If you accuse me of fibbing again I'll report your post.

No Roy, I have history on my side - most of humanity, for most of our history have lived under some form of totalitarian rule and we thrived and survived and remained relatively cohesive. And if you stop fibbing about me I will stop accusing you.

[Roy]

Are you being an idiot on purpose Roy, this is what you quoted:



The majority doesn't always rise up. China, Cuba, North Korea have been relatively stable since their Communist Revolutions.

No, I'm not being an idiot - you are. You are arguing that the majority doesn't always rise up because the Chinese and Cubans haven't risen up since they last rose up. That's pathetic.

Nonsense Roy, where is the majority rising up against the Governments of Cuba, China or North Korea today?

Today? No-one has said that uprisings happen continuously. That's a ridiculous caricature.

If the best you can come up with is that totalitarian regimes are social cohesive because there isn't a revolution happening today, then your arguments have become so diluted and divorced from your original claims that they aren't worth responding to.

Nonsense, like I said upheavals are generally short lived,

Bovine faeces. You asked about uprisings today, and that was what I was responding to. Don't think you can avoid responsibility for one of your claims by repeating a different one, especially when that other one is also complete bollocks - the last Chinese revolution spanned decades.

And if you stop fibbing about me I will stop accusing you.

Post reported. Conversation over.

[seer]

No, I'm not being an idiot - you are. You are arguing that the majority doesn't always rise up because the Chinese and Cubans haven't risen up since they last rose up. That's pathetic.

I was originally responding to Jim who said that the majority "always" rises up, that is false. And it is just as often the case that it is one elite group overthrowing another elite group with the majority having little or no input in the matter

Bovine faeces. You asked about uprisings today, and that was what I was responding to. Don't think you can avoid responsibility for one of your claims by repeating a different one, especially when that other one is also complete bollocks - the last Chinese revolution spanned decades.

I have to idea what you are babbling about now...

Post reported. Conversation over.

baby...

[siam]

ambivalence of tolerance---You might be right about that!. There have been conversations in interfaith dialogue about the inadequacy of "Tolerance" when such tolerance becomes a homogenizing factor. Tolerance often requires "commonalities" between groups but too much emphasis on the common can erase differences which are crucial to identity-constructs. Multiculturalism in a secular context can also have this flaw---there is an assumption, often incorrect, that secular values are "universal" therefore a common factor that can promote tolerance.....?.....Perhaps reciprocal respect (or humanizing the "other"/human dignity) may be a broader category than tolerance?. Therefore, those whose "values" may be different or even opposed to "ours" in some aspects should be given human dignity/respect, regardless of the difference....?....(which is probably more difficult to do than merely tolerate)
Tolerance may have been fine in nation-states that had a common heritage to begin with---but in a globalized world ---perhaps we need to do better than tolerate? we need to respect differences?....One might say that the rise in angry "fundamentalists" in almost all societies could be a push-back against the homogenizing effects of this type of "tolerance"?

Modern societies---there are at least 2 ways that structural inequalities are built into Modern societies both communist and secular---One is by eliminating (communism) or privatizing (secular) "other" value systems in order to enforce a "universal" value system (---which are determined by those in power, and (unequally) enforced onto those with less power) within a territory/nation-state. And the second is in the production and accumulation of wealth---and in both systems, communist or capitalist, a few have and most have not. The non-communist system affords more freedom so built-in structural inequalities are a matter of degree....

Power inequalities are a necessary element of group dynamics...so this is not about good/bad because it is a reality. The trick is to manage (through values and systems) "real" group dynamics so that it enhances co-operation and sharing within the group and fosters reciprocal co-operation with other groups.(non-zero sum) Modern systems were "managed" based on territory---but globalization---which reduces identity with borders---is a much more complex "group" system and its dynamics of identity-constructs and structures will depend far more on non-territorial based paradigms......

UHDR---it is a good document---but again, we must get away from globalization that is based on homogenizing the world under some "universal" values.....?....
(I do think there are "universal" values because human nature has inherent commonalities---but, "Modernity" has shown us that its not enough, that identity (difference) is important for large complex groups to function effectively....)

[Tassman]

ambivalence of tolerance---You might be right about that!. There have been conversations in interfaith dialogue about the inadequacy of "Tolerance" when such tolerance becomes a homogenizing factor. Tolerance often requires "commonalities" between groups but too much emphasis on the common can erase differences which are crucial to identity-constructs. Multiculturalism in a secular context can also have this flaw---there is an assumption, often incorrect, that secular values are "universal" therefore a common factor that can promote tolerance.....?.....Perhaps reciprocal respect (or humanizing the "other"/human dignity) may be a broader category than tolerance?. Therefore, those whose "values" may be different or even opposed to "ours" in some aspects should be given human dignity/respect, regardless of the difference....?....(which is probably more difficult to do than merely tolerate)
Tolerance may have been fine in nation-states that had a common heritage to begin with---but in a globalized world ---perhaps we need to do better than tolerate? we need to respect differences?....One might say that the rise in angry "fundamentalists" in almost all societies could be a push-back against the homogenizing effects of this type of "tolerance"?

Modern societies---there are at least 2 ways that structural inequalities are built into Modern societies both communist and secular---One is by eliminating (communism) or privatizing (secular) "other" value systems in order to enforce a "universal" value system (---which are determined by those in power, and (unequally) enforced onto those with less power) within a territory/nation-state. And the second is in the production and accumulation of wealth---and in both systems, communist or capitalist, a few have and most have not. The non-communist system affords more freedom so built-in structural inequalities are a matter of degree....

Surely a universal value system can be determined at the ballot box as is the case with say, the Scandinavian countries, which are highly secular and maintain broad welfare net and universal benefits.

Power inequalities are a necessary element of group dynamics...so this is not about good/bad because it is a reality. The trick is to manage (through values and systems) "real" group dynamics so that it enhances co-operation and sharing within the group and fosters reciprocal co-operation with other groups.(non-zero sum) Modern systems were "managed" based on territory---but globalization---which reduces identity with borders---is a much more complex "group" system and its dynamics of identity-constructs and structures will depend far more on non-territorial based paradigms......

Fine! Providing that they are not based upon a totalitarian, ideological system either politically or religious.

UHDR---it is a good document---but again, we must get away from globalization that is based on homogenizing the world under some "universal" values.....?....
(I do think there are "universal" values because human nature has inherent commonalities---but, "Modernity" has shown us that its not enough, that identity (difference) is important for large complex groups to function effectively....)

[Tassman]

Really? Have you see the leftists in my country lately! They shoot congressmen.

So are you arguing that a totalitarian society is preferable to a democracy such as in the USA?

The whole point of this discussion Tass is that if social cohesion is the goal,

it can be reached in a number of ways - and no way is more or less moral than any other way.

Yes, and some ways are preferable to other ways in that they advance the common good.

[seer]

So are you arguing that a totalitarian society is preferable to a democracy such as in the USA?

No, I'm saying that Democracies can be inherently factious with different groups vying for power and advantage.

Well it certainly could be a conscious goal for us, since we are aware of the possibility.

Yes, and some ways are preferable to other ways in that they advance the common good.

Why says that the "common good" is the goal? Like with many higher primates the common good is secondary to the good of the Alphas. Of course we see that in human history too. As long as cohesion is maintained.

[Tassman]

No, I'm saying that Democracies can be inherently factious with different groups vying for power and advantage.

Well it certainly could be a conscious goal for us, since we are aware of the possibility.

As can all instinctive behaviour e.g. nurturing our young

Who says that the "common good" is the goal? Like with many higher primates the common good is secondary to the good of the Alphas. Of course we see that in human history too. As long as cohesion is maintained.

[siam]

1) the flaws---any society that is not based upon characteristics of human nature will run into problems. Homogeneity (of thoughts/values/paradigms) stifles creativity/imagination and innovation. It also reduces the human capacity for compassion ---it takes a greater degree of compassion to like someone very different from us than someone similar to us. Even if conformity does not require violent enforcement, the use of soft power---such as dislike, prejudice against those who are different, or value/culture that strongly emphasizes conformity----will eventually self-destruct, if successful, because it will encourage the status quo, be averse to change and risk, and thus to stagnate. Some values need to adapt to changing environments and needs in order to remain relevant and dynamic.

2) Scandinavia---
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-cultu...r-against-them
It is easier to encourage homogeneity within "borders" (nation-states)...but group dynamics of social cohesion will need to creatively adapt to non-territorial paradigms in a global era...?

3) The leadership structure itself is irrelevant---either a single leader or a committee or 2 or more parties---whatever works for that cultural group within their historical trajectory....what will become necessary is to be able to co-operate within a global system/ecology of diverse groups that are all of equal/equivalent worth.
(Humanity might not survive a zero-sum trajectory in the long term---because without biological/genetic diversity, wont we simply become an "endangered" species and die out!.?)

sometimes leadership structures evolve as groups become larger and more complex---homeless phenomenon is interesting in studying evolving group dynamics....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nua-safe-zones

4) Even if there are some inherent "universal" values because we are all humans after all, our historical trajectories, environments and world-views/paradigms are different and this will require that even if there is general agreement on some of the values themselves---how they are understood and their implementation will be different. Environments effect us as much as we effect the environment. It is easier to be kind and compassionate when there is abundance, it is more difficult when abundance is lacking....some Groups who have been traumatized may even replicate the structural violence/abuse onto others....and might even find ways to "justify" it.

Humanity needs to "progress" and adapt---for that we need to innovate and evolve---that requires an environment that promotes diversity---but diversity can cause tensions--to balance this tendency, we need to have values that promote reciprocity, human dignity, kindness and compassion.....?...that probably sums up my thoughts......

[shunyadragon]

Humanity needs to "progress" and adapt---for that we need to innovate and evolve---that requires an environment that promotes diversity---but diversity can cause tensions--to balance this tendency, we need to have values that promote reciprocity, human dignity, kindness and compassion.....?...that probably sums up my thoughts......

This is where Islam fails, because by the evidence it no longer allows an environment that promotes an environment of diversity. In most Islamic countries diversity is not allowed, and to be a Baha'i is illegal and in in some punishable by death. This actually the problem of at least several minority faiths in Islamic countries. The numbers of Christians and Jews are decreasing in most Islamic countries for similar reasons.

The Baha'i Faith encourages this environment for diversity.

[Tassman]

1) the flaws---any society that is not based upon characteristics of human nature will run into problems. Homogeneity (of thoughts/values/paradigms) stifles creativity/imagination and innovation. It also reduces the human capacity for compassion ---it takes a greater degree of compassion to like someone very different from us than someone similar to us. Even if conformity does not require violent enforcement, the use of soft power---such as dislike, prejudice against those who are different, or value/culture that strongly emphasizes conformity----will eventually self-destruct, if successful, because it will encourage the status quo, be averse to change and risk, and thus to stagnate. Some values need to adapt to changing environments and needs in order to remain relevant and dynamic.

2) Scandinavia---
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-cultu...r-against-them
It is easier to encourage homogeneity within "borders" (nation-states)...but group dynamics of social cohesion will need to creatively adapt to non-territorial paradigms in a global era...?

3) The leadership structure itself is irrelevant---either a single leader or a committee or 2 or more parties---whatever works for that cultural group within their historical trajectory....what will become necessary is to be able to co-operate within a global system/ecology of diverse groups that are all of equal/equivalent worth.
(Humanity might not survive a zero-sum trajectory in the long term---because without biological/genetic diversity, wont we simply become an "endangered" species and die out!.?)

sometimes leadership structures evolve as groups become larger and more complex---homeless phenomenon is interesting in studying evolving group dynamics....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nua-safe-zones

4) Even if there are some inherent "universal" values because we are all humans after all, our historical trajectories, environments and world-views/paradigms are different and this will require that even if there is general agreement on some of the values themselves---how they are understood and their implementation will be different. Environments effect us as much as we effect the environment. It is easier to be kind and compassionate when there is abundance, it is more difficult when abundance is lacking....some Groups who have been traumatized may even replicate the structural violence/abuse onto others....and might even find ways to "justify" it.

Humanity needs to "progress" and adapt---for that we need to innovate and evolve---that requires an environment that promotes diversity---but diversity can cause tensions--to balance this tendency, we need to have values that promote reciprocity, human dignity, kindness and compassion.....?...that probably sums up my thoughts......

[siam]

This is where Islam fails, because by the evidence it no longer allows an environment that promotes an environment of diversity. In most Islamic countries diversity is not allowed, and to be a Baha'i is illegal and in in some punishable by death. This actually the problem of at least several minority faiths in Islamic countries. The numbers of Christians and Jews are decreasing in most Islamic countries for similar reasons.

The Baha'i Faith encourages this environment for diversity.

"This is where Islam fails"---Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE) has interesting theories on the rise and fall of "civilizations" (or rather, of large social groups). When we consider the old wisdom that "necessity is the mother of invention", then those societies/cultures which are too successful---will inevitably become homogenizing and thus stagnate. This is an interesting way to look at "Modernity" as well---it has been the most successful paradigm that replaced all previous paradigms....?....and so it has "failed" and now we see toxic religio-national "fundamentalism" springing up as push-back?

...But this type of zero-sum exclusivism cannot work in a globalized world....it will create too much chaos and human beings do not adapt to chaos well....we are "wired" to find connections, meanings, and balance...