Weakness of the West?

[GrowingSmaller]

I am presuming we are mainly 'Westerners' in the human family.

Considering people are allegedly trying to undermine us from all directions, for the greater good.

What are our moral weaknesses? Personally I think there was so much competition for my heart and mind, I concluded "this is bizarre... none of it must make much sense.".

I hear so much about national securtity etc, and indusrtrial espionage,
b-b-but is there a moral aspect to this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am presuming we are mainly 'Westerners' in the human family.

Considering people are allegedly trying to undermine us from all directions, for the greater good.

What are our moral weaknesses? Personally I think there was so much competition for my heart and mind, I concluded "this is bizarre... none of it must make much sense.".

I hear so much about national securtity etc, and indusrtrial espionage,
b-b-but is there a moral aspect to this?

I think the west has multiple moral weaknesses. Compassion, mercy, tolerance etc. Some of these are chosen, others are products of aspects of our society.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well I'd obviously say that we don't value personal liberty enough.

But I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean, can we gain more national security by being more moral?

 

[Received]

Well I'd obviously say that we don't value personal liberty enough.

But I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean, can we gain more national security by being more moral?

I think we value personal liberty to a superlative degree. Only the personal liberty of one group over another. I.e., the increased liberty bought by wealth over and against the decreased liberty of poverty. Liberty "before the law" is the most skeletal and fleshless liberty.

 

[True Scotsman]

I am presuming we are mainly 'Westerners' in the human family.

Considering people are allegedly trying to undermine us from all directions, for the greater good.

What are our moral weaknesses? Personally I think there was so much competition for my heart and mind, I concluded "this is bizarre... none of it must make much sense.".

I hear so much about national securtity etc, and indusrtrial espionage,
b-b-but is there a moral aspect to this?

Our weakness in the west is that our dominant moral code is the morality of sacrifice. It is destroying the west.

 

[FireDragon76]

What are our moral weaknesses? Personally I think there was so much competition for my heart and mind, I concluded "this is bizarre... none of it must make much sense.".

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the west has multiple moral weaknesses. Compassion, mercy, tolerance etc. Some of these are chosen, others are products of aspects of our society.

I am not sure they are weaknesses, in all situations, in some they are proper, but being regarded as the be all and end all you are right.

Well I'd obviously say that we don't value personal liberty enough.

But I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean, can we gain more national security by being more moral?

How could it be valued more, in practice? Yes I mean that, and also it would help us progress technologically as in space travel etc. I believe in a "tight ship", in principle at least.

I think we value personal liberty to a superlative degree. Only the personal liberty of one group over another. I.e., the increased liberty bought by wealth over and against the decreased liberty of poverty. Liberty "before the law" is the most skeletal and fleshless liberty.

Good points.

Our weakness in the west is that our dominant moral code is the morality of sacrifice. It is destroying the west.

I agree it helped destroy me too. Both Buddhist and Christian versions.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about

Like a confusion of tongues morally, so many competing faiths and ideas all claiming the truth. Without expert training its difficult to make a cool and rational assessment. There is no "morality" of general philosophy training in school, and (I was an atheist) religious people often project nihilism onto atheists, which makes things worse. Specially if youre not that bright.

 

[FireDragon76]

How would you propose to fix this issue? Do you like less pluralism?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How would you propose to fix this issue? Do you like less pluralism?

Well I am not a politician, but I think that they could start by teaching some of the elements of "science of morality" as initiated by Sam Harris and also Patricia Churchland, in schools. Basically the ideas a re the "health is in our interests, and is therefore good, and this relates to brain health (which depends on a lot of stuff), and science can assist us in harnessing our natural potential" and "caring mechanisms or "instincts" we call morality in society stem in part from us being a mamillian social species with a naturally long caring period for our children".

Also in religious studies they could introduce some philosophical concepts like falsifiability etc, which would help put some perspective into the discussion which I think can leave a lot of people, non-experts, bewildered.

My answer to pluralism is something like in The Moral Landscape (by Harris). There are many potential 'peaks' on the landscape or ways of human good being manfest. For one exercise, for another faith etc. But you'd have to add some political moral ideas or concepts, (tolerance etc) ones the likes of Paradoxum would be better at suggecting maybe..

 

[Paradoxum]

I think we value personal liberty to a superlative degree. Only the personal liberty of one group over another. I.e., the increased liberty bought by wealth over and against the decreased liberty of poverty. Liberty "before the law" is the most skeletal and fleshless liberty.

I don't understand what you mean.

What liberty do you think we value, and what liberty do you think we should value? (Without the use of the word 'superlative' please).

Our weakness in the west is that our dominant moral code is the morality of sacrifice. It is destroying the west.

Why do you think that? I'm not disagreeing.

 

[Paradoxum]

How could it be valued more, in practice?

I think assisted dying, (some?) drugs, prostitution, etc should be legal.

Does that answer the question. People should respect people's choices over their own lives.

Yes I mean that, and also it would help us progress technologically as in space travel etc. I believe in a "tight ship", in principle at least.

So, what moral progress would help security and scientific/ technological progress?

I'm not sure to be honest. More investment in science, technology, and small businesses could help... but I'm not sure that's a moral thing.

I think teaching philosophy in school could improve the general thinking of society.

Well I am not a politician, but I think that they could start by teaching some of the elements of "science of morality" as initiated by Sam Harris and also Patricia Churchland, in schools. Basically the ideas a re the "health is in our interests, and is therefore good, and this relates to brain health (which depends on a lot of stuff), and science can assist us in harnessing our natural potential" and "caring mechanisms or "instincts" we call morality in society stem in part from us being a mamillian social species with a naturally long caring period for our children".

Well I don't think children should be indoctrinated with Sam Harris, but this could be included in Religious Studies, or Philosophy.

Also in religious studies they could introduce some philosophical concepts like falsifiability etc, which would help put some perspective into the discussion which I think can leave a lot of people, non-experts, bewildered.

I think replacing religious studies with philosophy and religion could be good.

My answer to pluralism is something like in The Moral Landscape (by Harris). There are many potential 'peaks' on the landscape or ways of human good being manfest. For one exercise, for another faith etc. But you'd have to add some political moral ideas or concepts, (tolerance etc) ones the likes of Paradoxum would be better at suggecting maybe..

 

[Received]

I don't understand what you mean.

What liberty do you think we value, and what liberty do you think we should value? (Without the use of the word 'superlative' please).



Why do you think that? I'm not disagreeing.

Liberty in the sense of being less psychologically, emotionally, and physically constrained. A person working 20 hours a week with a low-stress job and respect from his colleagues who makes a million a year has more liberty, all things considered, than the person in poverty struggling to feed his family.

To say we value liberty is to metaphorically say we value breathing. Some breathe easier than others, holistically speaking.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's ironic because Harris is one of the most illiberal individuals I know of. In fact he's quite dogmatic in his beliefs, many of which are unfounded in scientific evidence. I don't see that as a solution to pluralism.

Personally, I don't think the "west" has problems. Neither does the "east". I've learned that sort of judgementalism isn't conducive to a happy life, and I can't see the end of history and be its judge, so its pointless to give my opinion as fact.

 

[Paradoxum]

Liberty in the sense of being less psychologically, emotionally, and physically constrained. A person working 20 hours a week with a low-stress job and respect from his colleagues who makes a million a year has more liberty, all things considered, than the person in poverty struggling to feed his family.

I don't understand what point you're making. I agree more money gives more opportunity to do things.

To say we value liberty is to metaphorically say we value breathing. Some breathe easier than others, holistically speaking.

I don't see how it's like valuing breathing. Most people are in favour of people breathing freely, but not everyone is in favour of assisted dying, drug legalization, or prostitution legalization.

 

[Received]

I don't understand what point you're making. I agree more money gives more opportunity to do things.



I don't see how it's like valuing breathing. Most people are in favour of people breathing freely, but not everyone is in favour of assisted dying, drug legalization, or prostitution legalization.

I'm basically saying that liberty isn't quantifiable like your examples seem to convey and how people typically understand it: you're free if you can do X many things, less free if you can do X-1, even less free if you can do X-2.

I'm saying that freedom is fundamentally a psychological variable, not just a physical one, and relates to the qualitative, in the sense that an asthmatic is less "free to breathe" than a person who has perfectly working lungs. In this sense, having more money will generally mean you're at least more potentially open to more freedom (assuming you don't spend the money on sex and booze and therefore restrict yourself psychologically by becoming a bad person) than people who don't have money. Hence the person who works three jobs and still struggles to feed his family will be wracked by stresses and psychic torment, which yields less freedom, compared to the hedge fund manager whose biggest problem is a botched latte.