|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 22, 2015 4:23:15 GMT -5
Quote - "Does the financial costs of gambling out weight the revenue the the government takes in?" The problem with gambling, from a religious point of view (not to mention a mathematical point of view, too) is that it is a corrosive habit - one which has the potential, like alcohol, to be an addiction. All families of gamblers are at risk. To say governments can earn revenue from it, whilst some people are being destroyed by it - puts government in a bad light. A bit like taxing prostitution and having a pimp for your government. Some "used" to say that governments wouldn't ban cigarettes "because of their tax revenue" but that is happening now. No amount of revenue can compensate for the damage of smoking - I would suspect the sameto be true for gambling. But by now we are WAY off tangent. We are off target because it was YOU who brought up the financial side of gambling.
You said: "Gambling today is a huge problem." "with the internet it is out of control. " "casinos has sucked the social and economic life out some communities"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 7:40:46 GMT -5
Dmmichgood - there was a time, back in our parents or grandparents days when being on social welfare was shameful; gambling was evil; having a child out of "wedlock" was a scandal; smoking was "worldly"; bankruptcy was dishonorable; porn wasn't something you came across; narcotics were unheard of and no-one wanted to get into debt.
That's what it was like up until the 1930's.
So what we have done is to reverse all this. Now the majority of Australians are on welfare; the majority are in debt; the majority gamble; the majority are familiar with porn; and the majority have tried narcotics. Half our kids are from broken homes or "living together" relationships; declaring Bankruptcy is now a laughable stratagem and only smoking had taken a hit, not because it's "worldly" anymore but due to occupation health and safety issues. Even going to jail doesn't carry the opprobrium it once did. In Australia its a common way to avoid fines, and for some groups it carries a certain cache.
And we haven't finished reversing our values, either.
So how do we rationalize all this? We condemn the sins of that generation, ie they were "sexist" or "patriarchal" or "hypocritical" when they went to church. We do documentaries on all those adopted kids, or what "gays" had to put up with etc. etc. etc..
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 9:40:18 GMT -5
Yknot, did you try right click and undo? And the back button? The new proboards is quite good at saving posts. No, fixit, unfortunately I did not try that. Next time. Thanks for the suggestion. Hope all is well.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 9:42:07 GMT -5
Aww frustrating. Love reading your posts. Thanks bubbles, so very sweet of you to say. Yea, we do have fun here don't we! Best.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 11:23:35 GMT -5
HE’s BACK!
I swear, I feel like Freddy Kreuger!
Here then is my ‘review’ of the Michael Shermer video. I watched it in two segments, the first 30 minutes and then after a break the balance of the clip. In a previous post I gave my initial response to the first 30 minutes of the video, my reactions were not positive.
I did not find the remainder of the video and the question and answer period to be as disquieting as the beginning portion, but in honesty, the video did not evoke a burning desire to run out and purchase “The Moral Arc” which I presume was the point of the video.
Perhaps I merely needed the attitude adjustment of the break to be more receptive to the back half of the video. Overall, I thought the author had a commanding grasp of the recent and relevant social sciences literature. I share his enthusiasm for some of the new research currently underway in fields as diverse as Evolutionary Psychology and the Neurosciences. Based on the video (I have not read the book) I might suggest that his seemingly comprehensive analysis of recent research literature suggests that his book might be an excellent version of “Annual Reviews in Social Sciences.
On the other hand (there always seems to be another hand, doesn’t there?) I was unable to discern anything creative or insightful in the lecture. Snow and xna if either of you can direct me to the time marker where he describes how “morality is driven by science” that would be useful because I did miss that section. Perhaps the most critical thing that I can say is that I didn’t feel as if I had learned anything new after watching the video for a little over an hour. I don’t mean this from the perspective of “I know so much!”, rather, I mean it from the perspective that there seemed to be a lot of hand waving and a lot of smoke and mirrors but when I tried to think through individual points there seemed to be very little substance at the end of the trail. Disappointing.
Allow me to try a different approach to describe my reactions. A lot of data was presented. The thread that the author seemed to want to use to tie the data together was the idea that “morality has improved” since the Enlightenment therefore “science” (one of the spin-offs of the Enlightenment Period, the Scientific Revolution) is a (the(?)) causative agent of society’s better morals today compared to 500 years ago.
Is this a fair summation?
I will assume that it is for the moment. Now step back for just a moment and ask a few critical questions.
(1) Assume the data suggests a correlation: as science expands, morality improves. Remember that Dr. Michael Shermer is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. Wouldn’t a skeptic want to point out that “correlation does not suggest or imply causation”? (2) The whole essence of constructive skepticism and critical thinking is to ferret out spurious correlations. They abound in popular literature. But we are not talking about popular literature here (or at least in my opinion we shouldn’t be) we are talking about “Science”! Isn’t it reasonable to suggest that the possibility of spurious correlations at least be considered? (3) Are the examples selected by the author (a witch on the rake accusing two priests of being demons) narrowly selected to achieve a specific agenda (vilify selected beliefs)? Consider for example the absence of reference to Galen’s four humors and the continuation well into the 19th century of purges, leaches and blood-letting as curative protocols. Was the linkage of eugenics to Nazi Germany noticed while the active and enthusiastic embrace of eugenics in the U.S. by many luminaries including Margaret Sanger remained unnoted?
One comment of interest did creep out toward the end of the lecture and during the Q&A. The word “naturalism”. This is very interesting. “Moral naturalism” is a hot philosophical debate right now. Suddenly I realized where I had heard the “flourishing of conscious creatures” phrase before, ah ha, I say, that is Sam Harris’s thesis. Strange, Dr. Shermer didn’t mention Harris in his lecture. He seemed shy about delving into the “moral naturalism” debate. Very curious.
Ok, that’s all I have on the video. Snow, while rereading the posts this AM I noticed we seem to be using slightly but importantly different definitions of “science” perhaps this is a place to pick up the conversation.
Xna, did I adequately respond to your question?
Stay warm everyone.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 22, 2015 11:31:09 GMT -5
By way of example. I know an old man who used to be the "look out" for a gambling den. Way out in an industrial estate, where "you could see someone coming for miles." Gambling was illegal because it was "immoral." Now it's legal - it's not quite "moral" yet, but pretty close. There's the message - in the open its acceptable. And there's no shame anymore. So now gambling is a social problem vastly greater than what it was generations ago - not because the criminal element does it but because EVERYONE does it. That's happening now with narcotics - the criminal element will always consume them, but now the non-criminal majority are smoking AND inhaling. Nothing in both examples 'changed for the better.' While agree that gambling and some drug use are not good for the well being of some in our society, I don't consider them examples of immorality. Maybe they are, it's just not something I consider immoral. However using Shermer's definition, they definitely do prevent some people from flourishing in a safe environment. Not everyone has addictive personalities. But some do. There are some drugs that have been made illegal that really never needed to be made illegal. But those are two examples of activities that can prevent the well being of some individuals. I don't know that gambling was illegal because it was 'immoral' though.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 22, 2015 13:17:51 GMT -5
HE’s BACK! Xna, did I adequately respond to your question? Yes, Thanks What kept going thru my mind as I watched the video was the great divide in world views between; the religious, and what Karl Rove disparagingly referred to as those in the "reality-based community". Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy. They see bad news headlines, natural disasters, and see it as a sign of the end times. These conformations are however anecdotal and stem from their eschatological myths. If the world really was getting better it would be a big problem for their prophecy. Some sects even actively try to hasten the end times. These are the more dangerous ones. Contrast this with his video talk on a science based approach examining morality which looks at observable facts, and projects trends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 16:04:41 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, off track completely, but... I wonder when the day will come when we can treat addiction like we treat pain? In the future there won't be any "war on drugs" and anyone who feels they are becoming addicted to something can simply go see a doctor. And I wonder too what the world will look like if we invent a "true" lie detector? Something which can do a full brain scan and detect deception. That I think would the greatest invention since the wheel! (actually according to scientists the greatest invention was the stone axe btw)
|
|
|
Morality
Feb 22, 2015 16:18:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 16:18:45 GMT -5
OK, since we're off topic anyhow, bert there does already exist such a machine as a true lie detector. One of the friends here, since passed on, was getting solicitation phone calls from various outfits. One day the phone rang and the guy was pitching pens or something. The friend said not a word, and immediately hung up the phone. The " pitcher" immediately phoned back and said that somehow they were disconnected, to which our friend replied Oh, no, I just installed this new technological device on my phone and as soon as it detects any lie or deceit from the party who called, it automatically cuts off the connection. Isn't that great? Hmmmmmmmmm. No pen sales there today....... Alvin
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 22, 2015 17:17:43 GMT -5
HE’s BACK! Xna, did I adequately respond to your question? Yes, Thanks What kept going thru my mind as I watched the video was the great divide in world views between; the religious, and what Karl Rove disparagingly referred to as those in the "reality-based community". Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy. They see bad news headlines, natural disasters, and see it as a sign of the end times. These conformations are however anecdotal and stem from their eschatological myths. If the world really was getting better it would be a big problem for their prophecy. Some sects even actively try to hasten the end times. These are the more dangerous ones. Contrast this with his video talk on a science based approach examining morality which looks at observable facts, and projects trends. I actually liked this video. Not well enough to buy the book, but well enough to reserve it at the library. Also enough to decide I should check out some stuff from Steven Pinker. I am not by default a great critical thinker, life is just too much fun if you're not. But I would like to think I have excellent critical thinking skills, when I choose to engage them. I also thought the first 30 minutes or so were not great. For some reason, I don' t think Michael Shermer really hit his stride until the questions section of his talk. I have a personal intuition why, but that would be a bit of a tangent to what is being discussed here. As I watched the video, I kept reminding myself that this is "Social Science". Still, I fail to see the link of "How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth Justice and Freedom" from this talk. However, what I really liked about his talk was that the message (over and over again) was that the world is getting to be a better place. This is one of my pet theories, if not a principal article of faith. Loved the video on the Capuchin monkeys, and had to research it further. I love attitude, even if it is just from a monkey.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 22, 2015 18:20:13 GMT -5
Yknot, possibly we are using different definitions of science. I think I posted what his definition that he was using for the book at the beginning of this thread. I took it to be more based on our ability to reason, have a process to do that, and we have the ability of getting rid of something that no longer proves to be true. Science has a method, it has peers, it needs to be replicated by others, etc.
You speak of eugenics program etc., and he does go into that in the book. The video is a very brief start to a lot of 'filled out' information in the book. It is over 400 pages long with lots of references, notes etc. that go into even more detail. So he does state in the book where he got all his information from and what inspired him to write it etc. I am enjoying the book, learning things I never knew before. That is always my goal when reading, learning and enjoying. I haven't found anything I disagree with violently. I do question some of it, but overall, I think it's worth the time.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 22, 2015 18:26:46 GMT -5
Yes, Thanks What kept going thru my mind as I watched the video was the great divide in world views between; the religious, and what Karl Rove disparagingly referred to as those in the "reality-based community". Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy. They see bad news headlines, natural disasters, and see it as a sign of the end times. These conformations are however anecdotal and stem from their eschatological myths. If the world really was getting better it would be a big problem for their prophecy. Some sects even actively try to hasten the end times. These are the more dangerous ones. Contrast this with his video talk on a science based approach examining morality which looks at observable facts, and projects trends. I actually liked this video. Not well enough to buy the book, but well enough to reserve it at the library. Also enough to decide I should check out some stuff from Steven Pinker. I am not by default a great critical thinker, life is just too much fun if you're not. But I would like to think I have excellent critical thinking skills, when I choose to engage them. I also thought the first 30 minutes or so were not great. For some reason, I don' t think Michael Shermer really hit his stride until the questions section of his talk. I have a personal intuition why, but that would be a bit of a tangent to what is being discussed here. As I watched the video, I kept reminding myself that this is "Social Science". Still, I fail to see the link of "How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth Justice and Freedom" from this talk. However, what I really liked about his talk was that the message (over and over again) was that the world is getting to be a better place. This is one of my pet theories, if not a principal article of faith. Loved the video on the Capuchin monkeys, and had to research it further. I love attitude, even if it is just from a monkey. I got the book from the library too Sharon. However, I am halfway through it and I think it is one I will actually go buy. He is much more articulate in how he writes than in how he speaks. I don't really like listening to speeches by him, he's just not that good at them imo. But his writing is very good, interesting and definitely backed up with lots of references, graphs, studies and research. I hope you like the book. He definitely does see the world getting to be a better place, which is also my belief. It gives me hope and it's nice to see it confirmed in black and white too.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 22, 2015 18:34:24 GMT -5
[I got the book from the library too Sharon. However, I am halfway through it and I think it is one I will actually go buy. He is much more articulate in how he writes than in how he speaks. I don't really like listening to speeches by him, he's just not that good at them imo. But his writing is very good, interesting and definitely backed up with lots of references, graphs, studies and research. I hope you like the book. He definitely does see the world getting to be a better place, which is also my belief. It gives me hope and it's nice to see it confirmed in black and white too. That was my impression, at least towards the end of his talk, that he probably wrote better than he spoke. I liked the passion that came out during the questions. I have an inkling of how hard it must be to "show up", in your entirety, when the spotlight is fully on you.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 20:14:58 GMT -5
What kept going thru my mind as I watched the video was the great divide in world views between; the religious, and what Karl Rove disparagingly referred to as those in the "reality-based community". Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy. They see bad news headlines, natural disasters, and see it as a sign of the end times. These conformations are however anecdotal and stem from their eschatological myths. If the world really was getting better it would be a big problem for their prophecy. Some sects even actively try to hasten the end times. These are the more dangerous ones. Contrast this with his video talk on a science based approach examining morality which looks at observable facts, and projects trends. Good evening xna. It would appear that we had different responses to the video which is probably not surprising. Your response here does not seem to ask any new questions nor respond to my critique of the video. Even though you do not directly address the premise of "morality being driven by science" from the OP, it would appear that you are essentially in agreement with that premise.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 21:15:14 GMT -5
I actually liked this video. Not well enough to buy the book, but well enough to reserve it at the library. Also enough to decide I should check out some stuff from Steven Pinker. I am not by default a great critical thinker, life is just too much fun if you're not. But I would like to think I have excellent critical thinking skills, when I choose to engage them. I also thought the first 30 minutes or so were not great. For some reason, I don' t think Michael Shermer really hit his stride until the questions section of his talk. I have a personal intuition why, but that would be a bit of a tangent to what is being discussed here. As I watched the video, I kept reminding myself that this is "Social Science". Still, I fail to see the link of "How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth Justice and Freedom" from this talk. However, what I really liked about his talk was that the message (over and over again) was that the world is getting to be a better place. This is one of my pet theories, if not a principal article of faith. Loved the video on the Capuchin monkeys, and had to research it further. I love attitude, even if it is just from a monkey. It is cool that you will be looking into some of Steven Pinker's work. I have really enjoyed what I have been exposed to so far. I will be interested in some of your thoughts on his work once you have a chance to get into some of it. Everyone's varied responses to the video is pretty neat. It is one of those little tests that helps to demonstrate the intrinsic variability in every individuals thought processes and experiences. Makes the world so much more interesting compared to each agent operating in lock step with every other agent. I love it. I am reading your response as suggesting that you, too, are having some difficulty seeing "morality being driven by science". Am I reading your response correctly? I hope so, it makes my corner a little less lonely. The data and the interpretation of the data that the "world is getting to be a better place" is a very interesting phenomena. Who among us would hope that the interpretation of the data is not correct. I have not really look into or thought that much about any of this data. Perhaps I really should take 'snow's' advice and look into Dr. Shermer's analysis more deeply by reading his book (the prospect of wading through the same ol'/same ol' anti-religion polemics haunts me, but perhaps it is worth the effort.) Based on this thread, I think I will look into Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature" first. One question that interests me is the question of timeframe. What perspective is most relevant when thinking about this data? 100-300 years does not carry great statistical weight across the history of mankind or even across recorded history. Across a 2000 year span the interval of improvement would be 10-15% of the period, that is sizable and significant. The question that comes to my mind is in the year 4500 when someone looks at the same data, what will they see? Will the current trends in fact be the leading edge of what we all hope to be true or will the data merely show a downward blip? No way to tell but interesting question to think about as we think of our world today and it's moral infrastructure. Two other names I would like to throw in the hopper for you to think about on some of these morality questions are Paul Bloom and Laurie Santos both at Yale. Laurie is doings some fascinating work now with dogs and some to the initial results are just starting to come out. Here is a link to some earlier monkey work she did: www.ted.com/speakers/laurie_santos
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 22, 2015 21:38:35 GMT -5
Quote - "Does the financial costs of gambling out weight the revenue the the government takes in?" The problem with gambling, from a religious point of view (not to mention a mathematical point of view, too) is that it is a corrosive habit - one which has the potential, like alcohol, to be an addiction. All families of gamblers are at risk. To say governments can earn revenue from it, whilst some people are being destroyed by it - puts government in a bad light. A bit like taxing prostitution and having a pimp for your government. Some "used" to say that governments wouldn't ban cigarettes "because of their tax revenue" but that is happening now. No amount of revenue can compensate for the damage of smoking - I would suspect the same to be true for gambling. But by now we are WAY off tangent. The apostles resorted to gambling when they needed a replacement among them.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 22, 2015 21:40:53 GMT -5
Yknot, possibly we are using different definitions of science. I think I posted what his definition that he was using for the book at the beginning of this thread. I took it to be more based on our ability to reason, have a process to do that, and we have the ability of getting rid of something that no longer proves to be true. Science has a method, it has peers, it needs to be replicated by others, etc. You speak of eugenics program etc., and he does go into that in the book. The video is a very brief start to a lot of 'filled out' information in the book. It is over 400 pages long with lots of references, notes etc. that go into even more detail. So he does state in the book where he got all his information from and what inspired him to write it etc. I am enjoying the book, learning things I never knew before. That is always my goal when reading, learning and enjoying. I haven't found anything I disagree with violently. I do question some of it, but overall, I think it's worth the time. Snow, thanks for starting the thread. It made me think more earnestly about my own sense of morality, available knowledge and experiences. Your review of Michael Shermer's book has caused me to think more carefully about looking into the discussions on the changes in our social moral order. I have taken note of the "expanding circle of empathy" but only in a sociopolitical context. I have not really thought about how the expansion of technical knowledge might influence moral decisions until you started this thread. I suspect the relationships will turn out to be highly complex. I don't know if you have been following the outbreak of measles in the U.S. or not but there are many questions to be asked about precisely where we are (morally) and where we are going on issues like this. Mention the "trans-humanism" movement to me and I near go into an apoplectic fit . . . . . right up to the moment that I realize that I am sitting here typing away with three stents in my coronary artery!!!!!!!!! Oooops perhaps I should rethink this question a little. So I end up concluding for myself: Have your convictions, work like the dickens to live by them, actively listen to the convictions of others, be prepared to passionately embrace growth when the opportunity presents.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 22, 2015 22:01:10 GMT -5
I am reading your response as suggesting that you, too, are having some difficulty seeing "morality being driven by science". Am I reading your response correctly? I hope so, it makes my corner a little less lonely. Absolutely. I see Science as being a really cool tool in the toolbox, but a driver? Never. Still, when I read his book, I may get a better sense for how he means it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 22, 2015 22:06:25 GMT -5
By way of example. I know an old man who used to be the "look out" for a gambling den. Way out in an industrial estate, where "you could see someone coming for miles." Gambling was illegal because it was "immoral." Now it's legal - it's not quite "moral" yet, but pretty close. There's the message - in the open its acceptable. And there's no shame anymore. So now gambling is a social problem vastly greater than what it was generations ago - not because the criminal element does it but because EVERYONE does it. That's happening now with narcotics - the criminal element will always consume them, but now the non-criminal majority are smoking AND inhaling. Nothing in both examples 'changed for the better.' What is immoral about gambling? It's not immoral for me to spend $50 on a few hours of driving a go-cart for fun, and take nothing home. Neither is it immoral for me to spend $10 in a casino for fun, whether I take anything home or not. The problem with illegal gambling is that (1) it is illegal, (2) the gamblers can't sue for fraud, (3) it promotes an underground industry (4) which cannot be taxed, which (5) breeds competition for dominance (6) outside the civilized rule of law, which (5) promotes underground wars which (6) increases the violent crime rate. Where I live normal people can go to a casino and play for fun, the government regulates the odds, and taxes the casino profits (the state's largest revenue source) and regulates who can operate a gaming facility. The government will prosecute people who cheat, and players can sue if they are cheated. The government regulates how the cards are handled and how they are disposed of. Casinos can be prosecuted for such things as loaded dice, tipped tables, and on and on. Making something illegal has nothing to do with making things better -- it just allows those who don't believe in something to throw those who want to do it to the crooks and gangsters. People gamble all the time -- except that if it's not for entertainment it's called "risk". Getting married is a risk/gamble, buying a house, investing in a business, trusting a neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 0:49:18 GMT -5
I actually liked this video. Not well enough to buy the book, but well enough to reserve it at the library. Also enough to decide I should check out some stuff from Steven Pinker. I am not by default a great critical thinker, life is just too much fun if you're not. But I would like to think I have excellent critical thinking skills, when I choose to engage them. I also thought the first 30 minutes or so were not great. For some reason, I don' t think Michael Shermer really hit his stride until the questions section of his talk. I have a personal intuition why, but that would be a bit of a tangent to what is being discussed here. As I watched the video, I kept reminding myself that this is "Social Science". Still, I fail to see the link of "How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth Justice and Freedom" from this talk. However, what I really liked about his talk was that the message (over and over again) was that the world is getting to be a better place. This is one of my pet theories, if not a principal article of faith. Loved the video on the Capuchin monkeys, and had to research it further. I love attitude, even if it is just from a monkey. It is cool that you will be looking into some of Steven Pinker's work. I have really enjoyed what I have been exposed to so far. I will be interested in some of your thoughts on his work once you have a chance to get into some of it. Everyone's varied responses to the video is pretty neat. It is one of those little tests that helps to demonstrate the intrinsic variability in every individuals thought processes and experiences. Makes the world so much more interesting compared to each agent operating in lock step with every other agent. I love it. I am reading your response as suggesting that you, too, are having some difficulty seeing "morality being driven by science". Am I reading your response correctly? I hope so, it makes my corner a little less lonely. The data and the interpretation of the data that the "world is getting to be a better place" is a very interesting phenomena. Who among us would hope that the interpretation of the data is not correct. I have not really look into or thought that much about any of this data. Perhaps I really should take 'snow's' advice and look into Dr. Shermer's analysis more deeply by reading his book (the prospect of wading through the same ol'/same ol' anti-religion polemics haunts me, but perhaps it is worth the effort.) Based on this thread, I think I will look into Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature" first. One question that interests me is the question of timeframe. What perspective is most relevant when thinking about this data? 100-300 years does not carry great statistical weight across the history of mankind or even across recorded history. Across a 2000 year span the interval of improvement would be 10-15% of the period, that is sizable and significant. The question that comes to my mind is in the year 4500 when someone looks at the same data, what will they see? Will the current trends in fact be the leading edge of what we all hope to be true or will the data merely show a downward blip? No way to tell but interesting question to think about as we think of our world today and it's moral infrastructure. Two other names I would like to throw in the hopper for you to think about on some of these morality questions are Paul Bloom and Laurie Santos both at Yale. Laurie is doings some fascinating work now with dogs and some to the initial results are just starting to come out. Here is a link to some earlier monkey work she did: www.ted.com/speakers/laurie_santos I haven't read Shermer's book but I read the article he wrote in the Scientific American and at first read, I thought whoa, -let me read that again. So I did read it again, -several times until I could finally understand the concept.
Not quite sure I believe it totally but at least it seemed a better concept than I have found from some other sources.
I'd like too read the book, but my time for reading is getting less & less. But I'll probably give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 1:02:28 GMT -5
I actually liked this video. Not well enough to buy the book, but well enough to reserve it at the library. Also enough to decide I should check out some stuff from Steven Pinker. I am not by default a great critical thinker, life is just too much fun if you're not. But I would like to think I have excellent critical thinking skills, when I choose to engage them. I also thought the first 30 minutes or so were not great. For some reason, I don' t think Michael Shermer really hit his stride until the questions section of his talk. I have a personal intuition why, but that would be a bit of a tangent to what is being discussed here. As I watched the video, I kept reminding myself that this is "Social Science". Still, I fail to see the link of "How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth Justice and Freedom" from this talk. However, what I really liked about his talk was that the message (over and over again) was that the world is getting to be a better place. This is one of my pet theories, if not a principal article of faith. Loved the video on the Capuchin monkeys, and had to research it further. I love attitude, even if it is just from a monkey. I got the book from the library too Sharon. However, I am halfway through it and I think it is one I will actually go buy. He is much more articulate in how he writes than in how he speaks. I don't really like listening to speeches by him, he's just not that good at them imo. But his writing is very good, interesting and definitely backed up with lots of references, graphs, studies and research. I hope you like the book. He definitely does see the world getting to be a better place, which is also my belief. It gives me hope and it's nice to see it confirmed in black and white too. Definitely, he writes better than he speaks!
His column in the Scientific American is the first place I turn to.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 1:39:33 GMT -5
Yknot, possibly we are using different definitions of science. I think I posted what his definition that he was using for the book at the beginning of this thread. I took it to be more based on our ability to reason, have a process to do that, and we have the ability of getting rid of something that no longer proves to be true. Science has a method, it has peers, it needs to be replicated by others, etc. You speak of eugenics program etc., and he does go into that in the book. The video is a very brief start to a lot of 'filled out' information in the book. It is over 400 pages long with lots of references, notes etc. that go into even more detail. So he does state in the book where he got all his information from and what inspired him to write it etc. I am enjoying the book, learning things I never knew before. That is always my goal when reading, learning and enjoying. I haven't found anything I disagree with violently. I do question some of it, but overall, I think it's worth the time. Snow, thanks for starting the thread. It made me think more earnestly about my own sense of morality, available knowledge and experiences. Your review of Michael Shermer's book has caused me to think more carefully about looking into the discussions on the changes in our social moral order. I have taken note of the "expanding circle of empathy" but only in a sociopolitical context. I have not really thought about how the expansion of technical knowledge might influence moral decisions until you started this thread. I suspect the relationships will turn out to be highly complex. I don't know if you have been following the outbreak of measles in the U.S. or not but there are many questions to be asked about precisely where we are (morally) and where we are going on issues like this. Mention the "trans-humanism" movement to me and I near go into an apoplectic fit . . . . . right up to the moment that I realize that I am sitting here typing away with three stents in my coronary artery!!!!!!!!! Oooops perhaps I should rethink this question a little. So I end up concluding for myself: Have your convictions, work like the dickens to live by them, actively listen to the convictions of others, be prepared to passionately embrace growth when the opportunity presents. I thought it would be an interesting subject and since I was reading the book thought I would share. I really hadn't thought too much about how much has changed because our superstitions and errors in knowledge gave way when we started to understand the world around us more. It makes total sense of course that more knowledge can help us let go of things we once believed to be true, but I didn't link it to morality like Shermer has. I have heard bits and pieces of the measles issue and we are having some of the same issues here in Canada too. The two sides are so far apart. Some of that is due to scare tactics by those who are against vaccinations and that is sad because young mothers are making decisions based on these instead of actually looking at research presented on each side and then making an informed decision. I think some of the problem is that mothers today didn't live in a time before vaccinations and didn't live through the polio outbreaks, or even heard of the TB sanitariums. My children were young enough that they didn't get the earliest mumps vaccinations, but they got the measles vaccinations. But I saw what can happen when these diseases become quite serious. Yes in the end we have to decide what works for us. I like discussions like this. There is always something we can learn from others.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 2:47:52 GMT -5
Dmmichgood - there was a time, back in our parents or grandparents days when being on social welfare was shameful; gambling was evil; having a child out of "wedlock" was a scandal; smoking was "worldly"; bankruptcy was dishonorable; porn wasn't something you came across; narcotics were unheard of and no-one wanted to get into debt. That's what it was like up until the 1930's.
You have absolutely NO idea what it was like living in the 1930's!
I was born in 1932, I KNOW what my parents & grandparents lived through!
You know nothing at all about it!They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm."
Nearly all the men I knew smoked.
Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man.
In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression.
There were little porn books the boys use to pass around.
No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt.
Now when you start talking about something that you really KNOW something about besides believing what you want to believe you might be worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 2:52:47 GMT -5
HE’s BACK! Xna, did I adequately respond to your question? Yes, Thanks What kept going thru my mind as I watched the video was the great divide in world views between; the religious, and what Karl Rove disparagingly referred to as those in the "reality-based community". Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy. They see bad news headlines, natural disasters, and see it as a sign of the end times. These conformations are however anecdotal and stem from their eschatological myths. If the world really was getting better it would be a big problem for their prophecy. Some sects even actively try to hasten the end times. These are the more dangerous ones. Contrast this with his video talk on a science based approach examining morality which looks at observable facts, and projects trends. "Christian preachers (and 2x2) who say the world is getting worse, and prgoressively more wicked do so because it is supported by their end times prophecy." Indeed! and supports their pocketbooks as well!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 3:06:09 GMT -5
Snow, thanks for starting the thread. It made me think more earnestly about my own sense of morality, available knowledge and experiences. Your review of Michael Shermer's book has caused me to think more carefully about looking into the discussions on the changes in our social moral order. I have taken note of the "expanding circle of empathy" but only in a sociopolitical context. I have not really thought about how the expansion of technical knowledge might influence moral decisions until you started this thread. I suspect the relationships will turn out to be highly complex. I don't know if you have been following the outbreak of measles in the U.S. or not but there are many questions to be asked about precisely where we are (morally) and where we are going on issues like this. Mention the "trans-humanism" movement to me and I near go into an apoplectic fit . . . . . right up to the moment that I realize that I am sitting here typing away with three stents in my coronary artery!!!!!!!!! Oooops perhaps I should rethink this question a little. So I end up concluding for myself: Have your convictions, work like the dickens to live by them, actively listen to the convictions of others, be prepared to passionately embrace growth when the opportunity presents. I thought it would be an interesting subject and since I was reading the book thought I would share. I really hadn't thought too much about how much has changed because our superstitions and errors in knowledge gave way when we started to understand the world around us more. It makes total sense of course that more knowledge can help us let go of things we once believed to be true, but I didn't link it to morality like Shermer has. I have heard bits and pieces of the measles issue and we are having some of the same issues here in Canada too. The two sides are so far apart. Some of that is due to scare tactics by those who are against vaccinations and that is sad because young mothers are making decisions based on these instead of actually looking at research presented on each side and then making an informed decision. I think some of the problem is that mothers today didn't live in a time before vaccinations and didn't live through the polio outbreaks, or even heard of the TB sanitariums. My children were young enough that they didn't get the earliest mumps vaccinations, but they got the measles vaccinations. But I saw what can happen when these diseases become quite serious. Yes in the end we have to decide what works for us. I like discussions like this. There is always something we can learn from others. True, we have to decide what works for us but we need to think about what happens if our child with measles exposes another child who happens to be too young yet for their vaccinations.I had the measles as a child and was lucky. I had no sequel from it.
My mother wasn't as lucky.
She had the measles when she was very young.
The sequel left her hearing impaired for life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 7:27:27 GMT -5
Talking about Australia here, okay?
Quote - "They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm." In Aust it was called "suso" (abrev for sustenance I suppose) and it was a shameful when you have to rely upon it. Many prided themselves by not having to resort to it.
Quote - "Nearly all the men I knew smoked." And it was considered a "sin."
Quote - "Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man." Probably true. Doesn't change what I meant.
Quote - "In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression." I want to avoid extreme times, such as the Great Depression in discussing these things. That was exceptional time. GENERALLY bankruptcy was considered shameful. Not anymore - shame itself is seen as shameful these days.
Quote - "There were little porn books the boys use to pass around." Yes, shameful to be done in public. Even buying porn in small towns was "problematic." These days it even pops up in Microsoft's Hotmail page. Lots of children are normalized by this.
Quote - "No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt." Debt was a bit like bankruptcy - something to be avoided. I recall how that changed, like most things, in the 1960's. There was this Flintstones cartoon where Betty... let Wikipedia word it for me "Fred's wife. She is more intelligent and level-headed than her husband, though she often has a habit of spending money (with her and Betty's catchphrase being "Da-da-da duh da-da CHARGE IT!!" Debt, like gambling, was no longer seen as bad. That's fine --- now how much are people in debt?
Dmmichgood. One thing about the 1960's - there was lots of openly bad behavior by rebellious people. The problem with these people was that everyone followed them, and then life became a serious PAIN. Suddenly everyone was wearing tattered jeans, even Steve Jobs. Suddenly half of Sth America turns into narco states to supply marijuana and cocaine, and our police forces are compromised. Suddenly we are running out of local kids because couples are too liberated. Suddenly millions of women are dying of lung cancer, or going to jail. Now America owes the world trillions. And on it goes. What is good for one is good for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 7:42:13 GMT -5
Quote - What is immoral about gambling? It's not immoral for me to spend $50 on a few hours of driving a go-cart for fun, and take nothing home. Neither is it immoral for me to spend $10 in a casino for fun, whether I take anything home or not. We all "gamble" but this "gamble" by choice in the hope you can get something from someone else for nothing.
Quote - The problem with illegal gambling is that (1) it is illegal, (2) the gamblers can't sue for fraud, (3) it promotes an underground industry (4) which cannot be taxed, which (5) breeds competition for dominance (6) outside the civilized rule of law, which (5) promotes underground wars which (6) increases the violent crime rate. This is looking at the societal ramifications of gambling. I was referring to the fundamental habit.
Quote - Where I live normal people can go to a casino and play for fun, the government regulates the odds, and taxes the casino profits (the state's largest revenue source) and regulates who can operate a gaming facility. The government will prosecute people who cheat, and players can sue if they are cheated. The government regulates how the cards are handled and how they are disposed of. Casinos can be prosecuted for such things as loaded dice, tipped tables, and on and on. Same argument applies to the legalization of prostitution and narcotics.
Quote - Making something illegal has nothing to do with making things better -- it just allows those who don't believe in something to throw those who want to do it to the crooks and gangsters. Yes, we know about Al Capone and the Prohibition. Trouble is - legalizing everything legitimizes everything. Just watch - we will "legalize" child porn in twenty or so years.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 12:22:59 GMT -5
Dmmichgood - there was a time, back in our parents or grandparents days when being on social welfare was shameful; gambling was evil; having a child out of "wedlock" was a scandal; smoking was "worldly"; bankruptcy was dishonorable; porn wasn't something you came across; narcotics were unheard of and no-one wanted to get into debt. That's what it was like up until the 1930's.
You have absolutely NO idea what it was like living in the 1930's!
I was born in 1932, I KNOW what my parents & grandparents lived through!
You know nothing at all about it!They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm."
Nearly all the men I knew smoked.
Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man.
In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression.
There were little porn books the boys use to pass around.
No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt.
Now when you start talking about something that you really KNOW something about besides believing what you want to believe you might be worth listening to.
I am so glad you are part of this forum!!! Thank you! That is exactly what it was like. How do I know? I had parents that were old enough to be my grandparents. I was adopted when my mother was 46. So I grew up with a generation that saved every little thing they had because they survived the depression. Debt was a way of life. Not having enough was a way of life. There were no social programs to bail you out and trust me they would have been so welcomed. Our world is a better place because of the options people now have when they are destitute. Women are better off now because they don't have to give up their babies because of the scandal and the stigma. Their 'bastards' are able to walk with their heads held high because there is no longer the stigma attached to being born out of wedlock. I know about that also. My birth mother was one of those 'fallen' women and I was what the religious world labelled as a 'bastard'. So if anyone thinks that it is more moral to not have programs in place to help people who need it, and if you think that it was better when women and children were labelled as fallen and bastards then you go right ahead. But don't try to tell me it was 'more moral' or 'more just' which is Michael's reasoning for morality. Was it just? If it wasn't it was immoral. Many people don't like to see it blamed on religion. Well, what do you think held us back from being just and moral if not religious beliefs that held women who got pregnant when not married as fallen. Who were the ones that withheld pain meds to these women while giving birth? Who are the people that burned witches? Who are the people that are fighting against the rights of gays? Who are the people that are against the right of women to use contraceptives? What is holding us back? Old beliefs that come directly out of an old supposedly moral piece of literature that tell us these things. We are slowly becoming more moral 'in spite of' these teachings. And I'm not saying that people belief these things to be mean. I'm saying they are stuck in a place that they can't escape from because they can't question the beliefs they have been taught that has been passed on to them by the people they trusted and loved. They can't question them because to question God's word is to possibly bring God's wrath down on your head. It's time to understand how these old beliefs are holding us back from being a just and moral society. Sure there are some things that the 'good book' says that make people better, more moral, more just. But there are so many things that are holding us back from being a just and therefore more moral society. I am so glad that we have got past a lot of our past 'errors' of thought and have gotten more moral. But we are still a long way from a truly just world for all. It's a journey for sure. I'm sure many will disagree with what I just said, and that's okay. You are allowed to disagree with me. But these are my thoughts and one of the big reasons I mostly agree with what Michael Shermer is saying in his book, the Moral Arc.
|
|