Detweiler and Sons

pappilon wrote:

cthia wrote:Besides, teachers don't hide behind a badge and a gun with a license to kill on a pledge to protect.

If a candidate doesn't think he can be fair to all races as an officer, then go and flip burgers. Part of the training course is comprised of pop up targets. You don't shoot the teacher. You don't shoot the doctor. You don't shoot the kid. You don't empty your clip into everything black.

pappilon wrote:I think it is not an issue of the brush being too wide but rather the canvas being too small. Its not always racism so much as racial bias, which is even more insidious. And yes it is about training and selection, and addressing bias. And the issue is not just about Black males, there is also the issue of the mentally ill. Some of the right people are getting that license to kill with impunity, but some of the wrong ones are, too.

PS: I took the amoral choice. I'm strongly right hand dominant, so I choose to save the arbitrarily lucky kid that happens to be to my right, in the interest of compromise between doing my job and self-preservation. You can't win the Kobayashi Maru scenario without cheating.

Hornblower wrote:I think this thread has derailed!

What I was trying to point out was that The Detweillers do have a sense of Morality. It may not coincide with the 21st century Christian Fundamentalist version of morality. But it does seem to reflect the morality of some 21st Century neonazis. And the point of science fiction is to examine those differences.

Back on topic?

The Ethical name for the argument is "Cultural Relativity." In short every cultural group has different traditions, folkways, and Morals that differ from each other. Some differences are just what you wear and eat on a given holiday. Other differences include how the majority of a cultural group deals with a minority, or how their judicial system works.

But Cultural Relativity states that all cultures are equal in abstract, and more importantly, cannot be judged by another culture. This is simply because the cultural biases of each culture make their members believe that their core beliefs are morally superior and ethically correct, and because they are using this ingrained core as their judicial beliefs, other cultures, therefore, are not ethically correct by definition.

Theemile wrote:
The Ethical name for the argument is "Cultural Relativity." In short every cultural group has different traditions, folkways, and Morals that differ from each other. Some differences are just what you wear and eat on a given holiday. Other differences include how the majority of a cultural group deals with a minority, or how their judicial system works.

But Cultural Relativity states that all cultures are equal in abstract, and more importantly, cannot be judged by another culture. This is simply because the cultural biases of each culture make their members believe that their core beliefs are morally superior and ethically correct, and because they are using this ingrained core as their judicial beliefs, other cultures, therefore, are not ethically correct by definition.

Ok, so... What you're saying is morality/ethics is society based and not because it is writ in the Book?

Theemile wrote:But Cultural Relativity states that all cultures are equal in abstract, and more importantly, cannot be judged by another culture. This is simply because the cultural biases of each culture make their members believe that their core beliefs are morally superior and ethically correct, and because they are using this ingrained core as their judicial beliefs, other cultures, therefore, are not ethically correct by definition.

Nazi culture thinks that some groups of people need to be exterminated. Are we willing to judge them or not?

kzt wrote:

Theemile wrote:But Cultural Relativity states that all cultures are equal in abstract, and more importantly, cannot be judged by another culture. This is simply because the cultural biases of each culture make their members believe that their core beliefs are morally superior and ethically correct, and because they are using this ingrained core as their judicial beliefs, other cultures, therefore, are not ethically correct by definition.

Nazi culture thinks that some groups of people need to be exterminated. Are we willing to judge them or not?

Cultural differences do have to be given a rather broad scope if we are to relate to people different than we are. But I, for one, am a rather firm believer in the old adage that there are limits in all things. Murder is outside those limits. Judging is not my job, but it most surely is the job of the court system of whatever jurisdiction in which that act is committed.

Don

-

The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity says it all...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The concept is found in nearly every religion.

cthia wrote:The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity says it all...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The concept is found in nearly every religion.

It isn't just religion. It is also a very effective strategy in everything that different groups of human beings are involved in (business, foreign relations up to and including war, etc.)

The strategy is known (in English) as: Tit for tat.

cthia wrote:The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity says it all...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The concept is found in nearly every religion.

Vince wrote:It isn't just religion. It is also a very effective strategy in everything that different groups of human beings are involved in (business, foreign relations up to and including war, etc.)

The strategy is known (in English) as: Tit for tat.

Indeed.

Distilled even further in the Old Testament. An eye for an eye.

cthia wrote:The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity says it all...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The concept is found in nearly every religion.

Vince wrote:It isn't just religion. It is also a very effective strategy in everything that different groups of human beings are involved in (business, foreign relations up to and including war, etc.)

The strategy is known (in English) as: Tit for tat.

Indeed.


Note that eye for an eye is an amelioration of really harsh punishments. It meant keep punishment within reason. There were all sorts of rules for punishment for different levels of damage including killing.

And slaves were not counted as valuable as free men.

But culture is relative. Note that the Dets really feel they are doing the right thing. We have not seen them glorying about killing people. They have a goal and work towards it.

Here on Earth I have seen people wearing Che T-shirts even though he killed quite a few people in torture chambers. And there are those who think communism is fine despite the USSR, Great Cultural Revolution in China, Killing Fields of Cambodia, etc.

The idea of an improvement of mankind is that strong (even though there is no evidence that mankind has been improved by that system). It even has a great song "Imagine."

The Dets THINK they are doing the right thing. That removes them from the typical socio or psycho path.


Distilled even further in the Old Testament. An eye for an eye.[/quote]

cthia wrote:The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity says it all...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The concept is found in nearly every religion.

Vince wrote:It isn't just religion. It is also a very effective strategy in everything that different groups of human beings are involved in (business, foreign relations up to and including war, etc.)

The strategy is known (in English) as: Tit for tat.

cthia wrote:Indeed.

Distilled even further in the Old Testament. An eye for an eye.

ldwechsler wrote:Indeed.


Note that eye for an eye is an amelioration of really harsh punishments. It meant keep punishment within reason. There were all sorts of rules for punishment for different levels of damage including killing.

And slaves were not counted as valuable as free men.

But culture is relative. Note that the Dets really feel they are doing the right thing. We have not seen them glorying about killing people. They have a goal and work towards it.

Here on Earth I have seen people wearing Che T-shirts even though he killed quite a few people in torture chambers. And there are those who think communism is fine despite the USSR, Great Cultural Revolution in China, Killing Fields of Cambodia, etc.

The idea of an improvement of mankind is that strong (even though there is no evidence that mankind has been improved by that system). It even has a great song "Imagine."

The Dets THINK they are doing the right thing. That removes them from the typical socio or psycho path.


Distilled even further in the Old Testament. An eye for an eye.

Ignorance cannot be given a pass for sociopathy. Hitler also thought he was doing the right thing. The mentally deranged may think they are doing the right thing. Drug crazed addicts may think they are doing the right thing. Religious fanatics who claim their god told them to kill may really feel they are doing the right thing. If we agree, what is our drug? Progress should not taint basic humanity.

This conversation is difficult without including Christian beliefs, that the purpose of God's teachings, a higher order, is to instill within the limited scope of man's grasp the sense of right and wrong. Our conscience, or the man on our shoulder, is a spiritual being. Whether we accept or acknowledge him or not. When we genengineer ourselves back to being descended from flesh, we lose our innate ability to determine right and wrong, derived from the spirit of discernment given unto us by God.

The Parkland School shooter is flooded with mail, love and admiration.

Doesn't make what he did, right on any level.

Social mores are the determinant factor. Yes you want some greater external rulegiver to make arbitrary decisions seem less arbitrary. So because Manticore and Grayson are religious and Darius is not, their morality is somehow better? So where does The restored Reoublic of Haven fit into your continuum? Its morality is certainly much better than the Peoples' Republic's morality ever was. Yet there did not seem to be some great religious revival to instigate these great sweeping moral changes in Haven's society.

Religion does not clarify. Religion introduces more conflict as societies move through social change and engagement with other societies. Which is the great multiculturalism problem in the US. Social mores are shifting and certain religious groups are fighting to hold back the tide of change. These discussions are supposed to be difficult, ALL moral dilemmas are difficult. Trotting out hackneyed solutions does little to resolve them.

To bring it back to topic. Yes, the great Solarian League is collapsing and there are two competing sets of mores rising to compete for dominance. One (The GA) seeks to preserve the better qualities of humanity, while the other (The RF) seeks a darker path.

Which one wins? We hope it is the vision for society expressed by the Church of Humanity Unchained.