Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

n7axw wrote:
St Paul writes in Romans two that the laws of God are written on the human heart...which is exactly what you are saying.

I agree

Don

n7axw wrote:

hanuman wrote:Okay, so I've finally had enough rest to reboot my brain and organize my thoughts in a coherent way.

I think everyone by now knows that I'm of the opinion (opinion hah!) that there exists a standard of decent human behaviour that is inherently recognizable and acknowledged by all societies.

It is important to remember that the philosophy of morality is constantly in flux - it isn't written in stone, and despite my very firm conviction, my opinion is still only an opinion, as we can see from the vehement protests it has elicited from other posters.

I also want to clarify that I agree with many of the things that those protests have mentioned. Yes, there is no culture-independent definition of 'good' or 'evil'. Yes, many practices that have historically been thought to be acceptable, or are currently practiced by societies other than my own, are regarded as unacceptable in my own time and place. I'm not stupid or blind, people. Only thirty years ago the overwhelming majority of my own people thought that the institutionalized oppression of people with dark complexions and kinky hair was perfectly acceptable. The Aztecs and other Mesoamericans thought they were showing the victims of their sacrificial practices a huge honour by sending them to meet the gods.

Cultural relativism has its place in the great pantheon of human philosophy, but it is my opinion and firm belief that it can be taken too far.

Maybe I should have stated my opinion in a different way. Rather than insisting that all cultures instantly recognise a universal standard of decency, I should have stated that although I do think such a standard exists, I also recognise that its achievement is a historical process that involves the evolution of human morality along many different cultural 'tracks' or 'paths'.

I think there is more than enough historical evidence from just about every culture we have written records of to support such a proposition. From the Code of Hammurabi to the central tenets of the Abrahamic faiths, from the teachings of Buddha to the civil protections of the US Constitution, from the traditions of the San people to the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, they all represent a search, a journey to gain a better understanding of that elusive standard of human decency that every human being 'knows' to exist.

In the end, I do not really think that there is any real difference between the way that I think about this and how posters like Shaeun and PeterZ think, except maybe for perspective and emphasis. One way that we might differ seems to be the 'weight' we attach to things like the regard for strength of conviction. That is fairly important, but nonetheless no more than a disagreement on detail.

Moral philosophy is an incredibly interesting but oh so very confusing field of study. For every one example or perspective or opinion, there will always be a host of others that will differ from them. I'be always thought the really fascinating part is to look for the underlying similarities, if there are any to be found.

So, there you have my thoughts.

St Paul writes in Romans two that the laws of God are written on the human heart...which is exactly what you are saying.

I agree

Don

shaeun wrote:

n7axw wrote:
St Paul writes in Romans two that the laws of God are written on the human heart...which is exactly what you are saying.

I agree

Don

Just to be clear - I believe that there should be a universal standard. I want there to be a universal standard, because not having one is really really discouraging.

The biggest argument for being 'good' to one another actually comes from the philosophy of ethical egoism.

For those of you who do not know - ethical egoism is where everyone is out for themselves.

The idea comes from Cooperation Complexity Theory where a group that cooperates (for whatever reason) does better than a group that does not.

Then you have to apply the idea of society, as there is no way to have a large group of self interested people without having some sort of social control. The 'more fair' (for lack of a better word without using another 4 pages) the social controls are the more buy in occurs from the group. The more buy in the larger the cooperating pool which then generates success.

So really the argument for a Ethical or Moral theory that respects basic human rights and self determination is an economic one, and that argument is Universal, and the requirements to get to that economic model are well defined.

Based on this - we can then say that Good is the thing that gives the most to the greatest number of persons who are participating in a collective cooperative venture (otherwise known as society).

With the exception of some of those in power in CoGA (Clynthan) most of the Temple Loyalists (even the ones fighting) disagree with the idea that the actions of the EoC are 'Good'

This is where the hearts and minds campaign comes in. However, it is unlikely given the starting points of both sets of leadership for the two sides that a negotiated settlement is possible. if a coup occurred in the CoGA that would be a different story...

In any event - I believe there is a standard for Good, Ethical, Right and Moral Conduct that everyone should be held accountable to. But - I do not believe that they know intrinsically. These ideals have to be taught.

shaeun wrote:

n7axw wrote:
St Paul writes in Romans two that the laws of God are written on the human heart...which is exactly what you are saying.

I agree

Don

Just to be clear - I believe that there should be a universal standard. I want there to be a universal standard, because not having one is really really discouraging.

The biggest argument for being 'good' to one another actually comes from the philosophy of ethical egoism.

For those of you who do not know - ethical egoism is where everyone is out for themselves.

The idea comes from Cooperation Complexity Theory where a group that cooperates (for whatever reason) does better than a group that does not.

Then you have to apply the idea of society, as there is no way to have a large group of self interested people without having some sort of social control. The 'more fair' (for lack of a better word without using another 4 pages) the social controls are the more buy in occurs from the group. The more buy in the larger the cooperating pool which then generates success.

So really the argument for a Ethical or Moral theory that respects basic human rights and self determination is an economic one, and that argument is Universal, and the requirements to get to that economic model are well defined.

Based on this - we can then say that Good is the thing that gives the most to the greatest number of persons who are participating in a collective cooperative venture (otherwise known as society).

With the exception of some of those in power in CoGA (Clynthan) most of the Temple Loyalists (even the ones fighting) disagree with the idea that the actions of the EoC are 'Good'

This is where the hearts and minds campaign comes in. However, it is unlikely given the starting points of both sets of leadership for the two sides that a negotiated settlement is possible. if a coup occurred in the CoGA that would be a different story...

In any event - I believe there is a standard for Good, Ethical, Right and Moral Conduct that everyone should be held accountable to. But - I do not believe that they know intrinsically. These ideals have to be taught.

hanuman wrote:
I fully agree with you on this. A universal standard of decent behaviour does not necessarily need to be an inherent quality of human nature. In fact, if it was we'd have far less war and crime.

I think what is intrinsic to human nature is the desire or drive to discover that standard, to become 'better' than we are on all levels, including the moral and the material. That is what is represented by the historical evidence.

My quarrel with Peter arose from his apparent position that the strength of a person's conviction is, in and of itself, worthy of respect, whatever actions might be undertaken because of those convictions. Maybe I misread him (which wouldn't surprise me, to be honest, we seem to talk past each other a lot), but I strongly disagree. Actions determine the validity of the beliefs those actions were inspired by, not the other way around. So if someone does something that they KNOW will result in or contribute to thousands of innocent deaths, as happened during the Rakurai, then the beliefs that inspired their actions are corrupt.

shaeun wrote:
I think that there is more to this - as i recall we were discussing peace talks and several individuals were dubious that they would be possible given the current leadership of both sides.

In other words - without a complete military victory, the Go4 will not cease to exist as the 'Big Evil'

PeterZ wrote:Shaeun,

Your earlier post eloquently described how humans cooperated better when the social controls emphasized self determination. This response was universal when viewed in aggregate. So while individuals cheated, those that did not fared much better in those cooperative societies than in non-cooperative ones. Self determination is essential to voluntary buy in and buy in is essential to cooperation in societies.

The CoGA is not strong on allowing self determination. That suggests that there can be no negotiated peace with the CoGA. Therein lies the problem. How will the Temple Loyalists ever buyin to the post CoGA Safehold unless they are given the opportunity to accept the changes? The entire hearts and minds goal of Charisian strategy is to prepare the TLs to voluntarily accept The Truth.

Simply pounding the snott out of the temple boys and jihadists in general won't do it. Commonalities have to developed.

shaeun wrote:
I think that there is more to this - as i recall we were discussing peace talks and several individuals were dubious that they would be possible given the current leadership of both sides.

In other words - without a complete military victory, the Go4 will not cease to exist as the 'Big Evil'

shaeun wrote:
Perhaps, I should have said 'Complete Victory'.

An uprising in the church where the Go4 is deposed would work I suppose, though there never seems to be a shortage of bullies and people willing to be cruel. People who are told by those in authority that it is acceptable, can be, and generally are, worse than they ever thought they could be. (The equivalence would be Nazi Germany)

In Cooperation theory what the Go4 is doing is called 'The Sucker's Payoff' because one group is trying to cooperate and the other is 'Defecting'.

What is really ironic is that cooperation theory works best when consequences are heavy and can be applied by all members of the group.

When the cost of defecting drops because 'Vigilantism' is removed a society cooperates less.

Which means that as a society becomes more free, the social controls that built the society weaken, and as that happens the cost of being a jerk drop and more people become jerks.

There is a whole field of study on this - it is fascinating, and a little sad.

In any event, I do not see a negotiated settlement that includes the Go4 being successful unless the EoC decides to allow them to remain in the interests of reducing the loss of life. I am not certain how that will resolve but, I would prefer to see the Go4 not be negotiated with as giving in to bullies never ends well.

In other words - The viewpoint of the Go4 (Clynthan) is too far from that of the Eoc for meaningful dialogue to take place. It is equivalent to getting Israel and Iran to talk to each other.

Just so everyone knows - I am not a depressive person. Though I have adopted a philosophy that basically says 'I might not have a right to exist, but I do and I will fight to be'