If Post Modernism was correct
If Post Modernism was correct, i feel that there would be no real lasting basis for ethical conduct and morality. Lets say we some how proved that post modernism is the logically correct, i believe society would quickly collapse due to people no longer agreeing on moral principles. The book Sapiens by Noah Harrari argues that what many people call facts are in fact fictions but on a different notion these fictions are what enable humans to subdue all the other animals on the planet. Assuming we value humans more than cockroaches, i don't want the cockroaches to take over. Believe it or not, cockroaches are extremely intelligent given their size.
Questions and comments?
Questions and comments?
Comments (27)
There would probably be a new society in its place with a new order. We may not like it but it would be real. Could we still call Nazi Germany a society?
Quoting Brett
Probably the case. I believe the new society would temporarily reject post modernism. I believe post modernism is more of a end of the road thing. Hardened (keyword hardened) poor people tend to reject touchy feely things like post modernism. Blue collar people although very often severely flawed tend to reject post modernism (that last sentence is my opinion so don't request an article supporting that last sentence).
A new society very often forms from people who just previously went through calamity and thus i would call them hardened poor. Lets not get carried away arguing about the term i chose. Perhaps you have a better term or label to use for this discussion.
An interesting view. I suspect that what you call ‘blue collar people’, or ‘hardened poor’ may be the future.
I like the term ‘hardened poor’, I would also use ‘pragmatic’.
What is the real lasting basis for morality that the widespread materialism offers? In that philosophy you're gonna die, everyone is gonna die, there is nothing after death, while you live you are an aggregate of particles that obeys unchanging laws, your thoughts and feelings are determined by these laws, what moral basis does this view possibly offer?
What is it that prevents most people from going around killing others? Themselves. There is not some higher agreed upon principle that's stopping them, they simply don't want to do it.
If people can willingly disagree with whatever moral principles others come up with, then it's not moral principles that hold society together, it is the will of people.
The mystery would be why you believe that people agree on moral principles.
If people agree on moral principles, how do you explain arguing over whether it's morally acceptable to be gay, morally acceptable to do various drugs, morally acceptable to not respect and/or to offend others, morally acceptable to act violently in self-defense (and to various sorts of offense), etc.?
Noah Harrari says it best (watch a few of his videos on youtube)
Excessive drugs have problems, extreme sexual perversion has problems (not homsexuality but extreme sexual perversion), offending others is something everyone does even sometimes when we say nothing at all (life is extremely complicated).Quoting leo
There might be a higher agreed upon set of moral code and there might not. Agnosticism is completely acceptable, however Atheism defies reason.
thanks
Excessive insistance on moral codes has problems too. If you force others to abide by moral rules, that's oppression, it could even be tyranny, and many people wouldn't agree to a set of moral codes in which oppression is morally acceptable. In my view ultimately it is the will of people that is responsible for how the world is, not the existence or non-existence of agreed upon moral codes.
Instead of fearing excessive drug usage or extreme sexual perversion, we can help people to change, try to understand them, without forcing them to change. In my view when people do these things and it's a problem for them, it's because they're escaping something they perceive as worse.
I don't agree with you on any of those things morally.
So we don't agree on moral principles.
People have always disagreed on moral principles. So again, the mystery is why you think we all agree.
i disagree with your logic path. People have always agreed on moral principles to some degree. This is based on a historical perspective.
No. Tyranny can also be when war lords rise up due to a power vacuum caused by a corrupt society that isn't willing to be tamed to some measure. Standards are very often a good thing. War lords don't care about wishy washy touchy feely viewpoints of spoiled brats, they seize opportunities regardless of people's philosophical viewpoints.
Is pedaphilia wrong?
People are going to agree to some degree if only because there are only so many stances we can imagine while there are seven and a half billion people.
The fact is that there is and always has been tons of disagreement over morality.
Not a conversation I'd ever do online, because it's impossible to discuss it rationally.
terrible. its a fairly common belief that its wrong. Forgive yourself and move on with your life. That was a terrible response on your part. Whatever we have done wrong we should forgive ourselves and try to do better next time.
My original quote is below:
Quoting christian2017
How do you quantify a ton of disagreement. Each nation to some degree comes to some general conclusions on morality. Certain religions from the middle east think extreme sexual perversion is ok. In christianity it is condemned but some denominations don't have the appearance of being true to their faith.
See, even saying that it can't be talked about rationally online is met with such an emotional response. LOL
Quoting christian2017
It's a conversational term, not a mathematical term.
"Each nation"? Are you talking about laws? Mores? There's plenty of disagreement about what laws should be and over mores, within the cultures in question. There's plenty of disagreement within families even.
i asked you if pedaphilia was ok. See above posts. You are disgusting. I don't care if this gets me kicked off this site. Can i steal a million dollars from you? Your answer is no. Why the emotional response?
War lords can rise precisely when society is willing to be tamed. They are the ones who impose standards on you to tyrannize you, and they don't care whether you like these standards or not. You're not gonna stop one with a neat set of moral codes, your rules will be replaced by his.
This doesn't relate to you because it deals with a conversation i had with someone else. I'm done with this site for a while. Some things are just completely unacceptable. Have a good day Leo.
I can deal with someone who is an atheist or agnostic because alot of them have experiences that justify their position but some other people need to forgive themselves, move on with their lives and accept some very basic rational concepts.
Have a good day Leo.
There are people who don't care if you steal from them. That's a good example of the moral variance we already see. Yet nothing is collapsing.
ok
Quoting christian2017
Forum members like you come and go quickly. They join and then start throwing out a bunch of posts trying to gain attention, most often smug and poorly thought through. They respond to criticism with outrage or condescension and then leave quickly when they don't get the deference they think they deserve.
some things are worth getting upset about. You feel the same way.