[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Difference is that most of the cited isms involve a degree of implicit or explicit public consultation and approval based on clear potential advantages. CDC is publicly accountable. Mullahs and bishops are not.

What's clear for you may not be clear for others, and vice versa. What we think is clear might still be false in some circumstances.
They are also accountable, but use different sets of rules. Anyone in any position can be personally corrupt.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The general rule of a civilised society is that some form of parliament or soviet decides what should be prohibited for the public good.

The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.
What makes the difference is the accuracy of their model for objective reality that relates actions and consequences. Some societies believe that human sacrifices can prevent famine and natural disasters. Some others believe that killing gays can save them from disasters. Nazis believed that killing Jews can bring them to prosperity. The Confederacy believed that keeping slaves can bring them to prosperity.

[alianawatson1990]

Classic and elegant interior designs elevate the look of your home to a whole new level. Modern interior design has outstanding features like wallpapers, colors, textures, spacing, lighting, etc.

[Colin2B]

Classic and elegant interior designs elevate the look of your home to a whole new level. Modern interior design has outstanding features like wallpapers, colors, textures, spacing, lighting, etc.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic?
Unless you are showing us that you have a very low moral standard by trying to spam us.
Doesn’t work
Bye

[alancalverd]

The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.

That describes uncivilised societies, which have some kind of predetermined objective. Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others. Hence the incompatibility between English (it is an offence to...) and European (it is a requirement to...) law.

Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.

So, Harvard economist Amartya Sen looks wise in his comment that "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy."

If famine takes place in a democratic country, he can just say that their democracy is not functioning.
It sounds like no true Scotsman.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others.

Whatever you do might upset someone. Even when you do nothing.

[alancalverd]

That is why we have parliaments to decide what is so annoying as to be illegal. Thus civilisation happens by evolution, not revolution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That is why we have parliaments to decide what is so annoying as to be illegal. Thus civilisation happens by evolution, not revolution.

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.
In democratic societies, decisions made by the majority is applied to all members, including those who disagree with them. In representative democracy, it can be manipulated through Gerrymandering.

What is the difference between Evolution and Revolution?
• Evolution refers to the gradual development or changes in something over a period.
• On the other hand, the word revolution means ‘a turn around’; a sudden, complete, or radical change in something.
• Revolution is the fundamental change in something in a staggeringly short period.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-evolution-and-vs-revolution/
French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference?

There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference?

[alancalverd]

French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.

Hence the difference between the legal systems of France and the UK. The French revolutionaries imposed a model secular state, the Brits, as usual, meandered in the course of 1000 years or so towards a compromise vaguely associated with the Church of England and the monarch but ultimately ruled by an elected  parliament and an unelected senate, but crucially preserving the celtic ideal of the state serving the citizen, not the other way around.   

[alancalverd]

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.

Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.

Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.

What's normal and reasonable in one society may not be normal and reasonable in other societies.
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians.

Here's an example from a few years ago.

Or this one.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just found a relatively new Youtube channel especially explain about morality.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiFZhnakJkADVzUftC4FzPg/videos
Here is one of his video.
Moral Antirealism: Is morality a scam?

The idea that morality just exists to enforce social norms is rooted in moral antirealism, the idea that there simply are no moral facts.  But why believe this is true?

And this one from more popular channel.

We begin our unit on ethics with a look at metaethics. Hank explains three forms of moral realism – moral absolutism, and cultural relativism, including the difference between descriptive and normative cultural relativism – and moral subjectivism, which is a form of moral antirealism. Finally, we’ll introduce the concept of an ethical theory.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Virtue Theory

To me, the invention of the word virtue in morality is like adding a hidden layer in a neural network somehere between its input and output. It gives us flexibility to more combinations between possible states of inputs and outputs. But it's hard to define what's virtuous and what's not. Except if we can define the terminal goal, and accurate models to tell us what are the consequences of each options.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://twitter.com/PR0GRAMMERHUM0R/status/1437461095703367684/photo/1
Many say that honesty is a virtue. Some say it's a weakness.

[alancalverd]

Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?

Not all of them. Annoyance may be enough.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

[alancalverd]

Yes, that's me with a ponytail.

My civil service boss told me that I had been criticised in a probationary staff report for not suffering fools gladly. I said I hadn't expected to meet any. The subject was never raised again.

[marklivin]

There is no and cannot be, if we are not captured by AI and impose its power and one moral code on all. Everything is relative.