[Jimbee (OP)]

Okay, these boards do not have a philosophy section like most boards. So someone may have to tell me if I am putting this in the right place.

Anyways, I have been making memes and sharing them on the internet. I made this one a while back:

Sometimes right and wrong aren't so clear. Is it wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving children? Was Robin Hood wrong? Were the American colonies traitors? Or heroes. Sometimes it's clear. Sometimes not so much.


Yeah, sometimes morality can be a relative thing. Now I am not saying it usually should be, don't misquote me. Because that can be a controversial statement, especially for people trying to rationalize their harmful actions. And just to be clear, I think really the only law (that I can think of so far) that you'd be justified in breaking, would be like a silly assisted suicide law (like now have in MI).

Apparently, I am not alone in this, which is ironic. 20-30 years ago, Michiganders all remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian ("Dr. Death"). He was always my hero, but to some he was a villain. Anyways, Oakland Co. Prosecutor Richard Thompson felt he was on a crusade, send by God. But he lost his reëlection due to that nonsense. The more sensible prosecutor Gorcyca took his place. Here is the rest of the story from Wikipedia: 

As Kevorkian's notoriety increases, he provokes polarizing public opinion. His supporters believe he is performing a public service and that the government has no right to interfere with the decisions of competent individuals who want to die. He insists that he gives his patients a means to end their suffering; they alone made the decision and initiated the process. He also claims to have turned down 97 or 98 percent of the people asking for his help. His critics, however, believe he is playing God. Conservative Oakland County prosecutor Richard Thompson believes Kevorkian is a murderer, but can't gain a conviction; he attributes his failures to Michigan's weak laws regarding assisted suicide and advocates stronger laws. In 1998, Thompson loses an election to a more liberal assistant prosecutor, David Gorcyca, who has no interest in wasting money (a major criticism of Thompson) prosecuting Jack Kevorkian as long as he only assists in suicides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Don%27t_Know_Jack_(film) (You have to scroll down.)

Anyways, Americans are in some ways traditional, but they are always fair-minded. I disagree with the statement Gorcyca was that liberal. I know in the infamous Jenny Jones case Thompson said or implied he normally wouldn't prosecute a case if the victim was gay. Gorcyca always would. Also one time the police raided a homeless shelter. Gorcyca demanded. He wanted to know what all that nonsense was about, before he got involved in the case. Gorcyca was kind of jerk too (if I can use that word). He believed in vigorously enforcing certain vice laws. I don't know what that was all about. But they say, when it went to the jury, they promptly dismissed them usually. Gorcyca was just a decent man. But in the US that's a liberal trait for some reason.

Also the view of certain moral issues can change over time, and that's just human nature. Masturbation used to be thought of as a horrible moral wrong. Even Margaret Sanger called it people's dirty little secret. But my very conservative doctor friend once told me before he retired, it's largely evolved into a nonissue. Witches were illegal at one time. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Yet even the most conservative fundamentalist Christian in my country doesn't think Wiccans should go to jail. They try to disrupt their gatherings with bullhorns. But it's only homosexuality that they think should still be illegal, for some reason.

I also have always been drawn to the Aldous Huxley novel "Brave New World". It's a dystopian drama. But is it really? Crime is an illness and corpses are fertilizer. But is that really the worst thing that could happen in the future. The people there are all happy. Isn't that what would really matter?

And the irony of it all, is the "savage" is really just one of us. It's only in the future that he would be considered a disruptive influence. Consider that.

Anyways, in conclusion, morality is sometimes relative, and sometimes it isn't. Maybe some people were just always wrong in the past. Maybe people will be shocked by some of the things we do now. But morality is always changing, because it is always evolving. And that I think is important.

[Petrochemicals]

Morality evolves, especially in the church, somethings today are allowed that they would have crucified you for in the past.

Morality evolves, but people seem to forget that, they also seem to forget that it is usually a hard won thing. Take the vote for instance, in the UK it is only a century since all peoples could vote, the class system then began to erode. Before that if you where working class you had child labour, starvation, bad water. This was morally acceptable.

[Zer0]

It might be more suitable to say
" Morality Changes... ".

' Evolves ' can be relatable to a sense of moving in a Forward direction or ' Progress ' towards something Better than Before.

e.g. Abortion Laws.

[alancalverd]

Evolution favors the successful or efficient without defining "better" in any other sense. So an evolving morality would have justified enslaving or eliminating everyone except white anglosaxon protestants because they invented the steam engine and the machine gun. Hence Nazism.

A more generally acceptable morality involves accommodation and diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

[evan_au]

diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

Isn't diversity the basis of new species?
- In this case, we are talking about "cultural species", rather than the more biological genetic species..

How we can have multiple cultural species coexisting in the same country or city is a challenge, which is where the tolerance for "diversity" comes in.
- The government is likely to be less tolerant of diversity when it comes to paying taxes
- Otherwise there will be a rapid and overwhelming evolutionary pressure for people to join the "no taxes" sect
- Soon after which, the government bureaucracy and social infrastructure will crumble and chaos ensue...

There is still opportunity for diversity between countries, eg:
- High-taxing Scandinavian countries
- Medium-taxing Australia & UK
- Low tax USA
- Near-zero tax in some Caribbean tax havens (but near-zero services, too)

[alancalverd]

Isn't diversity the basis of new species?

A new species may evolve to fill an ecological niche but we're talking here about cultural diversity within a single species, and it's pretty obvious that governments and industries do their best to minimise it.

[Jimbee (OP)]

Anyways, just to close out this thread, I just wanted to share these Star Trek quotes. From time to time, you'll hear me talking about, or perhaps just alluding to, the relativity of morality. No, I don't believe in the relativity of morality myself. Quite the contrary in fact. But I think it can be a motivating force in human life, to question the values that humans sometimes have and just take for granted.

Pursuant to that, I have collected the following quotes from Star Trek that deal with this issue, that I have also made into memes, and shared on the internet. Enjoy.

"The difference between generals and terrorists is only the difference between winners and losers. If you win you are called a general. If you lose…"
— Kyril Finn, The High Ground (episode), Star Trek: the Next Generation,
Stardate 43510.7.

"One world's butcher is another world's hero. Perhaps I am neither one."
- Jarok, to Picard, TNG episodes
The Defector (episode).

"She was right. But at the wrong time."
- Kirk and Spock, Star Trek: TOS,
The City on the Edge of Forever (episode).

"Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life for all species."
—LOCUTUS OF BORG, ST: TNG, The Best of Both Worlds Part II
Stardate: 44001.4
Original Airdate: 24 Sep, 1990.

"Doctor, the sperm whale on Earth devours millions of cuttlefish as it roams the oceans. It is not evil. It is feeding."
- Picard, to Dr. Kila Marr, TNG episodes
Silicon Avatar (episode).

[hamdani yusuf]

diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

Isn't diversity the basis of new species?
- In this case, we are talking about "cultural species", rather than the more biological genetic species..

How we can have multiple cultural species coexisting in the same country or city is a challenge, which is where the tolerance for "diversity" comes in.
- The government is likely to be less tolerant of diversity when it comes to paying taxes
- Otherwise there will be a rapid and overwhelming evolutionary pressure for people to join the "no taxes" sect
- Soon after which, the government bureaucracy and social infrastructure will crumble and chaos ensue...

There is still opportunity for diversity between countries, eg:
- High-taxing Scandinavian countries
- Medium-taxing Australia & UK
- Low tax USA
- Near-zero tax in some Caribbean tax havens (but near-zero services, too)

Diversity can prevent common mode failures.
Investment advisors often say "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

[hamdani yusuf]

Isn't diversity the basis of new species?

A new species may evolve to fill an ecological niche but we're talking here about cultural diversity within a single species, and it's pretty obvious that governments and industries do their best to minimise it.

Too much diversity can also be harmful and cause inefficiency. That's why we have engineering standards, such as USB. 

[alancalverd]

Diversity can prevent common mode failures.

Which is why I sometimes drive on the other side of the road. No chance of a rear-ender!

[hamdani yusuf]

Diversity can prevent common mode failures.

Which is why I sometimes drive on the other side of the road. No chance of a rear-ender!

Not all differences are equal. Some of them are harmful and stupid.

[alancalverd]

diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

Phase 1: We consider evolution to be the random process by which successive generations change.  It is clear that one species or subspecies will evolve that dominates a finite ecological niche, which is why there are no more neanderthals or other hominid precursors.

Phase 2: A successful species may explore related eco-niches and,if successful there, will tend to eradicate its competitors. Which is why homo sapiens is responsible for widespread loss of biodiversity.

[hamdani yusuf]

diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

Phase 1: We consider evolution to be the random process by which successive generations change.  It is clear that one species or subspecies will evolve that dominates a finite ecological niche, which is why there are no more neanderthals or other hominid precursors.

Phase 2: A successful species may explore related eco-niches and,if successful there, will tend to eradicate its competitors. Which is why homo sapiens is responsible for widespread loss of biodiversity.

A crucial point of sexual reproduction is to provide some diversity in a group of organism, which then natural selection can act upon, with relatively few numbers of individuals.

[Petrochemicals]

diversity, which is counter-evolutionary.

Phase 1: We consider evolution to be the random process by which successive generations change.  It is clear that one species or subspecies will evolve that dominates a finite ecological niche, which is why there are no more neanderthals or other hominid precursors.

Or the remnants of ice age die off where absorbed into the gene pool of what ever hominid was in the warm areas. The minankovich cycles have much to do with this. Neanderthals never lived in Africa but the dna is there, makes me think that the evolutionary jump humans have made is the ability to survive the ice ages.