It never ends does it, Ill try once more.
> ...the where does a group get the authority to enforce moral conduct?
We have no authority except within the group. Dont want it, dont need it.
> What's 'right' for me may be 'wrong' for someone else and how is
> anyone to judge?
No one can, never did, never will. No need to judge. These concepts are stuck as assumptions for you. Before you can get anywhere here, you will need to lose most of your base assumptions.
> What works for who? If one group engages in
> activities which work perfectly well for that group but act against
> the interests of another group, who decides what's right and wrong?
There is not a right and wrong, not interested in judging. If it makes you feel better, think of it in us/them rules. US is automatically right, THEM is automatically wrong.
> Take Kosovo f'rinstance - the Serbs have decided on a course of
> action that works for them, does that make it moral? Or Tibet - China
> has taken a course of action that works for them, how is morality
> determined? If it works for me to dump toxic chemicals in the local
> wetland instead of paying for proper disposal, does that make it
No morals involved again, just your own imaginings. What's best for US is what is right. If you would stop focusing on your need to explain these things, and take the assumption that these concepts "the judge" is simply concensus or lack of.
Yep, too bed eh.
> > Let us say there is a small watering hole in a tribal community. It
> > is fed quite slowly, so the community has standards based upon that
> > practical knowledge. The "rules" are broken when someone takes more
> > than their share, rendering the rest of the tribe low on water. Now
> > that is "wrong" in the context of survival for the group. Wrong IS
> > sometimes what the group or the vote count determines. If you dont
> > like it, you have to move to someplace where wrong is right.
> ...ah, but we live in a world where there's no place else to go and
> where there's no recourse for those deprived of water [or anything
> else] to seek redress.
Yep, too bed eh.
> > A polygamous society would have different sexual mores than a
> > monogamous society. It is what works within a system that is good,
> > for you or me or a tribe. Pragmatic cooperation within this
> > competitive sphere sets the right balance of interests for the
> > good.
> ...what happens then when systems interact? If any group can set its
> own morality based on its success then how is that group to relate to
It does or it does not, depending on how similar and how easily meme assimilation happens. Cultures that vary greatly will most likely not see eye to eye most the time.
> Democracy (or "attempted" democracy!) has the best track record
> > for this balancing act so far.
> ...again, sure enough it does within its social sphere, but the
> establishment of the sphere of priviledge for the limited forms of
> capitalist democracy presently existent to be enacted has limited
> itself to an analysis which excludes groups outside its immediate
> composition. Affluent nations can afford to allow their citizens some
> degree of liberty because they have been bribed and stupefied into
In some cases, but obviously not all. Liberty and Freedom came before the affluence of our country. This Freedom and Liberty has permitted some of its population to fall into a sense deprived dream world, but a lot are doing quite well and are quite aware of what is happening around the world and locally. Dont use bribed so liberally, financial success and bribery are not the same thing. If you work for a living, do well from hard work and are successfull financially, then you will understand this. If not, then you can never understand it. It's kinda lke sex that way.
> Nobody wants to acknowledge their priviledge and at what
> cost it accrues to them because that might mean having to give it upm
> se we construct elaborate excuses to justify our actions despite the
> consequences they have in places we can't see.
Cost? what cost? I can reproduce all I like, teach my children as I like, go almost anywhere on the planet for a minimal cost. I can create without control, speak without limits, live pretty much any way I like. With the exception of a bit a religious dogma I have put up with, life is grand. You remind me of the angry young man who cant understand why everyone "just cant get along". Were not supposed to get along!
Why should we get along?
Why would we get along?
How do you expect people the justify their actions? If you believe in a
god you are going to use it as an excuse, if you like your country, you
will use "National Interests" as an excuse. You are talking about the
world you want, not the one that is and that humans are. Of course, you
and 5 or 6 other people in the world that think you are humyns are free
to start your own world, if you can find the space.
> > Maybe you are harsh because the "democracies" dont agree with your
> > views.
> ...I don't condemn systems of government because they disagree with
> my views, any system of government that doesn't directly involve the
> persons for whom it claims to speak is not one that will find favour
> with me. I do become extremely irate when people attempt to justify
> their actions within a particular national/religious/dogmatic context
> without taking into account their personal responsibility. [the
> preceeding statement was a general observation and not a personal
How do you expect people the justify their actions? If you believe in a god you are going to use it as an excuse, if you like your country, you will use "National Interests" as an excuse. You are talking about the world you want, not the one that is and that humans are. Of course, you and 5 or 6 other people in the world that think you are humyns are free to start your own world, if you can find the space.
> Democracy isnt pat. It is always in flux and never
> > "complete". It is messy and chaotic. I dont know about you but I
> > in touch with local, state and national politicians. I write
> > editorial letters to newspapers too. I let them know in no uncertain
> > terms what I think.
> ...I don't do this because I don't acknowledge that those people
> represent either me or my interests. I do not acknowledge their right
> to speak or act on my behalf.
> > Look at the bright side and you might see what you can do to help,
> > instead of the gloom. Have you made a donation to the Kosovar
> > refugees yet? Do you value that as goodness? If so, why? Get with
> > it, participate.
> ...I do what I can every day with every fibre of my being to make a
> better world. I do that by educating myself and teaching my friends.
> i do that by taking the time to listen to my friends and the people
> around me to learn what they have to teach. I do it by learning how
> to articulate the order of the world in which I am immersed and
> engace my critical faculties.
> ...I don't make donations of money because I have none to donate.
This explains a lot - and is typical of the way I though 10 years ago when I had no money. A few things that will help as new assumptions:
"You aren't the only one who wants a better world, and your better world, most would consider worse."
"Money is power"
"Knowledge is power"
"If you want to remake the world in your image, you need a lot of power."
"Denial does not make it go away"
"If you can think about it, someone else already did, so ask."
"Life is more than being an Angry young man, it's also about sex."
> > Did you go off your meds!???
> http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians