Most people can't handle moral complexity

[EndogenousRebel]

Not necessarily saying I myself can or that I am Superior in any way.

Interesting is that with all these conflicts today most people prefer narrative of good and evil.

They think that they can compare real world geopolitics to Star Wars.

Even when both sides of a conflict are led by conservative dogma people want to spin a narrative around it. X people are the "good" guys and that aligns with my political faction.

Even people who are looking for a right answer are misguided.

The whole world fails to respond as bodies flatline in front of them.

The whole situation is a case study into how bad we are at managing conflict and our incoming extinction.

 

[Black Rose]

Strong emotions hamper one's ability to stand back and look at things from a detached perspective.

Even with a detached perspective emotion can overwhelm you with fears.

Rationality needs to take in all views even emotions because some conclusions will not be seen without them and those conclusions can be wrong at times.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The whole situation is a case study into how bad we are at managing conflict and our incoming extinction.

Yes, its current problem. Not all leaders are bad. But it takes one bad leader for Rome to burn if you know what I mean.
So we kind of live in a world where it takes few people to fuck things up for many. Despite the ideal democracy, we still are under the spell of this paradigm.

 

[ZenRaiden]

also ought consider how long word moral was actually used as tool of people to control other people. Still is.
For instance in Roman army morals were equal to corporal punishment.
So the word moral has many implication in language which are often confused with meaning.
Moral complexity means to me more like intelligence and ability to weigh various variables fairly and in consideration of other variables.
But morals are not purely rational decision process.
On individual level what is good for me might be wrong for you.
I like cold. Should I then tell everyone to wear shorts in winter?
I have definitely been told I am nuts for doing so. It does not bother me though.

So there is certain semantic confusion between the real world and words used.
Words are not reality. Words are just tool to help us communicate or name the reality.
How ought to know reality is beyond words.
So I cannot rationally explain to you why my body is immune to cold to greater degree.

When it comes to complexity we ought to consider certain axioms. What is best.
But in politics what is best is often complex and has not so much with morality, but with tactics and strategy.
In fact to my mind politicians should not be allowed to talk morals.
TO me politicians should be strictly statesmen that define strategy, tactics and planning. What is morally right or wrong is not their domain.
Their domain is to execute the will of people in democracy, or represent it in case of republic.
Neither happens in real world though.
There is fundamental disconnect between ruling class and what people seem to want.

 

[Black Rose]

Moral complexity means to me more like intelligence and ability to weigh various variables fairly and in consideration of other variables.
But morals are not purely rational decision process.
On individual level what is good for me might be wrong for you.

I have something like a super memory for random things that seem to interconnect with each other so I can see why something may or may not affect something else.

And I have been in so many debates for such a long time that I know what I am talking about and can decide when I am right or wrong based on constant thinking.

People get mad when I tell them facts and they get even mader when I tell them why those facts matter and the contexts of why they matter.

I told my therapist 20 things that led from the beginning of the modern era till today and there are 200 more things needed to understand why Trump was elected. And over 2,000 other things relate but are just things I know about because of culture.

She said presidents inherit the economy of the previous president and I said even if that is the case there still are many things outside the president's control that matter more. (Jimmy Carter could not control the oil embargo, and Clinton inherited the Ragan economy which came in response to the embargo)

She said I should be a history teacher.

But I only remember things I remember not book stuff. I got a D- in college in history because I needed to remember 10 things on the test and read a 30-page chapter to get these facts. I can't do that.

No, people just hate the president or person they don't like because they cannot think of why the person they dislike is the way they are. And it is information that matters in understanding something about the world. We cannot get into us why something happened if we do not know what is around the thing we are trying to analyze. I observe things many many things and put it all together. I try and tell people what is the real situation and all but get put down. So I try to explain and get shut down. This is all because a person has emotions to take into account for.

A person has little information and so they have to use emotion on everything. It make it so they can form a trust with others who believe the same as them. This is primal. If a person disagrees with you then they must be wrong and this could lead to death. The leader is right and the subjects must believe everything he says. That is how you survive. People put faith in some kind of authority and stop thinking and then what I say may conflict with this so they use emotions to reject me. Once that happens they can start thinking they are always right. Because they were programmed to trust emotions and emotions are the ultimate authority.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But I only remember things I remember not book stuff. I got a D- in college in history because I needed to remember 10 things on the test and read a 30-page chapter to get these facts. I can't do that.

If you can learn the curriculum alone then you can still be history teacher.

No, people just hate the president or person they don't like because they cannot think of why the person they dislike is the way they are. And it is information that matters in understanding something about the world. We cannot get into us why something happened if we do not know what is around the thing we are trying to analyze. I observe things many many things and put it all together. I try and tell people what is the real situation and all but get put down. So I try to explain and get shut down. This is all because a person has emotions to take into account for.

Everyone is different. Lots of smart people will shut you down because you need to know your audience. You cannot express random information to random people.
Most people think about their own things.
You have to talk to people about what they are interested in.
Most of what you are interested in is not something most people talk about.
Specialty knowledge is for people who have specialty interests.

Most people talk about you know stuff.... I actually don't know what people normally talk about.....

 

[Black Rose]

You cannot express random information to random people.

It's not random if I tell them why something is happening based on the topic we share between us.

That is just the basics of any conversation where we have a topic and the topic needs explaining. (cause = effect)

They just do not accept that the world is different than they think it is.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You cannot express random information to random people.

It's not random if I tell them why something is happening based on the topic we share between us.

That is just the basics of any conversation where we have a topic and the topic needs explaining. (cause = effect)

They just do not accept that the world is different than they think it is.

I can't really tell for sure, but what you might be doing is common mistake.
You are projecting your own mind onto others. So you kind of have unreal expectations.
Watch this vid and see what you think.
This guy kind of explains ....

 

[Black Rose]

I can't really tell for sure, but what you might be doing is common mistake.
You are projecting your own mind onto others. So you kind of have unreal expectations.
Watch this vid and see what you think.
This guy kind of explains ....

This is the way normal people think:

Trump = evil because of my emotional attachment to my neuro-personality
Biden = evil because of my emotional attachment to my neuro-personality

who is evil? those who support the opposite candidate trump/biden.

Who is projecting? the other side must be evil because they think like me but choose not to pick the correct candidate. It is a choice, not a condition of brain personality.

-

I once thought I was autistic but then I was told I have masculine cognition but feminine emotions.

What does this mean?

First. Autism is NOT about high OR low empathy. Not all autistic people are empathetic blobs some have been school shooters.

Autism is not about mind blindness. Most Autistic people do have a theory of mind. People think autism is about being a mental genius but low social intelligence. But not all autistic people have high IQ and some have high social intelligence.

Autism is just and only about the number of connections inside a person's brain grey matter and sometimes the white matter asymmetry. It is in the metabolism.

People who have a normal amount of brain cell connections can have low social intelligence and low IQ. Low social intelligence and high IQ. High social intelligence and low IQ. High social intelligence and high IQ.

People who have an abnormal amount of brain cell connections can have low social intelligence and low IQ. Low social intelligence and high IQ. High social intelligence and low IQ. High social intelligence and high IQ.

A proposed theory of autism is the masculine feminine brain. People vs Things.

But this is not what masculine feminine brains are.

Archetypally they are:

Female = internal self-regulated
Male = externally self-regulated

That would mean I have:

External cognition
Internal emotions

Projection would be externalized emotion (which men seem to have in general)

Internalized cognition is definitely something to consider though because women are not stupid.

But with internalized emotion, this means that I can tell the way people are. It seems most people think autism is about not understanding the internal emotions of others. Or that autism is about internal cognition meaning autism is about not being able to understand the cause and effect of others' emotions but only mine.

"Jim is angry and I do not understand why Jim is angry. I know why I am angry but not others"

Internalized emotion + Internalize cognition = Blob

Externalized emotion + Internalize cognition = Projection

Internalized emotion + Externalized cognition = Empath

Externalized emotion + Externalized cognition = Meat head

-

men or women can be any of these.

-

So the complicated complex view is:

IQ + External/Internal | emotion/cognition + normal/abnormal brain cell connections density

My IQ is not low
My empathy is high
I have a normal density of connections

I am physically male
I look normal
I am 35 yo

 

[ZenRaiden]

My IQ is not low
My empathy is high
I have a normal density of connections

I am physically male
I look normal
I am 35 yo

OK, but this information here is irrelevant to the functioning of interpersonal real, or optimizing for actual real life interactions.
Your IQ is what it is. What you can and cannot do with it is something very important to know.
How you look is good to know. But you look different to other people. Some people might find you attractive, and some don't, some people might find you to look normal and some might find you to be weird, etc.
So to yourself you look normal. I think most people kind of look normal in fact.
Your density of neural connections is kind of irrelevant to real life situations as well.
I also kind of doubt you can tell that from anything other than doctors telling its so.
But does density even matter in any situation in life?
You are male, that is base line knowledge. Thats good you know that.
Empathy is good to have, it is what it is. Kind of learning to use it is important skill.
So what you know about yourself is kind of what he is talking about in the video.
I think he is more talking about how you function and how you are, and in relation to other people.
That kind of happens in different situations. Essentially the concept of radical acceptance is what it is.
It is kind of important to figure out more than simply "omg people don't understand me, I am so smart, they don't this or that." That is not going to help you get along with people.
Its also the question of what kind of people you fit in with and what people are good company etc. I am not sure from what you usually say actually you know that.

 

[Black Rose]

OK, but this information here is irrelevant to the functioning of interpersonal real, or optimizing for actual real life interactions.

Its also the question of what kind of people you fit in with and what people are good company etc. I am not sure from what you usually say actually you know that.

The point I was making was that autism is not the problem I have as to why people don't understand me or the reason people get offended by what I say.

People cannot understand complexity so they have the survival instinct to fear get angry and hate people who challenge what they know because what they know is what helps them survive. Any threats then come from things more complex than themselves because it is too much and overwhelms the simple answers for how they can survive. It's easier to pic a side (trump/biden) than not because that is a good way to survive in the past. The best way for me to survive is to hide from them because they will kill anyone NOT ON THEIR SIDE as their instincts dictate them to do.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The point I was making was that autism is not the problem

Look, in perfect world, no neurological difference should be a problem. Maybe its not.
I think autism is always implicitly a complication. Whether its a problem is not always in our control, but usually I find it hit and miss. Depends on situations.

People cannot understand complexity

Sure they can. Question is would they or do they or want they?
Some people are simple minded. Some people are complex.
We also kind of have different levels of complexity.
In some ways you might see things as complex, things you don't know will be viewed simple.
Expecting people to see your level of complexity is unrealistic. Most people talk simple.

will kill anyone NOT ON THEIR SIDE as their instincts dictate them to do.

People when talking about politics get emotional. Also irrational.
Just stop talking about politics or religion or veganism, and you will be fine.

 

[Black Rose]

Look, in perfect world, no neurological difference should be a problem. Maybe its not.
I think autism is always implicitly a complication.

That is why I tried to explain the complications of what people think autism is and what it actually is and is not.

It has to do with metabolism and not exactly social deficits.

Some people are simple minded. Some people are complex.
We also kind of have different levels of complexity.

Complex things can trigger survival impulses.

That is why it is more about emotions than neurodivergence or neurotypicality.

What people fear is what people cannot understand.

If you are confronted by what you don't understand you will not know if you will survive.

Expecting people to see your level of complexity is unrealistic. Most people talk simple.

Even when people talk simply they feel the need to defend themselves from different views. That is why it is easier to join a team. People don't like it when you are not on their team. I have emotions also, so I feel confronted by people who don't understand me. And often it matters because if people do not understand what needs to be done then my survival is jeopardized. But I realized I need to get on people's good side so they will do what I say so I will not die. I won't lie but I do not talk about things other than what I can talk about. I have been in many fights with people because what they were doing would have led to my extinction and they could not be reasoned with. I try and avoid this as much as possible but in most people's lives, this happens every single day because fighting is a simple solution that often works.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Well honestly I cannot help you with this stuff.
Its kind of what people, and what situations.
Its just not always about you, but you talking like people will kill you if you talk complicated "something here stinks". Either you are misinterpreting situations, ergo people actually just annoyed and you interpret it as violence, or you are around wrong people. That also said, I know people who get very offended and angry about politics. So its not like you can just talk about this and expect normal reactions by default.

Other thing is do people actually want to talk about these topics and understand you?
Because the way you write here, if that is how you talk to people in real life, that would be very difficult to understand you.

Frankly I cannot talk politics even with my family. I can piss them off, just by saying something simple like xyz. Not to mention they aren't the healthiest people on planet.

You kind of need to find people and connect over common ground. So if autism and politics don't work, which I have never had a single conversation in my life about this stuff with anyone that I know of, then try more simpler topics.

Pic something that people actual do want to talk about and don't get all up in arms about.
Pic some everyday topic.

If you want to talk about autism and politics you either need to talk to people who are into politics or people who are interested in autism.

Let me remind you that politics is by design adversarial. So talking politics unless you agree with them will be a verbal bloodbath. People just don't talk normal when it comes to politics.

 

[Black Rose]

Well honestly I cannot help you with this stuff.

I was not asking you to but thanks for thinking about it.

Its kind of what people, and what situations.
Its just not always about you, but you talking like people will kill you if you talk complicated "something here stinks".

I talk in general terms because that's the tread topic. Not everything I said was about myself. In general, people do want to kill people on the opposite side because it is a built-in survival mechanism. People on the other side usually have different ideas that are hard to understand. People think if you disagree with them you are not on their side. Complex ideas are scary.

Either you are misinterpreting situations, ergo people actually just annoyed and you interpret it as violence, or you are around wrong people.

No, I am just explaining that it is a natural instinct people have in general. In evolutionary terms, you fight people who disagree with you because in the past it had a survival advantage.

That also said, I know people who get very offended and angry about politics. So its not like you can just talk about this and expect normal reactions by default.

I don't but I have been trying to explain why people have their reactions to complex ideas.

Other thing is do people actually want to talk about these topics and understand you?
Because the way you write here, if that is how you talk to people in real life, that would be very difficult to understand you.

complexity is hard to understand yes. so I only mentioned me and my therapist.

I have little interactions with people in real life and I avoid unnecessary confrontations but online it seems people do get away with alot when you try and talk to them.

Frankly I cannot talk politics even with my family. I can piss them off, just by saying something simple like xyz. Not to mention they aren't the healthiest people on planet.

yes, that is mostly who I fight with in real life, my brother in particular.

You kind of need to find people and connect over common ground.

I do with some people but then I seldom have time to meet new people.

So if autism and politics don't work, which I have never had a single conversation in my life about this stuff with anyone that I know of, then try more simpler topics.

I am not autistic.

I don't walk up to random strangers and yell at them about my opinions on politics.

Simple topics are better for me to do and it is what I do with people as I get to know them.

Pic something that people actual do want to talk about and don't get all up in arms about.
Pic some everyday topic.

I do.

If you want to talk about autism and politics you either need to talk to people who are into politics or people who are interested in autism.

I do.

That is why I made my post about showing the complexity of the subject matter (autism).

People call me autistic because they do not know what autism is or my personal psychology.

Let me remind you that politics is by design adversarial. So talking politics unless you agree with them will be a verbal bloodbath. People just don't talk normal when it comes to politics.

survival often needs simple answers that work.

politics is about picking a side.

I try not to pick sides.

 

[ZenRaiden]

survival often needs simple answers that work.

politics is about picking a side.

I try not to pick sides.

OK I see.
Well you came off as super cryptic there, so I kind of interpreted things wrong.
But when it comes to complexity we kind of have to be mindful of fact that most people don't have the luxury of taking the time to complex thinking in life.
That is also why propaganda is so easy to use against many people.
Its not that people are stupid. Most of the time they just don't have the time to dig in.
If they don't dig deeper then it leads to surface level stuff where propaganda pretty much is everywhere.
Hence why google and other search engines know most people just google something and then they click the first title first page.
Sometimes that kind of makes it easy to predict what people often read.
We kind of live in world of information that is easy to monitor.
In the past reading a book was not something you could monitor unless you kind of did it physically.
Now days through data analytics they kind of see where people roam the net of information.
Hence easy to patch things up with propaganda.
So how can people construct complex thoughts when they are routinely exposed to bullshit.
I cannot. I cannot see complexity in stuff that makes no sense.
I can certainly dig into past information if I have the motivation to, or look at things in more sophisticated way. But then again lots of stuff is inherently just way too hard to judge.
So a lot of politics feels like speculating and guessing to me.
Not exactly the way I want to know the world. I think most people are averse to speculation by nature of uncertainty.
Unfortunately that is the point of propaganda, to introduce uncertainty.
It kind of creates fear and caution in people, and hence prevents them to think.

 

[Old Things]

Sorry, have not read the whole thread.

The problem is that so many have seared their conscience. They call what is good evil and what is evil good.

The problem is that people justify evil for some greater gain. So what is "good"? To love one another with brotherly affection. To outdo one another in showing honor. To value others more than yourself.

In the West at least, many of the characteristics we find valuable come from Christian principles. Self-sacrifice, generosity, kindness, etc. are all vehemently Christian ideas. It was not always the case that people valued these things. Christians were more or less responsible for ending slavery. Today we abhor what happened in chattel slavery, but it was how most people assumed things should be. People justified slavery. Then some Christians came along and said all humans are made in God's image so there should not be slavery anymore.

 

[Black Rose]

But when it comes to complexity we kind of have to be mindful of fact that most people don't have the luxury of taking the time to complex thinking in life.

It's hard to draw the line for me because that is what I did in school all the time.

And it is what I do for fun even when I had a job.

It is just that I did it alone because no one was interested.

That is also why propaganda is so easy to use against many people.
Its not that people are stupid. Most of the time they just don't have the time to dig in.

But I have the history to know how to think.

Most people don't remember much of anything from culture.

It is the culture that we rely on to judge the old times from new times.

If they don't dig deeper then it leads to surface level stuff where propaganda pretty much is everywhere.
Hence why google and other search engines know most people just google something and then they click the first title first page.
Sometimes that kind of makes it easy to predict what people often read.

When I went to bible camp we did not read the bible. So I did not even know what it was about. But instead, we say all the cartoons and stuff, all the media about it. So I know half the stuff, half the stories. Last March - April I read the New Testament Epistles, it was not about anything in church but what I thought. It is completely different from the church. So church kept me ignorant for a long time. That does not mean anything in particular except that I now know why they did so. Science is bad for people they think and baby boomers were not the best at thinking. So they did not teach us to think. Because when you can think the bible is not the surface level stuff. But that is how you had to learn is from authorities, that is why people don't know what it is and get bible knowledge from movies like all other surface things.

We kind of live in world of information that is easy to monitor.
In the past reading a book was not something you could monitor unless you kind of did it physically.
Now days through data analytics they kind of see where people roam the net of information.
Hence easy to patch things up with propaganda.

People who think are in some sense only 25 percent of the population and what each person thinks about will be different but deep thinking requires years of practice until age 30 when a person gets into the mode of true adulthood. When you get old enough then thinking is required for understanding the world in a different way. You cannot play games anymore, you need to do a job and raise kids and know what the future will be. Danger is something you become cognisant of for what world kids go into.

But before the internet before TV before radio people knew that the world was changing.

It is just now we have kids who see all the world from how it would be if a caveman entered a city. People cannot be isolated anymore in that information is everywhere when in the past thinking was done only with people next to you, not people you saw a thousand miles away. I had to read books because nothing else to do. Watch TV because nothing else to do. now internet lets me see any video on anything. But the culture was and is from the past not erased from my memory.

So how can people construct complex thoughts when they are routinely exposed to bullshit.
I cannot. I cannot see complexity in stuff that makes no sense.

The pat is my anchor.
It allows me to understand propaganda firsthand from age 5 to age 20.
Before social media happened in 2015.
But not everyone can or does think of the cultural stuff before 2015.

What happens in the world today is through the lens of culture that generations cannot communicate.

I can certainly dig into past information if I have the motivation to, or look at things in more sophisticated way. But then again lots of stuff is inherently just way too hard to judge.

History is good to get past what people say is obviously incorrect.

But then not everyone has the same history.

Billions of people know stuff but humans can only know 1,000 people in their life.

The common ground that must be shared is often too much to ask for.

So a lot of politics feels like speculating and guessing to me.
Not exactly the way I want to know the world. I think most people are averse to speculation by nature of uncertainty.

All we can do is specialize in what we know but it might be that if we do find people who listen they will be calm persons who can adequately take in complexities.

Unfortunately that is the point of propaganda, to introduce uncertainty.
It kind of creates fear and caution in people, and hence prevents them to think.

If people could just listen to trusted persons which they often do then it would be easier to get to some basic reality of truth. But then school is not the best place to learn.

 

[ZenRaiden]

complexity requires time and space and work.
Over time there are growth spurts and evolution and devolution constant to and fro and a long process. We humans have infinite capacity for complexity, but we kind of require time for it. We live in a hamster wheel where thinking is for-bitten luxury. Just do it they say. Id say just don't. Or as Zizek says, just stop and think.
Thinking alone is not require for complexity.
We are 100 times smarter than boomers.
Boomers were running on few books. We are running on data human race never had before, and we got read made access to it, and its all there and everyday there is extra on the pile.
Trouble is sifting through all that heap and making head and tales of it, requires a new type of intelligence.
If the boomers could fly to the moon we can fucking build a wormhole with what we have.
But we are low on T cells and we are so unsophisticated due to how society just turns the wheels on gear one.
And we have schools system fostering clerical and bureaucratic work. Which is shame. Boomers spend lot less time doing homework and less time studying overall and were still smarter in many basic ways. Thats because we lost balance. We over stress our brains.
Especially kids need more free time to do less mental work to develop more naturally. Instead everyone is racing them towards super success.

 

[dr froyd]

dealing with moral complexity often requires going against one's primal instincts. Most people are incapable of that. Things like religion, ideology merely serve to reinforce those primal instincts by providing an increased sense of self-righteousness.

 

[ZenRaiden]

dealing with moral complexity often requires going against one's primal instincts

Yet moral complexity arises from instinct, mothers instinct, aggression, cooperation, defense, empathy, adjusting to groups collective thinking, sharing, play, intimacy, talking, organizing group dynamics spontaneously are all instincts hardwired and many more.
So to me even baseline things living living is instinctual, there is no moral complexity without primal instinct.
There certainly are social dynamics that on occasion defy primal instincts, but then you can get absurd things like mass sacrifices for Gods if you defy baseline instincts too much. So paradoxically defying instincts can lead to very strange behaviors.
Copulation is instinct.
You can get a gay eunuch, self flagellating, self loathing, ascetic society by defying instincts.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

also ought consider how long word moral was actually used as tool of people to control other people. Still is.
For instance in Roman army morals were equal to corporal punishment.
So the word moral has many implication in language which are often confused with meaning.
Moral complexity means to me more like intelligence and ability to weigh various variables fairly and in consideration of other variables.
But morals are not purely rational decision process.
On individual level what is good for me might be wrong for you.
I like cold. Should I then tell everyone to wear shorts in winter?
I have definitely been told I am nuts for doing so. It does not bother me though.

So there is certain semantic confusion between the real world and words used.
Words are not reality. Words are just tool to help us communicate or name the reality.
How ought to know reality is beyond words.
So I cannot rationally explain to you why my body is immune to cold to greater degree.

When it comes to complexity we ought to consider certain axioms. What is best.
But in politics what is best is often complex and has not so much with morality, but with tactics and strategy.
In fact to my mind politicians should not be allowed to talk morals.
TO me politicians should be strictly statesmen that define strategy, tactics and planning. What is morally right or wrong is not their domain.
Their domain is to execute the will of people in democracy, or represent it in case of republic.
Neither happens in real world though.
There is fundamental disconnect between ruling class and what people seem to want.

The way I see things, we are born into a life where we can choose to do most of the things we do. I believe that in most of the world, that is the case.

It just seems to me so irrational, that many people who live their 70 or so year life are going to spend it in a way that oozes some sort of self-righteousness into a world where literally we are just passing time until we die. That's all anyone is doing unless they believe they are in some Abrahamic death cult.

You'd think that some of these people are disgusted by existence in that they refuse to analyze it on a deeper level and take on a broader perspective. Instead they opt to take on some position that brings them comfort from threatening thoughts.

You bring up the ruling class, but at this point in my life I'm beginning to take up the cynical POV that if a small minority of people can rule over a whole of the population, maybe that population doesn't deserve self-determination, when many have spent what little self-determination they have on choosing dead-end world views while they just as easily could've outnumbered the malcontent with alternative decisions.

The ruling class is out touch yes, but the same people in the ruling class in the lower class would also be just as out of touch and vice versa.

Sorry, have not read the whole thread.

The problem is that so many have seared their conscience. They call what is good evil and what is evil good.

The problem is that people justify evil for some greater gain. So what is "good"? To love one another with brotherly affection. To outdo one another in showing honor. To value others more than yourself.

In the West at least, many of the characteristics we find valuable come from Christian principles. Self-sacrifice, generosity, kindness, etc. are all vehemently Christian ideas. It was not always the case that people valued these things. Christians were more or less responsible for ending slavery. Today we abhor what happened in chattel slavery, but it was how most people assumed things should be. People justified slavery. Then some Christians came along and said all humans are made in God's image so there should not be slavery anymore.

We developed the idea of justice from eating scraps off the ground and 90% infant mortality rate and we just in the past couple centuries or so have conceptualized a bare minimum.

There are still problems yes. The legal system isn't a justice system always. It isn't the perfect ideal of justice. And of course the idea of justice probably needs more development.

Outside the US however there are many places where justice is more tangential to the ruling order. Even in the US every so often there is mob justice which is executed horribly just showing how poorly people's notion of "the matter of things" is.

Not everyone should think the same, there is benefit in different perspectives of what is good and evil or whatever. There is just a daftness over the world that I don't think anyone is above. If people only spent their energy on additive things, things would be different. The world doesn't have to be a place of winners and losers, but it would seem that this is the world people want to create. Not because of greed necessarily, but because people they are incapable of seeing the world in any other way.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The ruling class is out touch yes, but the same people in the ruling class in the lower class would also be just as out of touch and vice versa.

The world has now days complex problems, that our parents and our ancesters never faced.
Before it was kind of OK to circumvent that. Nowdays our generations don't have the luxury. It produces strain on politics. You are correct, that the fault is not in individuals, but system.
System of rule, where we give power to people, many times grandpas, that have no clue. Obviously we will see them solve things the old fashioned way.
I mean if you have the ability to work with complexity, you are way ahead of the curve, whether you realize it or not.
Trouble is we kind of have to learn to work with complexity, but there is no one to teach us how. Our generation has to figure it out for themselves.

 

[scorpiomover]

Not necessarily saying I myself can or that I am Superior in any way.

Interesting is that with all these conflicts today most people prefer narrative of good and evil.

They think that they can compare real world geopolitics to Star Wars.

Even when both sides of a conflict are led by conservative dogma people want to spin a narrative around it. X people are the "good" guys and that aligns with my political faction.

Most people seemed to understand the moral complexities of supporting BIPOC protests during a pandemic.

They didn't hold non-BLM protests during the lockdown. So they understood that protests during a pandemic were going to lead to lots of deaths.

They did support the BLM protests, because they knew that employers regularly check their internet posts and can fire them if they don't post the things that make corporate images look good, i.e. not posting that you support BLM, LGBT, etc.

Sure, that would mean a lot more people dead, and probably a lot more BIPOC dead. But that didn't destroy the USA. Plus, there would be other people to help the BIPOC, because of the rise of left-wing power, while there probably wouldn't be other people to help them get themselves a new job. So they were practical and pragmatic.

Even people who are looking for a right answer are misguided.

The whole world fails to respond as bodies flatline in front of them.

The whole situation is a case study into how bad we are at managing conflict and our incoming extinction.

I would say that humans today are very good at thinking about what is good for them in the moment.

What is lacking, is an understanding that if everyone behaves like that, then we're not working together efficiently, and so it's like going back in time before civilisation started.

So from a personal standpoint, they understand moral complexities in their own lives. But not the moral complexity that affects humans as a whole in the long term.

Do you agree?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Naturally yes, people have the highest amount of resolution for things that are directly related to them. I still don't think people put that much thought into what they're doing morally.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Its interesting that not having sex with someones wife and not killing someone in mean insidious way is considered highest morals.
Generally commendable, but is it really that revolutionary?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Not necessarily saying I myself can or that I am Superior in any way.

Interesting is that with all these conflicts today most people prefer narrative of good and evil.

They think that they can compare real world geopolitics to Star Wars.

Even when both sides of a conflict are led by conservative dogma people want to spin a narrative around it. X people are the "good" guys and that aligns with my political faction.

Even people who are looking for a right answer are misguided.

The whole world fails to respond as bodies flatline in front of them.

The whole situation is a case study into how bad we are at managing conflict and our incoming extinction.