Excellent piece! I like to say that This world is justice. We unwittingly choose whether to become more human or more animal, or even become like stone. The moral consequences are built into the logical structure of reality itself, although this is not externally apparent as ‘suffering’ but internalised in the metaphysical constitution of every conscious agent.
What do you think of this way of framing it? In any given situation, there are better and worse ways of achieving "x." In some contexts, that will mean doing one thing, which might not apply as well in other contexts. So for one society, for example, to achieve or maximize "x" might entail certain values, but for another society, those might not work. (And it's possible that any given society might do a very poor job, even given their own context.) Moral realism is thus true in the sense that there are better and worse ways. But those ways will vary, which means no (or few?) one-size-fits all moral imperatives under which we are obligated.
Also, what works in one context might not work in a larger context. So, I might be able to maximize some things for myself, but at the expense of everyone else. It's a limited viewpoint that shuts out understanding and loving ALL, and thus fragmentary.
there is of course no Absolute Other-Power causing things to happen.
Countless beings and forces both visible and invisible are causing things to happen.
This is a cause-and-effect cosmos.
The pattern of the cosmos itself is the totality of all causes and effects.
There is no single anything in charge.
EVERY thing is in charge.
EVERY "one" - or every space-time located (and thus apparently separate) point of view - is in charge, as both cause and effect, moment to moment in space-time.
Every "one" is having an effect on all "others", and every "one is suffering from the effects of all "others".
Everyone is inherently involved in a universal world-pattern of causes and effects - and, thus, there is no personal absoluteness about moral faults.
The negative exploitation and killing of human beings by human beings violates the heart in one and all.
The negative exploitation and killing of non-human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all.
The negative exploitation, and progressive degradation, and potential destruction of the fundamental order of the natural environment on which all Earth-life depends violates the heart and directly threatens the life of one and all.
Are you familiar with the findings and purposes of the Heartmath Institute which is introduced via this reference: http://www.heartmath.org/gci
Also check out the book by Joseph Chilton Pearce titled The Heart-Mind Matrix - How the Heart Can Teach the Mind New Ways to Think via http://www.josephchiltonpearce.org
(sorry if you already went over this topic, I'm a new reader.)
From what I can tell, human morality is biological in its (evolutionary) origins because "morals" were originally rules about the need for social cooperation and kinship-group altruism, and social cooperation increased the chances of survival in early human kinship groups. Socially cooperative, eusocial, "domesticated" human gene pools survived better than "wild" humans, so genes for social-cooperation had a better chance of being selected for and retained.
E.O. Wilson made that kind of case, and apparently so has Iain McGilchrist (I have not read his recent book yet).
Here is Darwin's take:
Peter Richerson, biologist at UC Davis, quotes Darwin (as an example of the group selection hypothesis and the neurobiology of sympathy in "primeval times"):
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
I’ve got a naggin’ hunch empathy.guru would give you his imprimatur 😊 Higher-level v-Meme stacks that open wider horizons, evolving psychosocial dna in Spiral Dynamics—all that & more frame your musings gainfully.
Excellent piece! I like to say that This world is justice. We unwittingly choose whether to become more human or more animal, or even become like stone. The moral consequences are built into the logical structure of reality itself, although this is not externally apparent as ‘suffering’ but internalised in the metaphysical constitution of every conscious agent.
What do you think of this way of framing it? In any given situation, there are better and worse ways of achieving "x." In some contexts, that will mean doing one thing, which might not apply as well in other contexts. So for one society, for example, to achieve or maximize "x" might entail certain values, but for another society, those might not work. (And it's possible that any given society might do a very poor job, even given their own context.) Moral realism is thus true in the sense that there are better and worse ways. But those ways will vary, which means no (or few?) one-size-fits all moral imperatives under which we are obligated.
Also, what works in one context might not work in a larger context. So, I might be able to maximize some things for myself, but at the expense of everyone else. It's a limited viewpoint that shuts out understanding and loving ALL, and thus fragmentary.
there is of course no Absolute Other-Power causing things to happen.
Countless beings and forces both visible and invisible are causing things to happen.
This is a cause-and-effect cosmos.
The pattern of the cosmos itself is the totality of all causes and effects.
There is no single anything in charge.
EVERY thing is in charge.
EVERY "one" - or every space-time located (and thus apparently separate) point of view - is in charge, as both cause and effect, moment to moment in space-time.
Every "one" is having an effect on all "others", and every "one is suffering from the effects of all "others".
Everyone is inherently involved in a universal world-pattern of causes and effects - and, thus, there is no personal absoluteness about moral faults.
The negative exploitation and killing of human beings by human beings violates the heart in one and all.
The negative exploitation and killing of non-human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all.
The negative exploitation, and progressive degradation, and potential destruction of the fundamental order of the natural environment on which all Earth-life depends violates the heart and directly threatens the life of one and all.
Are you familiar with the findings and purposes of the Heartmath Institute which is introduced via this reference: http://www.heartmath.org/gci
Also check out the book by Joseph Chilton Pearce titled The Heart-Mind Matrix - How the Heart Can Teach the Mind New Ways to Think via http://www.josephchiltonpearce.org
Excellent article, thanks.
(sorry if you already went over this topic, I'm a new reader.)
From what I can tell, human morality is biological in its (evolutionary) origins because "morals" were originally rules about the need for social cooperation and kinship-group altruism, and social cooperation increased the chances of survival in early human kinship groups. Socially cooperative, eusocial, "domesticated" human gene pools survived better than "wild" humans, so genes for social-cooperation had a better chance of being selected for and retained.
E.O. Wilson made that kind of case, and apparently so has Iain McGilchrist (I have not read his recent book yet).
Here is Darwin's take:
Peter Richerson, biologist at UC Davis, quotes Darwin (as an example of the group selection hypothesis and the neurobiology of sympathy in "primeval times"):
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
I’ve got a naggin’ hunch empathy.guru would give you his imprimatur 😊 Higher-level v-Meme stacks that open wider horizons, evolving psychosocial dna in Spiral Dynamics—all that & more frame your musings gainfully.
sorry
https://anjuanand.substack.com/p/42-days-to-the-new-year-42-days-to