Science and Enlightenment: East and West

#78 Posted by malikrashid

Like I said this is the barometer it allows you to judge what the consequences of a particular action would be and thus gives you a moral basis for it. You can judge and condone it that if the whole society becomes gay it’s ok.

Re: # 81
Tahmed32
You have answered this in your own interact #80. Intense suffering in distant parts of the world could cause a calamity anywhere on the planet. The rough treatment of nature could lead us to extinction. Self-interest of those who implement their will to survive through deliberate actions have made the conquerors in history. There are other dimensions to power besides physical.

Re: # 64
Religion is deeply ingrained in almost all modern, pluralistic societies, in spite of their claims of being secular and their belief of separation of religion and state.

Modern law and ethics as practiced in the West and borrowed by non-western democratic, secular societies in Asia draw heavily from the Ten Commandments to this day, with a few modifications to suit each society and culture, such as the addition of democracy and capitalism as articles of faith.

Denial of God and religion appears quite hypocritical in practice in most societies.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

#78 malik rashid: that is certainly a better description of morality than what traditional "muslim" culture has to offer (which is basically stuck at giving the individual carrots and sticks to do the right thing).

The things you mention - alleviating "sufferings", "gainful participation of all", "complex enterprise jointly operated by communiities and groups who distrust each other today" - would certainly be incredibly beneficial - e.g. defense expenditures alone would essentially disappear, making trillions available for "alleviating sufferings", promoting education etc.

I would only add that, I think it is important even here to keep in mind the "whose interest" (per #80 below) aspect on all issues. Since too often the road to hell is paved in good intentions. So - even with the best of intentions for the welfare of the species, we may end up wrecking the planet.

#77 this is actually quite a simple example with an obvious explanation - cross-species fertilization is almost by definition non-productive and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. just as rotten food is non-productive and indeed injurious, and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. but this is anecdotal and you need to go beyond kant's centuries old dictum in this way: whose "self-interest" should one have in mind? the "selfish gene"? the individual? the species? life on earth? or the best interests of the cosmos? the last one one can strike out - we dont even understand the cosmos, let alone its "interest".
life on earth seems too far fetched. the species - the "O mankind" - is obviously the best bet.

#77 this is actually quite a simple example with an obvious explanation - cross-species fertilization is almost by definition non-productive and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. just as rotten food is non-productive and indeed injurious, and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. but this is anecdotal and you need to go beyond kant's centuries old dictum in this way: whose "self-interest" should one have in mind? the "selfish gene"? the individual? the species? life on earth? or the best interests of the cosmos? the last one one can strike out - we dont even understand the cosmos, let alone its "interest".
life on earth seems too far fetched. the species - the "O mankind" - is obviously the best bet.

Re: # 71
Tahmed32
I said the question is worth exploring but I will take a shot at an answer because you asked for it.
Modernity/rationalism and post-modernity/skepticism have seen actual growth to the level of secularism in our societal existence. Moral rectitude that advances us to the next level must promote alleviation of sufferings and gainful participation of all. The secular has brought us to the point of tolerating and the next level must be purposeful/gainful interaction and integration. The present prejudice and fear must give way to complex enterprise jointly operated by communiities and groups who distrust each other today.
#77
TehsinA
What devastating consequences? Do you think acceptance of gay-sex will destroy the universe?

#70 Posted by malikrashid

Please go back to #61. With this example I was illustrating Emanuel Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ as the true form of enlightened self interest.

The minute you say some animals or some humans; you are already indulging in exceptionalism, which is breaking the rule. It has to be applied universally to get a clear sense of morality. But once you say that everybody is doing it then the ramications become evident. The practice would have devastating consequences on society. Same would be true with polygamy. Just use this principle and you will find that things become very clear.

bulleya#75:

That quotation is not mine but TehsinA's. You ask what is the philosophical basis of ethics? To me, it is the "lessons learned" in moral conduct by a people on the basis of their historical experiences. I would add that even religious morality is based on those experiences; this is why there is a degree of commonality in the ethics of various religious and secular morality.

dost-mittar #: "This determination when made by people in a rational manner gives an order to everybody’s ethical barometer."

......i.e. majority rule....

what exactly is rational behavior?.....what is the basis of this rational behavior......there was a time when rational behavior, based on majority, declared slavery to be a perfectly ethical act....perfectly rational.....

what is the philosophical basis of ethics?.......a question no one can answer......if it is majority rule, then the majority can support a lot of unethical actions also.......and what if the majority violates the rights of the minority.....what if someone is a model citizen, gives charity, works at the soup kitchen.......but wants to have four wives and simultaneously four husbands.......without harming anyone else.....

echoboom:

I am sorry to disappoint you but I was never a high-up in the civil service, merely part of the government think-tank apparatus.

I believe that bulleya and tahmed are both honourable gentlemen; we all have our "samskaaras".

dost-mittar #: "No, I do not support state terrorism and killings. However, in carrying out its mandate to ensure peace and stability and unity of the state, the state is required to use violence, including killings. It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function."

...this is, of course, an incorrect description of what you support.......you, openly support certain occupations and write off the tens of thousands of dead due to state terrorism, under your own set of morals......

same logic that was used by the british, when the occupied india, and killed many people......

this is no different than any justification given by anyone to support state terrorism.......which is my whole point......people define their ethics based on their own comfort zones, which are based on political views, or religious views, or nationalistic views, etc......

DM: see!....
The legtrap never fails.

#68 malikrashid: "whether human conduct needs guidance of moral rules and what those rules are in our pesent day existence"

these are two questions. since you asked, perhaps you have an answer as well. what do you think then are the answers?

Re: # 69
If humans and some animals grow sexual fondness for each other, it might be looked as aversion like gay sex used to be seen. How would it effect the society? That was my question. Your response did not contain any substantive answer. Please enlighten me.

#67 Posted by malikrashid

Go ahead make the argument.