I've been seriously taking a step back lately and criticizing and analyzing my beliefs, especially during meetings since there's nothing better to do. However, every time I do this I can't help but think of the future. How do you guys view the general moral bases of the future? Do you think this new age make your own morality idealogy will hold up against the billions who still look for their morality through older (or new eh) religions? Will the current democratic republic mentality of the world leaders hold up to an independent populace?
Me personally it's hard to see an independent mindset coinciding with government. Many individuals are finding more and more things to find wrong with current politics, and the idealogy of conformity has really gone down which I feel government needs to keep people in order. So I feel that the future will be more of a humanistic and individualistic view than a strict national patriotism, status quo, and prejudice sort of viewpoint.
I mainly just want to know what you folks think will greatly help humanity as a whole. Preferably in the area of morality or education. I'm getting a lot of negative views (mostly from my JW parents eh, but it's hard not to agree with them on some things) and I just wanted to know a few things that would help humanity as a whole. And sorry if my post is jumbled up a bit, I get kind of tongue tied when I type (don't think that's possible though).
The Morality of the Future!
by Daunt 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Daunt
-
-
ArtfulDodger
The standards by which 'morality', 'ethics', 'right' and 'wrong' will be judged in the future are likely to be as strange to us now as (for example) the 1960's were to those born in the 1920's. My personal view is that when we finally see the eating of peas with a knife as the height of manners, the picking of one's nose in public as a sign of respect for those round us, and the obligatory first-thing-fart as the best way of saying 'good morning dear' . . we'll ALL be better off.
-
tetrapod.sapien
okay, let's try this again:
hey Daunt,
interesting topic.
regarding the future of morals, i think that our morals will pretty much stay the same if we don't start learning about the evolutionary history of morals. and that would be a sad state if it proves that we cannot get past morals that come from outside of ourselves, AKA God.
i tend to mostly agree with E.O. Wilson, the Harvard Biologist, when he argued in the Biological Basis of Morality, that in the future the battle of morals will boil down to transcendalists, and empiricists. of course, like Wilson, i fall on the side of empiricism as it seems to be in line with evolutionary history. here is a snippit from a free online essay that explains the future of morals a la Wilson:
Centuries of debate on the origin of ethics come down to this: either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions," says biologist Edward O. Wilson in "The Biological Basis of Morality," in the April 1998 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. "The choice between these two understandings makes all the difference in the way we view ourselves as a species. It measures the authority of religion, and determines the conduct of moral reasoning." Still, the split is not between religious believers and secularists, but rather between transcendalists, who think moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists, who think them contrivances of the mind. "I believe," says Wilson, "in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists." Transcendalists, secular or theological, tend to view natural law as a set of principles so powerful, whatever their origin, as to be self-evident to a rational person, but without a causal explanation. ... This paper is the property of FindFreeEssays.com Copyright © 2002-2005
so, since i think that morals are human contrivances, i would say that if we are to become truly moral in the future, we should trace the roots of our morals to evolutionary sources. and once that is done, we can say: "alright, this moral principle is outdated in view of modern life, so lets replace it with this one." and the only way we can justify such decisions, is to show that there is a better way of seeing the world and nature, than through religion. this is already happening, but of course, slowly, as the world is mostly comprised of transcendalists who are also religious.
but showing people that morals come from ourselves, and not from god, ennobles them to challenge morals that are not as humane as they could be. if science replaces religion as a medium for explanation, our morals are bound to become more secular and human-based.
i think it also boils down to, ironically, fighting natural selection from an ethical standpoint. nature is blind and pitiless. but just because we are a product of nature, does not mean we have to be blind and pitiless too.
-
Daunt
AHH excellent tetra. I always love hearing your post. You can vocalize your standpoint intelligently and user-friendly I could say eh. I agree with you, people need to look more towards nature for their moral judgement rather than set principles that they feel obligated to follow even when proven wrong. This only creates opposition which we see in most parts. I feel that globally we should really start harping on irrationalities that are held as fact or good judgement. Like many laws in government or beliefs held in modern people. I'm surprised as heck that this many skeptical folks exist when the most you see in the media and in everyday talk is control and conformity especially a few decades ago. All it can do is grow, just needs some good direction.
-
greendawn
Probably the nature of man will change in the future and there will be no need for the laws that exist now to keep things in good order. A stronger nature means less laws are needed.
-
tetrapod.sapien
You can vocalize your standpoint intelligently and user-friendly
wow. thanks, you just made my day!
surprised as heck that this many skeptical folks exist when the most you see in the media and in everyday talk is control and conformity especially a few decades ago.
i am surprised by this too. i think it is truly unique that we change our beliefs at all, and that there is anything like a skeptic. and while i think that mediums like the internet have helped educate people about religion, and skepticism, there is also just as much junk online as there is non-junk. still though, i agree that, barring some really bad catastrophy, science is here to stay. and since science does actual, concrete, good in peoples lives (even when developed on theories that they do not believe in), people will continue to learn to trust it. and when we can trust something based on data, we start to see the world through that paradigm. morals will follow.
cheers,
TS
-
Daunt
Ahh green that's something i've been advocating to a few of my online buds for a while. I feel that true freedom and human advancement and power can only come from anarchy with an educated populace. Our natural selves will show through and we will work together to get the job done. Cause really, reasonable folks just seem to want to get things done, only time i don't see this happening is when some authoritative force is prohibiting them from advancement. From a gang, to a religious group to an Government all the way to an idea. This is debatable but I feel that educated humans that really can personally identify human nature as a whole and their own individualistic nature can make a good world and extend themselves throughout the universe in a reasonable way.
(should make a sci fi show) -
greendawn
According to a good saying: creativity operates outside convention. That's where you find your own unique individuality and develop a real personality.
-
Daunt
Ah I love that aspect of science. People like to bring down human reasoning and science all the time but they would never believe ALL the things that they use in their everyday life that has scientific aspects. Even in the days science was outlawed as the devil's work most of their lives had science intregrated into it. Quite funny when folks bring down science that help them live longer than 30 years.