@hal9k said in #30:
> Wtf is this thread, easy direct answer on this is close to difference between a zoo which won't pass mankind bottlenecks and developed modern society!
>
> Subjective, weak definition of morality was done in Ancient Egypt - The Eloquent Peasant 1850 BCE is the first mention of Golden Rule. It's weak because it supposes good acting of others by default.
>
> Objective, strong definition was done by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: it's bla bla bla about Maxim's, but to put it simple and practical: if someone is doing harm* to other people or society he must get this harm perfectly reflected back in the face as if everyone created the same harm to him.
>
> Examples of this:
> - if someone likes to punch city trash bins for fun - he must live in the area where everyone punches them = where there are heaps of garbage on streets permanently
> - if someone likes to bully, he must study in the class where all bullies from city study
> - if someone is unreasonably aggressive, he must** live in the area where everyone is
> - if someone posts too smart, forum posts like he knows better, good luck beating this with properly proved answers :P. No, you can't just post an opinion "you lame". I made like 5 references to advanced wise sources here - do at least the same or it's not a mirror. In fact, if everyone on the internet did the same, it works fluently except annoys.
> - If some country attacks other weak countries, it must get somehow similar result when everyone who is stronger attacks it. Warn: country level is trickier because countries are not fundamentally same while people are same. Consider lifetime, for example.***
>
> It's all not perfect, but you get the vibe here. Imagine an area / city / island / continent where everyone declares/breaks the same rule and acts accordingly.
> Anti-example: a rule to leave the picnic area at least as clean as before your visit. If everyone does this, all is perfect, no problem.
> Focus on switching rules/behaviors, for example, in the bully example absolute majority will suddenly cry now they don't want to consider bulling acceptable after they put together.
>
> * Only about harm, not about good deeds. Also think about indirect declaration that breaking some rule of not doing harm is acceptable.
>
> ** Of course, "must" means here that's an obligation (not a fun or option) of society and surrounding people to ensure "harmer" gets the necessary experience. They will never bother themselves to act morally. Usually police is supposed to do this, of course.
> Practically, for kicking a trash bin example - a person who is caught doing this consistently as a punishment must not be allowed to visit clean cities / places for some time. He must eat the result of his actions, not get away with a fine.
>
> *** It's fine to consider that people can be considered same because of practical bottlenecks: 2M years ago our first possible ancestors, 200k years ago migration from Africa cradle, i.e. our roots are common enough to suppose we consider the harm same way.
> In fact, multiple SOCIAL behaviors of humans are similar with dolphins, with whom we diverged 60M+ years ago! Even this was too small-time to make everyone "unique and special".
>
> Sidenote: this definition of moral does not depend on opinion, fluent, universal, and awesome. It creates harmonious society where no one need to switch rules and waste mental powers on already solved questions. Supposes that people are rational, irrational behaviors by definition of irrationality will always create problems.
Homo Homini Lupus Est. Humans are neither good nor bad, because like the wolf, humans are capable of the best and the worst. humans can live in a community but in an imperfect way because otherwise, utopia would not exist and the philosophers' ideal would have no reason to exist. but humans are also capable of being scavengers by finding sustenance in their frustration
> Wtf is this thread, easy direct answer on this is close to difference between a zoo which won't pass mankind bottlenecks and developed modern society!
>
> Subjective, weak definition of morality was done in Ancient Egypt - The Eloquent Peasant 1850 BCE is the first mention of Golden Rule. It's weak because it supposes good acting of others by default.
>
> Objective, strong definition was done by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: it's bla bla bla about Maxim's, but to put it simple and practical: if someone is doing harm* to other people or society he must get this harm perfectly reflected back in the face as if everyone created the same harm to him.
>
> Examples of this:
> - if someone likes to punch city trash bins for fun - he must live in the area where everyone punches them = where there are heaps of garbage on streets permanently
> - if someone likes to bully, he must study in the class where all bullies from city study
> - if someone is unreasonably aggressive, he must** live in the area where everyone is
> - if someone posts too smart, forum posts like he knows better, good luck beating this with properly proved answers :P. No, you can't just post an opinion "you lame". I made like 5 references to advanced wise sources here - do at least the same or it's not a mirror. In fact, if everyone on the internet did the same, it works fluently except annoys.
> - If some country attacks other weak countries, it must get somehow similar result when everyone who is stronger attacks it. Warn: country level is trickier because countries are not fundamentally same while people are same. Consider lifetime, for example.***
>
> It's all not perfect, but you get the vibe here. Imagine an area / city / island / continent where everyone declares/breaks the same rule and acts accordingly.
> Anti-example: a rule to leave the picnic area at least as clean as before your visit. If everyone does this, all is perfect, no problem.
> Focus on switching rules/behaviors, for example, in the bully example absolute majority will suddenly cry now they don't want to consider bulling acceptable after they put together.
>
> * Only about harm, not about good deeds. Also think about indirect declaration that breaking some rule of not doing harm is acceptable.
>
> ** Of course, "must" means here that's an obligation (not a fun or option) of society and surrounding people to ensure "harmer" gets the necessary experience. They will never bother themselves to act morally. Usually police is supposed to do this, of course.
> Practically, for kicking a trash bin example - a person who is caught doing this consistently as a punishment must not be allowed to visit clean cities / places for some time. He must eat the result of his actions, not get away with a fine.
>
> *** It's fine to consider that people can be considered same because of practical bottlenecks: 2M years ago our first possible ancestors, 200k years ago migration from Africa cradle, i.e. our roots are common enough to suppose we consider the harm same way.
> In fact, multiple SOCIAL behaviors of humans are similar with dolphins, with whom we diverged 60M+ years ago! Even this was too small-time to make everyone "unique and special".
>
> Sidenote: this definition of moral does not depend on opinion, fluent, universal, and awesome. It creates harmonious society where no one need to switch rules and waste mental powers on already solved questions. Supposes that people are rational, irrational behaviors by definition of irrationality will always create problems.
Homo Homini Lupus Est. Humans are neither good nor bad, because like the wolf, humans are capable of the best and the worst. humans can live in a community but in an imperfect way because otherwise, utopia would not exist and the philosophers' ideal would have no reason to exist. but humans are also capable of being scavengers by finding sustenance in their frustration
