tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post4478035917420350156..comments2023-06-15T15:44:06.807+05:30Comments on Globe 360- The World beyond the Obvious: 2014: Intriguing Ideas...Aravindanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18168864944250743823noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-2463499087372110822017-02-24T10:35:44.927+05:302017-02-24T10:35:44.927+05:30Blogging is the new poetry. I find it wonderful an...Blogging is the new poetry. I find it wonderful and amazing in many ways.<br />App Development Bangalorehttp://www.defuzed.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-78703037535918993302016-12-13T13:08:56.055+05:302016-12-13T13:08:56.055+05:30Hi, Really great effort. Everyone must read this a...Hi, Really great effort. Everyone must read this article. Thanks for sharing.<br />App Developers Gurgaonhttp://www.defuzed.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-69684074992842742272014-12-31T00:53:11.586+05:302014-12-31T00:53:11.586+05:30Interesting perspective. I think the fundamental d...Interesting perspective. I think the fundamental difference between both our viewpoints lie in how we perceive the value systems of a society (which is either static or dynamic). You think the value systems or morals flow out of the needs of a changing society (or 'context' as you call it) and therefore one cannot judge or make a comparative assessment of them over time. While I concede some merit in the changing context of morals, I don’t necessarily believe that context should dominate all else in the discourse on the validity of the held value systems. The reason being the implicit assumption in such an argument that – a society has no free will or is, in some sense, a prisoner of its need, context or circumstances.<br /><br />For example, in a hypothetical society where there is no food and the only way people can survive is by killing and feeding on each other, context (or shared values) might make it moral to kill another human being. As I said before, to some extent, I would even concede merit in that view of morality. But such a view of moral trajectory would be a total cop out, in the sense that, it shuts out the possibility of the ability of a society to push the moral frontiers. Perhaps the society can live without everyone killing each other, if only they strive to discover alternate forms to gather food, say, by stumbling into something called ‘agriculture’. I place the onus entirely on the society to explore and push the limits without giving an excuse to be comfortable of what it does based on the circumstances. <br /><br />So when Steven Pinker says that aggregate violence in the world has drastically declined over the last thousand years, I see that as moral progress. The fact that a king in the 10th century had no option but to kill a million people to let his kingdom survive, wouldn’t pass my test of pushing ones moral boundaries. It just shows a lack of moral imagination. Aravindan Ingersolhttp://www.globe360.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-87126616826768019142014-12-29T00:15:16.693+05:302014-12-29T00:15:16.693+05:30Again a well written reply. But I think you are mi...Again a well written reply. But I think you are missing my argument. In all your arguments the idea of society is fixed. My argument what we define as society is an ever changing one. People change, interactions between people in that society change, value systems of society change. In such a scenario to compare morals of societies is a very difficult one, for it misses the context of morals. Moral relativism is an important idea over time. But I have also said that, for a given society there can always be a set of competing morals and there can be better morals. I would like to classify morals in two spheres. The first sphere comprises of morals which are derived from society's belief of what it means to be human. There can be absolutism in this.But again this absolutism is defined on your premise of what constitutes a human being and his relationship with other worldly beings. For example, you can say empathy is defining nature of an human being, while there may be people who can believe some or born to be kings and some or born to be slaves. The second sphere consists of social morals. These change over time and there can be no absolutism in this. Sriram Natarajannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-74128445018397133962014-12-28T22:37:50.345+05:302014-12-28T22:37:50.345+05:30"What defines moral progress? If there is mor..."What defines moral progress? If there is moral progress is there a progress trajectory?” -<br /> If there is a revision in the values/practices of a society over time, which is consistent with normative values and rational thought, that indicates moral progress in the society. <br />For example, take the case of slavery. It is indefensible to treat some people as being inferior to others. We have moved from practicing that indefensible act to a point where all are equal. The progress trajectory is there for us to see. <br /><br />“If there is a progress trajectory then where does it lead to? When we don't have an answer for "Where" is it ideal to discuss about moral progress?” -<br />We don’t know where. That is precisely the work of science and reason to constantly question our held beliefs. If we give up on that endeavor, we would just be perpetuating the injustices that we practice currently (even if we don’t realize that we are perpetrating them). We could have moved from point A to point B in the progress trajectory, and even if don’t know where/if there is a point C (which, say, is a higher point in the trajectory), it is still our duty to constantly discuss the validity of point B.<br /><br />“…with ever changing nature of society is it possible to compare morals over time? In such a scenario I believe it is difficult to make comparative statements like moral progress” -<br />I think your concern is around the idea of moral absolutism vs moral relativism. If I read you correctly, you argue that different cultures and culture at different time periods have varied structure & practices, and hence the need for different set of morals. I don’t agree entirely. One cannot always hide under the excuse of present nature/need of society/culture to defend existing values. For example, one might argue that treating women as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia is moral. One might even come up with an explanation for why men need to protect them in their culture and their present state is a necessary condition for their survival. But we know now (after decades/centuries of reasoning) that it’s absolutely wrong to treat woman/any human being as second class citizens. The practice is inconsistent with normative values, irrespective of the nature of society/period/culture. The practice is just as wrong now as it is was 10 centuries before. Therefore something as simple as letting them drive a car is progress.Aravindan Ingersolhttp://www.globe360.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7788112550985828887.post-62517016110410868522014-12-28T21:47:15.072+05:302014-12-28T21:47:15.072+05:30Very well articulated article. I was having some i...Very well articulated article. I was having some ideas about the topics in issues of Social Imagination but it is nice to know there is a structure. Regarding First topic, I believe I have different ideas. What defines moral progress? If there is moral progress is there a progress trajectory? If there is a progress trajectory then where does it lead to? When we don't have an answer for "Where" is it ideal to discuss about moral progress? I believe it is impossible to understand or judge morals without understanding the need and nature of society. It is very much possible that a given construct of society can have better morals. But with ever changing nature of society is it possible to compare morals over time? In such a scenario I believe it is difficult to make comparative statements like moral progressSriram Natarajannoreply@blogger.com