Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 3:03 am
We can also view [intuit] it this way which is more likely;
Yes, one can intuit.
Violence is an evil act which contra morality.
It depends on the situations and this is true throughout history in nearly every morality except the more radical pacifism. There is not single morality.
Therefore less violence = increase in moral competence.
Your above basic features of 1-5 in a way released the suppressions that enable the moral function to unfold within humanity.
Or they eliminated the causes. I intuit that is more likely.
Note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Your 1-5 relate to basic and lower needs.
The moral needs are higher on the pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs [likely to be near the top], i.e. the realization of higher potential of being a higher moral person.
and those lower needs lead to violence and conflict. They also lead to the powerful having fewer outlets, in the past, to acquire more, increase their luxury and wealth. Maslow does not offer a counterargument. Nothing shows that moral talk, moral thinking, moral education has led to reductions in homicide, say - if this is even true - but rather just the kinds of changes I mentioned. Maslow himself thought that much violence came from unmet needs. REduction of scarcity, which is directly supported by Maslow's ideas.
"Everyone is on 'drugs'."
Everyone?? even then that do not necessary lead to greater violence if they are using DMT and other spiritual hallucinogens.
My point was that they are sedated by the distractions. Telling me that some drugs leads to less violence only adds to my point. We have entertainment and distraction - circuses - we have more bread than those times when we were more violent - if Pinker is even right about this.
Again what is the per capital ratio of violence due to drugs in the world?
Note Pinker was talking from stats and you have no stats but mere guesswork.
You misunderstood the point. And further Pinker's statistics don't point directly at causes, they point to changes over time and are controversial.
Intuitively, note these specifically reductions since the last 1000 yearst to the present; this emerge from an increase and unfolding of the moral competency within humanity [in the brain];
1. Decrease in violence against women by husband & man and children by parents.
2. Decrease in chattel slavery
3. Less tribal wars ending with many deaths
4. Lesser incest
5. Lesser infanticide
6. etc. intuited.
I'm aware of Pinker's argument. My argument does not depend on him being wrong about consequences, I am arguing against the causes. I can't imagine how much clearer this could have been put. No mention of where in the world we have greater violence and how that correlates to scarcity, lack of access to distraction and entertainment by comparison to other parts of the world where there is less violence.
You cannot deny the above, even intuitively?
None of
All the above decrease in evil act are related to morality, thus there is an increase in moral competence specific to the evil acts listed.
In terms of morality, we cannot generalize for the individual [e.g. X is a moral person], but must always qualify morality in terms of individual acts or a set of evil acts, not ALL evil acts.
Nothing in the above supports in any way that changes in morality have led to lowered violence. Some points you make support my sense of the causes. Others miss the point - like your rementioning Pinker's position on the reduction of morality.
I have to say that I am skeptical you've even read Pinker's book. I have. Even Pinker's sense of the CAUSES of the change he is asserting include some of the precise points I made. You've taken his idea that there has been a reduction in violence and intuited that some earlier suppressed moral thingie is coming through. That's you´'re hypothesis not his. He presents a much more complex set of causes, a number of them like mine. And he doesn't anywhere contradict the others I've written that don't directly overlap with his.
You're position is speculative. Which is fine. Mine is speculative and Pinker's as far as causes, is also speculative. As far as reduction in violence he makes a very good case and has a lot of statistics. While there is controversy around that, I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that there is a reduction in violence and you will note that most of my post was about the CAUSES of that reduction.
You did respond directly to one point I made - my polemical drug statement - but you took it precisely the wrong way. I could have been clearer I suppose. But it was part of my argument that we are sedated and distracted and entertained more now. It's not speculative that this is true. It is speculative that this has led to a reduction in violence. I get some support from where the world violence is worse now: and those are places with scarcity and less entertainment/distractions. And also places where there is less stability of state. One of Pinker's arguments about CAUSES was the rise of the state, which is a consolidation of power in one place. This reduces violence in part because the state grants only itself the regular right to be violent.
Don't conflate my disagreement with you with a disagreement with Pinker. He has a much more nuanced position and agrees with me about a number of the CAUSES. In general you did not respond to the points I made.
I'll wait and see if others weigh in on the issue. I'm not encouraged by this response which fits too many of my complaints about how you respond in general.