Conflicting Ethical Systems

[Skepdick]

You are veering off tangent very loosely and shooting everywhere pointlessly.

My original point is the Philosophy of Morality is not associated with 'Laws' as in Philosophy of Politics.
As such whatever is referred to 'Laws' herewith is with reference to Politically driven laws, that is so straightforward.

As such the Moral Maxim of "Do not kill humans" should not be conflated with 'Do not kill humans according to the enacted Laws else be punished."

Everything is politically driven you clown.

You've got goals. You are trying to attain them.

If you exercise self-discipline and adhere to the rules of your own making - you attain them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are veering off tangent very loosely and shooting everywhere pointlessly.

My original point is the Philosophy of Morality is not associated with 'Laws' as in Philosophy of Politics.
As such whatever is referred to 'Laws' herewith is with reference to Politically driven laws, that is so straightforward.

As such the Moral Maxim of "Do not kill humans" should not be conflated with 'Do not kill humans according to the enacted Laws else be punished."

Everything is politically driven you clown.

You've got goals. You are trying to attain them.

If you exercise self-discipline and adhere to the rules of your own making - you attain them.

Check the make-ups of your own face first which is obviously clownish.

Note:

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.

The focus of "Morality" is primarily on the individual[s] and its actions not on the group basis.

[Skepdick]

At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.

What do you think decisions are?

If you want to achieve X then do Y.
if you want to achieve A then do B, C, D or E.

If you want to see X happen more frequently than A, then you have to do more of Y and less of B, C, D or E

This is not at group level. It's at individual level.

You have decided to spend your life posting stuff on a Philosophy forum. I am sure you are pursuing some goal...

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.

What do you think decisions are?

If you want to achieve X then do Y.
if you want to achieve A then do B, C, D or E.

If you want to see X happen more frequently than A, then you have to do more of Y and less of B, C, D or E

This is not at group level. It's at individual level.

You have decided to spend your life posting stuff on a Philosophy forum. I am sure you are pursuing some goal...

Not sure what is you point?

My original point is;

• 1. At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.
  
  2. The focus of "Morality" is primarily on the individual[s] and its actions not on the group basis.

You cannot conflate 1 with 2.

Note:

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in human[4] and primate species,[5] and birds.[6]
..
In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Empathy is a basis for morality, i.e. those who have high degrees of empathy will not be likely to torture or kill other humans since their mirror neurons will trigger the same pains and sufferings in them.
As such the spontaneous moral impulse, e.g. "not to kill humans" is centered within the individual's brain and the state, quantity and quality of his mirror neurons.

On the other hand, for those who do not have a high degree of active mirror neurons, it will be necessary for Laws to be enacted to discourage them from killing humans, and if they do, they will be punished. This is is all concern with politics.

Therefore you cannot conflate the moral elements of 'not to kill humans' [spontaneously triggered internally from the brain] with the political elements of 'not to kill humans' [enforced externally with threats].

Thus the more effective strategy to ensure 'not to kill humans' is via morality by understanding more about the brain and develop the moral impulse within [dealing with proximate root causes] rather than focusing on using enforceable Laws with threats to prevent killing of humans [fire-fighting symptoms].

Get my point?

[Skepdick]

Not sure what is you point?

My original point is;

• 1. At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.
  
  2. The focus of "Morality" is primarily on the individual[s] and its actions not on the group basis.

You cannot conflate 1 with 2.

There is no conflation. The general problem is deciding what to do and how to act.

Whether it's MY problem - I can't decide what to do and how to act.
Or OUR problem - we can't decide what to do and how to act.

The problem is still one of activities and decisions.

Empathy is a basis for morality, i.e. those who have high degrees of empathy will not be likely to torture or kill other humans since their mirror neurons will trigger the same pains and sufferings in them.
As such the spontaneous moral impulse, e.g. "not to kill humans" is centered within the individual's brain and the state, quantity and quality of his mirror neurons.

The moment you are talking about the effects of your actions on OTHER HUMANS you are talking about 1 (above). Group activities and decisions.
It's not 2. individual activities and decisions.

You can't even stick to your own definition.

Part and parcel of morality is precisely what we should and shouldn't do to each other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not sure what is you point?

My original point is;

• 1. At present, whatever is "politics" is associated with governments activities, i.e. group activities and decisions.
  
  2. The focus of "Morality" is primarily on the individual[s] and its actions not on the group basis.

You cannot conflate 1 with 2.

There is no conflation. The general problem is deciding what to do and how to act.

Whether it's MY problem - I can't decide what to do and how to act.
Or OUR problem - we can't decide what to do and how to act.

The problem is still one of activities and decisions.

Empathy is a basis for morality, i.e. those who have high degrees of empathy will not be likely to torture or kill other humans since their mirror neurons will trigger the same pains and sufferings in them.
As such the spontaneous moral impulse, e.g. "not to kill humans" is centered within the individual's brain and the state, quantity and quality of his mirror neurons.

The moment you are talking about the effects of your actions on OTHER HUMANS you are talking about 1 (above). Group activities and decisions.
It's not 2. individual activities and decisions.

Part and parcel of morality is precisely what we should and shouldn't do to each other.

You are eeling and being rhetorical by reducing it to 'a general problem'.

There are many fields of knowledge and activities with reference to "what to do and how to act" plus where the effects of one actions has on other humans, but they are not politics, e.g. training a new skill, the arts, entertainment, music, dancing, etc.

That "we should and shouldn't do to each other" does not entail that morality should be part of politics.

That one should not offend, provoke, insult, and many other negative human acts do not involve morality.
Morality is confined purely to the concept of evil with focus on the individual[s] and humanity.

Politics is involved in so many other human activities confined to a Nation and interaction with other nations.
Where politics deal with 'evil' it has to rely on enforceable laws with threats.
Where morality deal with 'evil' it is confined to the development of the individual's spontaneity indifference to evil.

This is why we have separate section for Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Politics.

[Skepdick]

You are eeling and being rhetorical by reducing it to 'a general problem'.

There are many fields of knowledge and activities with reference to "what to do and how to act" plus where the effects of one actions has on other humans, but they are not politics, e.g. training a new skill, the arts, entertainment, music, dancing, etc.

That "we should and shouldn't do to each other" does not entail that morality should be part of politics.

You are confused.

Every time it pertains to WE not ME it's politics - acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

You don't step on your partner's toes when you dance.
You don't kick your training partner in the groin when doing kickboxing.
You don't play music in the library.

That one should not offend, provoke, insult, and many other negative human acts do not involve morality.
Morality is confined purely to the concept of evil with focus on the individual[s] and humanity.

Evil? Seriously? That's pre-19th century kindergarten bullshit.

Cheating on exams it's not evil, but it's unethical!
Accepting bribery in the form of dinners/gifts from business partners is not evil, but it's unethical!

Politics is involved in so many other human activities confined to a Nation and interaction with other nations.
Where politics deal with 'evil' it has to rely on enforceable laws with threats.
Where morality deal with 'evil' it is confined to the development of the individual's spontaneity indifference to evil.

This is why we have separate section for Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Politics.

You are super-confused. As usual.

Whether it's politics between two individuals, or politics between 8 billion individuals it's still politics.
It's much more complex politics at mugh larger scale.

But it's politics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are eeling and being rhetorical by reducing it to 'a general problem'.

There are many fields of knowledge and activities with reference to "what to do and how to act" plus where the effects of one actions has on other humans, but they are not politics, e.g. training a new skill, the arts, entertainment, music, dancing, etc.

That "we should and shouldn't do to each other" does not entail that morality should be part of politics.

You are confused.

Every time it pertains to WE not ME it's politics - acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

You don't step on your partner's toes when you dance.
You don't kick your training partner in the groin when doing kickboxing.
You don't play music in the library.

That one should not offend, provoke, insult, and many other negative human acts do not involve morality.
Morality is confined purely to the concept of evil with focus on the individual[s] and humanity.

Evil? Seriously? That's pre-19th century kindergarten bullshit.

Cheating on exams it's not evil, but it's unethical!
Accepting bribery in the form of dinners/gifts from business partners is not evil, but it's unethical!

Politics is involved in so many other human activities confined to a Nation and interaction with other nations.
Where politics deal with 'evil' it has to rely on enforceable laws with threats.
Where morality deal with 'evil' it is confined to the development of the individual's spontaneity indifference to evil.

This is why we have separate section for Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Politics.

You are super-confused. As usual.

Whether it's politics between two individuals, or politics between 8 billion individuals it's still politics.
It's much more complex politics at mugh larger scale.

But it's politics.

I lost my post so here is a summarized one.

Note the original and typical meaning of 'politics' i.e. "affairs of the cities" not affairs of the home nor the individuals.

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.
-WIKI

Btw, if you draw a venn diagram for 'morality' and 'politics', neither is subsumed within one or the other. Show me proof if you think otherwise.
The most both overlapped is at 5% involving various common activities.

[Skepdick]

Note the original and typical meaning of 'politics' i.e. "affairs of the cities" not affairs of the home nor the individuals.

You are still confused about scale and proportionality.

Anything involving the interaction between 2 and infinitely many people is politics.

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.
-WIKI

Precisely!

Key part "relations between individuals". 2 individuals relating is sufficient for the definition.

Btw, if you draw a venn diagram for 'morality' and 'politics', neither is subsumed within one or the other. Show me proof if you think otherwise.
The most both overlapped is at 5% involving various common activities.

You need a venn diagram? There's no such thing as morality between yourself and yourself.

It only exists in the context of US (humans).

Is a bear killing you immoral? Yes, but bears don't give a shit about morality.
Is a human killing you immoral? Yes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the original and typical meaning of 'politics' i.e. "affairs of the cities" not affairs of the home nor the individuals.

You are still confused about scale and proportionality.

Anything involving the interaction between 2 and infinitely many people is politics.

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.
-WIKI

Precisely!

Key part "relations between individuals". 2 individuals relating is sufficient for the definition.

Btw, if you draw a venn diagram for 'morality' and 'politics', neither is subsumed within one or the other. Show me proof if you think otherwise.
The most both overlapped is at 5% involving various common activities.

You need a venn diagram? There's no such thing as morality between yourself and yourself.

It only exists in the context of US (humans).

Is a bear killing you immoral? Yes, but bears don't give a shit about morality.
Is a human killing you immoral? Yes.

any 'relation between individuals' is not exclusively politics, note the original intent, i.e. relation between individuals within affairs of the cities re power and resources distribution. Didn't you read the full context?

Sexual relations between individuals is not politics, regardless that politicians are commonly embroiled in sexual scandals.

[Skepdick]

any 'relation between individuals' is not exclusively politics, note the original intent, i.e. relation between individuals within affairs of the cities re power and resources distribution. Didn't you read the full context?

You are trying to contrive a context in which your argument makes sense so you went and stripped away the part of your own definition
that you didn't like

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups,

Sexual relations between individuals is not politics, regardless that politicians are commonly embroiled in sexual scandals.

Deciding which holes are off-limits? Making decisions in groups.
Who's on top? Making decisions in groups.
Is choking and punching in or out? Making decisions in groups!

[Veritas Aequitas]

any 'relation between individuals' is not exclusively politics, note the original intent, i.e. relation between individuals within affairs of the cities re power and resources distribution. Didn't you read the full context?

You are trying to contrive a context in which your argument makes sense so you went and stripped away the part of your own definition
that you didn't like

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups,

Sexual relations between individuals is not politics, regardless that politicians are commonly embroiled in sexual scandals.

Deciding which holes are off-limits? Making decisions in groups.
Who's on top? Making decisions in groups.
Is choking and punching in or out? Making decisions in groups!

It is ridiculous and absurd to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.

As I had referred to, politics in general is
activities, [decisions in group,] relations within individuals, groups, nations, within affairs of the cities re power and resources distribution.
The main activity of politics is governance via legislature, judiciary, the police and whatever that is significant to be associated with 'politics'.

Morality is ultimately confined to the individual in the personal development of his moral faculty within.
The only involvement from politics with morality is to provide the infrastructure and facilities for the individual to develop his moral competencies. It is just like politics providing facilities for education but autodidacts and homeschooling do not need politics directly for their education.

[Skepdick]

It is ridiculous and absurd to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.

You keep appealing to these arbitrary notions of "ridiculesness", "absurdity" and "redibility".

I am merely demonstrating that it is possible to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.
It's also possible NOT to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.

Which way you go about is a matter of choice.

Morality is ultimately confined to the individual in the personal development of his moral faculty within.

Well, you can totally frame morality as "self-development" or "self-improvement".

But morality is meaningless outside of a social setting.

The only involvement from politics with morality is to provide the infrastructure and facilities for the individual to develop his moral competencies. It is just like politics providing facilities for education but autodidacts and homeschooling do not need politics directly for their education.

Only?

What sort of "morality" do you think you'd develop if you were a hermit who had never met another human being in their life; you were never exposed to human culture; human language; human interaction?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is ridiculous and absurd to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.

You keep appealing to these arbitrary notions of "ridiculesness", "absurdity" and "redibility".

I am merely demonstrating that it is possible to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.
It's also possible NOT to corral every act of 'decisions in groups' as politics.

Which way you go about is a matter of choice.

Morality is ultimately confined to the individual in the personal development of his moral faculty within.

Well, you can totally frame morality as "self-development" or "self-improvement".

But morality is meaningless outside of a social setting.

The only involvement from politics with morality is to provide the infrastructure and facilities for the individual to develop his moral competencies. It is just like politics providing facilities for education but autodidacts and homeschooling do not need politics directly for their education.

Only?

What sort of "morality" do you think you'd develop if you were a hermit who had never met another human being in their life; you were never exposed to human culture; human language; human interaction?

Note,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

The above experiment deliberately selected babies less than 12 months old to isolate other factors to prove that there is the nature [contra nurture] of morality.

You cannot jump to the conclusion, whenever there are two persons or more, there is politics as in mainstream politics as generally understood.

[Skepdick]

Note,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

The above experiment deliberate selected babies less than 12 months old to isolate other factors to prove that there is the nature [contra nurture] of morality.

Yes. Morality is evolved. But it's evolved in a social context!

There is no such thing as "individual morality" it says so right in the article you've posted.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.

Compassion towards who?
Empathy towards who?
Fairness towards who?