Except it doesn't matter. People have debated morality for thousands of years and still don't understand it. Our brains and culture inform our gut instinct and that's why we live on levels one and two. And correctly so
Another interesting perspective is what are someone's goals? The Left and the Right have various goals that are not compatible. The core disagreement is, how much equality does human nature allow for? Historically, we know we had a much more equal society in the 1940's through the 70's, (see Putnam & Garret's "The Upswing"), but perhaps at the expense of keeping women and minorities disenfranchised. We now live in an individualist society with a lot of tolerance, but at the expense of rising inequality rivaling the robber baron's of the late 19th century. Naturally, conservatives look at this and see a correlation. Unfortunately, "The Upswing" doesn't provide any causation either, and leaves us hanging. The only explanation I've seen that makes sense is Piketty's "Capital", later expanded upon by Alfani to make the chart linked below. The only time society seems to become more equal is after massive amounts of wealth and population are destroyed, like after the Black Plague and, more recently, after the combined effects of WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII that produced America's golden age. Sadly, that suggests that human nature is pretty selfish, and the realistic picture of natural human society is highly hierarchical (slavery, feudalism, capitalism). Perhaps any ideology that hopes for a better world is just fooling us for votes with simplistic solutions, Republican and Democrat alike. Piketty suggests a global wealth tax, but admits that's unlikely to ever happen. Putnam and Garrett see some hope that a rise in community is coming back. If there is hope there, than perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel is logging off the Internet, and reconnecting with friends, family, and neighbors. Hopefully then we can build a more inclusive society that can survive the integration of folks that disagree with us or who look different than us. Let's find the common ground. www.vox.com/world/2017/1/23/14323760/inequality-europe-chart
I wouldn't be ashamed to say that for the 6 years I was a Christian, all I was in it for was to not lose Pascal's Wager. It was the most miserable 6 years of my life. Also, no magical high spiritual experience ever happened. I concluded that the Christpill is not for everybody.
Just because one can name what they may THINK they think about their meta-ethic, it doesn’t mean that they are accurate in what they actually believe (how they incarnate/act in the world).
@@hangmandru no. My point is that one can be correct about facts and live them wrongly. Or also/additionally, they can be deceived that they believe something (act as if it’s true/live accordingly) when they merely THINK a particular set of information is true or correct. Even the demons think true things, but they don’t care (or live in accordance with their correct assessments).
“Unearthing a person’s world view…. What are their meta-ethics….are we digging down… to find out what the real disconnect is”…. Love it
Except it doesn't matter. People have debated morality for thousands of years and still don't understand it. Our brains and culture inform our gut instinct and that's why we live on levels one and two. And correctly so
@@jamesalexander958 Indeed, and I often think about what it actually takes to switch someone's core preferences.
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite podcasts. Thank you for putting the work in; it's helpful!
Another interesting perspective is what are someone's goals? The Left and the Right have various goals that are not compatible. The core disagreement is, how much equality does human nature allow for? Historically, we know we had a much more equal society in the 1940's through the 70's, (see Putnam & Garret's "The Upswing"), but perhaps at the expense of keeping women and minorities disenfranchised. We now live in an individualist society with a lot of tolerance, but at the expense of rising inequality rivaling the robber baron's of the late 19th century. Naturally, conservatives look at this and see a correlation. Unfortunately, "The Upswing" doesn't provide any causation either, and leaves us hanging. The only explanation I've seen that makes sense is Piketty's "Capital", later expanded upon by Alfani to make the chart linked below. The only time society seems to become more equal is after massive amounts of wealth and population are destroyed, like after the Black Plague and, more recently, after the combined effects of WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII that produced America's golden age. Sadly, that suggests that human nature is pretty selfish, and the realistic picture of natural human society is highly hierarchical (slavery, feudalism, capitalism). Perhaps any ideology that hopes for a better world is just fooling us for votes with simplistic solutions, Republican and Democrat alike. Piketty suggests a global wealth tax, but admits that's unlikely to ever happen. Putnam and Garrett see some hope that a rise in community is coming back. If there is hope there, than perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel is logging off the Internet, and reconnecting with friends, family, and neighbors. Hopefully then we can build a more inclusive society that can survive the integration of folks that disagree with us or who look different than us. Let's find the common ground.
www.vox.com/world/2017/1/23/14323760/inequality-europe-chart
Wow ! Very succinct and will spoken ! Thank you
The Lord of Spirits, Jays Analysis and The Nathan Jacob’s podcast are the trifecta for newly orthodox.
I wouldn't be ashamed to say that for the 6 years I was a Christian, all I was in it for was to not lose Pascal's Wager. It was the most miserable 6 years of my life. Also, no magical high spiritual experience ever happened. I concluded that the Christpill is not for everybody.
Hang on, so, were those 4 levels:
1. Slogans
2. Conversations
3. Meta-ethics
4. Worldview
So what’s the right answer?
The Case for Realism: ruclips.net/video/tmFTsJRs5dg/видео.html
Just because one can name what they may THINK they think about their meta-ethic, it doesn’t mean that they are accurate in what they actually believe (how they incarnate/act in the world).
Is your point that sometimes people are wrong when they say something? Because that's true across all subjects across all time.
@@hangmandru no. My point is that one can be correct about facts and live them wrongly.
Or also/additionally, they can be deceived that they believe something (act as if it’s true/live accordingly) when they merely THINK a particular set of information is true or correct.
Even the demons think true things, but they don’t care (or live in accordance with their correct assessments).