CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › The evolution of morality: The value of human life

The evolution of morality: The value of human life

Started by cosmicfox69 · · 👁 6 views · 41 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants cosmicfox69Susan Bennett5placidrangersilverraven7redtinker36Kenneth Brown8Jeremy Alvarez5quietstag11Larry Wilson5Jonathan Brooks8Ronald Rogers27Paul Anderson2restlessscout5lonegardenerJacob Johnson56Lisa Garcia48
Jeremy Alvarez5 Jeremy Alvarez5 Active Member
165 messages
joined Aug 2010
#21 ·
cosmicfox69 said:So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

You’re jumping all over the place here, going straight from talking about one person to full-blown group conflicts, but hey, let me try to catch up:

So, I was thinking about how family dynamics used to work back in the day. It’s kind of wild when you look at history, but for huge chunks of human existence, "family policy" basically revolved around this one guy—the father figure who acted as the warrior, the provider, the boss, and the protector all rolled into one. Because he held all that power, he basically had a free pass to impose his own worldview on everyone else. It was almost like a master-and-servant setup, which sounds pretty messed up. In some cases, I guess, it went even further, where he felt entitled to do whatever he wanted to certain family members, whether that meant being abusive or treating them like property. It’s heavy stuff, for sure. But fast forward to now, and things have shifted so much. Today, we actually recognize that every single person has fundamental rights. That includes women, kids, immigrants, and even people struggling with mental health issues. We don't just let one person run the show anymore. People always say that having basic rights is really just the bare minimum of what morality should look like, and honestly, I think they're right.

I mean, if you really step back and look at how much we used to think we knew about humanity, the planet, or even space, it’s kind of wild. I guess you could say that the way different social groups viewed one another—and their whole idea of right and wrong—was always wrapped up in so much mystery and myth. It wasn't exactly grounded in reality, you know? Even fairly recently, some Chinese people didn't even believe they shared an ancestry with Homo sapiens, though obviously, scientific research and all that evidence eventually proved otherwise. It’s funny how biology works, too. Like, there are people out there dealing with these super rare conditions where even their red blood cells are totally different from the rest of us. They have those sickle-shaped cells that cause a ton of serious health struggles, but on the flip side, maybe it makes them more resistant to something like Ebola or whatever else comes along. Nature is just strange like that, I suppose.

I guess you could say that as we get smarter and more educated, it just becomes easier to wrap our heads around different perspectives. It makes people more open to being tolerant toward anyone who isn't exactly like them, which I think ultimately gives us more individual freedom—like, you actually have the headspace to choose a different path if you want to. But then there's the whole population thing, which is a massive headache when you consider how much strain it puts on the environment. It’s kind of a vicious cycle, though; population growth tends to spike most aggressively in places where living conditions are the toughest, and honestly, those are the same areas where people are struggling the most just to survive. It's all pretty interconnected, I suppose.

I guess you could say that our appreciation for the value of life really starts to kick in once we actually learn how to empathize with others, or maybe even when we just find enough meaningful stuff to do in our own lives that making war seems like a total waste of time. It’s funny how that works—when life feels full, you don't exactly want to throw it all away in some pointless conflict. But man, looking at the world right now, everything feels so polarized. It seems like people are just itching to slap a label on anything they don't like, branding things as scary or repulsive just to fuel some kind of hatred. Between that and all the constant calls for violence popping up everywhere, it feels like things are getting pretty wild out there. It's a lot to take in, I suppose.

It’s all pretty apocalyptic, isn't it? I mean, we’ve definitely seen these kinds of scenarios play out right here in America. For the most part, people have always just sort of culturally tolerated their neighbors—you know, living side-by-side without much fuss. But I guess you really find out what someone is made of when things go south. Real heroes emerge in the middle of the struggle, but at the same time, group power can be a double-edged sword. When everyone starts acting on their own impulses during a crisis, it can get messy fast. Misery, hunger, poverty, or even war... those things tend to turn people into even bigger cowards than they already were during peaceful times. Still, I suppose there are those who hold onto their dignity no matter what, and maybe that's the kind of people who die with their heads held high.

When you bring up the value of human life in the context of "the foundations of modern democracy," I guess I’m a little lost on which specific democracy you're actually talking about. I mean, when I look at how much quality healthcare actually costs—and how hard it is to get if you don't have a massive bank account—it makes me wonder. There are plenty of people struggling just to see a doctor in even the most advanced democracies out there...
quietstag11 quietstag11 Newcomer
1 message
joined Jun 2010
#22 ·
Susan Bennett5 said:I suppose some progress has been made. I won't dwell too much on how people act when circumstances bring out their absolute worst—war, for instance.

I’m primarily thinking about certain historical religious customs where it was considered perfectly acceptable to subject one of a ruler's concubines, or perhaps a slave or wife, to unimaginable suffering and eventually death, all while being honored for the purpose of joining their ruler in the afterlife.

Furthermore, I doubt we'd see this many Pride parades in American cities if anyone still thought it was a good idea to tie someone to two trees and mutilate them for their sexual orientation. All things considered, I'd say yes. We have progressed, I guess. Or "progressed"... if you want to call it that.

but sure, you can beat a passerby to death without a second thought, provided you haven't hit a certain age. (classic Hollywood scenario)

you can kill a woman who's just trying to help raise your grandkids because she annoyed you, and easily dodge the blame by playing the insanity card (it happens in Chicago)

you can throw people out onto the street just because you bought up a factory with some dirty money, thanks to legal loopholes every high-priced attorney knows how to exploit...

in my view, society stays exactly where it is; we’ve just gotten better at packaging, naming, and justifying the mess.

It’s all a farce... just like those so-called charities and social welfare organizations.

Yeah, we’ve evolved—specifically in our ability to invent excuses for everything happening around the globe.

http://www.galaxy.com/
Larry Wilson5 Larry Wilson5 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2011
#23 ·
cosmicfox69 said:So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

- Humanistic morality hasn't changed.
It just gets more sophisticated, I guess. It branches out and shifts its shape, but the core stays the same.
A slave once saw a whip and shackles; today, they see credit cards and contracts.
Unless people change their focus—it's over.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#24 ·
Larry Wilson5 said:- Humanistic morality hasn't changed.
It just gets more sophisticated, I guess. It branches out and shifts its shape, but the core stays the same.
A slave once saw a whip and shackles; today, they see credit cards and contracts.
Unless people change their focus—it's over.

Nothing is truly different, yet everything remains exactly the same; morality evolves, but so does immorality, two opposing forces performing on the very same stage—without morality, there can be no immorality to speak of... so, what has actually shifted? The individual has become "transparent"—visible and traceable through a digital paper trail that follows them everywhere. Such a person is naturally forced to adhere to a specific standard of ethical responsibility—a standard imposed upon the individual by society through laws, regulations, codes, and social customs simply to remain a functioning member of the community.
Larry Wilson5 Larry Wilson5 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2011
#25 ·
Jonathan Brooks8;28201450 said:Nothing is truly different, yet everything remains the same; morality evolves, but so does immorality,
. . QUOTE
-do you think morality can be fully captured by laws?
Morality should serve life itself. It should follow its own rules. If we can't even protect our environment, people, resources, or the air we breathe, then how much has morality actually progressed? Then there are the judgments. For instance, Naomi Campbell was recently called out. What about Warren Buffett?
Ronald Rogers27 Ronald Rogers27 Active Member
152 messages
joined Mar 2008
#26 ·
The Evolution of Morals: What Human Life Is Actually Worth Today

Last month, Warren Buffett (worth roughly $54 billion) snapped up a massive 17,000-square-foot estate in Manhattan. The price tag? A mere $44 million.

Meanwhile, working-class Americans are grinding away in factories for about $1 an hour.😬

Ronald Rogers27
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#27 ·
Larry Wilson5 said:Do you think morality can be captured by laws?
Morality ought to serve life itself—to follow its inherent rhythms. If we can't manage to protect our environment, our people, our resources, our plants, our air, or our soil... then how much "progress" has morality actually made? It just becomes a series of judgments. Naomi was making a point about this recently. What about you, Lomaća?

Laws—which include everything from social customs and regulations to statutes, constitutions, and international treaties—are essentially just recorded historical morality. They outline rights, obligations, or simply our mutual responsibilities. Because they are products of their specific era, they act as a recorded snapshot of both morality and immorality... and as such, they are perpetually unfinished and imperfect. This constant process of refinement is nothing less than the evolution of our shared responsibility....

Why on earth do you think we’re failing to protect nature? Laws exist specifically to regulate environmental protection as a direct response to the destruction caused by human negligence.
Paul Anderson2 Paul Anderson2 Active Member
55 messages
joined Oct 2012
#28 ·
I guess people have always valued life—especially their own. But back in the day, death from natural causes was just way more common. Even now, you see instability, like wars and stuff, happening in places where mortality rates were already high. When you see everyone dying, maybe death doesn't feel quite as terrifying. We’ve turned death into this huge taboo today, even though we’re all headed there eventually. I suppose death was treated differently as a taboo in the past, too, just in a different way.

The whole human rights thing is pretty much tied to a history of oppression, specifically those religious conflicts we saw across North America. Tolerance emerged as a sort of remedy for all that constant fighting, and that's how the concept of rights started to grow. But those were originally political rights—things like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They’re basically just rights that allow someone else to do their own thing without interference.

Anyway, things mostly only change in developed nations. In a lot of parts of the world, not much has shifted in the last century—maybe some cell phones or cars if people can afford them, I guess.

Abortion is an impossible moral knot because it’s so counterintuitive—you have one person (who isn't even visible without medical tools) inside another person. It kind of shows how superficial our moral systems are; they seem designed, or evolved, only to handle "normal" situations.

Maybe you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Larry Wilson5 Larry Wilson5 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2011
#29 ·
planinar;28244900 said:Why do you think we can't protect nature?😉
QUOTE
The rules of morality are usually just drafted by whichever interest group holds the most sway. I suppose that means one set of ethics will always be vulnerable to another group's agenda. It’s a pattern that repeats throughout history—hiding immorality behind a mask of virtue. It’s quite effective, I guess. But it doesn't align with how life actually works; it follows a cold, calculated logic instead. Might makes right. You might pass a law to protect the forests, only to have someone burn them down just to clear the land for a new shopping mall.
redtinker36 redtinker36 Active Member
160 messages
joined Mar 2007
#30 ·
.. I was watching this conference on law and medicine recently—some guy named Greg mentioned something that stuck with me. He argued that in today's world, you can't rely on morality or ethics anymore; instead, we have to lean entirely on the legal system. But that raises a massive question—if morality and ethics are gone, what actually serves as the foundation for our laws? Who's left to oversee them... the masses? And whose version of "morality" would they even use?
.. Society is a singular entity—it encompasses everything from ethics and morals to the courts, the law schools, and even the Constitution. It essentially functions exactly how he describes it. When power is delegated, you end up getting exactly what society expects—or perhaps deserves. You get a system tailored to fit those specific standards.

.. Honestly, I feel like the value placed on human life has hit an all-time low lately. I think it’s tied to the sheer amount of fear people are living through—levels of anxiety we've rarely seen before. Fear has become this constant state of being, a driving force. Personally, I suspect evolution will move toward isolating the individual from societal influence at any cost—essentially pitting person against person.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#31 ·
Larry Wilson5 said:Moral laws aren't some cosmic constant—they’re manufactured by whichever interest group holds the reins at any given moment. Which means that specific "morality" will always be vulnerable to being challenged by a competing interest group. It’s a cycle we see repeated throughout history, much like the way systemic corruption is constantly being masked up.

There isn't just one singular "moral" or "immoral"—there isn't one monolithic code. Instead, there are multiple, vastly different codes existing in parallel. They are all products of their historical context because even right now, various eras are flowing through different societies simultaneously. These spheres collide and clash in the present moment; for instance, the moral code in Denmark—which permits caricatures of the prophet Muhammad as an expression of individual liberty—clashes directly with the moral code in Iran. In both Denmark and Iran, morality is simply a state of dynamic equilibrium between various interest groups, which fluctuate in power over time...

redtinker36 said:.. I suspect the value placed on human life today is exceptionally low .. and that this dictates the level of fear an individual experiences—a fear that has arguably never been higher in history .. fear as a permanent state .. as a driving force .. I believe evolution will move toward liberating the individual from social influence .. at any cost .. essentially pitting man against man..

Throughout history, there is a constant tension, a persistent striving—the unrelenting pressure to pivot from a state of subjugation toward a state of freedom. This pursuit of liberty unfolds across two distinct yet interconnected fronts: first, the struggle for freedom from one's own impulses, and second, the struggle for freedom from the system (society itself).
From a systemic perspective, every new threshold of freedom inevitably creates a previously unknown form of bondage, making it seem as though nothing truly changes—just endless variations on the theme of freedom versus constraint.
On a personal level, individuals draw ideas of liberty from society, yet they remain perpetually occupied with the same fundamental task of inner liberation; eventually, that internal shift "feeds back" into the system as an impulse for societal change.
Ultimately, the goal of the historical human experience is the simultaneous liberation of the individual from both society and the self—a process driven by the sheer necessity of our own nature.
redtinker36 redtinker36 Active Member
160 messages
joined Mar 2007
#32 ·
.. yeah .. you could put it that way .. I suppose it’s just divine intervention at this point .. if you want to call it that ..
Ronald Rogers27 Ronald Rogers27 Active Member
152 messages
joined Mar 2008
#33 ·
Jonathan Brooks8 said:There isn't just one singular "moral" or "immoral"—there isn't one monolithic code. Instead, there are multiple, vastly different codes existing in parallel. They are all products of their historical context because even right now, various eras are flowing through different societies simultaneously. These spheres collide and clash in the present moment; for instance, the moral code in Denmark—which permits caricatures of the prophet Muhammad as an expression of individual liberty—clashes directly with the moral code in Iran. In both Denmark and Iran, morality is simply a state of dynamic equilibrium between various interest groups, which fluctuate in power over time...

Throughout history, there is a constant tension, a persistent striving—the unrelenting pressure to pivot from a state of subjugation toward a state of freedom. This pursuit of liberty unfolds across two distinct yet interconnected fronts: first, the struggle for freedom from one's own impulses, and second, the struggle for freedom from the system (society itself).
From a systemic perspective, every new threshold of freedom inevitably creates a previously unknown form of bondage, making it seem as though nothing truly changes—just endless variations on the theme of freedom versus constraint.
On a personal level, individuals draw ideas of liberty from society, yet they remain perpetually occupied with the same fundamental task of inner liberation; eventually, that internal shift "feeds back" into the system as an impulse for societal change.
Ultimately, the goal of the historical human experience is the simultaneous liberation of the individual from both society and the self—a process driven by the sheer necessity of our own nature.

I agree with that first sentence. But honestly, it goes deeper than that narrow context. A Man draws ideas from society; really, he pulls them from the entire social framework. Freeing a Man from other people is essentially freeing the version of the Man who was shaped by society in the first place—it’s just taken to the extreme. You can never fully break away from society as a whole.

So, what does that first paragraph actually imply? It means a Man will first partially free himself from other people, and ONLY THEN can he break free from modern society itself. Plenty of connections (Man - Society) will vanish, while others just morph into something else.

Because of that, I can't get behind the bolded part.

Ronald Rogers27
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#34 ·
Ronald Rogers27 said:I agree with that first sentence. But honestly, it goes deeper than that narrow context. A Man draws ideas from society; really, he pulls them from the entire social framework. Freeing a Man from other people is essentially freeing the version of the Man who was shaped by society in the first place—it’s just taken to the extreme. You can never fully break away from society as a whole.

So, what does that first paragraph actually imply? It means a Man will first partially free himself from other people, and ONLY THEN can he break free from modern society itself. Plenty of connections (Man - Society) will vanish, while others just morph into something else.

Because of that, I can't get behind the bolded part.

Ronald Rogers27

Every individual carries the weight of societal contradictions on their own shoulders. In this sense, a person exists in a state of dual conflict: (1.) acting as a component of the system—a member of society—working to resolve those very societal contradictions (which essentially means always working against the status quo), while simultaneously (2.) wrestling with internal conflicts inherited through socialization, education, and upbringing.

In other words, by seeking liberation, a person finds themselves in a position of rebellion against the society that currently exists, all while striving toward the society that ought to be. The individual acts as a sort of filter through which the frictions of society are refined...

The moment society stops projecting its conflicts onto the individual, that person will be free—and since that individual will have finally resolved the ultimate social contradiction, society itself will be liberated as well... hence the simultaneity of it all.
Ronald Rogers27 Ronald Rogers27 Active Member
152 messages
joined Mar 2008
#35 ·
I think your second and third paragraphs are a bit too idealistic. No matter how much things change, society is always going to project its own conflicts onto the people around it. Society evolves, and honestly, I feel like it moves way faster than any one individual can. For a single person to outpace the rest of society, they’d need this incredibly sharp vision of the future based on their own predictions.

Maybe someone like that could actually break free from the friction society forces on them. But you have to admit, you could probably count those kinds of people in any given country on just two hands, right?

Ronald Rogers27
Larry Wilson5 Larry Wilson5 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2011
#36 ·
Jonathan Brooks8 said:There isn't just one singular "moral" or "immoral"—there isn't one monolithic code. Instead, there are multiple, vastly different codes existing in parallel. They are all products of their historical context because even right now, various eras are flowing through different societies simultaneously. These spheres collide and clash in the present moment; for instance, the moral code in Denmark—which permits caricatures of the prophet Muhammad as an expression of individual liberty—clashes directly with the moral code in Iran. In both Denmark and Iran, morality is simply a state of dynamic equilibrium between various interest groups, which fluctuate in power over time...

Throughout history, there is a constant tension, a persistent striving—the unrelenting pressure to pivot from a state of subjugation toward a state of freedom. This pursuit of liberty unfolds across two distinct yet interconnected fronts: first, the struggle for freedom from one's own impulses, and second, the struggle for freedom from the system (society itself).
From a systemic perspective, every new threshold of freedom inevitably creates a previously unknown form of bondage, making it seem as though nothing truly changes—just endless variations on the theme of freedom versus constraint.
On a personal level, individuals draw ideas of liberty from society, yet they remain perpetually occupied with the same fundamental task of inner liberation; eventually, that internal shift "feeds back" into the system as an impulse for societal change.
Ultimately, the goal of the historical human experience is the simultaneous liberation of the individual from both society and the self—a process driven by the sheer necessity of our own nature.

- I guess you're talking about variations rather than morality in a universal sense. Who actually decides the standards? Usually some influential group. What counts in Denmark might be totally different in Iran, which is a point. Maybe moral codes only really hold up where individual identity is recognized. I suppose morality should follow life itself rather than rigid structures. Disrespecting life is just a fact.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#37 ·
Ronald Rogers27 said:I think your second and third paragraphs are a bit too idealistic. No matter how much things change, society is always going to project its own conflicts onto the people around it. Society evolves, and honestly, I feel like it moves way faster than any one individual can. For a single person to outpace the rest of society, they’d need this incredibly sharp vision of the future based on their own predictions.

Maybe someone like that could actually break free from the friction society forces on them. But you have to admit, you could probably count those kinds of people in any given country on just two hands, right?

Ronald Rogers27

To say that "society evolves faster than the individual" is really comparing apples to oranges... societal evolution is an incredibly sluggish mechanism that stretches across generations of people, whereas an individual—in this context—is merely a flash in the pan of history (though an individual does "evolve" through their internal struggle with themselves, their own demons, desires, limitations, and so on). Yet, these "flashes" are the sole engine of societal progress; without them, there would be no movement at all. Just look at the concept of being "ahead of one's time," or being "misunderstood" by the community you live in—only for society, much later, to recognize and utilize that person's contribution through others—it just goes to show how different the "tempo" of society truly is.

An individual doesn't actually need some grand "vision of the future" to achieve personal "evolution faster than society"—truth be told, what drives a person most is often just sheer dissatisfaction with the present, with restrictive circumstances, the nature of their culture, or the very conflicts society has forced upon them. It is pain, essentially, that pushes us forward.

What an individual possesses that society lacks—and what society can only "acquire" through the individual—is creativity, ideas, gifts, and raw talent; that spark of novelty an individual brings to the table. Society renews itself only through the creativity of individuals, and that is how it evolves. The individual, however, draws from the collective pool—a massive reservoir of information—which then serves as the foundation for those creative ideas.

atko said:You're talking about variations, not the universal meaning of morality. Who sets the norms?

It is precisely because norms are established that there is no universal meaning to morality; it evolves alongside the process of establishment—namely, with the shifting "interest groups." Universally speaking, there is only something akin to a personal, basic, intuitive ethical code (something even animals possess) that exists prior to all the learned norms brought by culture and society, but we weren't really discussing that.
restlessscout5 restlessscout5 Member
20 messages
joined Jan 2018
#38 ·
cosmicfox69 said:So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

But then, progress actually happened. Even just a century ago, it would have been unthinkable for a child to have rights against a parent, or a student against a teacher, or an employee against an employer—let alone a citizen having any meaningful political rights at all...
There was a time when morality and the law both dictated that one person could hold absolutely zero rights against another; essentially, the master-slave dynamic was perfectly legal under the norms of the time. Torture wasn't just common before the Enlightenment—it was legal. We eventually engineered the entire concept of human rights and baked them directly into our legislation. Formally speaking, everyone living in modern democratic nations is considered free and equal today—which is really just the end result of a growing awareness regarding the value of the individual. If you compare our current legal frameworks to what existed 500, 1,000, or even several thousand years ago, the shift is staggering.
lonegardener lonegardener Regular
347 messages
joined Apr 2010
#39 ·
restlessscout5 said:But then, progress actually happened. Even just a century ago, it would have been unthinkable for a child to have rights against a parent, or a student against a teacher, or an employee against an employer—let alone a citizen having any meaningful political rights at all...
There was a time when morality and the law both dictated that one person could hold absolutely zero rights against another; essentially, the master-slave dynamic was perfectly legal under the norms of the time. Torture wasn't just common before the Enlightenment—it was legal. We eventually engineered the entire concept of human rights and baked them directly into our legislation. Formally speaking, everyone living in modern democratic nations is considered free and equal today—which is really just the end result of a growing awareness regarding the value of the individual. If you compare our current legal frameworks to what existed 500, 1,000, or even several thousand years ago, the shift is staggering.

It’s illegal now, obviously, but Jack Bauer remains an incredibly popular character regardless. 😈
Jacob Johnson56 Jacob Johnson56 Member
16 messages
joined Aug 2010
#40 ·
Yeah, quite a few people here have already touched on the markers of human consciousness evolution and how that shapes our internal ethics.
The whole issue stems from something we need to examine if we want to understand why humanity keeps making the same mistakes. It comes down to negative mental passions. Even with how much our awareness has evolved, we still lack any kind of organized education to help us recognize these patterns or teach us how to keep them in check. We're talking about greed, envy, attachment, vanity, and anger—though there are dozens more.
Real spiritual and ethical progress won't happen until we actually master those impulses.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads