The Islamic State love.

[Rhiannon]

Educated people gave always believed, Len. What we need is to make the labels we give ourselves secondary to our common humanity. Not that I think that likely to ever happen.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I get Len's point that education might help us over-rule some basic evolved self-preservation instincts to see ourselves as tribes or groups.

But the reality is that we're not sponges soaking up the "wisdom" of some benevolent force for "good" floating around us, and then acting on it in preference to our instincts. Morals are subjective, therefore despite education we won't take in refugee children in Calais because we are more worried about more children making the journey if they think they will be taken into the Uk than we are about the abuse / harm they might suffer as unaccompanied minors living in a camp.

Also, we are divided into groups as a result of education - they are called nation states, and within them there are smaller groups called families and they seem to be shrinking in size in educated countries. Also individualism has replaced community so not sure where this commonality is going to spring from or why Len has an unevidenced belief that education will solve all problems including finding untapped resources to share amongst nations to eliminate fear or want or greed.

[Leonard James]

Hi Gabriella,

We can only find our way united ... divided we fall.

We are progressing slowly along the path. We have moved from being small warring tribes, by uniting to become much larger warring countries.

Hopefully, recognition of our silly situation will carry us further and unite us into one, world-wide group.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella,

We can only find our way united ... divided we fall.

We are progressing slowly along the path. We have moved from being small warring tribes, by uniting to become much larger warring countries.

Hopefully, recognition of our silly situation will carry us further and unite us into one, world-wide group.

Hi Len

I think there is too much variation in humans and in the geography of natural resources for them all to be united in one group but we could have more knowledge, understanding or tolerance of the differences.

Is this world-wide group a bit like the EU but bigger - sounds like an administrative nightmare to me.

[Leonard James]

Hi Len

I think there is too much variation in humans and in the geography of natural resources for them all to be united in one group but we could have more knowledge, understanding or tolerance of the differences.

Is this world-wide group a bit like the EU but bigger - sounds like an administrative nightmare to me.

Quite, but I don't think it's beyond our grasp, in fact I am convinced we will get there eventually.

The two hardest steps are going to be to share the world's wealth equally among all people, and getting them to accept that we all have the same rights and responsibilities.

[Brownie]

I agree with what Gabriella says above.

Len, there will always be individuals and distinct groups of people who have customs and interests in common.  I wouldn't want it any other way and don't like the idea of us all being one.  There are dangers in that and we wouldn't be 'one' anyway because some would be unscrupulous and power hungry, regardless of education.  Think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Yes, I know it is an extreme conspiracy theory but who knows?

What I believe to be an ideal to aim for is for all sections of society in the world to be united with common humanitarian values, such as respect and mutual support, whilst retaining their individuality.

[Leonard James]

I agree with what Gabriella says above.

Len, there will always be individuals and distinct groups of people who have customs and interests in common.  I wouldn't want it any other way and don't like the idea of us all being one.  There are dangers in that and we wouldn't be 'one' anyway because some would be unscrupulous and power hungry, regardless of education.  Think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Yes, I know it is an extreme conspiracy theory but who knows?

What I believe to be an ideal to aim for is for all sections of society in the world to be united with common humanitarian values, such as respect and mutual support, whilst retaining their individuality.

Yes, of course ... we can't expect everybody to be identical. But a common moral code is essential.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Moral codes aren't enforceable but laws are, if there is a body with sufficient military power to enforce them - which sounds dangerous.

I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.

[trippymonkey]

'I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.'

INDEED! Does this include ALL religions too?
Nick

[Leonard James]

Moral codes aren't enforceable but laws are, if there is a body with sufficient military power to enforce them - which sounds dangerous.

I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.

The law should be based on the moral code.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'I haven't seen any evidence that a common moral code works in practical terms to eliminate cruelty in humans - it's an idealistic belief - bit like believing in a supreme being and objective morality - nice idea but no evidence it actually works in any useful way to eliminate the world's problems.'

INDEED! Does this include ALL religions too?
Nick

You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?

Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".

[Leonard James]

You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?

Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".

If the hippies could form such communities in the 1960s, I'm sure we can do it eventually. Greed is the main opponent.

[Brownie]

Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them.  There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened.  Communities have secrets, Len.  This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.

Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.

[trippymonkey]

You tell me - are you about to give us examples of any religions or moral codes that have succeeded in eliminating cruelty in the human race?

Len seems to foresee the emergence of a single moral code with magical properties that eliminates cruelty, no feelings of rejection - everyone one big happy family. I have come across a similar concept called "heaven".

Totally agree which is why I asked that very question.!!! Your last statement is the very one I feel so many on earth hang on to when ALL religions fail them !

[Leonard James]

Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them.  There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened.  Communities have secrets, Len.  This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.

I totally agree. I was not suggesting that hippies led perfect lives, I was simply referring to their sharing of material wealth. That is the key.

Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.

Agreement once again. There will always be selfish people, but the law must control and punish them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Totally agree which is why I asked that very question.!!! Your last statement is the very one I feel so many on earth hang on to when ALL religions fail them !

I think a moral code will be as effective as religion in eliminating cruelty - people will not agree with each other, there will be different interpretations of what is just or fair in any given situation, judgements in legal proceedings will not be consistent and will change depending on who is deciding any given case and their subjective interpretation of the moral code. Disagreements will lead to conflict, as it does in religion.

 

[trippymonkey]

EXACTLY !!!!!!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Len, the hippy communities had endless problems; power hungry 'leaders', abuse including the abuse of children, please don't idealise them.  There are still some communities described as 'hippy' to this day, occasionally a group gets into the papers because something like that mentioned above has happened.  Communities have secrets, Len.  This isn't me being cynical, it's a fact.

Shared moral values with laws to back them up could be summed up in the word 'love', as in ''all you need is love'', because love encompasses respect for others.

If everyone loves each other but crops fail in one area due to a drought, and there is a shortage of food in that area, whilst other areas have food but the cost of transporting the food means there is not enough money for vital medical services for an aging population with multiple health issues such as intensive care units or beds for long-term care or drugs to treat the high rates of cancer in a population or neo-natal units for babies born very prematurely thanks to expensive pioneering techniques in modern medicine - how does love solve these problems? How does love decide who lives and who dies or when we should stop developing new expensive techniques to save lives or treat debilitating conditions? Who does the admin for all of this so resources go quickly and efficiently to where they are needed? Does everyone just love each other so they all work as hard as they can according to their skills but only get paid according to their needs?

Does one super-State entity control all resources and dole them out to the world's population in a spirit of love?

[Brownie]

I think you misunderstood what I said in response to Len's post, Gabriella.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Maybe.

I'm just trying to figure out whether the concept of "love" is like the concept of "God" - there are as many different meanings of the word "love" as there are people and absolutely no way of pinning down any agreed upon definition of what "love" is.

So some people believe Love is the answer while other people believe God is the answer. And some people combine the two and say God's Love is the answer....

Which takes me back to your response - if people are denied vital services because they are too expensive, leading to them dying or living in deprivation or pain, do they still feel respected/ loved?

[Brownie]

No they don't and it is up to others to help sort them out, that's what humanitarian aid is all about and it should not in any way be patronising;  those who dispense the aid may find themselves in need of it at some stage.  That's a type of love in action, a practical kind.  It's never enough but it helps.   There are those in this country who need it sometimes, scandalous though that is being as we are considered to be wealthy but the government does not always go to areas of greatest need and often wastes money, or stockpiles it.   However I could go on all day (or all night being as it is just after 4am, everyone else sleeps zzzzz), which would not be very helpful or loving of me so I'll shut up .  See y'all later.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How do others help sort it out if there are limited resources and unlimited wants? It sounds like you are describing a mythical world you believe in where unlimited money and resources are available to meet all needs - at least I don't see any evidence of that world around me.

Treating  every sickness in the world seems like an expensive business - what with people living longer or surviving at birth when previously they would have died - and medicine having the capability to treat more and more illnesses, which previously would have just killed people. Pioneering treatments through research, multiple tests, scans, the use of synthetic drugs, high-tech equipment and round the clock medical care is very expensive.

If you knew there was a treatment that could save your child and thousands of other children but there was only enough equipment, drugs, people to save a few children - is it possible to feel loved and respected if you are one of the parents denied treatment because of lack of resources or cost?

Maybe - I guess it depends on each person's definition of love and respect.

[Leonard James]

How do others help sort it out if there are limited resources and unlimited wants?

By sharing the burden equally and not just leaving it to other people to make the sacrifice needed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

By sharing the burden equally and not just leaving it to other people to make the sacrifice needed.

Who decides if it is equally shared? What is the criteria? For example if country A has a free health service paid for by the tax payers, while country B doesn't so individuals have to pay for their own health care, what is the formula for deciding how many migrants go to country A and how many go to country B?

If country B has a better free education service than country A, how do you adjust the numbers then? What if country A feels they are being burdened unfairly - who decides whether they are or aren't?

[Leonard James]

Who decides if it is equally shared? What is the criteria? For example if country A has a free health service paid for by the tax payers, while country B doesn't so individuals have to pay for their own health care, what is the formula for deciding how many migrants go to country A and how many go to country B?

If country B has a better free education service than country A, how do you adjust the numbers then? What if country A feels they are being burdened unfairly - who decides whether they are or aren't?

Education and health service should be equally available and free in both countries, and the citizens of each country taxed to ensure that it is so. If one country has the advantage of better natural resources to create wealth than the other, it should share accordingly.