I admit that I use the term PC with some ambiguity but it is such an area ot ambiguity in itself.

Yes, I could see no moral imperative for the shop to omit all CDs. Even if the artists who were recorded on them committed immoral acts, the profit made in the charity shop would not go them at all. That is why I saw it as a political statement or absurd logic. It reminded me of how, when I couldn't finish my dinner at school, I got told off on the basis that people were starving in Africa. If anything, it may come down to illogical moral connections.

Going back to music and 'offending', I remember how there were some objections to the the song by Thicke, 'Blurred Lines', on the basis of the video showing Pharrell Williams with a goat. Apparently, Pharrell was surprised by the way some saw the video as sexist. As it happened, Robin Thicke got sued for the song, but not on the basis of sexism, but because the track had too many chord resemblances to a song by Stevie Wonder.

With art and issues of the ambiguous area of political correctness, there is the issue of it being art as opposed to 'real life' and how much influence does artistic representation have? I am sure that it has some influence, such as in the subliminal use of images, but at the end of the day, art is only expression, and how far moral guidelines go in terms of artistic licence, or as entertainment, is a matter of opinion.

My understanding of McCarthy's words, 'historical law' is referring to the laws which were developed in various forms of civilisation. In connection with your idea of , 'Real morality is the law of the universe', which is very Kantian, it does come down to whether there are specific ideas or laws independently of the consequences of an action or the way in which morals develop in any given society.

There are some underlying universals, such as the treating others as well as a general principle of murder being wrong. These develop in relation to human life, as opposed to apart from it, so they could be seen as intersubjective principles rather than objective.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life.

I am sure that 'greed' and 'power' is a problem as a human weakness, and as enshrined in capitalism. These are problems and may be connected with loss of meaning in general, as may be the source of children and adults committing suicide. It may point to a 'broken' system, and the question may be about who and how can it be put together again, especially in relation to philosophy.

I was going to start a thread about Christian Nationalism and Shia law and Muslims. In the US past people did not discuss religion as we do today, and they did not blend religion and politics because they held a passion for liberty. That is all changed and today. We have much to fear from Christian Nationalist as we reason to fear Shia law and Muslims. The only difference between the Christian Nationalist and Muslims is the Christian Nationalist out number the Muslims. Both want to control us through politics because both believe this is pleasing to God.

Never mind what such belief has to do with the state controlling everyone, and fascism, and the end of liberty. Both Christian Nationalists and Muslims want the power of God in their hands, to interpret and enforce the will of God as they see fit.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? — Jack Cummins

:scream: Nazi, Germany-fascism! The essentials for that are firmly planted in the US because it adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education. The good intentions of a fascist political organization are good but poorly thought out.

@Jack Cummins

Religion is (especially in its manifest theocratic forms are) the denial, or negation, of morality (e.g. teleological suspension of the ethical, theodicy of "ends justify means", etc) as e.g. Confucius' / Hillel's "golden rule", Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' "Tetrapharmakos", Spinoza's Ethics ... or Phillipa Foot's Natural Goodness, etc suggest.

:up: :up: "Manifest Destiny" was, after all, an imperialist theodicy ...

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life. — Jack Cummins

Political correctness as concept has always been problematic for me. This because it can be all too easily used in Orwellian manners by antisocial people to further uphold their antisocial behaviors and creeds. Here’s one definition of “political correctness”:

1. (uncountable) Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness

While it is certainty true that it is impossible to enforce via coercion a commonly upheld ideal of closer proximity to a peaceful, loving, and understanding society, the converse of this very ideal would be closer proximity to a society of unending conflicts, hatreds, and misapprehensions. And without some societally imposed constraints, the latter could well overtake a society in a short enough timespan.

In one parallel, without societal constraints on the killing of other humans, murderers would greatly increase in number at the detriment of the society’s wellbeing in general.

No, insulting, laughing down upon with malice in one’s heart, or else dehumanizing a minority does not equate to a murdering of the minority in question. But, then, what is the difference between the boogieman of political correctness and a social decency enforced via non-legal means by a majority of the societies citizens?

Here’s one concrete example: There is no law (in the USA, at least) against a white person terming an African American a n*gger. But it’s decent not to do so. And this decency, at present at least, tends to be emphasizes as a good to be held onto by the majority (as well as via most of current media, political norms, etc.)—such that not following this decency is greatly frowned upon and (as can be the case with saying this term during employment) can at times lead to disciplinary actions by institutions (such as, depending on the business, being fired from one’s job).

Is this cultural indictment of calling African Americans n*ggers (despite many calling themselves this term, such as in many a song, etc.) a “horror show” or else a “tyranny upon one’s liberties”? And, if so, are we to understand liberties as including the right to dehumanize and disenfranchise humans form society simply on account of, for one example, their minority status—such as by actively labeling other groups of people subhuman animals that ought to be lynched?

Regardless of answers, the pronouncement of not calling African Americans n*ggers remains a prime example of that which is termed “political correctness”—be this same dictum of itself deemed a “horror show” or not.

With art and issues of the ambiguous area of political correctness, there is the issue of it being art as opposed to 'real life' and how much influence does artistic representation have? — Jack Cummins

I think this is another instance of putting too many disparate elements into sentence. I have trouble understanding the subject under scrutiny and what is to be discussed. It would be helpful, I think, and might save misunderstanding and explanations later, to use shorter sentences with just one yes/no, either/or this/that pair of ideas in each.

↪Chet Hawkins
My understanding of McCarthy's words, 'historical law' is referring to the laws which were developed in various forms of civilisation. — Jack Cummins

So, then, human law as a written/customatic version of natural law. What a poor substitute. I understand that some people claim to lack a moral sense, hence the need for law. But my emphasis on this need would be more sinister these days, as in, laws to pretend morality is not a natural law, AS IF they had to written by us in a conceited way to make any showing. It's a tacit artifact of DISBELIEF, not belief. But I suppose clarity is also ... useful.

In connection with your idea of , 'Real morality is the law of the universe', which is very Kantian, it does come down to whether there are specific ideas or laws independently of the consequences of an action or the way in which morals develop in any given society. — Jack Cummins

So, I disagree that 'it' comes down to that. Define 'it'? The 'situation'? That 'situation' causes miscommunication and disagreement, or, let's say more than there should be. We improperly reserve the right to declare our selfish interpretation of natural moral law and then we get it wrong in all the right ways to 'sin' unimpeded by our own legal works. And each society is different about how they 'sin', spawning conflicts unending.

Laws are always independent of consequences, so I am not sure what that phrasing means. In the Kantian ideal, laws SHOULD BE written towards intent, not consequences, yes? Let's keep the apples in the apple bucket. Don't apples spoil other fruits if next to them, ripen them quickly? No wonder they were the fruit of original 'sin'. Apples are the fruit equivalent of pederasts.

I would prefer a 'situation' where humanity realizes and respects the truth of natural moral law. Yes, it is the hardest thing in the universe, but, the right set of ideals would be nice to aspire to. My book is about us realizing that truth and, in some ways, looking again to, not quite discard, but place religions (all of them) in their proper place as early guides or ideas towards morality. The law would and probably should continue, but, once we get a fairly well working version of natural law, that need would diminish. In other words if our awareness of natural law is close enough, the feedback loop of genuine happiness would be fairly noticeable. That would take the place of most of the need for a written code of law. But I can see sociopaths and forgetful or insensitive people still needing a written reference.

But the real point there is that such a moral code would be complete, even if we could not sense it all. The could and would be no need to 'mess it up' with our interpretation (as we do now).

There are some underlying universals, such as the treating others as well as a general principle of murder being wrong. These develop in relation to human life, as opposed to apart from it, so they could be seen as intersubjective principles rather than objective. — Jack Cummins

I disagree with those principles. They are not precisely correct. 'Treating others well' is too vague by far. The probably rather bizarre statement I would counter with is: 'Treat all beings with a proper decorum/demeanor including the respect for the intrinsic value of all life and all concepts of waste and greed included. Disturb things only to challenge them to better themselves morally. That means increasing suffering is almost guaranteed to be morally correct.

We task a horse to earn its connection to us, for example. The horse IS bettered by this process in many cases. It is a more aware and happy creature with a proper human interaction. Of course, most human interaction is a mix of improperly and properly aimed goals. And for sure the horse initially suffers much more as it learns the 'rules' of interaction with humans.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? — Jack Cummins

Objective moral truth, of course. But I get your unstated objection. One of the first goals of a new wisdom based society would be to state (I suppose in law) what wisdom is for all to debate and complain about. This is a regurgitation of the old Greek forum, or this forum, ... a place where we test and debate the ideals of the new human path.

'Horror show' is what we have now, where roughly half the populace has a fear-sided only approach to wisdom and the other rough half has a desire side only approach to wisdom and the ideals of anger are denigrated and not properly understood at all.

The good of the right and the good of the left must be integrated. The bad of each must be challenged.

If we keep letting one side or the other dominate and rough handle the other one, like the left is doing to us all right now, we all lose the 'real' game of morality and political correctness is anything but that, it's political incorrectness. Chaos-apology is disintegration and rot.

I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life. — Jack Cummins

Although I agree that sensitivity is always better, enervation, when that reaction or input is the wrong narrative, not moral, but one-sided, as it is now, and fairly well always has been one way or another, then we fail in the name of the good. It's definitively little-g good, not GOOD.

The part that is most missing goes back to my first post on this site. That is the demonstrable feedback loop within reality of genuine happiness as a way to show that objective moral truth is being resonated with ... BETTER. Once you feel that connection, that harmony, and by the way I specifically call out giddiness as immoral, it is hard to go back. Backsliding morally reflects on the self, the connected self, unified somewhat with all virtues towards the objective good. That happiness is genuine, and it really does hold its ground well, better, against temptation.

I am sure that 'greed' and 'power' is a problem as a human weakness, and as enshrined in capitalism. — Jack Cummins

No doubt that Capitalism has to go. As long as it remains, the One Ring is still in Middle Earth and Sauron may rise again too easily. Of course removing Capitalism does not remove greed. If a Communist society were begun, some men would harem all the women due to their skills, presentations. That would also be immoral greed, even if the women were willing. A precarious balance would be deeply disturbed. Humanity itself would shift in every way to accommodate. If we really want the GOOD we have to understand the brutal nature of nature, of weakness and its relationship to immorality. At least the foolish money factor would be gone. But we might let in a thug factor that would also have to be countered.

These are problems and may be connected with loss of meaning in general, as may be the source of children and adults committing suicide. It may point to a 'broken' system, and the question may be about who and how can it be put together again, especially in relation to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Well, yes, the GOOD is the answer, to everything. Answers that seem to offer solace that are not aligned with the GOOD are effectively immoral. Those are the temptations of ease that we must be aware of. In short almost everything we now seek is immoral in many ways. A new way, a new awareness, is sorely needed. And wisdom is a very hard sell if it is improperly understood, and it will be.

I admit that I use the term PC with some ambiguity but it is such an area ot ambiguity in itself. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure that it is ambiguous at all, why do you think so?

Terms like "virtue signalling" better describe what you're talking about. Pomposity, self-importance and a desire for attention drive the holier-than-thou attitude and the lecturing of others. For political convenience, PC is portrayed with these negative stereotypes, however, it's not entirely unjustified, and most would agree that PC & virtue signalling do make for a common pairing.

That is why I saw it as a political statement or absurd logic. It reminded me of how, when I couldn't finish my dinner at school, I got told off on the basis that people were starving in Africa. If anything, it may come down to illogical moral connections. — Jack Cummins

Right, there is a lack of logic, but also a lack of interest, I seriously doubt the person telling you off cares about the "starving children of Africa" or even knows much about Africa at all. The concern is superficial, and only serves to gain some kind of moral high ground. The real motivation being far closer to home, whether that's to gain status, purpose, or the authority to tell others off or order them around. This is "virtue signalling", though other terms may apply better for the context.

Going back to music and 'offending', I remember how there were some objections to the the song by Thicke, 'Blurred Lines', on the basis of the video showing Pharrell Williams with a goat. Apparently, Pharrell was surprised by the way some saw the video as sexist — Jack Cummins

You've touched on an important issue with PC, which is that there's so much that's subject to interpretation. Can we tell whether offence taken at piece of music is legitimate or unreasonable? I wonder whether the majority were troubled by this kind of video, or was it just a very loud minority with their own agendas? Social media & technology act like an ever more powerful microphone for those who want to be heard, but the silent majority remain quiet as ever.

I think there are lines we don't want crossed, but we always focus on the controversy, and not the obvious. If we only focus on the controversial cases of PC, it can appear highly unreasonable. Aren't there any types of lines you don't want crossed? Content you consider homophobic, sexist, racist and other unpleasant and other ideas the world is better off without?

Yes, it's subjective, but philosophers focus too much on right and wrong without understanding that morality generally relies on majority support. The weirdos who go too far are too few to create a meaningful difference. If there's a substantial party that feels something is harmful or offensive, it may be worthwhile to listen.

The problem may be with religious fundamentalism and its various forms. The subjective ans objective aspects of thinking may be important, especially the way in which ethical ideals and values are based on assumptions of religious belief, or secular perspectives of 'reality', with the religious ones being considered as more objective, in the absolutism of perspectives of religious thinking.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics Some of this may come down to the way in which superficial observances and rituals may be given uppermost consideration. This was acknowledged by Jesus, in his criticism of the hollow practice of observances of the Pharisees and Saducees. It may come down to the way in which religious thinking can be hollow, lacking in depth, with so much based on hypocrisy of human thinking and values.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics — Jack Cummins

The issue is that there is no objective basis for morality under religion; it always comes down to personal preferences or interpretation of what gods want. Hence, even within one religion, views on a single given moral problem vary considerably. Personal preference and culture seem to be the source of our ethics.

Personal preference and culture seem to be the source of our ethics. — Tom Storm

And "personal preference and culture" are grounded in – are expressions of – being natural creatures inseparable from non-human nature, no?

Can’t disagree with that.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics — Jack Cummins

It doesn't - at least not in its own time-frame and place. The religious ideas of antiquity or the middle ages nay not seem ethical to us, but made sense to the people who practiced them. Religions are made to fit the circumstances of the people who adhere to them. While the skeletal structure of a belief system may last 200 years, its practical beliefs and practices change and adapt over time to the needs of changing societies.

The problem may be with religious fundamentalism and its various forms. The subjective ans objective aspects of thinking may be important, especially the way in which ethical ideals and values are based on assumptions of religious belief, or secular perspectives of 'reality', with the religious ones being considered as more objective, in the absolutism of perspectives of religious thinking. — Jack Cummins

Last night, I watched a Nova explanation of "intelligent design" being a modern way of explaining "Creationism" and why it is not science. Creationism can not explain cause and effect and can not predict. Science explains cause and effect and a good check on that explanation is if it can predict the effect of a cause.

I do not have a good understanding of being objective or subjective. If I am trying to figure out how something works, am I being objective or subjective, or how about just curious? Like is wondering subjective of objective? What if we imagine something and check if it can be true like Einstein?

Or if I can get closer to the subject- do we know enough about economics to make good decisions about things that affect our economy? Would that be subjective or objective?

The idea of being objective or subjective is often approached from the perspective of rationality. However, it may come down to core values, which may be more complex, in standing back and thinking critically, as they are so involved in aspects of daily life and bound up with the the reflective processes in philosophy and philosophy. This may involve fetters which get in the way of self awareness, leading to blindspots, which may be stumbling blocks in philosophical understanding, making the distinction between the subjective and objective into a blur of confusion so often. The only possible way for disentangling this may be about looking to the depths and sources of underlying beliefs, especially in relation to core values.

The idea of being objective or subjective is often approached from the perspective of rationality. However, it may come down to core values, which may be more complex, in standing back and thinking critically, as they are so involved in daily life and bound up with the reflective processes in philosophy and philosophy. This may involve fetters that get in the way of self-awareness, leading to blindspots, which may be stumbling blocks in philosophical understanding, making the distinction between the subjective and objective into a blur of confusion so often. The only possible way to disentangle this may be by looking to the depths and sources of underlying beliefs, especially in relation to core values. — Jack Cummins

Wow!

I cheated and edited what you said with Grammarly hoping to make it easier to understand because you express such deep thoughts and I want so much to better understand what you are saying. As I read what you said, I reflected on how I wish I had known what I know today when I was younger and I wish I knew today what I hope to learn about myself and my blind spots and how to do things better.

Your title asks us to think politically and what a thrill that is when we realize what all our different points of view have to do with expanding our consciousness and having better moral judgment. :heart: Someone told me a Hawaiian greeting is "I am sorry. I love you. Will you forgive me?" What if all of us could humble ourselves enough to come from love instead of judgments of each other? And to do this politically so we hold shared ideas of what is and what ought to be and the best way to manifest that change. To me, that is what democracy is about.

I wonder to what extent democracy is increasing or decreasing in the digital age. We have so much access to ideas and of means of expression. It is in the context of free expression of ideas that the issue of political correctness arises. Nevertheless, so much is becoming controlled at a digital level that freedom in daily life may be vanishing. For example, when applying for jobs, all is done online and what I find is that most responses I get are bot responses rather than human beings.

Also, digital media may encourage marginalisation through the free expression of prejudice. The shadow of democracy may be the expression of prejudice and this may come down to how the elite and leaders at the top manage the issue of free expression. While political correctness can be extreme, the actual outlawing of political correctness may amount to encouraging stereotypes and prejudice to keep those at the lowest levels disempowered and silenced in some contexts.

I am listening to a professor's lectures about the Renaissance and Reformation. The1400s was a terrible period in history with overpopulation then plagues and wars and such a decrease in populations, peasants were legally chained to the land and forced to be farm laborers. All their freedoms were lost as they supported the greater society with their labor and tax money. Then the shit really hit the fan when Martin Luther challenged the authority of the Catholic church and the exploited people began fighting for their freedom and better lives using the Bible to justify their rebellion. We might ask what is the moral we can take from history?

We can begin with Socrates. When people are exploited, sooner and later, they become a problem to those who exploit them. You know we are being dehumanized when AI handles such things as our application for a job and we can not get an interview. That is one of the problems with overpopulation. We do not need everyone, so people get marginalized and once they are marginalized it can be difficult to reenter the workforce. What can we expect to happen when people are pushed to the margins of society? That is a moral question. How do we start including everyone in society?

We have Goodwill stores that hire and train people with problems getting a job. I have heard Germany does an excellent job of getting unemployed people employed. I wish I knew more about what Germany does to help people get jobs. On the other side are our homeless people who become like feral cats as they lose their ability to function socially. It just is not a good thing to marginalize people and not include them in society. Let me establish some authority on this subject by letting it be known I was one of those people on the outside. I was so overwhelmed I was dysfunctional.

Okay, today AI is dehumanizing and I am quite sure this will increasingly become a problem until things are so bad we are forced to do things differently. It would just be nice if we could think things through before things get any worse.