Morality, from a societal perspective (first draft)

As human beings, we have needs, which we like to satisfy.

Some of those needs can be satisfied through resources, or "goods".

If you couldn't grab those resources from your neighbor, how would you satisfy your needs?

You can either make all your own things, or you trade with others. But to sell something you must first use your brain and your body to transform some things from something less valuable into something more valuable. And you can only sell those things that people actually desire.

Productive people are constantly trading. In order to satisfy their own needs they will trade essentially every day of their lives.

They trade in other things besides goods and services as well. They trade information with others to better understand the world. They trade in companionship, in support, and in love.

Every extra peaceful person also adds to our security.

Peaceful people are very beneficial. Peaceful people who have accrued large amounts of wealth have been, and generally are still, particularly beneficial to other people.


Contrast this with an unpeaceful person. Someone who steals, or rapes, or murders. These actions are harmful to people who are beneficial to us. Secondly, we ourselves or someone close to us could be the next victim.

An unpeaceful person shows through his actions that he doesn't know what society is about; he regards other people and their property as his own, and he tries to live at the expense of others. This has no place in society.


Morality is that set of principles of action that state that you cannot hurt other agents, or their property, who participate in society; for doing so must be detrimental to society.


What agents can participate in society?
Agents that can participate in society are so-called 'moral agents'. An agent is a being that can act. The second quality is that the agent should be able to understand the consequences of its actions. Finally, and most importantly, it should be capable to act in such a way as to not hurt other moral agents (other participants of society), or their property.

Aliens
If an intelligent species would arrive on earth, they would most likely be peaceful. It is hard to imagine how an unpeaceful group of individuals would ever develop the technology required for such a journey. Secondly, technological advances make the spread of information easy so that good ideas beat bad ideas; and so peaceful and productive ideas would have long beaten unpeaceful and destructive ideas.
So there would be no reason to regard such individuals as anything less than moral agents like peaceful humans, and probably more.

Sleep and coma
If someone is asleep they are, for all intents and purposes, still a productive member of society. Hurting someone who is asleep (or taking their property) is just as detrimental to society as hurting someone who is awake. The same is true for someone who is in a coma, if it can be reasonable assumed that they will wake up.

Children
Children are beings who gain moral agency capacity as they grow and learn. As such, they should not be hurt. It is moral agency capacity that allows one to live in society. Children are also the next generation.

Proto-children
Proto-children are beings who haven't started their journey of gaining moral agency. At this point it is generally up to the mother to decide what the best future for her and her child is.

Separate societies
It is possible that a group of moral agents live separately from another group of moral agents. The best way to go about would be to have the insight and to stress the insight that both would be better off engaging in trade. This would also be the strongest way to avoid conflict, because if no trading occurs then the two groups will view each other as an opponents fighting for scarce resources.

From the movie Contact

.

Morals are relative.

So when does a proto child become a child? What is the bright line standard that lets us know when the "journey of gaining moral agency" begins?

So Africans should have concluded that they had little to fear from the white men arriving on their shores because it would be hard to imagine how an
"unpeaceful" society could ever develop the technology required for such a journey?

popcorn.gif

Can a boat travel between galaxies?

Can a dugout canoe travel between continents?

It's evolution. IMO, Nielsio believes that a society that has evolved to a level of intelligence required to perform galactic travel would have evolved away from unpeaceful behaviour in order to cooperate in developing the technology required.

Well obviously peace and technology advance together. Just look at the 20th century.

Klingons....

Ha. Of course some cannot fathom other entities (aliens) as being above our own moral condition because of our own moral condition. That is, since we were born, we've been subjected to Earth, with all its people, events, conduct. So many fundamentally wrong things are ingrained in us from a young age, so many beliefs about the state of society, about how we should act, be, that it is actually impossible for many to see past this wall put up by our own brains.

Basically, in Contact, Ellie's answer would have been simple:


That is irrelevant. The scope of the analogy was to point out how pointless it would be for aliens to destroy a civ. that poses no threat to them. There is absolutely no way you can take THAT situation, and impose OUR moral values (or, at least, the moral values of an Army man) over aliens' actions. It is at least silly to assume that a civ that is so far beyond our level of technology and understanding would have the same morals as us. It is far fetched to think even their thought process is similar to ours.

In my opinion, there is no way we are "going to the stars" without understanding ourselves, without being one world, not a handful of ******s trying to get lots of money and rule a bunch of other ******s for a few decades before dying. Right now, morality is dropping fast, ignorance is climbing faster and spirituality, although hugely important to each of us as individuals, is not sought but by a few, and many of THOSE seek it in religion and are thus, doomed b/c they see religion AS spirituality rather than a catalyst for those seeking it

technology? hm? the IMPORTANT stuff (medical advances that could save millions of lives, space programs, scientific STUDIES on issues that are vital to humankind) is what lags the most. I was reading an interview on BBC a few months ago with this doctor who had developed something pretty groundbreaking to do with healing broken bones and regenerating tissue IIRC, and he was asked when this will be available to ol' Joe Smit, so to speak. His reply: "Whenever those higher up will have an interest in it. The technology is here, the science is here. "

How long have solutions been available for ppl in third world countries dying of hunger/thirst/dysentery? But that wouldn't help, it would give them some sort of power. Yeah, technology lets us buy the latest games, the newest mobiles, the best computers, it allows us to shop more comfortably from home, to watch 1 gazillion tv channels with the press of a button and it helps the industries make more money. Technology is there, and it's evolving. But mostly in areas where there is money to be made.

When do you think the electric car could have hit the peaks enjoyed by the newest hybrids? I would say much, much sooner than today.

Ever wondered how many diseases could have been cured in the past decade had 50% of the research (money and man-power) into anti ZIT products gone into proper medical issues? But who wants that?

The only reason anybody high up might consider venturing to a far off planet would be if they had a rock solid way of taxing ppl through their noses for going/living there.

Why pointless? Perhaps they want slaves, or they're just making way for a hyperspace bypass.

look, I like debating and all but at least put some thought into your posts.
Aliens travelling billions and billions of LY want slaves? So basically, they're in 1880? Dude, one word: Robots.

And hey, you know what? How would being slaves for aliens be much worse than being a slave to the powers that be?

And why pointless? Because destruction IS pointless. 9/10 there's a better alternative. It is only because of our limited views that we don't see that. Look, isn't it laughable, now, what happened at the Salem Witch Trials? Isn't it laughable that they killed ppl for saying the world is round? IMO if we were to live that long, it would end up being just as funny/dumb(laughable) in a couple of millenia how we used to be so destructive in all facets of our lives and have so many wars.

The whole aliens issue is a no go. It just isn't possible to surmise how aliens will or will not act. The rest of it is good though and I doubt you'll find any qualms about it Nielsio.

I always do, so please take a moment to consider before responding.

No, not for labor, for sex. You appear to be unfamiliar with the historical atrocities of slavery.

Why? A lot of activities may seem "pointless" to outsiders. Maybe they're zoosadists.

Are you saying humans enslaved different species then had sex with them?

Did they have offspring like this?:

http://theheroiclife.files.wordpress...pig-784421.jpg

@nichlemn b/c destruction is, as its name faintly suggests, not constructive. I mostly agree with Huehuecoyotl basically, but I do LIKE and WANT to believe that to get to where aliens would be there would have to be a massive spiritual awakening and mass understanding.

The equivalent on Earth is a technologically advanced civilization conquering one less so and then, yes, having sex with them. This has been commonplace over millennia of history until very recently, which is one reason the human race is so mixed.

Its rather NSFW but there are sites that offer pics/video proof of this.

^ That also, and no doubt aliens would have their own sort of porn.

this is where we disagree. My statement is that because of our narrow minds (caused by the fact we've only ever lived on Earth, with humans, so we're programmed in "Earth" mode) there has to be an "equivalent". We cannot see others, or their actions, even when those others are ALIENS except through OUR conceptions, our ideas. We put ourselves in their shoes. This is what I've been saying all along that is wrong and you've certainly brought it home with that post. We can't put ourselves in their shoes because it's not the shoes walking, it's the ones wearing them. And if you cannot even hypothesize as to the length, shape, colour, or even existence of their feet, how can we possibly attempt to walk as they would?


Obviously, however, this is rather secondary to the fact that you're comparing aliens invading us to the USA invading Iraq. It's not the same.
Also, you are veering way off from your argument which was that they would invade specifically to make us sex slaves. While history has seen that happen the two events weren't in a causal relationship.

I'm not sure what you think you know about aliens but there's a big chance they are very physically different from us. They may not have livers, hearts or kidneys and they might reproduce through spores or mere will. There is nothing even close to sugesting that our sexual organs would have anything in common, much less "interact" with each other, as there is no suggestion that for aliens sex is seen as more than reproduction, or that they take pleasure from "doing" it with an unwilling victim.

This is why there is no way you can compare humans invading humans to aliens invading humans. Different species = different. Now if they were aliens from the 'NzogBa race and we were aliens from the 'NzogBa race living on another planet and with cultural, technological and other differences, then yes it would be much the same as in your example.

mate, we're not talking about one man, or two men doing this. We are talking about a civilization of millions of humans purposely invading a different species and consistently "mating" with them


why is there no doubt? I fail to see how we're not even sure aliens exist, we've no (or very well hidden) proof of their existence, know nothing of their possible physiology, or anthing else about them but you can make such clear assertions.

I love how nielsio makes what looks to be a pretty well thought out post with a good amount of content that probably took a while to put together and it instantly devolves into alien tentacle rape porn.