I've enjoyed Viktoras' treatment of morals. There is selfish fitness of
an individual and there is the fitness of society. For a long ago have
integrated societies won over disintegrated societies.
Let me now take the stance of a "ruler" of a society: I want those
individuals that benefit society to prosper, and I want to get rid of
those individuals that do not benefit society. Of course, there are many
different situations over a lifetime of a society. Academics at the age
of 20 are not yet useful members of a society - they are a bit like
children that still have to be nurtured. On the other hand, physical
workers at the age of 80 might no longer be as beneficial as they used
to be. Soldiers are useful in times of war, but not that useful in times
of peace. Artists are not useful in times of war, but are useful in
times of peace. Morals define the standards of behavior in a group that
assures that society functions well. Diversity is about having degrees
of freedom. Diversity is the ability to adapt. But uniformity is about
having speed and inertia, the push and the blast.
Morals can be sustainable or unsustainable. Sustainable morals assure
that moral people prosper more than immoral people. Unsustainable morals
take moral people and suck them dry, while immoral people prosper. Such
a moral system doesn't last for a long time: it drains the pool of moral
people.
Moral people like to be around other moral people. Immoral people thus
end up being with other immoral people, and such ghettos of immorality
tend to perish, while islands of morality prosper. Of course, there are
always immoral individuals that try to invade the islands of morality
for their personal selfish gain. Many moral systems tend to take their
most moral individuals and throw them into the sea of immorality trying
to form a new island. Some of them succeed, and some of them drown.
Many moral systems thus act in such a self-interested way. Religions try
to spread by sending missionaries who try to capture the minds and
souls. Democracies try to spread by installing governments around. It's
a never-ending process of attempts to take over the world. Some moral
systems spread faster, and some don't spread at all. Shakers required
everyone to be celibate, so from their peak of 6000 people, there are
now 7 women left
(http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html).
Christians and Muslims, on the other hand, oppose contraception and
abortion in the attempt to fill the world with more Christians and
Muslims as quickly as possible. These religions have been most
successful in spreading. Yet, Catholicism takes its most moral people
and makes them celibate as to speed up the spread of religion. But now
it seems to have run out of this non-renewable resource, and it's
running out of people willing to be priests. I wonder when will the
western democracies run out of another non-renewable resource:
civic-minded productive taxpayers.
Morality is any idea people believe in. Religion is an idea that became
aware of itself and that consciously spreads itself around the world.
Democracy is a religion. Communism is a religion. Socialism is a
religion. Capitalism is a religion.
Who's winning? Who's losing? Who will prevail? Which religion will
dominate in 100, 200 years? Which religion is the fittest? Which
religion will transcend this never-ending quest for mindshare? Which
religion will survive? Which religion will best adapt to the
contemporary reality of worldwide information networks instead of the
traditional reality of a network of adjacent villages, where
Christianity and Islam were both born. Which religion will be able to
maintain and nurture its base of key believers?
Best regards,
Aleks Jakulin
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 11 03:03:37 2006
