Thanks for the article, David.

I'm increasingly convinced that the basis for all human action is the drive for the acquisition, maintenance and exercising of power in all its various forms (eg. physical, financial, emotional) over others – whether that is within family, tribe or nation – and either individually or collectively.

Factor in the various combinations and permutations of these, add time, and lo and behold you end up with the history of the human condition.

Or it could be as simple as every problem is reducible to: you either can't get rid of something you don't want, or you can't get something you don't have.

"We cannot predict the future."

Is that a prediction?

Good points David.
Non- evidenced based belief, whether called ideology or religion has, through the ages , been the greatest cause of premature death, suffering and oppression. The underlying cause of the resort to the resort to non- evidenced based belief has always been the thirst for power.

Constantine recognised the power of Christianity as a people control mechanism when he called the conference of Bishops at Nicaea to establish the Nicene creed and oppression non- Nicene creeds began immediately.

What examination of evidence does leave us with is this:.

A progressive productive society is produced only by a state of one nation of a free people energised by a market based economy maintained by a elected government limited by a separation of powers into the legislative, judicial and executive.

A "One nation" is based on culture. Only the right culture makes the other ingredients of progressive. The Judeo- Christian culture eroded by rationalism has given us the right ingredient. That erosion of thought control of religion has brought about the basis for progress assisted by the by the institution of monogamous marriage which has provided the basis for the nurture and education of children.

The nurture has brought children to their maximum of potential. In that top potential there has been found the great thinkers and innovators who gave us steam engines, electricity, telegraph, telephone wireless, heavier than air flight, sky scrapers, internal combustion engines and all the rest which have multiplied human productivity many millions times.NO OTHER CULTURE has produced a single one of those innovation.

We have to question the freedom of religion, the prohibition of discrimination against cultures being imported into our land.

We have to consider whether it is wise to abandon the tools for maintenance of the monogamous marriage institution. There are sound social bases for not recognising same sex marriage, just as there are for not recognising polygamy. Cruel as it may seem to some people, lines have to be drawn to maintain the progressive nature of our society.

The evidence is there for those who take the time to examine it.

Old man
Only problem with that is your non-evidence based belief in the moral superiority of the State - a force-based legal monopoly of force and fraud and crime.

Jardine K. Jardine wrote: "Only problem with that is your non-evidence based belief in the moral superiority of the State"

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

Where is the evidence to substantiate your statement of the author's 'non-evidence based belief in the moral superiority of the State'?

david f

Here:
"We have to consider whether it is wise to abandon the tools for maintenance of the monogamous marriage institution. There are sound social bases for not recognising same sex marriage, just as there are for not recognising polygamy. Cruel as it may seem to some people, lines have to be drawn to maintain the progressive nature of our society."

When he says "we" have to "draw lines", he means *the State* should *enforce rules*. Or is he saying that obeying the rules against polygamy etc. should be optional?

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

The quote you cited is not in the article titled "The culturally imperial and the satanic".

I wrote that article and therefore know what the author thinks about the state. I do not regard the state as a moral agent.

This article overlooks two of the most important factors impacting the human condition today. First is imagination. The second is the changes involved around procreation.
Imagination is only fostered in societies that value freedom of the individual. Sexual activity today is no longer governed by the need to reproduce. It is governed by pleasure.

The culture that accomodates best the influence of those two major shifts in society will dominate the future.

This article is hanging onto the precepts and the moralities of the past. Many have little rele ance to much of todays so called modern world.

Thank you for your article, davidf, though it's quite a thicket and I'm not sure the outcome is anything more than a blend of relativism and pragmatism. Perhaps you could make a concise statement apropos your own position in all these issues?
In the meantime a few rejoinders:

"Marxism justified ideological nonsense."
Many millions of words have been written under the label "Marxism", not all of it nonsense. Marx was first and foremost a materialist. Are you not the same? As for "ideology", a much abused word, Marx gave it its hegemonic definition. Ideology is the curse of the mentally enslaved, not the radical.

"most Australians reject those attitudes"
How do you know? In my experience most Australians are racists and small-minded nationalists.

"It is doubtful that moral relativism can exist"
I love this one! Superb wordplay, but for an atheist/materialist, how can morality be anything but relative?

“...Our reason then justifies our acts and thoughts”
Whence springs our reason? (important question)

“We cannot predict the future.”
Should we then be indifferent to it?
We cannot give an accurate prognosis to a cancer patient; should we then withdraw action?

Thank you for the list of common human attributes; the most impressive for me are the three which allude to the supernatural. How easy it is to dismiss this supernatural nonsense. Most of the rest of the list shows we're an eminently practical species, and yet there's this obstinate vein of irrationality. Does it not suggest that there's something humanity just can't account for? That rationalism can't account for either?

Dear Squeers,

I think we have gone around enough about Marxism. As far as I can see the corpses were a direct result of trying to put some of the Marxist principles in practice. They were no accident. You disagree with that and apparently will continue to disagree with that. No point going around again.

You wrote: “In my experience most Australians are racists and small-minded nationalists.”

We see Australians differently. We may see what we want to see. Our experiences are moderated by our preconceptions.

The definition of moral relativism is the article was, “Moral relativism is the view that there are no universal truths about what is right and wrong.”

Societies in which most individuals do not have the drives of self-preservation and reproduction disappear. That is a universal truth which may be expressed in different ways. What we define as right is usually that which we perceive leads to our self-preservation and our ability to reproduce. Some individuals may be persuaded that it is moral to forego their self-preservation and their ability to reproduce for the continued existence of the group.

To say we cannot predict the future does not preclude us from guessing what it will be and trying to deal with the consequences. We cannot know it in detail. We know we are all going to die but unless death is imminent we cannot tell when or how so we generally try to provide for those we care for.

Whence springs our reason is indeed an important question. I don’t have an answer.

Rationalism does not account for everything, and it is pointless to deny the irrational. I assume all of us operate to some degree on an irrational basis.

I wrote: "It is doubtful that moral relativism can exist"

Squeers wrote: I love this one! Superb wordplay, but for an atheist/materialist, how can morality be anything but relative?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Moral relativism

Moral relativism is the view that there are no universal truths about what is right and wrong.

As a materialist I maintain that the realities of our physical being and our social nexus determine what we are and what we can do. We are limited by those constraints. What is moral is also limited by those constraints. We are not plastic and cannot be made to conform to a society that is not compatible with our innate being. Therefore there are universal truths about what is right and wrong where those truths are products of our innate being. I contend that moral relativism is incompatible with materialism.

The article lists 67 social behaviours and institutions shared by all of the hundreds of societies in the Human Relations Area Files. I believe that the attempt to suppress human institutions or behaviour that occurs in all societies will result in oppression. Class and religion are two phenomena that occur in all known societies.

Marx envisaged a classless society without religion. The attempt to produce such a society resulted in great oppression. He wanted what he thought ought-to-be made into what is. That effort by his followers produced greater oppression than accepting class and religion and trying to adjust to them and limit their effects. The Marxist-generated corpses were a logical result of the Marxist experiment.

Dear David,
Your stated position on relativism and materialism seems to me to be inconsistent and untenable, though sorry to say that the bare assertion is the only refutation I can offer at present due to workload.

The more I look into it the more I'm persuaded that Max Weber and the Frankfurt schoolers were correct in their criticism of rationalism, of the iron cage and instrumental reason.
But on that tantalising note, adieu.

Dear David,

<<In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy>>

Earlier Jardine replied to the OLO-user named "Old Man", and you assumed he referred to yourself. Now Squeers referred to 'materialist' in the common spoken sense of the word and you assumed that he was referring to the philosophical school of materialism.

The first definition in dictionary.com describes a 'materialist' as:

"a person who is markedly more concerned with material things than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values."

Some may perhaps be markedly more concerned with material things because they believe that it is all that exists, but others have different reasons. Similarly, one may believe that only material things exist, yet not be overly concerned about them.

Why anyway should existence be a source of primary concern?
That attitude is as irrational as any other!

>>The quote you cited is not in the article titled "The culturally imperial and the satanic".

You’re right. I was addressing Old Man.

“I wrote that article and therefore know what the author thinks about the state. I do not regard the state as a moral agent.”

Good for you. Either do I.

.

Dear david f,

.

All countries are multicultural to some extent. Some more than others. And for all the obvious reasons, world migration is gaining in momentum.

In view of our historical origins, the UK, perhaps one of the oldest multicultural countries, is of particular interest to us in Australia.

Prior to the 16th century, there were four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

In 1543 England and Wales were united and took the name of Britain.

In 1707 Scotland joined England and Wales and the new country was called Great Britain.

English/British monarchs had also been monarchs of Ireland since Henry Vlll claimed regal sovereignty over it in 1542.

But Ireland was not united with the other three countries until 1801 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed.

Then the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 removed mainland Ireland from the UK, except for the 6 counties of Northern Ireland.

In 1927 England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland adopted the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly referred to as the UK.

Though the consolidation of the country began 470 years ago its constituent parts are still culturally and geographically identifiable and independent of each other.

In addition, of course, there has been large scale immigration from foreign countries such as India and Pakistan and the old colonies and, more recently, some of the Eastern European countries.

It was Oliver Cromwell, an intensely religious Puritan military and political leader who forced Scotland to unite with Britain. His harsh methods with Catholics in Scotland and Ireland are considered by some as genocidal or quasi-genocidal. The Scots have never forgotten it.

The flame of independence has never died and the United Kingdom could well become the Disunited Kingdom one of these days, collapsing like a house of cards, triggered, perhaps, by the end of the interminable reign of the Queen of Hearts, our very dear Liz Mountbatten-Windsor.

.

Dear Banjo,

The UK has made propaganda for its unique qualities. It has referred to commons as the mother of parliaments. Since Iceland had the Althing in 930 and the House of Commons did not appear until the 14th century that claim is obviously false. China, the Roman Empire and India were multicultural entities when the ancient Britons were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. It is quite true that England is and has been multicultural for a long time. Various English political movements have denied this fact a bit of whose history you have narrated in your post.

I am a bit saddened by the breakup of the United Kingdom. I think the breakup of the British Empire was a good thing but wish it had stopped there. The breakup of the UK follows logically from the breakup of the Empire.