Do you ever review your values?

[Coito ergo sum]

'Mericans are indoctrinated to see it all in B/W.

Give me a break.

Withdraw your standing armies and I will.

Shut your pie hole, or we will start quartering them in your civilian residences.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't hold an annual review or anything like that. But, there really isn't such a thing as moral or immoral in my view anyway. All there is is a value judgment and action(s) taken in response to a given situation. I judge something as good when increases some combination of happiness, pleasure, honor, kindness, compassion, safety, security, prosperity and liberty, and as bad when it reduces some combination of those items. It can be thorny when a certain situation or outcome has differing impacts on differing people, but all we can wind up doing is going with our best judgment at the time all things considered, and do the best we can to effectuate the best result we can make.

All mankind is my country, and to do good is my religion, said Thomas Paine. I'm with him on that. I'd illuminate that concept with one raised by Isaac Asimov - Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right. What that means is that having a preset notion of "morality" often becomes dogmatic and we apply what we think is a moral "rule" to a situation and in fact come out with a wrong result.

We need to evaluate our values, then, on each instance where a value judgment must be made. Is something good or bad? Moral or immoral? Once we start applying some system to that, it is going to invariably end up with us doing something that feels wrong, all to be "right" within some moral system.

Mark Twain illustrated that concept relative to religious values in some of his writings. He wrote a story called "Was it Heaven? Or, Hell?" in which Twain explores the rigid anti-lying rule in the context of family members dealing with a mother on her death bed. The idea being that a rule against lying under any circumstances can work negatively when telling a lie can be of benefit to another person. Sometimes, lying is good.

Isaac Asimov had a short story some decades back, one of his "Black Widowers" stories where one of the protagonists reveals that he had been lying to one of the other protagonists for some time about some of his habits being annoying and bothersome. The idea was that the first protagonist, Henry, actually was fond of the guy who had the annoying habits, so to serve the greater truth of their friendship/acquaintanceship and mutual fondness, he lied about finding the annoying habits entertaining or humorous. The idea there is that sometimes a lie can actually serve a greater "Truth."

Anyway...ramble over...

[charlou]

Good post, coito. Agreed on all points.

[Rum]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

[charlou]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

That is interesting ...

Not that I think of the mods as 'higher up', but what would you favour, wrt how mod roles a filled ... the current style of somewhat arbitrary appointment of staff by staff, or some other system for filling staff roles?

[Thinking Aloud]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

I mean ...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Atheist-Lite]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

....'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace' was good. I knew all that but it must be a shock to the older generation who ain't studied systems engineering....but try telling people the truth....sometimes the fire engines don't turn up?

[Rum]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

That is interesting ...

Not that I think of the mods as 'higher up', but what would you favour, wrt how mod roles a filled ... the current style of somewhat arbitrary appointment of staff by staff, or some other system for filling staff roles?

I suppose to be truly egalitarian we should vote them in, but given that this is a forum and does not have to organise in the same way social 'RL' groups do, it isn't all that important. My change of mind comes from reading about the failure of the anarchist movement, or more precisely the thinking behind it and why it has not really worked anywhere. I read a book by Colin Ward called Anarchy in Action last year - written in the 70s, and more recent stuff too after the failure of the radical left. This led me to another book called The Historical Failure of Anarchism by Chris Day. I also stumbled on something (sorry can't recall its name!) earlier this year about the commune hippie movement and how no matter how they tried not to let it happen, leaders or people 'in charge' always emerged. This contradiction at the heart of the hippie movement tore it apart, arguably (along with many other social factors of course).

Anyway I am getting too philosophical. Human groups appear to require sets of rules to operate effectively and making them up as you go along as a group seems to be a very inefficient and tiring way of doing it. One can hope for egalitarian, enlightened and liberal leadership.

I read this sort of stuff - though I tend not to get involved in discussions here about it all because it seems rather futile to.

[charlou]

hayeah .. it's why, while I like the notion and philosophy of anarchism (of the 'live and let live' variety), I do concede it's an ideal that in (an attempt to) practice would be become destructive.

[Atheist-Lite]

Too complicated. We're just apes. We are constantly manouvering positions and anything artificial like elections will eventually get rigged by the smarter members or more estabilished members of a group. Just accept the world is unfair. Then if you feel things are too unfair for you(or them) organise revolt. Just like we've always done. The failed revolts are stepping stones to the succesful ones; learning all the way how to handle power.

[Pappa]

I suppose to be truly egalitarian we should vote them in, but given that this is a forum and does not have to organise in the same way social 'RL' groups do, it isn't all that important. My change of mind comes from reading about the failure of the anarchist movement, or more precisely the thinking behind it and why it has not really worked anywhere. I read a book by Colin Ward called Anarchy in Action last year - written in the 70s, and more recent stuff too after the failure of the radical left. This led me to another book called The Historical Failure of Anarchism by Chris Day. I also stumbled on something (sorry can't recall its name!) earlier this year about the commune hippie movement and how no matter how they tried not to let it happen, leaders or people 'in charge' always emerged. This contradiction at the heart of the hippie movement tore it apart, arguably (along with many other social factors of course).

Anyway I am getting too philosophical. Human groups appear to require sets of rules to operate effectively and making them up as you go along as a group seems to be a very inefficient and tiring way of doing it. One can hope for egalitarian, enlightened and liberal leadership.

I read this sort of stuff - though I tend not to get involved in discussions here about it all because it seems rather futile to.

I think anarchist societies are entirely possible and there are examples where, without outside interference, they could have flourished. Anarchism was crushed in Spain by the Communists, but would probably have been crushed by pressures external to Spain had it managed to develop further. That doesn't mean there is a deficiency in the human ability to self-organise and self-regulate. I agree that humans do have a tendency (given to us by our genetic heritage) to cede to responsibility to a leader or group of leaders, but this need not always be the result. On the one hand, people get lazy and prefer to let someone else do all the time consuming work of organising stuff for them, and they also have a tendency to obey those who fit the leader role, but in situations where people are given the opportunity to become a part of the decision making processes that affect their own lives and the lives of people close to them, they invariably step up to the plate and perform. We are all so used to accepting that other people do things for us that we forget we have all the capabilities to do the job ourselves. How many of us could probably do a better job of representing our constituency than our own MP? Probably most could if given the opportunity and confidence. When management are removed from a company and workers are shown that they can collectively make all the decisions themselves, they seem to cope admirably once they learn to have confidence in their own ability to do so. We are all so used to being plebes rather than responsible for our own lives, we don't realise that we are fully able to take the reigns.

[Cunt]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

Which reminds me - I used to be all in favour of personal responsibility for one's actions. Then I realized just how hard a community can work to exclude someone. No matter how 'responsible' the shunned member is, he or she cannot achieve the some things as the non-shunned members.

Let me give you an example. I know a man who has a mental health problem. I don't know which diagnosis he was given, but it isn't important. He was given an opportunity to stay in 'transitional housing' while he got himself organized. The house he was staying in is run by the Salvation Army and you are required to attend 'programs'. This means AA. The man has no drinking problem (or drug problem, other than what is prescribed) to speak of. He was found naked and agitated in the hall, acted 'weird', and refused to be piss-tested. He was thrown out of the house.

Thing is, all those things were pretty harmless, and also clearly part of his mental health problems. They might be considered anti-social, but if he stumbled naked and raving into a barfull of you folk, my guess is that no-one would feel particularly threatened, more bemused.

What this fellow does is weird enough to make most uncomfortable. Because of this, his work (his job is WAY fucking harder than most) is disregarded. His other contributions are not noticed. How hard would he have to work to turn the tide of the shunners? I think he simply cannot. Too many refer to his history (which does NOT include violence anywhere that I can see) and say that he is a violent risk. As I said, his criminal history does not include any violence (though he yelled a few times). His psychiatrist has not advised anyone that he is a violent risk.

You all (including me) are a fucking mob of bullies. At least occasionally. I try to see it when it happens to me, but it isn't easy. That change is the largest for me in the last few years.

[Pappa]

Somewhere between an opinion and a value this, but I think I have changed my mind about the ability of groups of people to 'self organise' and therefore by implication, self regulate without any form of hierarchy emerging. This also applies to this forum I might add. Given my views about moderation expressed in the past, though not of late you might or might not have noticed, this is indeed a change of view brought about by 'review' and reflection.

Which reminds me - I used to be all in favour of personal responsibility for one's actions. Then I realized just how hard a community can work to exclude someone. No matter how 'responsible' the shunned member is, he or she cannot achieve the some things as the non-shunned members.

Let me give you an example. I know a man who has a mental health problem. I don't know which diagnosis he was given, but it isn't important. He was given an opportunity to stay in 'transitional housing' while he got himself organized. The house he was staying in is run by the Salvation Army and you are required to attend 'programs'. This means AA. The man has no drinking problem (or drug problem, other than what is prescribed) to speak of. He was found naked and agitated in the hall, acted 'weird', and refused to be piss-tested. He was thrown out of the house.

Thing is, all those things were pretty harmless, and also clearly part of his mental health problems. They might be considered anti-social, but if he stumbled naked and raving into a barfull of you folk, my guess is that no-one would feel particularly threatened, more bemused.

What this fellow does is weird enough to make most uncomfortable. Because of this, his work (his job is WAY fucking harder than most) is disregarded. His other contributions are not noticed. How hard would he have to work to turn the tide of the shunners? I think he simply cannot. Too many refer to his history (which does NOT include violence anywhere that I can see) and say that he is a violent risk. As I said, his criminal history does not include any violence (though he yelled a few times). His psychiatrist has not advised anyone that he is a violent risk.

You all (including me) are a fucking mob of bullies. At least occasionally. I try to see it when it happens to me, but it isn't easy. That change is the largest for me in the last few years.

I was thinking about something similar last week. A guy came up to me in the street and started telling me all sorts of things about what he was doing. I forget the details, but it was things like, "I have to go to the Post Office to pick up..." etc. He seemed a little agitated, and I think I would be fair in saying he had mental health issues, but he was obviously completely harmless. He was talking to me for at least five minutes, but I didn't say a word to him. I wasn't sure what to say, and I also didn't want to get tangled into a conversation that I couldn't easily get out of. Eventually, he walked off, talking to himself and rummaging through his bag. I immediately felt bad, because I suddenly felt that this guy was probably very, very lonely. I imagined that he was willing to stop and talk to anyone in the street because he has nobody at all to talk to, and I (and probably everyone else) make the issue worse for him by standing, staring and saying nothing back. I've read that there is a significant correlation between visible disabilities and disfigurements and mental health problems, probably caused in part because of the exclusion people feel when they are treated differently by society due to their physical appearance. This only gets worse when people suffer obvious metal heath issues because it's like a social leprosy, nobody wants to go near and talk to a crazy person.

[Pensioner]

'Mericans are indoctrinated to see it all in B/W.

Give me a break.

What Crumple said is bollocks, how anyone can say such a thing is nothing more than proof that the sayer of said comment is nothing more that a bigot.

[apophenia]

I was thinking about something similar last week. A guy came up to me in the street and started telling me all sorts of things about what he was doing. I forget the details, but it was things like, "I have to go to the Post Office to pick up..." etc. He seemed a little agitated, and I think I would be fair in saying he had mental health issues, but he was obviously completely harmless. He was talking to me for at least five minutes, but I didn't say a word to him. I wasn't sure what to say, and I also didn't want to get tangled into a conversation that I couldn't easily get out of.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Mental illness is like any other disability -- sure, at first you don't know how to deal with it, and coping with the changes is hard, but over time, you learn to take care of yourself, because, no one else is going to do it for you; you learn the mental health equivalent of "street smarts" -- or at least the bulk do, I think. I'm sure there are some too disturbed to develop those coping skills, but they're likely a minority. It reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon where there's a group of cowboys around a fire with their sleeping bags, and one is standing aside, shaking, another has ahold of a sleeping bag and is holding a scorpion by the tail, and he says to the other cowboy, "There, there, now. He's probably as scared as you are." Anyway. My two cents. I'm not a professional, just a pleib, so my vision may be skewed.