well it is quite difficult to talk about masses of people without talking about politics. And of course, without political examples, there don't seem to be many examples of mass movements. I mean we could talk about post-modernist art or commercialism, but i thought political examples would stick closest to my point about "top-down" morality. If you have an apolitical model to work with, I would be happy to switch to that. If we stick with personal models of morality, we don't have to even talk about relativism, or dependence on another human for interpretations. I am just trying to have a conversation.You've drifted from morality to law all the way to politics now. Nice of you to change the goal posts like that.
A society or a person? Discussing societies without talking about politics is hard.We WERE discussing where a society gets its moral values from and then you decide to start talking about how the democratic process doesn't exactly work in all cases necessitating a top down decision by "higher authorities." We all know that. But that has nothing to do with where a society derives its sense of right and wrong.
no and I also eat shellfish. I guess I just can't get that purist thing going. I am pretty sure there is some point in what Nietzsche said that could be pulled out of the chaff though. He was very anti-political in general, I mean denigrating mass movements of all types. Perhaps he just hated,"getting along," so much because he thought it wasn't as valid as having personal value systems. Perhaps it relates to what he might have seen as people ignoring humanity's real violent struggle to survive by pretending we could get by with getting along and no personal responsibility. I don't know.Perhaps you agree with Nietszche that democracy is a morality of weak slaves?
i personally am going for a synthesis starting from first principles, some of which I attribute to the people you mention, or my understanding of their positions on being human. I would suggest that we do depend on these types of "advanced" thinkers not only to build but to fortify our own moralities all the time.Who exactly then is going to step up to the role of playing superman to decide for us what is right and wrong in the end? I still want you to define who these "higher authorities" in morality are that we are supposed to just listen to and obey. The philosophers? Which one? Marx? Nietszche? Bakunin? Rousseau? Confuscius? Jesus?
1- human rights - which I claim from philosophical and not scientific principles, and I have yet to hear an argument against human rights that appears logical.
2- human responsibility - this is a hard one for materialists and fundamentalists
3- epistemological sophistication - dependence on non-empirical data for philosophy, empirical for science of course
I don't always experience them in that hierarchical order I guess they kind of all relate and entangle each other.
Are you saying I have to pick one book to find valid points in? I never said that.