Comment by xtrapol8 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtrapol8 | Hacker News Reader

It isn’t though.

The study suggests morality would be a steadily declining slope throughout this time rather than a periodic wave if it were true. This is not so. It merely swings over shorter periods of generations.

We have gone through times of slavery, racism, imperialism, war, reclamation and so on. All of these things cause moral reflection and transformation.

Just last week some so-called philosopher suggested the best way to communicate with aliens would be to start killing them, and many HN commentators agreed, despite this pundit not really know where things should go after that. It’s like C Columbus all over again. I’m pretty sure the world reeled for some generations from that one (Montaigne).

I think those conducting this research are poor students of actual history.

Objective morality: it is immoral and wrong to harm the innocent. Ever.

Everything else (sex, drugs, concern for each other, regard for our differences, etc.) has a realm of “subjective relativism“. These can be difficult to plot.

Harming the inculpable for personal, political, or convenience in any form at any time is absolutely wrong and this attitude changes periodically throughout time.

As a student of history I can say twelve million data points scattered over several millennia does not give a grounded scale where lives of generations vacillate in merely decades.

Shall I start with Gilgamesh? Things could only improve. Hammurabi? They did improve. Cyrus the great? His fore-bearers ethnic cleansed and salted the earth so nothing could grow for f-sake. He was a civilizing force.

Europe? Reformation? Christians burned each other alive.

America? We’re now back to being more racially charged than we were 30 years ago (which was objectively better than 50 years before that.

Obviously times do change, we are rising and falling and we must be vigilant for this happens within our lifetimes.

But who is innocent? Do you mean innocent persons? What is considered "harm"? What is personhood?

You're focused on structural and institutional morality, but what about personal and individual responsibility?

I believe it's impossible to judge morality, and arrogant for someone to say they can. You simply can't know the objective truths of a person's behavior, held up against an objective moral code. That's why God judges us; mankind can only mete out imperfect justice for temporal matters.

Truly moral actions are ordered to long-term, eternal consequences for good over evil. It's impossible for anyone, even a student of history, to follow the threads all the way to their conclusion, at the end of time.

> But who is innocent?

There is this word “culpable” which means having something to do with anything responsible for a thing. Anyone who is not culpable is innocent. Innocent is everyone by default until through an act of will (or negligence) makes them otherwise.

> harm

Destructive interference. “Egregious” would mean such that the potential of one’s existential being is diminished (reducing one’s ability to survive for instance.) Each generation does struggle with maintaining a reasonable definition of these terms, and that reflects such generation’s scope of morality. The significance of properties are one such for instance.

> Persons

Any actor, either individual or embodiment. There is this phrase which dates back to ancient times “of one man” (it is used in the Old Testament) which means any who act as a part of a body of power. This does not include civilians, though it does apply to any acting as an instrument or extension of will.

Morality may absolutely be judged, and “culpability by will or neglect” is how that is done. Saying otherwise only suggests you do not believe anyone should be held accountable for their actions (in this life.)

That other stuff you say is your personal confusion. While you are quite right this responsibility should not be taken lightly (only by those whose life is sworn to be determinant upon truth before law). Law is the civilizing accord.

In modernity there is a line of life swears between soldiers (of a standing army), police forces, judges, and political figures to discharge duties in accordance with a written law (body of power.)

This may be abused or corrupted making those themselves culpable, yet those who are in alignment with integrity are acting in accordance with lawful state. These are the terms of civilization.

Do not allow dysfunction or corruption of one instance detract from another for these are the terms and principles by which all of civilization is upheld. Without this we are savages.

The myriad word usements which you structure cromulently are indubitably grammatical.

Illusion is a word that indicates something appears one way but is in fact another. It’s the very first word of the title and the article starts out explaining exactly why it appears to be an illusion.

The article doesn’t try to explain that there is a moral decline. And the title didn’t indicate that there is a moral decline. They deal with explaining why people report it despite it not being there.

> I think those conducting this research are poor students of actual history.

While it’s definitely true that people sometimes forget to read relevant material before they compose work of their own. There doesn’t appear to be any indication that this is the case neither with the title nor the content of this article. I would encourage you to reread both.

I am arguing that morality is in fact often declining (and rising) between generations, and this rise and fall happens so frequently the authors muddled their own point by citing it as a normalized (thus falsely plied) complaint.

A generation is only ~15 years (~10 in ancient times). Long enough for the children to reinvent or reframe the problems of their parents.

“It isn’t an illusion though” I could have said more clearly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com