OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Well, at least he didn't tell the unemployed to "eat cake."

Or did he?

And they can have ketchup for a vegetable.

[SoNotHer]

That was an interesting WP article, Miss Tick. The only television I watch (or am subjected to) is at the gym. But I actually would be interested in that series entitled "Revenge." I had not heard the term "prosperity gospel" before.

What a time we live in.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

And they can have ketchup for a vegetable.

[Cin]

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Oh Hell YA!!

[SoNotHer]

Oh well said. Are you writing about this stuff in a blog or leading a group? If not, you should be.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[SoNotHer]

And don't forget the applause Rick Perry got for standing up for the death penalty, the final statement on race, poverty and the economic rock tumbler otherwise known as the "free market."

Interesting choice the one percent has made in making a growing angry majority its enemy.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[CherylNYC]

I marched with my Union today here in NYC. It was huge and exciting. All of us were talking about how we hadn't felt this kind of populist energy in a looong time.

[SoNotHer]

Awesome! Just read that the unions are supporting a third week of protests.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I marched with my Union today here in NYC. It was huge and exciting. All of us were talking about how we hadn't felt this kind of populist energy in a looong time.

[SoNotHer]

"Wall Street protests swelled Wednesday to their largest numbers yet, after local unions pledged support to a third week of demonstrations against income inequality, corporate greed, corruption and a list of other social ills...

And following a string of arrests, they say they are pursuing a class action lawsuit against the New York Police Department and Mayor Michael Bloomberg for their "unconstitutional effort to disrupt and suppress" demonstrations."



http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/politi...ss_mostpopular

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

[SoNotHer]

I understand what you saying, and I am not a subscriber to an organized religion, nor do I often if ever use the term "morality" for some of the reasons you cite. I like logic very much, and whether or not I was an educator, I would believe profoundly in the power of education. But I think Miss Tick's points are well taken, and I wonder if we can simply agree to the term ethics or perhaps a phrase like "equality through justice" or "equality, justice, harmony" when we call for a different code of conduct.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

If we put the destruction of homo sapiens sapiens on one side of the scale and the continued existence of that species on the other side of the scale, then yes we can certainly call it a code of ethics. I also see it as efficiency. If we want the species to continue in such a way that there is steady technological/scientific and economic progress, then we also have to realise that social progress must come with it, for oppression does not attain any of these things in an efficient way for the long run. History has told us this over and over again.

In that case, there is really a distinction to be made between this code of ethics which, one could argue, comes down to efficiency, and the traditional definitions of morality which places morality/the act of being moral itself as the objective. We should also note that there is a distinct way in which traditional morality holds anything which opposes it, and that's what I was getting at in the last post.

Traditionally (when we consider the moral systems of the late Romans or the Christians, though particularly of the Christians), when one is a "moral being" one then has a "moral/divine/whatever" right to accuse a supposedly "immoral" being of being just that. This accomplishes absolutely nothing and becomes a pointless argument of "no you!" ad nauseum. By calling for greater "morality" within society, we are only calling for another man-made system that should not be questioned. We should be doing precisely the opposite, and asking society to actually think and analyze why they think the Occupy Wall Street movement is made up of "horrid commies omg," and why they refuse to do anything when the government and government-affiliated bankers continue to abuse the common person. Ask them to think outside what they consider "moral" and "immoral." Instead of asking a person to follow a "moral compass," it demands that people think for themselves.

[Ciaran]

There is no doubt that there is need for reform of the banking system. However, the "Platform" / "Declaration" of this movement (as noted in the OP) reads to me like something that an emotional teenager would write.

It's trying to be all things to all people (well, all people with the exception bankers) and, furthermore, is scapegoating the banking sectors for many universal problems. These issues were in existence long before the modern banking system and will continue to exist long after the current banking system is redundant.

Aspects of the banking system may facilitate inhumanity (i.e. fundings of ammunition manufacturers etc) but it's not the driver of inhumanity.


Investors (equity and bondholders) need to take the pain - they have done so and are continuing to do so as this financial crisis evolves. However, some of us as individuals need to accept responsibility for our indebtedness too .... yes, a financial institution may have offered us a large mortgage that we would struggle to pay even if the good times lasted and, yes, we may have been offered significant amounts of unsecured credit. However, we are adults and need to accept the decisions we made and the risks that we have taken.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

I don’t believe it is necessary to define logic alone as the measure by which we decide what is right or what is wrong. Morality or should I say the word morality has gotten a bad rap. I think it’s because it has always been found hanging around religion and religious people. We need to separate human morality from religious morality. And right quick too. We are faced with moral dilemmas and choices every day. I think we need to learn to make morally right choices based on equity for all. First do no harm works well when embarking on an ethical journey.
.
Personally I believe the last thing we need to continue to do is to leave morality in the hands of organized religion. To have the right wing religious fanatics, regardless of their geographic or geopolitical position, continue to define morality for human beings is, to me, the last thing we need.

You know it is quite astonishing to discover how we almost always conflate morality with the flawed ethics found at the core of organized religions.

Religious morality is problematic because the principles developed by the various organized religions were initially meant to apply to a particular group in order to increase cohesion and unity of said group while at the same time emphasizing the differences of other groups. This type of morality is fundamentally flawed. The potential is a hostile moral system. Not to mention a moral code that was in no way meant to be universal. For example when examining ‘holy books’ you quickly discover that do not kill really means don’t kill your own. Non believers, infidels, pagans and other various enemies are fair game. This quirky philosophy on murder has been passed down in one way or another through religious history and is ingrained in our collective religious psyche. Perhaps this might explain why some deeply religious people have no qualms with the death penalty or with killing their enemies (which in some cases can loosely be defined as those who believe differently.)

Another problem with religious morality is the distinction it makes between private morality and public morality. Leaders and governments answer to the beat of a different morality drum. Living with this kind of duplicity embedded in one’s morality means there is no dissidence for the moral when as leaders they order the deaths of thousands upon thousands of men, women and children while still understanding themselves to be deeply religiously moral. George W. Bush comes to mind as an example, but there are many, many more. This kind of morality no longer works for human beings facing global crises. It’s a new world where survival will hinge on our ability to develop global economic, political and cultural cooperation.

One excruciatingly immoral flaw in religious morality is the eternal hell threat. This need to intimidate believers and demonize non-believers with eternal damnation not only condemns without mercy or appeal 70% of humankind depending on which religious side you stand but it encourages persecution, religious wars and genocide. This ideology of hell and the hatred it encourages against “the other” is responsible for countless deaths.

A huge flaw of religion-based morality comes from the religious need to separate the human body from the mind. Negative, or dare I say, bad religious morality concerning the human body and what can or can’t be done with it by the human inhabiting it directly derives from this bizarre desire to see the body separate from the mind.

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people. But religious morality has little to do with our moral belief systems. What is acceptable moral behavior CLEARLY needs to be defined. We should not turn away from this task because of bitter experience with religious morality. For most of us who seek equity and justice for all, I would imagine our beliefs and choices are already inherently moral as well as deeply humane. Why not own the language? Why not take back morality from those whose actions are anything but moral. Why should they own this word that clearly does not fit them.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people.

Except that if we're going to define a moral code as treating others with dignity and respect, then we need to define "dignity" and "respect." We also need to realise that there are people in this world who believe (from a moral perspective, at that) that treating certain groups equally is actually an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of others. For example, allowing same-sex marriage, to some, is an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of the "heterosexual institution of marriage." They believe that the "moral health" of a nation/people is at risk with allowing that form of equality, and, in fact, to them it is not equality at all. How can we sit there and call them "immoral"? How can we make a sound argument against them, morally? According to whom? To ourselves, of course. But we are almost always moral beings in our own eyes.

It's the same for everyone. Anders Breivik thought himself a rather moral chap. He even predicted that society would deem him monstrous and immoral. But he held the "moral high ground." He was a "martyr." The thing is, people like Breivik do not need to be incarcerated to the maximum because of "morality," but because they are a danger to the progress of society which they inhabit. I would like to quickly add, because when I speak like this people tend to think I'm a "monster" myself or something, that I am not reducing the severity of acts like Breivik's. When I see such things occur there are two "parts" of me at play. The one part, which is enraged that some 70 Norwegian youths had their lives taken because of some christian nutjob. The second part of me asks myself why I am outraged. It then asks why these acts should be condemned in society. Do they have a use? What would happen if we did not incarcerate murderers? What would happen when people live in a society where their family and friends (or themselves) are murdered without society persecuting such actions? It would leave us all feeling extremely unsafe, and violence in society would escalate to the "eye for an eye" mentality present in past ages. In such an atmosphere, modern progress cannot occur. It would cause society to regress, remain static or, at best, progress very slowly (with half a millennium between technological revolutions once more).

Now back to the debate

So what is "dignity" and what is "respect," and to whom should it apply? I ask this because there do need to be restrictions placed on those who would discriminate against others in society. They will be treated in a way that is not with "dignity" and "respect" by their own assertions.

And how do we define to "revere and respect humanity." What is "justice"? Justice to whom? Who defines it? The Westboro Church, for example, seems to think that it's out to save humanity from immorality and disrespect brought upon it by "the Gay Agenda (TM)." The politicians who toy with our futures every single day claim to be doing it to help humanity...and yet many of their nations' citizens live in squalor. Politicians claim to bomb other nations all the time out of "moral justification." It has nothing to do with what they claim is "respect for humanity," but their own greed.

You write "supposedly god-fearing morally righteous people." How do you know that they are not? If morality is a subjective/abstract concept, then how can they be "supposedly" god-fearing morally righteous people? These words are completely based on one's own discoursive vocabulary. If one were to take the bible word for word, these types would actually show themselves as pretty "good" christians, if a "good" christian is defined by how well they follow the bible.

There are more efficient and better defensible ways to assure that the common person is treated as an equal in a society run by bankers and politicians. I still maintain that morality is not the way to attain that goal, even though one's first reaction is to think that it is a matter of morality. If it came down to my own ethics, then yes I would feel that these people who oppress need to adopt a similar idea of equality and basic respect as myself. But it's very difficult to make any change or make an air-tight argument using a term that is subjectively defined. And I still maintain that if we want long term progress for society, we need to step away from immutable ideologies/morality, and take a step forward into a more analytical age where our "beliefs" are constantly mutating.

[SoNotHer]

On break, and looking forward to reading the longer replies here later. But I just got my monthly email from Syracuse Cultural Workers and thought I'd share this in the mean time.

http://syracuseculturalworkers.com/s...pitalism-decay

[atomiczombie]

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

There are more efficient and better defensible ways to assure that the common person is treated as an equal in a society run by bankers and politicians. I still maintain that morality is not the way to attain that goal, even though one's first reaction is to think that it is a matter of morality. If it came down to my own ethics, then yes I would feel that these people who oppress need to adopt a similar idea of equality and basic respect as myself. But it's very difficult to make any change or make an air-tight argument using a term that is subjectively defined. And I still maintain that if we want long term progress for society, we need to step away from immutable ideologies/morality, and take a step forward into a more analytical age where our "beliefs" are constantly mutating.

You know it’s not so much that I don’t agree with you to a point. It’s more that the majority of people will not, and might even misunderstand what you are saying. And when people don’t understand something or if it seems too different they stop listening. When you are trying to stimulate change I think it is important to have people listen to you. Morality is a language that people understand. It’s not like the danger inherent in that is lost on me. I just think it might be easier to wrest morality from the claws of religion than to ignore the importance of it to a large percentage of the population.

If I want someone to hear me I will speak in a language they understand. If I want someone to understand what I am doing I will use tools with which they are familiar. Morality is important to most people. Statistics show that 70% of the US population wants a president who is moral. Until we can separate morality from religion, in the eyes of most people, moral also means religious. Religious morality is like the bizarro superman of morality. This kind of thing can’t just be ignored (as much as I wish it could.) It needs to be addressed in some acceptable way.

Secular morality is based on logic and reason rather than supernatural revelation. So clearly I’m not saying that logic and education are wrong answers. I’m just saying they are both as open to perversion as morality, especially since in many ways they are the same thing as secular morality. Logic can easily be perverted to meet the needs of fanatics. Education, as important and as useful as it is, will not change the minds of the average religious zealot. We can’t even get them to accept, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, that the earth is older than 6,000 years. There are some, a great many in fact, who, despite all the scientific proof available showing just the opposite, believe that evolution is wrong. No amount of logic or education is going to change that. But for the sake of the rest of that 70% who believe morals are a measure of a leader we cannot leave morality in the hands of people who refute logic and pervert reason.

As far as equality I don’t think I said anything about equality. I said equity. Equity is the quality of being fair and impartial: "equity of treatment". Which is different from equality which is correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. There are some ways in which I believe we need to be treated equally of course. But equal in only some ways and to a certain degree because surely logic clearly supports the reality that we certainly are not all equal in all ways.

However, we all deserve equity of treatment. I think that is a moral measure that is not subjective. I believe we need to judge the morality of a belief, a choice, a decision, or a law by how well it adheres to the principles of justice and equity for every individual. You said you believed that “people like Breivik did not need to be incarcerated to the maximum because of morality but because they are a danger to the progress of society which they inhabit.” I think being dangerous to the progress of society is a moral issue. I believe acting in such a way as to be a danger to the progress of society is not a sound moral decision. It is adversely affecting the moral principles of justice and equity for every individual. There are consequences to taking an action that infringes on the rights of another. There are social contracts and you are right there are consequences for breaking them that end in less dignity and less respect for individuals who do engage in actions that are dangerous to the progress of the society they inhabit. But even in this there needs to be a social contract that is humane.

Morality based on equity of treatment for all would not be subjective. Hopefully it would negate any need to define words like dignity, respect and reverence for humanity. It is just an equity of treatment that everyone would like for themselves. If this kind of secular morality were reality then every decision would be reached based on equity and every decision, every choice you make or you support would be one you would be comfortable having done to you and your loved ones.

I doubt the majority of people are comfortable leaving morality out of the conversation when talking about social change. If we, who want to drive change in the direction of logic and reason, the direction of long term progress for society, leave morality out of our discourse, if we concede morality is the language of the opposition, then it will appear to others it is because we do not understand the language. That I believe is doing ourselves a deeply disturbing and dangerous disservice. We do understand the language of morality. We just don’t care for the way it is being spoken at this time. We could help change that.

[Apocalipstic]

Hell, close the IRS completely.