• MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    That humanity overall gets better and more moral over time.

    It’s really interesting if you get into the history of it, but There are plenty of historical records that actually show that the past wasn’t as horrific as we imagine it to be. Partially because people like to look at the past as terrible to make themselves feel better about the present.

    I’m not convinced that there is any real evidence that shows that over time humanity gets morally better, but I like to believe in it, because otherwise it makes me think we should all die 🤷‍♂️

    And just to clarify, I don’t mean just actions but also intent. For example, these days we have democracies that have more complex laws to protect people’s rights and therefore it’s harder to cause the same kind of harm that could have been happening under a kingdom. But at the same time, now we have stuff like factory farmings and wars that lead to millions and tens of millions of deaths and pandemics that are not stopped properly because of conspiracy theories, etc.

    • Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You can’t really measure morality like that. It’s like I look through a library and decide that the library has more sci-fi books than they did earlier because I walked to the sci-fi section. Our modern view of morality is in-line with modern morality. People 200 years ago would have considered themselves just as moral as we consider ourself now.

    • OmgItBurns@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I would say that we can’t really quantify morality on a time scale that large. I may be confusing terms here but the specifics of what is and isn’t considered moral will vary wildly between different groups of people and different time periods.

      Even if you break morality down to the concept of “don’t cause unnecessary suffering” leaves a lot of room for different interpretation.

      • MTK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well, yes, there are always going to be some disagreements, but there are some general things that, according to that principle that you yourself wrote, most people could agree on.

    • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I can respect that. I can’t say that I have any strong beliefs either.

      But then there’s “keep the bills paid or things will get bad”. But that’s strongly empirically based.

      And there are beliefs like “reality is composed of a multitude of things flapping around in time and space” which is popular but stands on the rock of mere convention (ok, maybe it’s deeper than that). And might bear questioning. How strong is my belief there? I dunno.

      I assume that our culture delivers a fair sack of authority-based beliefs. It would be nice to get a list.

      But then it’s like asking a fish what water tastes like.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I totally understand the nature of your question, but I don’t think you’re going to get much of any solid well founded answers.

        It’s akin to asking “Are you in a cult, and what are the beliefs they taught you?”

        You’ll almost always get the same sort of answer from either side of the fence, “No I’m not in a cult”, even if the person is totally in a cult and just too blind and brainwashed to realize it.

  • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    If a belief stands on authority alone it’s not something I believe, it’s something I accept, either because I want to change or as a compromise.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Are you asking about beliefs regarding authority, or beliefs we know to be absolutely arbitrary with no evidence to back up?

    Or what do you mean if neither of these?

  • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Western cultural ethics and morality pivot on the fulcrum of child soldiers as the only basis for an age of majority in the late teens. So the authority of a military dictates my belief.

    • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The military can physically push everybody around but that doesn’t mean that you have to buy into this “age of majority in late teens” thing, surely.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I have one, weak-ass belief that I stand by, and I think everyone unconsciously stands by: All you can do is take a step forward.

    If your situation is hell, standing still or going back is not an option. Just take a step, and see how it goes. Then take another. And so forth.

    Weak stoicy bullshit I know, but it does remove the stress of uncertainty in a situation.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      On what authority does this stand? I didn’t understand, not just being an argumentative prick

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s in OPs question.

          What do you believe that stand on authority alone.

          What is the nature of the authority that your belief stands on. What gives that authority authority?

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Standing still gives the world control and adds to your own uncertainty. Going back is physically impossible. All you can do is move forward.