I am sincerely not looking to troll. I have seen some very interesting "common ground" between the views of morality and humanity I've formed over time and the views often expressed here. Note, I do have differences in opinion to what I've seen so far. This is not an expression of agreement with any opinions expressed, just one of observation of convergent conclusions.

I'm not quite entirely sure about what the views often expressed here are, and I'm finding more drama and complaining than I am seeing discussion of these views, so I figured I'd ask some questions:

___

Now, I'm looking at the common ideals here, and I'm seeing common themes.

1) An ideal of separation or distance from your typical person, the idea that the average human being is somehow not "understanding" or not connected, not friendly, or similarly bad. Not evil, necessarily, but not a force for good either.

2) An idea that, without this retribution mankind is set on a path to destroy itself.

3) An attachment to the ideal of some form of escape or retribution (hence TCB). A saving event to rid our world of it's lack of meaning and fill our lives with meaning, to purge those who are evil or show them the error of their ways.

Firstly, are these three points fairly accurate to align with your own views?

Are there any further ideals you would think should be added?

What lead you to hold these conclusions?

What do you believe defines moral and immoral? Do you believe there is an absolute or objective set of moral or immoral actions?

If not, do you believe there should be one?

What are your thoughts on ideals such as Nihilism/Existentialism? (The idea that meaning does not exist / meaning does not exist BUT we may define meaning for ourselves as individuals.)

OK, I'll bite. I can only really speak for myself, but the ideas you've mentioned tie in decently with my own opinions. I would like to clarify where I personally stand, though.

An ideal of separation or distance from your typical person, the idea that the average human being is somehow not "understanding" or not connected, not friendly, or similarly bad. Not evil, necessarily, but not a force for good either.

Humanity on the whole is deeply wounded and deeply flawed. Some of this is due to our very nature - as primates, as omnivores, as living in a harsh world; and some of it is cultural, due to centuries of hierarchical culture. A lot of the issues have some serious science backing them up, and are better explained by someone else, but the upshot is that we're often cruel and/or callous, even when we don't want to be.

An idea that, without this retribution mankind is set on a path to destroy itself.

I really don't think "retribution" is a very good word for it at all; "Intervention" might fit better. Because of our flaws, humanity is in a demonstrably precarious position, and without serious intervention - internal or external - we are facing multiple anthropogenic ecological disasters that if left unchecked will cause at very least a severe disruption to our society, if not worse. On top of that, we have the potential to unleash even more catastrophes, through either belligerence or carelessness.

An attachment to the ideal of some form of escape or retribution (hence TCB). A saving event to rid our world of it's lack of meaning and fill our lives with meaning, to purge those who are evil or show them the error of their ways.

That might be true for some of us, but far from all. Personally, I see more of a focus on escape here when I do see it, a release from humanity's cruelty, as many of the writers here have spoken (in blog posts, commentaries, etc) of being on the receiving end of the worst of what we do to those we consider "other," as well as having seen all too much of it happening to others (and no, I'm not going into any specifics - I don't see it as my place to). Add to that the idyllic setting of the show, and ... well, the result is self-evident.

Are there any further ideals you would think should be added? What lead you to hold these conclusions?

I don't think there's much to add to that - at least right now. I consider myself at best deeply cynical about humanity - this is partially because of my fundamentalist Christian past (and that did have a strongly Calvinist bent), and partially because I've seen a lot of horseapples in my day - including over a decade of school bullying (which started on the bus ride into the first day of Kindergarden), the mildest of which outdoes Diamond Tiara's antics by an order of magnitude, and damn near drove me to suicide more than once; inept psychiatrists treating me like a lab rat and a vehicle for kickbacks from pill companies; a close call with a child rapist whose crimes weren't exposed until a decade after my near-miss; a school bus driver who encouraged his grandnieces to fabricate accusations against the handful of African-American who rode the bus, so that he could punish them; and more. And that's just what I saw and experienced personally, if you watch the news, you'll see far far worse on a daily basis.

What do you believe defines moral and immoral? Do you believe there is an absolute or objective set of moral or immoral actions? If not, do you believe there should be one? What are your thoughts on ideals such as Nihilism/Existentialism? (The idea that meaning does not exist / meaning does not exist BUT we may define meaning for ourselves as individuals.)

Honestly, I've been wrestling with what defines moral vs immoral for some time, and keep coming back to Ross's Prima Facie duties as a basis. As for nihilism and existentialism, they raise some interesting points, but seem too individualistic for me.

5208226

1) Would you say it is human nature that is flawed, or the world that is flawed?

Imagine that the way we act is the result of the system. Would you say that human activities, while flawed, are based on the system we exist in? Or would you say that, while the system is flawed, human activities are even *more* flawed than than they could be acting within this world?

Keep in mind I would like to considered "flawed" to be a measure of significance. It is fairly obvious that mankind does have issues, but are those issues significant in comparison to the issues of our reality?

2) No comment. I cannot predict the future outcomes of human actions.

3) While seeing this event as an escape, would you think such an event would be overall beneficial or harmful to mankind? Would you like to see such an event occur today? Could there be a (realistic) fundamental shift to humankind that would result in us operating significantly better as a species?

How does your Christian past result in you having negative views of humanity? Is it that the ideal of original sin has stuck around, or is it that your seeing how "good Christians" act has turned you away from ideas of the possibility of a "good" community of people?
Is it something else?

I do think that one of the main drivers in my difference in opinions with the "common opinion" I see in this group is the lack of extreme direct experience with negative people. I've learned to isolate myself from a fairly early age, and do not pay any attention to the people around me. I'd have not noticed or spoken to any teachers in ways that open me to harm, and I'd not have noticed any form of racism or other biases as I go through my day thanks to this. Secondly, while I've faced bullies in the past, I rarely faced anything physical, and the isolation of myself from those around me protected me from social or similar forms of bullying.

Because of this, and thanks to how I read about these things online and am not too stupid to deny they exist, I seem to have drawn many of the same ideals about an amoral and similarly "evil" mankind, but have drawn lines which portray humanity as a whole in an oddly positive-negative light. I've learned to look at mankind as an indifferent, powerful, and capable machine that I cannot possibly truly understand the logic and ideals to the decisions and activities it makes.

Rather than looking at racism and bullying as a sign of mankind's evil, I look at the way these things function, the contexts in which they exist, and conclude they are part of a system that has lead to us going from being a squabbling species that would kill all those not like us to an intelligent and capable species which holds friendships with one another across the entire planet. Ultimately, even the bads can be treated as a sign of the greater good, the positive output of the system in which we live. Where I see a bad which I do not understand, I assume there is reason which I am not attuned to. This may make me relatively sheepish, but it has allowed a large amount of insight and a deep appreciation for society as time has passed, rather than a cynical and negative view I have adopted a positive and hopeful one from the same basic ideals/observations.

I was going to look up that Ross duties thing, but then noticed you provided a link, thanks for that.

The main issue with the Prima Facie duties is the idea given that "morality is a set of obligations that are followed unless there are exceptions". I feel that the fact there can be exceptions like that automatically rules out the ability for a moral system to be effective outside of a definition that exists within a society. It cannot accurately describe the incredibly wide range of moral values that occur between different nations, or even different people.

It is very similar to my issues with utilitarianism, which waters itself down by defining utility as "whatever is good" and forgets to remember that you can't use such a definition when discussing a system with which we are supposed to determine what is moral or immoral. A = A is not a useful statement.

Ultimately that is an argument about objective morality as a whole, which is a concept I have come to disagree with outside of "objective" morality being when a person considered not the benefit and values of the self, but the benefit and values of the group they are part of when acting.

5207358 TCB stories focus on the transformation from human to Equestrian pony. This is the defining point of this genre. Many of us here remember how, about four years ago, the Brony community was highly interested in evolving past the current norm and into Equestrian standards. Because TCB's stories came about during these times, we have attracted deep thinkers who enjoy puzzling out how a race of peace loving ponies would exist as real beings in Equestria or even as real beings encountering humans on earth.

Firstly, are these three points fairly accurate to align with your own views?

No. The philosophers here would not disagree with you on

the idea that the average human being is somehow not "understanding" or not connected, not friendly, or similarly bad.  Not evil, necessarily, but not a force for good either.

But you do need to understand that “An ideal of separation or distance from your typical person” is a bit off.

The second point is completely off. This may be what you gather from some of the stories set in the dystopian settings, and if that is the case you should know that many authors of dystopian fiction write their fears into their settings. Some of these authors, such as George Orwell, write these fears out as a warning to the rest of humanity of just how bad things could get to alleviate their own paranoia. Other authors write in dystopian settings to remind themselves that things aren't as bad as they can get. Lastly, and the most common you see here: there are authors who write in a dystopian setting to contrast and emphasize the good that happens within the story.

Your third point is, again, mostly false. It is no secret that TCB started as an elaborate plot device to get humans turned into ponies as a means to fulfill the wishes of the MLP fans and authors. The first TCB story stopped about there. I don't know who came up with the idea, but somewhere down the line the barrier between Equestria and earth became a second plot device by being something that was not only something that humans could not cross but was expanding forcing the entire planet to eventually deal with ponification or death, however, it is important for everyone to remember that although this is the most common and most interesting aspect included in TCB stories, it is not a defining aspect of TCB.

You see, included in our archive are stories set in the Optimalverse, where humans are given the opportunity to upload their minds into a digital existence as MLP ponies. Although these stories include the phrase “conversion bureau” they are TCB stories as they follow the requirements as set out on our group page.

Now that you understand this, you may see that it is not possible to answer your questions in the big “this is what we believe” way. Because although TCB attracts philosophers, we are not a church that adheres to a particular doctrine. When you see long discussions in our forum about questions of morality and purpose, you'll see that all of them started with a reasonable objective question and not an abstraction such as your questions are. The difference is that the objective question that originated the discussion serves as a point of reference for any and all abstract underpinnings.

Despite this, I'll do the dangerous thing and try to answer your questions anyway:

What do you believe defines moral and immoral?  Do you believe there is an absolute or objective set of moral or immoral actions?

Morality is defined by one's scope of understanding of the universe, wherein one acts towards and upon others in the same manner one would act upon one's self given the same situation in respect to the limited perspective of a single body. Taken ad infinitum, this process may yield an absolute moral standard, but for the time being, all moral standards are obviously subjective. Immorality is equally subjective but easier to define since it is far easier to find what we do not want rather than what we do. I try to view questions of immorality through the lens of what is harmful rather than what is merely unwanted or disturbing.

If not, do you believe there should be one?

I believe that the majority of people living today should have an understanding of morality at least on par with my own. There is something like six thousand years of recorded history, yet someone I knew about twice my age died with less than half my experience, because he always believed whatever he did was always right without questioning his reasons for acting.

What are your thoughts on ideals such as Nihilism/Existentialism?  (The idea that meaning does not exist / meaning does not exist BUT we may define meaning for ourselves as individuals.)

On the one hoof, these concepts shatter clearly harmful dogmas, but when taken to extremes, they become neurotic.

Would you say it is human nature that is flawed, or the world that is flawed?

You asked this question to Firemind, but it shouldn't need to be asked. If you believed human nature is not flawed then you believe it is perfect, this is clearly not true. The same goes for the world. Since the nature between person to person is not constant, it is not perfect therefore flawed. The question of the world being flawed is too broad, however, even without human interference, the world is not constant nor peaceful, therefore it is flawed too.

While seeing (ponification) as an escape, would you think such an event would be overall beneficial or harmful to mankind?  Would you like to see such an event occur today?

Strictly being turned into an Equestrian pony would be funny for the whole of humanity. As many stories have pointed out, ponies have to work together because of the lack of hands; this need quickly overrides extreme selfishness. Although a pony could want another pony's help for selfish reasons, their frequency of receiving help relies solely their ability to get along with others in intimate situations. Human society has distanced each other with money and machines, so that humans don't have to get along with one another to get things done. If this change were worldwide, instantaneous, and without warning, then millions would die from refusing to treat others with respect.

Unless this physical change came with the instantaneous enlightenment seen in some of TCB stories, I would not want this to happen today, because it would force me to intimately interact with people who would force me to adhere to their backward unskillful ways, lose a great deal of my quality of life, or die – in other words, without the enlightenment, it would be a sick repeat of history.

Could there be a (realistic) fundamental shift to humankind that would result in us operating significantly better as a species?

Yes, it is best shown in The Friendship Virus. The story shows the effects of a virus designed to cause the maternal instincts of empathy and nurture into a dominant hyper expressed state for all humans. Although it would take several years to perfect this virus, it is realistically possible. All other suggestions I have basically come down to causing more empathy in a person, but I don't think anything would do it quite so well as weeding out the destructive instincts in humankind.

5208854 Sorry for the delay in my reply, I spent most of yesterday sick in bed. Anyway, here goes.

Would you say it is human nature that is flawed, or the world that is flawed?
Imagine that the way we act is the result of the system. Would you say that human activities, while flawed, are based on the system we exist in? Or would you say that, while the system is flawed, human activities are even *more* flawed than than they could be acting within this world?

This question seems to be phrased somewhat awkwardly, but it looks like you're asking if humans are disproportionately flawed compared to the world, and to that I would say yes. Most animals will use violence to further their own survival or that of their young or their pack/hive/flock/herd/etc, but humans will engage in violence for ideological reasons, or even for our own twisted pleasure. We will also use ideology as a bludgeon when it's not being used to justify atrocities. Hell, we're the only species that I know of that engages in genocide, and if there is an exception, it's probably some kind of ant! Also, look at all the problems our insatiable greed has caused.

No comment. I cannot predict the future outcomes of human actions.

Fair enough. The big takeaway was more that there are very real threats that we have a hand in making, not about whether or not they'll do us in. If you're wondering, though, I'd give us a 50/50 shot of coming through this century without some major disruption.

While seeing this event as an escape, would you think such an event would be overall beneficial or harmful to mankind? Would you like to see such an event occur today? Could there be a (realistic) fundamental shift to humankind that would result in us operating significantly better as a species?

Again, this seems poorly phrased. Whether said escape is good or bad is entirely determined by the particulars - remember, there's no one definitive TCB canon, though admittedly Chatoyance's take on it is rather dominant. Still, even the mildest take on it (or any other outside intervention/contact) would be a major trial for humanity, one where we will either find ourselves, or find ourselves wanting.

How does your Christian past result in you having negative views of humanity? Is it that the ideal of original sin has stuck around, or is it that your seeing how "good Christians" act has turned you away from ideas of the possibility of a "good" community of people?

I'd say my issues are *mostly* related to Original Sin, and the idea that we're "utterly depraved" and unable to even think of redemption without divine intervention, though shitty Christians don't help - especially since I live in a city dominated by a big-name megachurch and it's associated big-name Christian university.

I do think that one of the main drivers in my difference in opinions with the "common opinion" I see in this group is the lack of extreme direct experience with negative people.

Rather than looking at racism and bullying as a sign of mankind's evil, I look at the way these things function, the contexts in which they exist, and conclude they are part of a system that has lead to us going from being a squabbling species that would kill all those not like us to an intelligent and capable species which holds friendships with one another across the entire planet.

As for you not experiencing all that bullshit, lucky you. Glad you can see that not everyone has been so fortunate, though. And I can certainly understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree. Also, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "common" opinion, though ... "prominent" maybe. Remember, we aren't a monolith, by any means.

5208854 5212217 Before this goes any further, I need to drop the hammer on these bullets – do not use bullets to ask or answer questions.

Many people think that asking questions in bullets is the scientific and direct way to ask and receive answers, and it is if you are a trained scientist who knows how to ask and answer these questions directly, however, you, Segmeco are not asking single and direct questions per bullet, specifically:

3) While seeing this event as an escape, would you think such an event would be overall beneficial or harmful to mankind?  Would you like to see such an event occur today?  Could there be a (realistic) fundamental shift to humankind that would result in us operating significantly better as a species?

This is the way reporters phrase questions to drive the answer they want to hear out of the person being interviewed. Even if this is not your intention, you'll notice that in one of my replies, I had to place the word “this” with the specific thing you were asking about to prevent confusion. The problem with that is that the “this” I replaced was actually ambiguous toward ponification and the reaction toward ponification. This is again, driving straight down the path of misconception.

The biggest problem and the reason I have to demand that you cease this style of questioning (you can keep talking, just no bullets), is actually in how rapidly both of you are drifting from the actual discussion you originally intended to have. What I mean by this is that I read the latest answers from Firemind and saw that they were answers without questions, so I had to scroll up to read the corresponding question, but the corresponding question was relative to Firemind's previous answer, so I scrolled up again, that too was incomplete, so I had to scroll to the original question, and by the time I reached this point, I realized that the questions and answers had become so bastardized that they are ultimately becoming accusations and irritants. No one should have to explain their life story to answer a respectable question.

I do apologize for this inconvenience, but this is a public forum, and I do not want what is said here to be taken wildly out of context, which has happened before. My suggestion to both of you, and all subsequent posters, is to keep your posts self-contained, so that when read without the context of previous posts, they continue to hold your intended meaning.

What I mean by this is that I read the latest answers from Firemind and saw that they were answers without questions, so I had to scroll up to read the corresponding question, but the corresponding question was relative to Firemind's previous answer, so I scrolled up again, that too was incomplete, so I had to scroll to the original question, and by the time I reached this point, I realized that the questions and answers had become so bastardized that they are ultimately becoming accusations and irritants.

Sorry. From now on, I'll make sure to use quotes to show context, and to rein in my tone a bit better. Should I go back and edit my earlier posts?

5212765 I think editing your posts could help prevent further confusion as long as the result is self-contained, but be careful to give antecedents before using "this"es. Segmeco's questions are not phrased properly, so you should focus on giving full and complete statements rather than answers that require a question to be understood.

5212867

I think editing your posts could help prevent further confusion as long as the result is self-contained, but be careful to give antecedents before using "this"es

Alright ... I've gone back and made some edits that hopefully help some. Again, I apologize ... I let myself get out of practice regarding this sort of thing.