Can there be shared community values?

One thing I am quite certain is the Earth will one day be inhospitable to humans. This is evident with what is happening with other planets within the known Universe.

Stephen Hawking says humans must colonize another planet in 100 years or face extinction
cnbc.com/2017/05/05/stephen … lanet.html

There is also the earlier threat of Earth being destroyed by a rogue meteorite.

To counter the above humans has strive to evolve [progress] to enable it the chance to counter the above threats to preserve the human species. This is why humanity is progressing with advancing knowledge at an exponential rate.

Knowledge [e.g. Science, etc.] is always a double-edge blade which will cut both ways.
To modulate the above, there is the advent of neural circuits to promote morality [empathy, etc.] at an incremental rate.
As evident the progress of morality neural wise is [seemingly] not keeping up with the advancement of knowledge and technology but there is no critical consequence to this shortfall so far.

Thus it is critical, given the knowledge morality [re shared values] is neural-based, humanity must strive to expedite the average Moral Intelligence of humanity with the available and expanding knowledge to enable greater co-operation between humans to come up with knowledge and technologies to deal with the impending galactical threats.

Are you making this assertion based on a single study? If so, then you are ignorant of how science workd. One study does not make a scientific consensus and there are likely studies that come to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, the sample size was likely not nearly large enough for you to make the claim “ALL humans.” For instance, what about babies who are born sociopaths? Do you think that they also have a morality drive? Did the study which you conveniently didn’t even cite look at babies with sociopathy as well?

There are a lot of studies showing the existence of mirror neurons in humans and also in the primates.
Note I mentioned ‘potential’ in ALL humans.

Example, the generic human being [ALL] has DNA with a potential for sexuality.
But this potential may not be realized in ALL humans, some are asexual and some are sexual deviants.
Normally I will state ALL normal human beings to exclude those with damaged DNA blueprint due to various reasons, chemical, etc.

A baby [as a human being] will have the potential for morality due the generic presence of mirror neurons as a default.
But this potential may not be activated for various reason and for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

Where I rely on Science, especially neuroscience in relation to morality, I will make provision for the possibility of errors.

Nevertheless I am supporting my points with evidence of moral progress within humanity, e.g. banning of slavery and many aspects of humanity displaying shared values in practice.

Yes, but that does not mean that shared values ought to be dictated or centrally organized. You have yet to make a case for that.

You have yet to prove that either. Your only example was slavery and slavery is still practiced in certain regions. In fact there is a big scandal going on now about it in Liberia. You also do not examine all the reasons WHY slavery was abolished. You assume that it was solely because it is immoral. That is definitely part of the reason, but the other reason is economic in nature. Slavery is very bad for the economy. We have also created machines to toil and do the labor for us so slavery is obsolete in developed countries.

I don’t think we can say that there are shared values in the community. First of all, there is no community. The community is simply a group of individuals. Unless every single person unanimously agrees with your “shared values” then your assertion is simply argumentum ad populum or indulges collectivism which is irrational.

Okay, can you post links to some of those studies so that we can check the methodology, corrections made, validity of the conclusion, etc.?

Also, you seem to be making the claim that sociopaths have “damaged DNA.” Is there any evidence for this claim? Sociopathy actually carries a lot of survival benefits for the individual. That sounds like evolution, not damage.

Do you mean that the first five or that all six “guys” in that picture represent the ancestors?

Note the Principles of Synergy, i.e. where the total effects of a group [working together] is greater than the sum of all its parts [individuals working alone].

One of the basic motivation that is common within ALL normal [not the suicidals] humans is basic survival till the inevitable.
By the Principles of synergy and experiences of its effect, the majority humans will group together with shared-values that will benefit their chances of survival within a group rather than as individuals. This is evident from anthropological and historical studies of mankind and even animals [colonies, pack, pride, etc.]

Thus as I had stated above;
Therefore there is an inherent drive and trend towards shared-values as observed within evolution and this is present in human beings.

As for slavery, I stated the introduction of the laws and banning of slavery by ALL Nations in the World is a great achievement in the progressive trend of morality.
But being humans, there will still be people who cannot let go of their past and will practice slavery but they are doing it illegally.

Re the recent case in Liberia, it is because we have an international shared value on slavery as illegal that automatic brand such practices as immoral and actions need to be taken within the slavery laws of Liberia.
Just imaging IF there are no such shared values of slavery in Liberia, the authorities [who may be personally practicing slavery] will give all sorts of excuses and the international community will have no strong leverage to force them to take action.

Note in this case I am discussing shared-values in terms of Laws on slavery. It is at least something as a starter, but Laws [legislature and judiciary] is not morality proper.
Morality-proper is the state [which need to be cultivated] where the individuals and thereby groups do not practice slavery on the own will as good moral and not being forced upon.

Re,

I should have stated more clearly,

But this potential may not be activated for various reason and

  1. for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and
  2. other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

My point is sociopaths and psychopaths in general arose from certain neural connectivity due to various reasons while in the womb and not because of damaged DNA [before conception]. I agree those with benign psychopathy with net-positive traits [many good leaders, CEOs and top people] are an ‘asset’ to humanity.

In general, those who has damaged DNA [before conception] may turned out to be psychological deviants.

people don’t like torment. people are very proud of their individuality, or rather, they want sincere reactions of being proud when they can’t find it for themselves.

I’d point the direction of the arrow ^^^^that^^^^ way as we move through our lives.

On a weekly basis how often do you utilize the services of those paid a minimum wage or consume products by slave labor from overseas? Don’t tell me what I do and don’t know hypocrite.

Unless you live in a mud wooden hut in the middle of nowhere you’re a part of the very system that you’re allegedly fighting against.

Note “minimum wage” is a very new practice.
Prior to minimum wage, [which is relatively not long ago] workers were not paid any wages at all but were forced to work for meals just to sustain basic survival.
This relative improvement [albeit not satisfactory] is a part of that inherent moral drive within and a trend of increasing moral awareness.

These days there are NGOs and group protesting [calling for boycotts] against large and other companies who get their supplies from sources that exploit workers elsewhere in the World.
In the past [not too long ago] there was no such thing.

The point is humanity unfortunately can only progress in baby steps in general and there is progress in term of increasing moral awareness as driven by the inherent moral drive within humanity.

Synergy only works if people agree to work together voluntarily. You attempting to force them to work together is going to cause conflict, not synergy. I would fight that on principle alone even if we did agree on virtues, which we don’t. Voting on it doesn’t help either. You have to appeal to someone’s reasoning, not to what popular opinion is or to government force. Let me ask you something? Suppose you voted this law in forcing my kids to go learn “shared values” in your schools. If I refuse to let them go, should I be shot by the government for non-compliance? You have to remember, when you make a law, you are saying “people deserve to die for not complying with my beliefs.” There was a case recently where a woman died defending her car from the police because she had traffic ticket warrants because she did not agree the government had the right to enact those laws because they violated her liberties. She did not attack the police. She did refuse to let them take her to jail. So, when people start talking about using government guns and institutions to force people to do/say/believe whatever they think they should, I always bring up the against me argument. If I disagree, would you shoot me? If not, then no law because it is just as good as if you had pulled that trigger to shoot that person whose liberties were violated by the laws you proposed.

Are you ACTUALLY arguing against sweat shops? How completely immoral of you. Research the subject. Even liberal economists think they are good. The other option is starvation or whoring themselves out on the streets. Thank you so much for thinking you know what is best for them in their lives. Those workers would slap you in the face for trying to take that opportunity from them. It costs a lot of money to do business in say, Burma. They have to pay them that little to make it worth the money of opening up factories there. You can’t force businesses to move there and invest, so the options are sweatshops or starvation or prostitution or if they are lucky, eating out of the garbage. Burma and all others who have sweat shops have economies that were completely destroyed by socialist policies. Sweat shops are like chemo therapy for cancer ridden economies. It is really ugly, but necessary.

This person acknowledges the inequities but says they’re necessary at the same time ignoring the unsustainability factor while the other can’t see reality for what it is embracing an ideal of world very naively that can never be.

Both are foolish propositions.

Total synergy is unrealistic. This is a world of differing egos and self interests where societal consensus is an elaborate illusion devised by those that pull all the strings.

Nope!
I am not arguing for any particular state of employment. What I am supporting is there is an inherent progressive moral drive within humanity.
Earlier on we have workers as slaves, then paid under slave conditions, then minimum wage, then protests, etc. These movement reflect the inherent progressive moral drive within humanity. In addition note the natural Principles within Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
I believe in the forces of supply and demand plus the inherent morality should takes its course and expedited where possible.

Are you ACTUALLY arguing for sweat shops? Do you insist they should be a permanent feature within humanity till the next 1000 years? I did not state any opinion on this, but your implication that you support such a thing is ‘sick’.

You seem to be missing my point.
I never said people should be forced to work together like in communism and other dictatorial environment.

What I state is the Principles and effects of synergy will naturally attract people to work together. Sometimes even enemies will work together to exploit synergy effects in certain specific cases.
After evolving through millions of years I believe the basic understanding of the effects of synergy is inherent in normal human beings and it is practiced in various basic [not all] circumstances.

Where is it a calculated necessity, then education and awareness would be the preferred option rather than forcing people to do it.

Today’s communists do not publicly, but nevertheless still say that “people should be forced to work together”.

Hey, I don’t like them. I am not going to lobby against them because it would hurt the people who we would be trying to help. I used to be against them. I debated it online and someone showed me why I was wrong. What is your solution? Government force? Boycotts?

Doesn’t the picture show this?