I live about an hour's drive due north from Salcombe. Let me know next time!


> Helping the desperate (only) to find a way to self-help is, I believe, an excellent philosophy, provided the desperate are in a position to help themselves.-One can show them the way and offer help along that road. Clinton was forced to end our welfare system in the mid-1990's but the recipients survived and improved.

Digression over: Had I not received state help, I would never got to where I am today, which is a 31yr old programmer helping to make millions for the insurance industry, studying for his Master's in Computer Science. So I contend the opposite: In some cases, "the Dole" brings out the best in people.-No question from your story, and look at the amazing result, you. A fabulous contributor to this site, an amazing educated person with so many insights in so many areas. But, why do we see so many results that are just the opposite?
Your mother is part of the difference. She help start your education and I'm sure, realized how important stressing education is to children. She might well have learned from her own education (or my guess, lack thereof).

One of these was directly covered by Sacks. What he's missing however is that it takes someone who is ultimately disciplined to instill those rules in the first place. But in my mind, the only universal truth that exists for man is that we cannot exist without each other. 
> > 
> > The problem discussed is one Nietzsche identified: What does society do now that we have killed God? We have no punisher for the afterlife. There are living examples of those who have done perfectly well with nothing other than other people as their focus-->Look to the east.
> 
> You have made excellent points, but your statistics re prison don't work. I said that the humanists I know are exemplary in their ethics. Of course their number will be fewer in prison. The problem is atheists talk a good game but they don't go out and teach as the religions do. Your other point that it takes discipline is very true, and parents today are of the 'whatever' generation.-Atheism does not necessitate humanism. Typically in America, atheists essentially follow de-facto Judeo-Christian ethics, without really thinking about or realizing that they are following the ethics.-The subtle point regarding prison statistics, is that logically rational & educated people typically follow the implicit and explicit rules of society...-the problem has very little to do with ethics as much as socio-economic status. Atheists tend to be pretty affluent, whereas Christians run the gamut. (Most atheists are college educated, therefore they have correspondingly higher salaries.)-If you compare crime rates according to income, THERE you have your correlation--and it has NOTHING to do with religion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

If I were dictator of the world, I would give my blessing to those who find comfort and communal pleasure in religion, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. But my educational system would be based 100% on love of my fellow humans and all my fellow creatures, and in my view that principle has no need of any God.
> 
> I certainly agree with you, as far as you go. But you are describing a utopia among humans. Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. In my world all parents would be totally responsible for the actions of their children up to age 21. That is when the immature frontal lobes are generally fully functional, and should be moral. What if, under these considerations, all parents had to serve the same prison time as their underage criminal children?
> -That's assuming that morality is a built-in function. In my view, morality, insomuch as its a human activity, is a purely emotional activity. Logic isn't enough--which is what you're describing when you discuss the frontal lobes. Logical decision making. Morality is something that guides you when logic isn't enough: Moral decisions always are ultimately made on a conscious feeling a person has at the time. Moral structures like utilitarianism vs. consequentialism are artifacts that help us... rationalize our emotive response.-Man has a sense of morals, but the sense must be honed by experience & guidance. Kids with really strict parents invariably say "I will be a better parent and let my kids do what they want..." until of course, they reach parenting age and realize the discipline had a firm purpose. -Jason Dorsey is a guy who does talks all over the United States detailing how to handle the odd combination of 4 generations existing in the work place. (First time that's happened in American History.) He considers as a damaging trend for his own generation, the "Self Esteem Movement." Making kids feel better instead of pushing them to work harder. Gen Y was the first generation where sports trophies disappeared--losing teams "won" too. I can't speak for the UK, but it I think it clearly creates a culture of appeasement between parents and children. Suddenly the children take a greater level of command, and the social backlash for parents who try to balk the trend transforms into near hysteria... such as that woman a couple of years back who got arrested for spanking her kid in a parking lot. When I was 5, I remember once when my mom swatted me on my bare butt IN the grocery store. -The key point is that children's frontal lobes are not fully developed... and David that's about right for me. College wasn't a real option for me until about the age of 22. You can train in logic all you want however, and that won't mean the child is even physically capable of doing it, because of the immature frontal lobe. So as far as I'm concerned, old-school parenting is probably correct in terms of using fear as a tool. (Work @ the child's level.) -One of the thesis ideas I'd had when in a more creative mood, was in developing a touch-app that would work as a trainer for sympathy and empathy in small children. I don't think our modern logic-driven enterprise spends enough time on this important emotional aspect of development that truly sits at the very base of the decision-making tree that is human morality. -> I understand that Rabbi Sacks would tout religion. That's natural for him. But the societal standards in the West had totally fallen apart, especially now that we are seeing equal opportunity crime. If there were a religious revival things will improve. Some articles I've read indicate that religious revival is on the way, and I'm delighted. And I'm still a tought love guy.-You can probably gather that I'm a huge tough love guy myself. Take heart. Wal-Mart picks the elderly for store greeters because Gen Y (and later) are less likely to steal from who they consider to be their grandparents. I don't think a religious revival is in the works however... the next religious revival in America will be like this. My generation is already comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer, and Bell's movement encapsulates this. We need a competition-driven culture, but one that encapsulates love and not hatred for the losers, without lessening the impact of losing or overemphasizing the superiority of winning.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Dhw: If I were dictator of the world, I would give my blessing to those who find comfort and communal pleasure in religion, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. But my educational system would be based 100% on love of my fellow humans and all my fellow creatures, and in my view that principle has no need of any God.-DAVID: I certainly agree with you, as far as you go. But you are describing a utopia among humans. -Utopia is of course unattainable, whether mine or Sacks's, and I wrote that human nature would never change. I am simply saying that I see a humanistic approach to education as the best way forward.-DAVID: Your educational system is not enough. Parents have to have proper social values to instill in their children. -Children become parents. Improvements won't come overnight! Evolutionary changes take place over generations, and it will also take time for educational changes to make a mark.-DAVID: In my world all parents would be totally responsible for the actions of their children up to age 21. That is when the immature frontal lobes are generally fully functional, and should be moral. What if, under these considerations, all parents had to serve the same prison time as their underage criminal children?-If all children were controllable by all parents, you might have a case. For me, this is an inverted form of the same vicious injustice apparently meted out by the Lord our God, who visits "the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Undoubtedly many parents are to blame for the immorality of their children, but do you really believe that ALL U-21s can be controlled? In England, 18 is the age of adulthood, you are legally independent of your parents, you can vote, and you can go and get yourself killed serving in the armed forces. But whatever the cut-off point, are you saying that at X years + 364 days, the child is not responsible for himself or herself, and at X years + 365 days he/she is? And do you really think ALL parents are capable of monitoring ALL the activities, friendships, influences (e.g. at school) of ALL kids? Have you never encountered children from what you considered to be perfectly respectable families who have gone off the rails despite their upbringing? Did your own parents know absolutely everything you got up to before you were 21?-DAVID: I understand that Rabbi Sacks would tout religion. That's natural for him. But the societal standards in the West had totally fallen apart, especially now that we are seeing equal opportunity crime. If there were a religious revival things will improve. Some articles I've read indicate that religious revival is on the way, and I'm delighted. And I'm still a tough love guy.-A religious revival will take just as long and be just as patchy as an educational revival. And I wonder what sort of revival will delight you. There are branches of Islam with extremely tough love moral codes, and there are Christian cults all over Africa, with poor people rejoicing as they hand over their hard-earned pennies to the Mercedes-driving ministers who are duping them. (America has its own share of these, I believe.) Or are you hoping that the Pope will gather more followers, so he can impose his special brand of non-contraceptive morality and ecclesiastical corruption on a world full of AIDS and illegitimacy? Are you hoping for more faith schools, to encourage insularity and intolerance? A religious revival that united people in a universal philosophy of "love-thy-neighbour-whatever-his-beliefs" would be wonderful, of course, but in view of the agenda that goes with every religion, it would probably be even more Utopian than my educational programme with exactly that goal.
 
For Matt: There are some schools over here that have banned competitive sports, which to my mind is crazy. You can have competition without immorality, and you need it if children are to better themselves. I'm all in favour of your scheme to train them to feel sympathy and empathy, and agree with you entirely that those are the emotions that underlie our moral sense. Religion often puts fear of God and adherence to dogma before love of one's fellow creatures, and I can see no merit in that.