My apologies, but what does any of this discussion have to do with scheme?

People have different views on licensing. We know this. What does all this philosophy/sophistry have to do with anything?

-elf

On 12 June 2020 20:27:26 GMT+03:00, Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>>>> Without a universal point of view, "semper et ubique et ab omnibus" ethics seems
>>>> to be unachievable.
>
>>> In practice, a universal point of view means silencing the opposition.
>
>> I wouldn't say "silencing" but "assuming that the opposition is wrong".
>>
>> This sounds less bad than it actually is. Relativism can be very dangerous.
>
>It's instructive to think about morality like biodiversity, subject to
>evolutionary (i.e. context-sensitive, economic) forces. For example:
>
>- There currently exist a variety of (changing) moral stances that have
>succeeded in navigating a complex world over a long period of time.
>Perhaps another set of stances could navigate the same world? We can't
>know since we can't reprogram the people's minds to have different
>morals, and even if we did it would no longer be the same world.
>
>- Since the current moral stances prevail there must be something that
>works about them, just as some plants thrive in many regions of the
>world. This is where one would look for universals. However, this in
>itself does not prove that they are optimal for any given environment,
>and the findings may be disappointing: complex creations tend to adapt
>to their environment in some way. It may simply be that two things that
>grew in the same environment have adapted to each other with limited
>relevance to other environments. And what is humanity ultimately? Often
>we define it by our most exceptional works and people. It may be
>possible to arrive at a morality that produces the rule but cuts out the
>exceptions (both the best and the worst, perhaps). It may then turn out
>that the rule's long-term thriving depended on the exceptions.
>
>- Transplanting a new moral stance into a community is like
>transplanting a foreign species. Perhaps it will wither; perhaps it will
>find a niche or even thrive; perhaps it will overtake the native moral
>stance and become the new normal. Whether it is good for people, will
>vary. It tends to be unavoidable that there are winners and losers in
>such situations.
>
>- If one really wants a particular stance to prevail, that can always in
>principle be done with sufficient force, just as one can remove native
>species from an environment and plant new ones. However, humans are
>difficult to control in large groups and for long periods of time. Our
>views are prone to divergence. In practice, homogeneity may only be
>possible in environments so simple that we don't want to live in them.
>
>As for relativism, the opposite poles of moral objectivity (other people
>won't take our advice for long) and nihilism (we won't even take our own
>advice) are not stable so we live in between. One can go rogue and make
>one's own rules, but morality mainly matters in relation to other people
>and they won't tolerate large deviations from their norms so some kind
>of compromise has to be struck. A society full of people making these
>compromises and we get politics. Historical events tend to shake things
>up so that conservative or liberal views are in vogue at any given time,
>but those views arose as reactions in their particular environment and a
>society may have a pattern of cycling between them.