Is life amongst humanity equal?
Obviously I doubt there is one right answer, but heres my take on it.
Ethics should be based on physical stimulus. because we are constrained by the practicality of our human shells. We cannot assume abstractions to give us a logical reason as to why we act a certain way, due to it being not correlated to our objective world. That way we can attain real purpose, with actual reasons why we do or don't do things. In other words, we base our morality on things that give us a positive reinforcement(intelligently, drugs obviously would not result in a long term positive reinforcement) mentally or physically, and then work from there. This way, our values have objective reasoning, because they give us purpose to act.
This has some fundamental problems, such as if your positive stimulus results in something considered unethical e.g burning cats for fun, but for now I think its fine.
Now purpose can be instated in two ways: One, as previously stated due to negative or positive stimulus, or two, due to acquired responsibility. Acquired responsibility can be found on the political spectrum, where the farther right you go the more you segment purpose due to characteristics, and the more left you go the more we equalize purpose, that is to say the more purpose is generalized, or lost.
From this we can extrapolate that if:
Purpose is constructed by society, or the current amalgamated perception of that specific group of humans, then:
Right=Humans are not equal(less equal), Left=Humans are equal(more equal).
If Purpose is defined by positive or negative stimulus, or the intrinsic nature of a human being, then we can assert that Life is still not considered equal, due to the fact that we automatically assert certain humans to be more purposeful or precious than others, e.g who would you rather save, a stranger or a family member?
Obviously I am probably wrong in some areas, but I'd love to know where! I am fairly new to philosophy and this is my second thread, so don't be afraid to fire away. Thanks for reading my entry!
Ethics should be based on physical stimulus. because we are constrained by the practicality of our human shells. We cannot assume abstractions to give us a logical reason as to why we act a certain way, due to it being not correlated to our objective world. That way we can attain real purpose, with actual reasons why we do or don't do things. In other words, we base our morality on things that give us a positive reinforcement(intelligently, drugs obviously would not result in a long term positive reinforcement) mentally or physically, and then work from there. This way, our values have objective reasoning, because they give us purpose to act.
This has some fundamental problems, such as if your positive stimulus results in something considered unethical e.g burning cats for fun, but for now I think its fine.
Now purpose can be instated in two ways: One, as previously stated due to negative or positive stimulus, or two, due to acquired responsibility. Acquired responsibility can be found on the political spectrum, where the farther right you go the more you segment purpose due to characteristics, and the more left you go the more we equalize purpose, that is to say the more purpose is generalized, or lost.
From this we can extrapolate that if:
Purpose is constructed by society, or the current amalgamated perception of that specific group of humans, then:
Right=Humans are not equal(less equal), Left=Humans are equal(more equal).
If Purpose is defined by positive or negative stimulus, or the intrinsic nature of a human being, then we can assert that Life is still not considered equal, due to the fact that we automatically assert certain humans to be more purposeful or precious than others, e.g who would you rather save, a stranger or a family member?
Obviously I am probably wrong in some areas, but I'd love to know where! I am fairly new to philosophy and this is my second thread, so don't be afraid to fire away. Thanks for reading my entry!
Comments (323)
We have laws to regulate the behavior that pertains to the base. Since this is the fundamental and more important part. Law is basically just offloading your own self defense to the government. This makes people weak and dependent.
Thats an interesting take.
Quoting Miller
How did you reach that conclusion? Whats the difference between surface and base? is base our primal animalistic behavior? Is surface not related to our base?
You don't have to use those terms. By base I mean the foundation. We are all equally human. On the surface there is differences.
There is no morality. There is only true behavior or false behavior. Truth is mind that is accurate to the evidence. Accurate mind create accurate behavior.
There is no self, no free-will, no morality, there is only cause and effect. Truth and falsity.
My world view is simple and clear and contains no questions. Others spend their lives lost in illusions.
Attempting to base ethics on how one feels, on "physical stimulus", is an error.
What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to?
You can do better than that.
What about moral intuitions? Not dependant on other agents. The loner could still have them couldn't he?
What about a utilitarian? Is there not a single utilitarian calculation that effects just the loner?
Maybe you have good answers for those, but it only takes one instance amongst all the different ethical philosophies and standards and I that would exclude relation to others as fundamental, right?
What - about himself? Then they are preferences, and not about morality.
Quoting DingoJones
...and so utilitarianism fails to amount to a moral position. Fine.
Keep going.
The “human shells” you speak of are our bodies, within which our souls abide, and it is the latter, not the former, that ethics or morality is concerned with.
We are not constrained by the needs of our bodies. We frequently neglect those needs in order to effect a good greater than that dictated by “physical stimulus”. Tell me how it is “practical” that a soldier go off to war to defend his country and place his physical self in danger? Maybe he can expect, if he survives the war, to get free lunches on Veterans Day, and free hearing aids through the VA, but do you think he is calculating all this when he signs his name on the bottom line?
As far as the distinction you make between Left and Right politically, that the former’s policy is based on the common currency of the “human shell”, ie, the body, and the latter upon the extra-human potential, I would agree with you. It is clear that not all ppl are created equal, despite Jefferson’s edict.
And this, I think, is the distinction b/w right- and left-wing politics in our day, whether they pertain to the body or to the soul...
..,I leave this for you to ponder and consider, and, perhaps, respond to.
Why? Is there no moral treatment of oneself? I don't understand the basis for your conclusion. Where are you grounding morality so that it precludes ethical positions and actions concerning only an individual?
Quoting Banno
Im not a utilitarian, I was offering examples of ethical frameworks under which your claim might not apply.
Have you excluded all these other ethical systems on the basis that they do not have relation to others as fundamental? If not, Im curious as to what basis you give primacy to the ones (or is it just one, if so, which one if it has a name) that do have relation to others as fundamental.
Also, “keep going” is what Im doing when Im not asking other people questions. If Im asking, its because I cannot or have chosen not to “keep going”. I think on my own and ask questions when I want to think with/understand someone else. Telling me to go think more is precisely opposite the purpose of a question and answer.
Thats meant as explanatory rather than snide. Since Im asking you about your views you are the best person to get answers from, not me. Again, not intended as snide but Im asking you to talk to me, not prompt me.
No.
Lol, alright. I’ll keep going.
I would describe that our souls are constructed by the body, or formalized if you will; that the belief of a soul is simply the body's projection of it's interests into the real(whatever that means) world. Therefore, a human shell would consist of both the body and soul, since they are one and the same.
Quoting Leghorn
Is the need of a body to live? Perhaps, due to an inane indoctrination, his environment has placed the perception of his body to receive greater physical stimulus to die for his homeland, than to stave away at home knitting. Than the most practical course of himself would be to, sadly, run into the cannonballs of the enemy.
Quoting Leghorn
I would agree.
I guess the main question to our discussion would be to assess whether the soul is truly different from the body.
How can one relate to another practically, without any physical confrontation?
I have a suspicion that in fact we believe in quite similar things. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I would assess that we both have a dangling need to ground ethics, either by denying morality outright or by containing it into something objective for fear of it getting whisked away by intricate illusions.
My main problem with the way you ground morality is this point here:
Quoting Miller
How can we assess evidence to be accurate? what was our first truth to kickstart our accurate behaviour, and how did we find that that truth was true?
This is Epistemology.
My position on epistemology is: truth is just a map that is accurate to the territory. Territory is experienced through the senses, and can be confirmed by others senses.
I'm not describing a perfect method. I am describing THE method we use.
I agree.
Having read your posts in this thread I can see that you are a materialist, and by that term I mean that you are are a reductionist: you want or tend to reduce all phenomena to what is physical or material. That this is an error on your part, or on the part of anyone else so inclined, I will attempt to prove...
...and I was about to embark on a diatribe proving that immaterial things are real, but I checked myself; and I hesitated because I realized that I had often done so before in this forum without persuasion, that I have always failed to persuade by such means. This led me to consider a different approach: if you are willing, I would like to question you Socratically, ie, through what is called dialectic.
In dialectic there are two ppl, a questioner and an answerer. They needn’t remain the same throughout the dialectic: sometimes the questioner invites the answerer to ask the questions, and sometimes the answerer demands to become the questioner. Likewise, sometimes the questioner demands that the answerer ask him questions, or the answerer declines to answer any further questions. In other words, they can switch roles at any point as long as both agree to do so.
If you are willing to engage in such a dialectic with me, I will ask you a question to initiate it. There are no “rules” to the game, just the “honor system”: yes-or-no questions should be answered with a “yes” or “no”; if the answerer thinks “yes” or “no” is insufficient to answer the question, then his answer should be as short as possible in explanation of that caveat...
...are you willing then to engage in a dialectic with me on the topic of whether the soul is different from the body?
I'd be more than happy to.
I would agree!
But senses are still subjective and consciousness is solipsistic. This is where philosophy comes in and turns into spirituality.
Quoting Banno
Morality is about life. A single individual is alive. Ergo, even a loner has to have morals.
Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there.
Reflexive relations!
The things you choose to do that do not involve others are simply a question of your preference. Do as you choose. The things you choose to do that do involve others are of a different kind. It is these considerations that are the topic of ethics.
Would you agree that whatever is real exists, and that whatever is not real does not exist, and that, similarly, anything that exists is real, and anything that does not exist is not real?
Quoting Banno
I'm not saying there's no difference in the way you treat others and the way you treat yourself - the latter is characterized by more freedom i.e. you have more options compared to the former.
However, as a person, as per philosophy itself, our mission is to attain eudaimonia (flourishing); this is, in a sense, a duty to yourself. Given this, someone may perform/fail to perform this duty and that's, ethically, being moral/immoral to yourself. Ethics applies even to the last man on earth.
Give an example.
Taking care of oneself.
Ah. Eating well and exercising regularly. These are an issue of ethics?
Why ought one do so?
Yes. As you care for, broadly speaking, the health of others, you should do for yourself too. Is there anything wrong with that? :chin:
You just did my argument for me. You based your ethical statement on the health of others. Hence, ethics enters into our thinking only when we encounter others.
But, our own health?
My stand is that ethics is about life, how we treat it. A loner has life. Ergo, he's obligated to be ethical towards himself. Health is just the tip of the iceberg as regards wellbeing in life.
It does nothing.
If he chooses to be healthy, that's good. If he chooses to eat nothing but meat, that's good. If he chooses to suicide, that's good. There's no difference between what he wants and what is good, what is ethical, because there is no intentional context except for him.
Ethics comes into being when what you want conflicts with what someone else wants.
I beg to differ. Where there's life, wellbeing is an issue and wellbeing is just another name for ethics. Being alive, a solitary individual has a moral duty to be concerned about his personal welfare.
As for choice, as I mentioned before, we have a greater degree of freedom when it comes to how we treat ourselves as compared to how we treat others. This freedom is what we might call our right but I still feel this has to be balanced with every single person's fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the US constitution.
OK, let's suppose that it is (it isn't).
Then what is welfare? Is it living long? Is it living happily - not the same thing. Is it living with the maximum pleasure? is it eating as much cheese as possible?
What ever is chosen, will be for the individuals welfare, because there is no other criteria for that welfare.
Yes, welfare would, inter alia, include a long, fulfilling life and happiness too. As these would be considerations one will, for certain, factor in our relations with others, they also form the basis of our relations with ourselves.
Imagine a single individual stranded on a deserted island. "If," he thinks, "there were other persons with me, I'd expect them to be good to me." In other words this Ribinson Crusoe character cares about his wellbeing. Does it not follow then that he should be good to himself?
Are you now agreeing with me?
:lol:
I'm not sure how to get my point across but let's look at two well-known theories of morality:
1. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle which is basically the rule that one has to maximize happiness.
2. Kantian ethics: The categorical imperative states that "act only on those maxims which you would will to be a universal law"
Do you see others mentioned in these moral rules? Phrased differently, you can be happy...so it's ethical to maximize your happiness (egoism?) and is it possible to universalize a maxim that's not aligned to a loner's wellbeing?
1. Why must you be good to others?
2. Because others can be happy (good) and sad (bad).
3. I, a hermit in the Carpathian mountains, can be happy and sad.
Ergo
4. I and all lone individuals like me must be good to myself.
The second one, yes, obviously.
The first, what is the difference, for an individual, between "maximise happiness" and do what you want? It ceases to be a moral maxim if no one else is involved.
Quoting Banno
I see your point - the rules I follow when I'm the only one around will be different from when I live in a community. One could even say that as a lone individual, say living as an anchorite, I can live without rules/principles.
However, let's examine this business of others in re morality. What about others is the basis of ethics? The low hanging fruit, the obvious answer, is the ability to feel pain & joy. If this ability (disability?) were absent, others are as morally relevant as a pebble or a dead stump of a tree. Right?
I, even when I'm all alone, can feel pain & joy and that, as we've seen above, is the deciding factor with respect to others vis-à-vis ethics. It follows then, doesn't it?, that I have to be ethical/good towards myself?
We're talking about two different things and that's why we're not able to see eye to eye on the issue.
You're concerned about the kinds of "moral" rules that, I concede, will differ, for sure, between a loner and a person living in a society. [What makes one happy/sad is the issue]
I'm saying that there'll/there has to be "moral" rules whether you're living all by yourself or among others. [That we can be happy/sad at all is the issue]
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument?
Following a rule is essentially a social activity. Following a rule while alone is a back-construction from following a rule in a community.
That's why each of your examples starts with a social situation.
I have been thinking lately that what we want for ourselves is often projected onto others and that this is due the above. We wish our ideas acted out by others so we can observe the difference from our projection to the reality of what will happen. I think this is why we're always trying to control the world to some degree or another.
When it comes to ethics I think too many just assume there is an easy way to bridge meaning with action so they tend to side with reason over emotion, yet when the item of 'meaning' is regarded as some purity they find nothing and in breaking from that ghost nihilism takes hold. In this light ethics is more or less an amalgam of societal inputs and this gives some the impression of emptiness as they've removed from reason any space upon which guidance was written. They don't see the guiding principles as mere reflections/shadows of other forms and so feel disillusioned and hollow.
No action taken is genuine to oneself as oneself is not one self. The horde of who you are does come into view more or less at certain points. From there action has more force, from points where the individual is thin on the ground error rules.
Wittgenstein defined a language as that which cannot be Private. It is really an argument more of a definition of 'language' put in place and made clear in meaning as NOT being private.
If we can think without words and language can come into being without words existing in the first place then language need not be worded/signed but worded/signed language is revealing something about language as a whole.
And linguists are quite happy to view language as apparent in species other than humans. We are certainly able to express in more broad terms it seems and the instances of deaf people with NO language (as we general frame language) show that knowledge of language in the sense of words/signs is not at all important for living in a human society that uses language daily.
IN split brain patients the hemispheres communicate in the world not through words/symbols. They act out and interact according to cognitive aims. They actually fight against each other and collaborate and interfere with each other constantly.
Now that you mention it, yes!
I can't tell whether one informs the other though. Intriguingly, qualia - the ineffable aspect of morally relevant experiences (what is it like to feel pain/joy?) - seems to both matter (the unpleasantness/pleasantness of pain/joy is the deciding factor) and not matter (beetle-in-the-box).
Quoting I like sushi
@Banno [math]\uparrow[/math]
Quoting I like sushi
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.
Banno [math]\uparrow[/math]. For your attention.
I would disagree solely on the point that assumes that anything that exists is "real", per say. For example, knowing that dragons don't exist, I create an image of a dragon in my mind. That image exists; so would the dragon exist?
Senses are subjected to what? To whom? the self? well our "self", was constructed by someone else, being our parents. So would our senses be subjected to their self?
Is it a question of preference?
I would believe that how you treat yourself and how you treat others are quite related to each other.
And when are we in not in relation to "something"?
As long as we are in relation to something that informs or controls our purpose, could we not create ethics based of that?
I think one could create ethics based on how one feels, because that is in relation to something that is "other"(being that in my belief, our primitive sense of self and our body [I]appears[/i] to be different, to be other).
Do you say then that the image of something is the same thing as what it is an image of? In your example, is the image of the dragon the same thing as the dragon itself?
I would say no, they are not the same. One is incomplete because it does not exist, the other is complete because of its existence.
In simpler terms, my view is that existence doesn't require belief. If you have to believe that something exists...well, I dont know. Nothing wrong with that I guess, just maybe its a more subtle form of existence that doesn't necessarily apply to the pursuit of truth in general, but an existence to generate personal truth. One that your happy with.
Since you appear to assert that the dragon you imagine does not exist, and that its image in your mind does exist, are you willing to withdraw your objection to
Quoting Leghorn
since it is clear that the image of the dragon is real and exists, while the dragon itself is not real and does not exist?
Yeah go ahead. I withdraw my statement!
Then what is real exists and what exists is real.
Can we go further and say that what exists and is real is detectable, and that what does not exist and is not real is undetectable?
undetectable to whom? To us? Then I would say no, provided that echo location exists; even if we cannot detect it(naturally).
By “”naturally” I suppose you mean directly by means of our unaided senses of sight and hearing etc., but I didn’t mean that when I said detectable; I meant rather to include any means of detection, including echo location, the microscope, telescope, and any other means that is artificial, ie., aided by man-made instruments.
Including these sorts of aids in detection, would you agree that what exists and is real is detectable, and what doesn’t exist and is not real is undetectable?
I would agree.
So for example, though it is scarcely conceivable that anyone could ever journey to the center of the earth, or even send a probe there, we know that its center exists, and is detectable, even though we cannot detect it.
Well, by our previous agreement we had stated that as long as you had a device to aid your natural perception, which is to instate that everything is perceivable as long as you have the right tool, it would exist if only we could verify it's detectability.
If our plethora of tools could not ascertain the detectability of the middle of the earth, then it would not exist: e.g, if mathematics had failed to prove that there is a center to the universe, then by its blatant imperceptibility it would be hard to imagine its existence.
Would you say then that there is a means of detection that is different from the either aided or unaided sensory sort of detection?
I don't believe so... You can either be omnipotent, perceiving all without aid, or perceive all with aid...
Yeah I would say that no there is not a separate means of detection.
Well, one could consider the abstract or the realm of thought to be a mode of detection, but it is only a different mode of detection as long as it denies the possibility of sensory application. In other words, as long as it gives the possibility of a tool to be made to allow for sensory detection, it would fall under the category of aided detection.
So, the mathematics that allows us to know that there is a center of the universe—would you agree that it is not a different mode of detection, because, theoretically, we could stand at the universe’s center, and perceive by means of physical instruments that everything else lies apart from us —even though we could never practically do this?
I would agree.
You are the most agreeable person I think I have ever met in this forum, John...
...but let me ask you this: do you believe that there are certain concepts that exist? and I don’t mean things like the dragon of your previous analogy, but rather things like “the good” and “the better”, “the more” and “the most”; “the large” and “the small”, etc. Do you think these sorts of things exist and are real and detectable, or do you think they rather don’t exist, are not real and are undetectable?
Well, according to our previous agreement that deemed perception to be the [I]how[/I] or the [I]why[/I] of reality, if you could somehow demonstrate that it is possible to be perceived with a tool, I would be more inclined to agree that "good" and the "better" exist.
With what tool do we perceive a microorganism?
Isn’t it by means of the microscope?
Right.
Sorry: I forgot to prompt you in the previous post.
Sorry, John: I am sloppy tonight. My belly is bloated with Thanksgiving dinner, and it oppresseth my mind. Let me ask my question again: with what instrument do we perceive celestial bodies too distant to be seen by the unaided eye?
By means the telescope, I would think.
Of course! By means of the telescope.
Now, let me ask you: by what instrument do we perceive two?
I'd say that our mode of natural perception; the eyes, could very well perceive a set of things.
We have learned animals teach each other culture and those that learn the culture best will have a favored position and others will want to be around them but not all will be allowed to come too close. Also in herd animals, we see a sign of democracy. Rather than one alpha male determining when the herd will move to the river, this is a group decision. With movement members of the herd will communicate a desire to move to the river and when enough agree it is time to move to the river, they start moving and everyone joins them. This is fine as long as the need to move is not a predator. In times of emergency, we might want an alpha male we trust, who can immediately call us to action. In an emergency, there isn't time for debate.
Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity.
Our intelligence is not just what we know, but also our ability to ask good questions. It also helps to know where to look for good answers. :lol: Wikipedia may not be the supreme authority but it is a good starting place.
What about a blind man: is he unable to “perceive a set of things”?
Well, I suggest that a blind man could still identify a set of things in relation to his other senses. For example, an identical sensation, or an identical sound.
Yet, if the blind man does not have these capacities to translate any sort of stimulus into something physically comprehensible, then he must be reliant on the mind. And if you are reliant on the mind, you cannot/could not verify the existence of things, for existence does not exist within thought (application of).
Therefore I would conclude that a man unable to perceive via any physical sense, could not assess a set of things. Only a set of things that would have no relation to our practical world.
I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens.
Have you ever gone to a party entirely nude?
I have not. Not yet, at least.
Neither have I, and I think I’m too old to ever dare do so—unless it were a party of octogenarian women who had been drinking heavily...
...but on to a question more pertinent to our discussion: when I train my telescope toward the heavens and perceive two stars in its field of vision, is it the telescope that counts those stars as two?
I think our consideration of equality is equal under that law, not equally beautiful, or equally talented, or equally motivated. As some businesses are discovering today, hiring practices that include those who have been marginalized, is kind of like finding diamonds in ugly stones.
I drive people nuts with my talk of education and values and the Military Industrial Complex but our only hope is becoming aware of how the 1958 National Defense Education Act changed education, and why this has huge, social, economic, and political ramifications.
Equal opportunity is a democratic principle and in a way, education for technology increases that equal opportunity, but in another way, it marginalizes people and destroys their equal opportunity.
When it comes to our voting system, as some are talking about, the education we once had, would prevent the effort to control the voting process that is happening today. This is only one of the political ramifications of the change in education. We now have the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power.
No, It is I who count two stars.
I'll be honest, I have next to zero knowledge on this topic so I'm going to save you from hearing my half-hashed opinion. I do agree with you though to some extent, despite myself, that education currently needs a serious reevaluation on whats important.
I’m surprised you didn’t say, “No, it is my eye that counts two stars,” for you earlier said,
Quoting john27
Well, I had believed they were the same thing, the body and me. In terms of linguistic description, it's hard to exactly describe the difference.
(If there was, a difference :wink: )
So do you recant your statement that it is your eyes that do the counting, and replace it now with the one that it is you that does the counting instead?
Hmm....Well In what way are the eyes different from I?
Would it be correct to say that your eyes are instruments that you use?
It could be a tool, or an instrument of some kind that I use. That is possible. Although the problem I believe lies not in whether it is or is not, but whether I would be able to tell the difference.
Would you agree that there is a general situation of a user and an instrument that he uses? For example, a cutter who uses a knife, or a shooter who propels a projectile by means of a gun or sling, etc, or a climber who employs a ladder, etc?
I would agree.
Would you also agree that the user and what he uses are to separate things?
Correction: “two”separate things.
Meditate on Thanatos.
I'd have to agree with this, although something doesn't exactly sit right with me... I'll give it some thought and try to pinpoint my dissatisfaction.
I would agree that yes, while a tool may be an extension of myself, it is not inherently me.
So if you were to lose your sight, you would not be diminished in any way as to who you inherently are. Would you agree with that?
Mm... I would disagree.
A tool remains a tool because it may be displaced without affecting the "who" of what you are. If your tool becomes profoundly correlated to your character, (i.e an olympic table tennis player and his racket) , Then I would argue that It is no longer a tool, but something of substance in correlation to the question: Who am I?
Likewise, because I believe sight is a tool profoundly correlated to my character (which would then mean it's not a tool after all), It's displacement would debilitate my self image, or the "who". It is only after I have rehabilitated the perception of myself to contain its displacement, that I would find it then remains, a tool.
If I may ask, how is your sight profoundly correlated to your character?
Why, I don't think i'd be me without it.
I'll be waitin'.
Alright. I have a question.
Is it the state of death, or the inevitability of death, that makes us equal?
Reread my post.
I would assume the latter, but it's just the "Grim Reaper" confuses me. I don't exactly know which side he's meant to represent.
My answer may not be what you should hear.
Oh.
What should I hear then?
I dunno! I hope something that makes sense.
Well, i'd hope for that too.
Back to my initial question, er, if you are willing to tell me, What does the Grim reaper represent in this context?
You might need to go into mortality statistics (does Thanatos show any, how can I describe it?, preferences?). Then you might need to reexamine the data available and look for other kinds of patterns that suggest the Grim Reaper is, after all, impartial.
Sorry, I have to admit I am completely lost. Although I would agree with you that death would not care through which means you come to an end, I don't understand how this would help my comprehension to your usage of "death" in your previous statement.
I had not meant under which form death is taken place, but rather whether he (the Grim Reaper) is a representation of the probability of death, or the state of death.
Of course, he (or she) could be both as well.
Well, all I can say is, the probability of death clearly shows there's inequality but the state of death is egalitarian in nature.
That's more or less the point I was trying to get at, I think. Another interesting point is that if the "state" or "mode" of death defines our equality, then we may only be able to perceive equality in death. But, assuming that death removes our human conscious, there would be no way to perceive your own death, and hence, no way to perceive equality.
Really! Wow, I would've said the opposite.
We see the world differently then.
Well, I'd be interested to explore our differences If you would want to.
I think assuming that eternal life is something unrealistic, (perhaps probable) and innately a fantasy, We are all one hundred percent likely to die.
In what mode do you see inequality?
Moratlity Rates. Keep clicking the links and a picture of death, not so flattering as poets imagined, should emerge from the data. The weak, the poor, minorities, basically those who occupy the lowest rungs of society die early, horribly too I presume.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
Well, I would definitely agree with you that the rate of death is unequal. However, I would argue this is not necessarily correlated to the probability of death.
Explain.
I like to imagine death as a city, and life its subway. The metro has a terminal exit, from which the passengers are obliged to leave into the great city. However, depending on the circumstance of the wayfarer, he may be compelled, or forced, to take an earlier stop.
Does everybody have an equal probability for an earlier stop and even if they did, does everyone have equal access to solutions/opportunities to cheat death (for example antibiotics) ?
Sadly, no. The voyagers circumstances differ, and not all are happy with their too-soon departure. However, it remains the responsibility of all passengers to be exact; to venture off towards the gothic town.
Heres a maybe more precise analogy: Life is a pendulum, and no matter how forceful the swing, the pendulum will always come to a stop.
It all began, I suppose, with slavery and sexism. The point, potential (Aristotle) was being suppressed and stamped out. If a woman or a black person has the same/greater potential as/than a white man ( :chin: ), and that potential was being systematically prevented from being actualized, it amounts to discrimination, this is the kind of inequality we seem unable to let slide.
However, if there's a difference in potential - one person has what it takes to be an engineer or become a bodybuilder and another doesn't - we take no issue with any discrepancy in social/economic status.
I rest my case.
And I would agree. Although it stays then, or we are to agree that the rate does not affect the probability.
I remember someone who was so happy to have been chosen for a soccer team, not realizing he was picked just so that the team could have 11 players.
The mortality rate is the probability of death, no?
No! It's how fast the music is being played, not the music itself.
Good day! :lol:
Google for in-depth analysis.
Mortality rate is the analysis of when, not if, death exists. That would be what I am trying to describe..
Oh! Now we're getting somewhere. When death exists? :chin:
We'll all find out in good time I guess. I'm in no hurry although I do have premonitions of an impending catastrophe involving me and a chimpanzee with a loaded AK47. There's a video on youtube :point:
Excellent video.
Let us hope indeed...
Going back to our initial discussion, I believe I had stated it may be more useful to define death as an egalitarian aspect of humanity, to assess it as an existence, not as a state.
Would you have any issues with this?
That we do have an equalizing aspect, which would be the existence of death. So in terms of the macro view of humanity, we could be considered equal.
Here's an interesting thought.
We (usually) don't mind, even like, being treated better than some others but we hurt, badly, when it's the other way round, when we're made to feel small(er). Both, intriguingly, are essentially inequality. So, the question is, what's it gonna be? If you like the former, you gotta accept the latter and if you disapprove of the latter, you're gonna havta give up the former. Dilemma.
I guess humans are constrained by inequality one way or another.
What if you lost your hearing? Would you no longer be you?
Mm...I think if I were to lose my hearing, I'd definitely perform/act in a different way than normal... I may be me, but changed severely.
So sight is essential to who you are but not hearing?
They are equally essential, but It is much more easier on my brain to imagine a dark world than a world without sound. Therefore it comes harder to me to stipulate, whether or not a loss of sound would be essential to my character.
And it is much easier on my brain to hear “easier” than “more easier”, but I’m just poking fun at you...
Let me ask you this then: if you were to lose your sense of taste, would you feel that you had been diminished as to your essential character?
I now have a compelling need to edit my previous post...
I think regarding the senses, so long as you view them as something of utmost import (in relation to your character), its displacement results in the diminishment of the perception of yourself.
However, it is equally right to say that as long as you don't view these attributes essential to yourself, (e.g I would have turned out the same no matter if I was blind or deaf) then they are of no relation to your persona.
Do you think that someone’s perception of himself and view of what attributes are essential to himself can sometimes be wrong?
I would think that is definitely plausible, yes. Sometimes people believe certain attributes are essential to themselves, even if they don't have it/can't obtain it.
i.e plastic surgery, and all that nonsense.
So just because you can’t imagine yourself without your sight or hearing or whatever else the loss of which you think would end your selfhood doesn’t mean that, if you lost it, you would cease to be you. Would you agree with that?
That or a simple case of "better the devil you know".
Beyond that however you seem to come into a catch-22 of sorts. Though I generally loathe the "me hit you, you hit me less hard, i good, you bad, you die now" cavemen-esque philosophy that those without any purpose that can't be replaced by a fallen tree perched on a rock seem to gravitate to almost religiously.. it does beg a very apt question. Is the man who can lift 10 fallen trees per hour used to shelter a society and can bag 5 wild boars to feed said society the same as another who can only lift 3 and bag 2, on a good day? How does this compare to the one born with a condition that makes such feats impossible, or better yet for kicks, what of the man who can lift 20 and bag 10 who suddenly becomes injured?
Without religion, rather belief that humans are profoundly separated from the animals, there is only one answer, and that is a resounding no. Some people find this depressing, especially if and when they become older and of little physical use or simply become injured or perhaps born with a disability. This is not what modern society is about, because again the work of a dozen of the strongest men can now be replaced by a machine that costs 2 cents an hour operated by someone who lost 3 limbs.
Society evolves. Some people in it however do not.
What good is a man who can lift an oak tree compared to a brilliant albeit handicapped poet who can spin legends and tales of magnificent entertainment in a society that has plenty of wood but not enough things to occupy their time?
*I would agree.
I guess at the end of it, we're all just some lonely cavemen.
Ooga oo.
Quoting john27
Therefore, when you said this,
Quoting john27
you said something false, didn’t you? Because you just agreed that it’s not our belief or opinion that establishes our inherent being or essential selfhood.
I don't get it. Conformity is usually considered a bad thing. Yet, when people are different, :brow: . WTF?
I guess it would seem so.
Goldilocks is the name of the game, my friend.
Since you agree that we cannot subjectively determine our essential character, do think we might be able to do so objectively instead?
:grin: It's an open secret, huh?
Well, she's the village pass-around for a reason.
Hm. Could you give an example of an objective reason that would permit one to verify his selfhood?
I'm interested in the parameters, thats all.
:gasp:
I know, I know. I shouldn't have said it.
:wink:
How about this parameter: one’s selfhood is not subject to chance or fortune or accident?
I would agree with that.
I forgot to mention John, when we embarked on this discussion, one of the essential rules of dialectic: that you are to answer questions according to how you really feel, what you really believe: otherwise it becomes just an empty meaningless intellectual game.
The reason I mention this now is because I find it very hard to believe that you think our selfhood is not subject to chance; for you have consistently heretofore expressed the opinion that if a person considers his sight or hearing or athletic ability, etc, to be essential to who he is, and loses it, that his sense of self is altered and who he is is changed.
Well, yes, but I had thought that we had earlier established that the selfhood is not subject to belief, and so therefore chance that would impact the belief on my selfhood, would have no impact on the question of whom, ergo, chance does not affect selfhood/not subject to chance.
What about the Olympic table-tennis player then? Do you really believe that if he were bereaved of his ability to play, his selfhood would be unimpaired?
My intuition tells me yes, he would be greatly impaired, but I don't know what to tell you Leghorn; we had already established belief as non-important. Would you like to revisit the question perhaps?
I think we just did, and I think you reversed your opinion:
Quoting john27
Is your “intuition” different from your opinion on this matter?
Yeah, seeing as my intuition has no rational behind it. I'm inclined to believe what we had just discussed, however i'm trapped by a sentiment.
Would you agree that when you place your self-worth in things that can be taken away by fortune, you put it on shaky ground—whereas when you place it in what fortune cannot touch that you place it on solid ground?
Sorry, i was pretty busy this week. On a train to Lyon right now actually.
I would agree.
So what do we have that we can base our self-worth on that is immune to “the slings and arrows” of fortune?
However, human inequality makes zero sense. Imagine we have two people, one white (X) and the other black ( Y ). You want to hire a mathematician and both X and Y went to the same school, the same university, and have equivalent PhD degrees in math. If you choose X over Y, you're being irrational for being white has nothing at all to do with math.
So yes, inequality is a part of, perhaps even critical to, life but human inequality, in some areas like the one described above, is untenable.
Inequality:
1. Natural: differences in strength, abilities, etc. Good!
2. Artificial: racism, sexism, etc. Bad!
Death and taxes.
Other than that old saying, nothing really comes to mind.
It is a self-evident truth that all humans are created equal, and that some humans are being created increasingly more equal than others, with this dichotomy between equals growing exponentially as the days pass.
Soon enough we might be reinstating slaves and slave-owners, just that in this future the two will be officially decreed equals, with the latter being vastly more equal in value than the far less equal slaves they’ll own.
---------
Well, my dark-humored chuckles aside (better to laugh than cry I say) ...
On what grounds should all humans be governed by the same laws if all humans are not equal in value?
Else, for example, should some group A be lawfully allowed to murder while some group B receives capital punishment for doing the same?
The guiding principle should be to treat each other as if we are all capable of something in some capacity and therefore view humans as potentially being better and making themselves and others better.
Equality in this sense has nothing to do with abilities or personal resources. Equality is simply about respecting fellow humans and making the most of what we have and learning about our own inadequacies so as not too often overreach or cause undue harm within our immediate sphere - and accepting and being responsible as we’ll fail in our youthful years repeatedly.
Mm, I would agree with your general statement, but disagree with the way you put it. I think Human inequality is natural, just not a needed variable when we demand ethical questions.
:up:
How would equality in value translate into equality in rights? For example, I could have 1+3=4, and 2+2=4. Two identical values but with blaring differences. In this case both individuals, even though they bring the same value would have to be treated differently.
Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard).
Yep, much as I hate to admit it, you're right. Equality, in fact, is very, very human. We're trying to fix the world. We've made some boo-boos along the way but I'm sure, no matter how atrocious our actions, we'll eventually forgive ourselves for...we didn't know any better.
This is equivocating "the degree of importance given to something" with mathematical notions of value.
Quoting john27
To then rephrase, on what grounds should all humans be subjected to the same codified consequences to conduct if not the grounds that all types of humans (types differing in things such as average skin color, and so forth) nevertheless are granted to have the same degree of inherent importance?
Quoting john27
This doesn't seem to suffice. Humans are different from rocks, but the fact that the two are different does not thereby make humans and rocks equal - else, the same - in any regard relevant to equal rights.
Er...not exactly. I was trying to describe how same ? equal.
Quoting javra
Well of course, you would use that statement in moderation, or in some specific parameter that renders it useful.
Forgive me if I interpreted wrong but your question was:
Quoting javra
In which i disagree this initial premise, by my statement above:
Quoting john27
(i.e, I don't believe in codified consequence).
Which is why i believed my answer here sufficed:
Quoting john27
Because this would seem to acknowledge its inherent deficit which you had pointed out (human treating rock equally), in a concise manner that still makes it applicable.
Should I gather from this that you don't believe in democratic principles? All variations of autocratic systems will not have all humans of that system subjected to the same laws, i.e. codified consequences to conduct.
No, I just think that some rules just are not applicable to everyone, and requires an intelligent/positive biases to suit their needs.
Heres an example: if there was a rule in a school that you MUST use the stairs and not the elevator, would someone in a wheelchair still be applicable to the rule? No! You would provide an intelligent bias, to make his QOL better. i.e, people in his case are now allowed to use the elevator.
I just think we need some malleability in the way we treat others.
Some malleability is built into the US constitution by default, btw. Yes to free speech but no to falsely claiming fire in a crowded theater, kind of thing. But its laws are still intended to apply to every citizen, not just some.
Well, I don't know. I haven't read the US constitution before so I wouldn't be able to give a practical explanation of my thoughts, but I think my main idea is that I would like for the constitution to perform initially malleable, not apply it later. That way we can deal with situations according to their circumstances themselves, and not on something that was written that was presupposed to be true.
In the wheelchair example you previously provided, one affords an exception to people on wheelchairs with - I assume - the implicit conviction that their lives are as important as the lives of non-handicaped peoples.
On the other hand, if a category of humans are deemed to be of less intrinsic importance, on what grounds would they not be implicitly considered "sub-human" by those of so-called normal importance? Thereby not meriting the same rights to life, to not mention things such as the same rights to pursue happiness and such.
I don't recall saying that. Could you demonstrate where I implied this?
I'm sorry If i did; the basis of my point is to assess our differences AS an equalizing property. As well, the variable treatment of all is in the pursuit of contentment, so it wouldn't necessarily describe varying degrees of importance...
Quoting john27
Notice that this statement isn't about the semantics of sameness v. equality, as mentioned here:
Quoting john27
But about the virtue of value - again, as in "the degree of innate importance pertaining to something".
In sum, the debate between us centers around whether or not all humans ought to be deemed to be of equal value, i.e. to hold the same degree of innate importance.
(Hey, if equal and same were synonymous to the writers of the US declaration of independence, I'll choose to be of the same mindset as far as semantics go.)
Well no, we are not all of equal value, but that shouldn't be a basis of equalizing rights.
Hey, seems like you're a decent person, so good luck with your endeavors of figuring out what equality of rights should be based on. But, from where I stand, vague affirmations that are acknowledged to further require as of yet undiscovered conditions will not on their own go very far in preventing one group of humans from trampling all over some other group of humans.
Hm... Well I did say we are of different value, but I never said we are of different importance. Are they correlated?
I guess my main concern is that I don't necessarily see it the same way. I would say that one should treat a janitor and a president with the same amount of respect, even if the real world doesn't work that way.
Yea, I agree that this is the ideal which we ought to be striving for. Unfortunately for those who hold such perspectives, the world is currently becoming ever more autocracy yearning; the growth of fascism's popularity (be it implicit or explicit) is one evidence of this. How to turn the tides back to a democracy yearning world, is the question I'm posing.
From my vantage, autocracy feeds of the conviction that different humans hold different innate importance. Democracy, on the other hand, feeds on the conviction that different humans will hold the same innate importance despite their differences.
Quoting john27
One prominent definition of "value" is "the degree of importance given to something". Within the context addressed, as I tried to previously explain, the two are synonymous.
Yeah this is what I was basically tryna' say.
Quoting javra
Sorry, i'm a little slow sometimes :groan:
As far as how to return the world to a democratic state, I think we just need to be more kind to one another. Pretty simple, but I think a lot of problems could be solved if we were just nice, tolerant, dudes to begin with.
As to the resolution, I do wish the world worked in that way. It hasn't been my experience in life, at least so far.
Damn.
Quoting john27
I don’t doubt that Benjamin Franklin was a great philosopher...but may I suggest a more serious alternative?
You may.
“Demetrius [the Macedonian general], whose nickname was Poliorcetes [“Sacker of Cities”], had taken Megara [a city near Athens]. When Stilbon the [Megarian] philosopher was asked by him whether he had lost anything, he replied, “nothing: all my goods are with me.” Nevertheless his patrimony had been turned into spoils of war, the enemy had carried off his daughters, his fatherland had come under foreign authority, and a king surrounded by the arms of a victorious army interrogated him from a superior position.
“Yet he [Stilbon] took his [Demetrius’] victory away from him, and gave witness that he himself, though his city had been taken, was not only undefeated, but unharmed; for he had with him the true goods, onto which there is no placing of a hand, and the goods which were being carried off despoiled and scattered he did not judge to be his own, but external and following the nod of fortune. Therefore he had prized them as not his own; for the possession of everything flowing in from without is slippery and uncertain.
“Consider now whether a thief, or a slanderer, or an unbridled neighbor...could do harm to him from whom war and the enemy and he who professed the extraordinary art of crushing cities could take nothing. Amid the blades flashing everywhere and the tumult of pillaging soldiers, amid the flames and blood and slaughter of the smitten citizenry, amid the crash of temples falling upon their gods—to one human being was there peace...”
This is my translation of a passage (5.6–6.2) from Seneca’s dialogue “On the Constancy of the Wise Man”. Do you think it sheds any light on the question at hand?
Definitely it would give evidence to a something, in which we could place our selfhood with high hopes. However, the amount of wisdom needed to make this a practical thought is astounding; I don't think I would be ever able to attain it, and hence, its lack of reality in correlation to me.
How could I go about grounding this idea? How can I make this applicable to my average self?
Well, Stilbon the philosopher was a flesh-and-blood man, just like you and me, John. There are many other similar examples from the past of men and women who accomplished surpassingly great deeds of virtue. Many modern critics of the past argue that these old stories are concocted or at least exaggerated—but we can find modern examples that are irrefutable, like the guy who threw himself under a subway train to protect an anonymous woman who had fallen on the tracks. But you ask,
Quoting john27
And I would say in response that “grounding” such ideas goes contrary to their force: they want to raise us up above the common ground we live on so that we soar to the heaven of human potentiality. I also feel the need to ask you: do you want to remain “average”? Are you happy being mediocre? Maybe you are, but philosophy is not a mediocre discipline...
...nevertheless, though almost all of us are incapable of displaying the constancy of Stilbon, yet, steeped in his example, we can apply his principle to our mediocre lives with modest success: we may not lose our family and property and fatherland in one fell swoop, but we could lose our job, or our “nest egg”, or our spouse, or become debilitated in one of our limbs, etc. Just think how many have become homicidal/suicidal after being fired from their jobs or after being served with divorce papers; think how many threw themselves out of high windows when the market crashed and they lost everything they had invested in!...
...in fine, let me ask you: should we judge something by its common ordinary examples, or by its rare and extraordinary ones?
Quoting Leghorn
I would have to confess that yes, I am terribly infatuated with mediocrity. It has consumed me, by a large margin.
Quoting Leghorn
In my opinion (partly due to my mediocre position), we should undoubtedly perceive something on its average, rather than its substantial outliers.
So if we wanted to understand falling bodies, for example, we should take a bunch of representative examples of common everyday things, maybe different kinds of balls: a tennis ball, ping pong ball and bowling ball for example; and maybe a piece of lead or steel, and a piece of wood or foam, etc, and drop them from different heights and record the time it takes for them to hit the ground, then take the average and try to understand free-fall from an analysis of that?
No, because that would be a comparison of extremities. A comparison of averages would be taking 50-55cm in width rocks, that are all made up of the same thing. There can be no stellar example, neither a series of stellar examples, if one wishes to use the average as a measurement.
Edit: One can use stellar examples, but must use them on average.
Rocks? Why rocks? Are they the average material that things are made of? Why not foam or feathers? Are they not equally representative of falling bodies?...I myself have seen more feathers fall from the sky than rocks! Why not then drop different sorts of feathers rather than rocks and take measurements?—maybe from a blue jay and a robin and a chickadee; and a crow and a buzzard and a hawk. They’re probably about the same size and weight...roughly.
In my opinion to be average is to be similar. You could use any material you would like, so long as the material is relevant to its other examples. If it is not, then in my belief it would simply not be average.
So it wouldn’t matter whether we dropped rocks or feathers? as long as what we dropped was of similar material?
That is in part correct. In fact, had you only performed the free fall experiment with only one set of average material, that experiment would then itself become unique and therefore not pertain to an average. Then, in order to move it back into an assessment of the average, you would have to extract its similarities and apply this to another average set. Do that for some time and eventually you would finally have a true average.
So if I’m understanding you John, first we drop feathers of different sorts, measure velocities and calculate accelerations and come up with an average for feathers; then we drop rocks of different kinds, measure velocities and calculate accelerations, and come up with an average for rocks; then we repeat this with other sorts of bodies: maybe snowflakes and steel ball-bearings, etc., then take the average of all these averages and proclaim this to be the “true average”—is that what you are saying?
Basically. Although in this case the average of similarities between the averages wouldn't be velocity and acceleration, those are much too personal. Instead, the similarities would be gravitational acceleration, weight, and your finalized "true average" would be a formula to calculate the free fall. The final average would be something that ties all of its subjects together, a unifying similarity. That is what it is to be average after all. A solution that works for most of its subjects.
How are velocity and acceleration “much too personal”??
Because they are reliant on the individual, and therefore not similar to other averages.
However, you are not wrong. It would be not a true average had we not incorporated any extremity at all. Therefore, velocity and acceleration would be included into the calculation of the true average, but only on an individualistic level. It would be mainly to adhere to the average differences there are between objects.
Isn’t it true that a rock or steel ball-bearing or lead weight dropped at the same moment as any feather would hit the ground before the feather did?
Yes that is true.
Yes that is true.
And which of these: the rock or ball-bearing or lead-weight, or rather the feather, do you think conforms most closely to the accepted formula of falling bodies?—that a falling body falls to the earth at the rate of 9.8 meters/second squared?
They both conform to the principle equally.
If that were true, the rock and feather would both hit the ground at the same time after being dropped at the same moment from the same height, wouldn’t they?
In a vacuum, yes, they would hit the ground at the same time.
But we were talking about bodies falling through the air, weren’t we? That’s why you agreed earlier that a rock would hit the ground before a feather if both were dropped from the same height at the same time:
Quoting Leghorn
Quoting john27
And isn’t this true because the force of the drag of the air on the feather quickly becomes equal to the force of the gravitational pull on it, whereas the drag on the rock takes much longer to equal the pull of gravity on it?
Yes that is correct. However in my belief the implied question was whether they both conform/who conforms more to this true average, which they do equally:
Quoting Leghorn
Isn’t it true, John, that if we were to investigate the laws that govern falling bodies, we would do better to observe the heavier ones and eschew the lighter ones, since the latter are more prone to the interference of the drag on them of the atmosphere?
Uh...I don't think so? Drag is an essential component to understanding free fall after all, I would think...
The mathematical equation for an object in free fall is: distance=1/2 of acceleration times time squared, isn’t it? If drag is an essential component to understanding free-fall, why is there no consideration of it in the equation?
Well in the even that we are studying free fall(something falling with no forces acting upon it except gravity) it would seem like you said that there is no need to apply drag, however free falling in a more layman, natural sense requires a broader holistic view of the subject, which I believe would incorporate drag and the such.
Do you see any similarity, John, between the different sorts of objects that fall through the atmosphere and the sorts of ppl that endure loss differently?
Quoting Leghorn
While there is a universal constant, In essence each object/person is individual?
I greatly appreciate the differences between how people endure loss.
But the loss is its own thing, a life, of a kind.
Refusing to admit defeat to someone demanding it is different than our struggles as persons with ourselves. The idea of withholding judgement of others comes down to this singularity. I cannot lift the stone, much less cast it.
Let me express it a bit more picturesquely...
...Some ppl feel they have lost their very selves when they lose their hair, or their money, or their job, or their aged parent, or their pinky finger, or their record collection, or their house or job or 25-week-old fetus, etc, etc. We might call them snowflakes or “light as a feather”, for the slightest loss throws them into the greatest turmoil...
...On the other hand, once in a great while we witness ppl like Stilbon, who lose everything short of their life, like Job did, yet continue on with the greatest equanimity, never feeling as though the loss of all their family or property or fatherland or sight and hearing, etc, detracted one iota from their identity. These ppl are like rock or lead or steel, and their fall conforms most closely to the “universal constant”.
How can then a feather be a rock?
Unlike the rest of nature, dear John, a human being can transform him- or her-self into a different creature through the use and force of reason. After all, what is impossible for “...the particular being that can know the universal, the temporal being that is aware of eternity, the part that can survey the whole, the effect that seeks the cause”?
I suppose so.
Would you say then that this sentiment you expressed earlier in the discussion...
Quoting john27
...is far beyond you now—now that you perceive that a human being, through the application of reason, can overcome the greatest adversities that fortune might inflict upon him?
Not yet!
The application of reason takes effort-a will, or a want to overcome. Mediocrity however is already innately a part of my character. Why would I take effort to change, when I can simply apply what I have? Perhaps I wouldn't be able to fully overcome a great adversity, however so long as I can manage it averagely, that would be ok with me.
How old are you, John—if I may ask—?
Not that old. Fairly young, perhaps incredibly young by some standards.
Let’s parse this statement: “The application of reason takes effort—a will or a want to overcome.” Are you aware of the ancient “economy of the soul”? That the soul is divided into a dwelling together of reason and the passions?
I would have to say that I was not aware of this ancient economy. Could you elaborate?
According to the ancient philosophers, the human soul is divided between reason and the passions. It is said to be an “economy” because they all dwell in the same “house” or ????, that of the body (brain).
Reason is one: she only wishes to know the truth according to nature; the passions are many, and have many names: lust wishes to get the greatest pleasure from sex; avarice wants to gain the most money; anger wants to get revenge; fear wants to escape danger at all cost; pride wishes to be indebted to no one etc, etc...
...for the ancient philosophers, reason ought to rule the passions: when lust desires flesh, reason says, “sex is for the propagation of the species”; or when avarice desires money, reason says, “money is ambiguous: it is both wealth and the means to wealth”; or, when anger wants to get revenge, she says, “that tooth you require for a tooth will not replace the lost tooth”; or, when fear imagines terrible possibilities, she, reason, says, “what you fear is only in your imagination: wait until the sword come to your door; then have a plan ready to either oppose or flee it.”
In this way reason, wielding her peculiar force, keeps her house in order by suppressing the inclination of the cohabitant passions whose desires, if left unchecked, would throw this whole little society of the soul into disorder. For the passions are naturally at odds with each other, and, if left unbridled, war against each other for supremacy.
Quoting john27
And I suppose there are souls, perhaps your own, born to mediocrity—then why are you attracted to a philosophy forum? I suppose, since you are avowedly mediocre, that you don’t hope to enlighten us with your superior wisdom; and I suppose that since you can apply what you already have that you don’t seek any extra wisdom from me or anyone else in here...
...maybe you are incorrigibly mediocre. Maybe, when you live long enough to finally experience great adversity, a crisis in your soul, you will take it in stride and “go with the flow” and admirably adapt—but it will only be because you really don’t care that much, not because you were able to apply any great principles of wisdom to your plight:
Quoting john27
Quoting Banno
Then you would have to agree that animal cruelty is perfectly amoral, as long as there is noboby else witnessing what you're doing.
I guess I'm more or less here to admire.
Quoting Leghorn
Perhaps. This raises an interesting question; if an object cannot/does not attempt to conform to the universal constant (the soul), would he be applicable to it (have a soul)?
That's a funny notion: beasts making ethical objections.
Go back to my reply: Quoting Banno
Animals can be included in the others to which one may relate. So, have you something to say?
I would believe this to be false. if you were alone with an animal, your point of reference to treat the animal morally would be yourself; hence making yourself a moral agent. In other words, you're really only treating the pig how you would treat yourself. A moral mirror.
Rubbish. The interests of the animal count. That you wish to be arse-fucked does not excuse your arse-fucking a pig.
But how can one know the interests of an animal?
Same as with people: from the noises they make.
If only. However, In my belief it's rarely so simple.
You sidestepped the point: Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. That fathoming this relation might sometimes be difficult does not change this fundamental observation.
Hence, your Quoting john27 is misguided. Yes, we do act so as to seek positive reinforcement. But ought we do so?
Considering this question might show you that there is a difference between doing what you want to do and doing what you ought to do.
Ethics concerns "ought".
Addressing this to your title, there is a difference between "Is life equal?" and "Ought life be equal?"
Can you see that?
I agree with you that ethic concerns ought. My argument concerns your point of differentiating preference from ought. While yes in certain circumstances you must reference your moral character to that of another, in other contexts you must align the two.
I'm not sure what this means. As in, your point here eludes me.
Sometimes you have to base your ethical behaviour relative to another, other times you have to be your own moral agent.
For example, how could you care for something ethically that has no brain? Well, you use what you know. How you like to be treated. You could kick it down the street. But ought you?
Ethics concerns the implications for others of what one does.
One is an agent in so far as one brings about a consequence. One is a moral agent in so far as one brings about a consequence for another.
Banno, The choice to not exercise is not exempt from morality... People do, and should, at times, be morally obligated to their well-being. It is not simply a question of preference. Is this not self-evident?
Why?
Because a happy/fulfilled life is the wish of all human beings. That is the point of ethics. I think we can agree on that.
But why ought one seek a happy/fulfilled life?
Note that this is not the same as "why does one seek a happy/fulfilled life?"
Because I like being happy. Is everything all right?
I see your point, but I don't know...It seems a little too complex for me to apply practically. Personally I just think people should be nice to themselves, even if it doesn't necessarily have any logic behind it.
Oh, sure - why not? But that's not an ethical position. It's just doing what you want.
I guess not.
Well, ole Merkywurdy! Haven’t seen your name pop up in here in a long time. I assumed you had gotten yourself banned.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you kicked a dog when nobody was looking, ‘cause you once verbally abused openly in this forum in the most vulgar tones an old woman I described who was wearing a mask in the supermarket in the early days of the pandemic.
@john27 and @Banno Y’all seem to me to have raised an interesting question: how much is our behavior toward ourselves a matter of ethics?
I may love food and eat so much I become obese. This seems a matter of personal choice, but it is a poor example for my children’s health; if I recline on another’s couch or sit in his chair I am prone to break it; and my obesity is likely to lead to a lot of medical conditions that burden hospitals and cost taxpayers money.
I may wish to be a pauper, but then I am not contributing to the economy by buying things, and the health of our economy is a moral imperative for the nation.
I may cringe at having a needle stuck in my body— and what is more personal than your own body?—but if I don’t get vaccinated, I put at risk the health of everyone else I come close to.
Quoting Leghorn
Quoting Leghorn
Well in all of these examples it is in relation to someone/something else, so you would have some sort of ethical position to not perform/perform these acts. However had nobody perceived these gestures, you would have no ethical standpoint to create morality because it would of became simply a question of preference.
I think it might be better to let @Banno answer this question though. He's the expert.
Quoting Leghorn
Just so: any behaviour that involves others invokes ethical consideration.
All of which leaves open the issue of how one is to make such considerations.
Well, I wear a mask routinely, for my protection and that of those I hold dear. SO here's another account on which I might happily receive @Merkwurdichliebe's ire.
What is that - Merkwurdichliebe - love of market value?
So how would you consider the obesity example? Ought one to avoid obesity in order not to corrupt his children’s health, damage his friends’ furniture or overburden taxpayers?
That is also in relation to others. All of your examples are.
Give me an example of how your behavior that is ostensibly with regard to your own self doesn’t affect other ppl.
Hey hey, look at who's learning :cool:
I wasn't taking a particular ethical stand, just pointing out that sensations are not a suitable basis for ethics.
But since you ask... there's virtue in self control. If overindulgence is the source of one's obesity then one might do well to seek moderation. Those who show self control will be more capable of looking after themselves and others. One might also consider what it would be like to live in a world in which everyone was obese. One might consider what obesity implies in a world in which folk go hungry. There - the three main ethical views in summation.
Take: Quoting Banno
Doesn't this imply that there is an ethical aspect to self-improvement, undermining my basic account? More broadly, the virtue ethics I sometimes espouse is about the improvement of oneself; so on my own account is it an ethical position?
That's were your questions led me.
Sorry: I’m rather slow. What are the three main ethical views?
Huh. I suppose it could be considered then, as an ethical position...
Man ethics is confusing.
Virtue Ethics: Quoting Banno
Deontology: Quoting Banno
Consequentialism: Quoting Banno
Well, I must admit that your categories are a bit perplexing, especially deontology: the study of the advantageous or needful (?). Also, it seems to me that this aspect of virtue ethics:
Quoting Banno
could as well have been subsumed under “consequentialism”.
All three have a place.
Well yes, exactly the point being made. Banno is saying there isnt any.
Wouldn’t a virtuous person follow moral rules and therefore do things that result in morally correct actions? Your trinity seems to me to really be a unity.
From a distance it might seem so; you need to get closer, examine the detail.
Deontology will claim that something like the golden rule has the prime place in all cases. Virtue ethics will say something like that what is under our control is ourselves, so it is best to position oneself so as to be able to make the better choice.
Subject to knowledge,
Universe is real but we didn't know it exists for a very long time.
Therefore saying that something is not real because it does not exists is potentially false instead of factually false.
I think Leghorn meant to talk about this from a more unbiased point of view; that is we don't necessarily
decide what is real or what exists, it simply is or is not.
No haven't gotten banned. It's not very difficult to navigate the intricacies of this forum. The key is to refrain from liking the smell of your own shit, because those who do inevitably find their heads far up their own asses. Once that happens, people get banned.
I remember the early days of the pandemic, when all the cowardly retards bought up all the toilet paper and water. Fucking idiots. And to clarify, I would only kick a dog if someone was watching. When I punt a pooch, I require somebody to witness the distance I get, especially if it's a small dog. However, when I verbally abuse hypothetical old women, I don’t mind doing so in privacy.
Also, you shouldn't confuse physical violence with verbal abuse because it leads to ethical dilemmas. They differ qualitatively as was proven in the classic line: "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
Sorry for that outburst there, you hit a nerve
Indeed, I do! Conducting animal cruelty in private would only be an ethical issue if the sole human in the scenario were to make a judgment concerning his own action...this is because animals lack the capacity for abstract thought that is required to make ethical judgments.
That noise can equate to an ethical judgment is a ridiculous notion, and I can't believe its coming from you, I expect better. A noise might coincide, or even correspond, to the ethical judgment of a moral agent, like when I say aloud: "wearing masks is evil". But it is never the case that a noise is actually an ethical judgment, especially when it is from a nonmoral agent incapable of ethical thought. Where does it end...the chirping of birds? The flushing of a toilet?
Humans are the only moral agents capable of ethical judgments. Morality exists primarily for the individual as ethical judgments about one's self, and secondarily as ethical judgments about other moral agents.
Really? that's all you have. :rofl: Typical reply from somebody with zero argument. You should just admit that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Finally, you admit...
I so happy :blush:
We? How many of you are there?
This is the paradox: When hiring, we look for talented people (mission critical personnel). When firing, we do so as if all that mattered not.
It squares with how people seem to be under the impression that life is unfair but death is.
How do you square that with the classic line, “The pen is mightier than the sword”? because written words are more potent than spoken ones? as in the classic line “Say it, forget it; write it, regret it”?
Still, I’d rather have sticks and stones thrown at me than be thrust through with a sword. After all, when Steven was stoned, the Bible says he fell asleep.
It seems to me that moral consideration only applies if we assume some ethical system based on moral agents and their characteristics and abilities as opposed to some abstract and/or external entity, such as the will of a god.
Therefore, if morality comes from something external to agents, then the question is meaningless because no agent deserves moral consideration. But if it comes from the humanity of people themselves, then every human being must be treated equally. But if you take a utilitarian or Kantian position, then there are additional criteria, so some humans -fetuses, people in permanent vegetative states, and possibly infants I think- would be excluded.
Hm. In my belief, we tend to express morality to those who are incapable of morality( e.g, animals, plants, ants). This seems to be a question of preference, but does call into question that they are in some part, deserving of moral consideration. This illustrates a sort of "god" "subject" relationship, or maybe something a little less extreme, a "ruler" "people" relationship. Therefore, should it not follow that something besides a moral agent could conduct or inform our morality? (e.g we are all the same based on the universe, or based on death, therefore everyone is equal)
No one considered, or does not appear, indispensable? In fact, after they fired you, they proceeded to recruit someone with the same qualifications and experience...That would denote a form of preciousness, in my opinion.
It seems to me it is possible. But the meaning of 'equal' changes. If you say that we are all equal because we all must conform to God's will, then we are all equal in duty. But that is not the definition of equality given earlier. Assuming that morality comes from outside agents, we can say that we have equal rights and responsibilities, based on whatever external source of morality you take. It's close to the previous definition, but not quite the same.
Additionally, moral consideration is actually useless in that case. If you have your own responsibilities and rights to some external source of morality, why care about other people at all ? Wouldn't it be more rational to look after your own moral worth only ? Perhaps if that source of morality requires you to care for others equally, then yes, you can still say we are equal.
I realized a job is kinda like a relationship. It takes a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears (hyperbole) to keep the flame of desire burning. One has to constantly reinvent oneself for your employer to pull out the golden handcuffs.
Well, if we are all equal in duty, or something else, I don't necessarily see how that would belittle an equality of moral consideration. For example, death is sure to come to all, so why treat others differently?
Quoting Hello Human
Not necessarily, because in that respect I could not differentiate myself from others, morally. I'd be treating everyone how I would treat myself.
Do we not constantly reinvent ourselves, day by day?
(I know that's a dumb retort, but still felt like asking it)
How are you handling your task of brushing the teeth of 7 billion people every morning and after each meal? Or, more literally to the word, if you buy a chocolate bar to treat yourself, each time you muster up enough dough to buy seven billion chocolate bars, one for everyone? :-)
Or, even more closely to the word: how do you treat yourself when you commit a moral failure? I don't know, but do you treat others the same way when they either commit the same moral failure, or when you perceive them to commit the same moral failure? :-)
What if they commit an act of moral failure that you never commit? :-)
(I know these are dumb questions but I still felt like asking them.)
Quoting god must be atheist
Well, assuming that everyone is treating another by how they would treat themselves, I would buy one chocolate bar, and then give someone else another. Then, by moral implication he would be forced to buy a chocolate bar, and give someone another, and then...poof! 7 billion people with one chocolate bar, minus one; someone has one extra.
So what does this someone do, with his/her extra chocolate bar? Well, like any sane man/woman, he eats them both. However! That does not follow the moral code, and is thus a moral failure.
How do we judge him?
Well, we think to ourselves, what if I had two chocolate bars, and was forced to eat both because everyone else had one, would I be liable to punishment? No! And thus, he is forgiven.
I don't see why you are distinguishing between spoken and written words when you initially were speaking of verbally abusing a hypothetical old woman.
That line is about pens and swords, not words. A pen is not properly classified as a weapon (like a sword), so nobody expects to be stabbed in the neck with one. That makes it mightier.
I sometimes fall asleep when I get stoned also.
But that is not how a pen is mighty, Merky, as you well know. It’s because swords can only destroy individual bodies, whereas writings can transform collective souls.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I suppose that is why I have forgiven you: your unparalleled humor.
Treating others the same in that case would be out of empathy, not out of their actual moral worth.
Empathy for our universal moral worth? I don't see how it would...Death isn't something to be empathized with, after all. At least, in some cases anyway.
Well I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I see your point.