Mm. It doesn't seem very productive, this solipsism thing...

We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil. — T Clark

Oh true. In that regard, I'd agree with you.

Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical??? — Alkis Piskas

Well, I don't know! That's what we're trying to figure out. So far I think the general consensus is that violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases.

Sort of, except unlike the matrix where there are other minds but in virtual bodies solipsism says one cannot know about the existence of other minds. — TerraHalcyon

Oh, then couldn't you say absence of proof isn't proof of absence or something like that?
Like just because I can't see a tiger in the Sahara desert doesn't mean a tiger isn't in the Sahara desert.

Edit: I don't know if tigers actually live in the Sahara desert...but you get my point.

Would mediocrity be considered evil then?

I do appreciate you starting this. — T Clark

:up:

There's a saying - The excellent is the enemy of the good. My way of saying that is - Good is good enough. Sometimes, when I'm frustrated or lazy, I might say - Good enough is good enough.

So much in the world is not particularly good, it's mediocre. Aiming for good is an appropriate and honorable goal. — T Clark

Huh. I see what you're saying, although is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'?

If that's really true, and not just a rhetorical feint, there's not much else I can say. — T Clark

Dang. Am I missing something? I've always thought that mediocrity relies on an average, or a moderated effort.

Oh, neat.

I don't know, those look pretty similar to me.

It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao. — T Clark

Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"?

Acting in moderation is not mediocrity. — T Clark

Hm. What's the difference then?

How does one justify this claim? We could just as well say that the average populous is compelled into extreme acts from the standpoint of our hunter-gatherer ancestors (the average lifestyle for 100,000 plus years of human development) . Driving around in a private car isn't an extreme act relative to global mean?

We're causing global warming/CC and yet we're lacking in extremity in all ways?
7 minutes ago — Nils Loc

Well I would agree with you that the notion of "average" is relative. That, and sometimes we do act in an extreme manner (I wish I could edit the OP) . However in the effect that the average person does not lack extremity, it only contributes to his average-ness.

Yes, 99.999% of what we do is plagiarism! — EnPassant

Well I wouldn't go thaat far, but...who knows. Maybe.

I don't think I'm fully understanding this point. Are you suggesting some philosophy takes place as a kind of instinctual activity? — Xtrix

No, although that is an interesting point. My point was that generally our thoughts aren't ours in a philosophical debate, which may or may not lead to an absence of "thought". The chess analogy was to demonstrate that the master is good because he's practiced recognizing specific solutions to a variety of situations, not necessarily because he's good at "chess".

Although there's a little bit of influence in everyone, so my observation only really has merit in moderation.
.

It's already happening. Mediocrity as the highest goal, the highest perfection.

The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one. — baker

I agree with you on that, but is it, for lack of a better word, right?

Or maybe, if this is true, what reasons would we have to strive for excellence? Is there a defense for excellence?

It's an adopted child. — Agent Smith

Haha. well then, Goodish it is.

He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. — Raymond

Huh. So he's like Neo in the Matrix, if I understand correctly?

I find solipsism contradictory on the fact that their sense of self was literally created by someone else. I don't know anyone who gave birth to themselves.

Well according to this dude solipsism is true and we are solipsists in superposition. I don't know how right his argument is. — TerraHalcyon

just tell him to go on a rollercoaster. I think he'll find that rollercoasters are in fact, quite real.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). — Agent Smith

I concur with your sentiment, but ethical violence is more often than not a "product" or a will to do good. How then can one separate a child from its parent?

:wink:

Treating others the same in that case would be out of empathy, not out of their actual moral worth. — Hello Human

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.

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2). — Agent Smith

By goodish, would you mean that "good" performs on a spectrum? As in, something could be more good or less good.

Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. — Book273

And what of Bob's family? What of Bob's son? Could he not have benefited from a rectified father figure?

Violence is a saviour to all; except the moral system, where in its dismay now regards death as not only a veritable solution to a problem, but a good one. Oh, woe is me. It is in my belief that justice stands to rectify, not to "dish out". Imagine this equally ridiculous situation:

Mike, in his anger and fear for his family, raises his deadly fist. However, he stops. He sees a despair in Bob's eye, a deep trauma that control's his behaviour. Mike, in his empathetic understanding, disolocates Bob from his family and offers him a beer. There they talk, and after a bit Bob walks off, a new man.

I'm not saying everyone can change. I think that is pretty impossible. But when we discuss a moral system, or a moral categorization, one should strive for the best possible solution. And that is, Bob now teaches bobby that yeah he once was a tough dude, but hitting people is overrated.

My position is that under specific circumstances, violence, no matter the required level, is ethical. — Book273

That I am more inclined to agree with. There could be a situation, hypothetically speaking, where killing is needed. I don't deny that.

I'm going to keep on dropping dramatic two-liners till you get the point.

Death is not a minimization of suffering. Hence, the pursuit of death in violence is wrong.

I respect your decision on the account that you do this to protect your family. I'm telling you right now though, that you are wrong. Death is not fun.

Medical assisted suicide and actively inciting "efficacy" against your opponent is not the same. I think you know that.

As long as both are consenting, that would be a good time. — Book273

:yikes:

Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. — Book273

Death is suffering, for everyone else involved. Don't joke about that please.

Well if you say so...

However, if rollercoasters are immune to the status of illusory entities, then I say we have a problem, because I don't know how one can ride one, if there's no time involved. — Manuel

You raise a good point. However, it is equally difficult to imagine rollercoasters as illusive. I mean, have you ever been on one of those things!?!

I get that, but the term does have overtly physical connotations. I thought that disengaging the term "violence" from the whole idea of ethical violence might be meaningful. After all, people can do a whole lot of horrendous damage to other people without ever lifting a finger against them. Disenfranchising a person or a group, for example. Maybe "trespassing" is a suitable match for the concept? In which case the question becomes, is it ever ethical to trespass against others? — Pantagruel

I think that might help resolve transgressions in a more general sense, but violence is peculiar in a sense that it's...courageous? Brave? not the best words, but the personal/physical aspect of violence is a neat complication, one that other forms of moral trespass lack, In my opinion.

Hey, don't kill the messenger.

But if I had to respond...I'd say rollercoasters.

Thanks for a little background story. — Caldwell

:up:

I suppose we could speculate on the whole "time before the Big Bang" topic, if that even makes sense. But that aside, I don't understand what unreal time means. — Manuel

Time is an illusion, or an imaginative aspect, not real, per say.

also if you ever go to Dijon, you could go visit this place. It has a little memorial that says Cyrano de Bergerac was filmed there I think.

Little a bit of context: it's a scene from Cyrano de Bergerac with Gerard Depardieu, filmed in Dijon (well not the entire film just this scene was), where I was born. :cool: Cyrano de Bergerac is a traditional french play, really well known for its consistent use of rhyme and wit. Gerard Depardieu, is like, the best actor ever. It's basically two giants meeting up, creating a masterpiece and it happened here, in front of this tiny restaurant. If you have a decent literacy in french, I highly suggest you watch it. The word play is impeccable.

oh snap it worked.