Should you lie to bolster their confidence. Or would you simply be undermining them by being dishonest? And how do you know if your own judgement of fashion is better than theirs?
Which option makes you a more supportive friend? — Benj96

I'm gonna respond in practical sense. No need to use philosophy or psychology. And you know, I know myself -- I shoot my mouth and then hope for "good" consequence.

So, to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they're already dressed, I would just relegate it to "they've made up their mind, otherwise, they've asked me for choices before putting on the clothes. (I'm speaking in real life experience). They look happy with their choice. I'd say, "let's go, that works" in sincere honesty. I could say it without me wanting to wear the clothes myself. And that's support of them. Respecting their tastes and not always insisting yours.

Anyway, I have my own sense of clothing which probably wouldn't work for them. Shit, I wear fitted clothing :wink: which would not work with others.

On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner

Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive.

People who start a moral argument using "right" or "wrong" set the argument up so that it is intentionally contentious and designed to get a rouse out of you, without meaning to come to an understanding.

Well, the ancients were firsts in questioning the universe and objective reality.

Then came the 16th - 17th century with the god meditation and the self.

Then the beginning of the 19th century, existentialism and nothingness.

Then the twentieth century, analytics, epistemology/logic, you know, the clean philosophy who wouldn't touch dirt if their brain depended on it.

Is this a silly question? — TiredThinker

It's not.

It's just... boring.

The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation. — Jack Cummins

Early stage. Radioactive plutonium will disintegrate your insides while you're alive.

I am wondering how marginalised are such movements in the present time, although there were some demonstrations in response to the Ukrainian crisis, including one in Trafalgar Square in London. So, it does seem demoralising that in the twentieth first century a situation exists where mass weapons of destruction present a real threat. — Jack Cummins

Does it really? WMD is a psychological warfare. Mass protests are great. But they won't stop WMD stockpile. What you need to ask is, what can stop any nation with WMDs from using them? One nuclear blast cannot destroy a whole state, let alone an entire nation. So, if you attack the United States, be prepared to be destroyed from the inside out of your anatomy with the more powerful stateside ballistic missiles with accuracy at a blinding speed.

You have introduced sovereignty, rape, torture. These are naturally widely understood as unjust, but they needn't be appended solely to wars. — gloaming

It wasn't me who introduced these elements. It's I like sushi.

BTW, I spend 30 years as an officer practicing and studying war professionally. — gloaming

Then tell me an example of actual war that's just. What nation started a just war?

Sorry, didn’t realise this was some stupid word game. Bye — I like sushi

Goodbye. Word game is a catch all argument if one is not happy with the way the thread is going.

Let's say a theory predicts a reading of between 23 and 25 kilograms. A scientist records a measurement of 24 kilograms. All is well, right? But what goes into taking a measurement? Do we worry about the device's proper functioning? The eyes reading the needle, scooping up sense-date? Is the scientist delusional? Should he measure 20 times, 2000 times? The point is that worry/doubt must come to an end at some point. We must trust in a swampy informal layer of 'experience' or 'common sense' or 'ordinary language.' This recalls On Certainty. — jas0n

Right. There is a point at which doubting is absurd. Which then we know what "absurd" amount is. So, yes, common sense, sense-data, formal measurements, device all play a role. Calibration is a thing -- we're good at calibrating different devices so that we're not being fooled or delusional. Like I said, the bridges would have fallen by now if that's not the case.

I prefer to emphasize the limited applicability of the dichotomy. To eject it entirely is to eject Popper's conventional demarcation of science from non-science. IMO, familiar distinctions tend to be justified in familiar contexts and only become problematic when taken by philosophers as absolutes. — jas0n

Oh no. When I said there's no dichotomy, I really meant that the philosophers meant within the scientific knowledge. So, the dichotomy matters in context. We're not comparing apples and oranges -- scientific observation and the arts, for example.

We do know this. Do we explain knowing this in terms of sense-data? Or do we start with testimony? Can and should we formalize checking that the bridges haven't fallen? — jas0n

All of the above -- that's why I'm saying about no dichotomy exists.

Do we confer and co-articulate what we agree is an apt description of an otherwise private consciousness ? — jas0n

There is public observation (consciousness is a misnomer to use here as it pertains to individual consciousness -- the "collective consciousness" we hear from time to time mentioned in writings is a hip pop philosophy, nothing else. It doesn't mean a thing in philosophy).

So public observation has coherence and objectivity. The bridges would've had fallen a long time ago if it weren't the case. The thing that science philosophers often cry about is the dichotomy between "theory" and "observation", which the likes of Putnam (you can correct me on this, not sure) also have criticized for being mistaken as a dichotomy.

I said this in another thread -- objective reality means that reality (out there: là-bas) contains the components of the scientific theories we develop as a result of our observation. The theories themselves are our observations -- which coheres with reality.

A defender of sovereignty, or of any other principle, law, or custom, deemed universal or not by either side or by onlookers, enters a just war if they enter it at all. — gloaming

It's cause you think of wars you saw in movies. The brave underdog nation defending its territory. War is a political relationship. Let's read up on history as to the timeline of what led to a war.

Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war. — I like sushi

Yes. So it becomes just? There is only one war in your scenario. It isn't just when there's raping, torture, and killing. One enters an unjust war. And winning an unjust war could not make it just.

To me, even when diplomacy fails, every living human has the right to defend himself against harm, right or wrong. — gloaming

Of course. Any nation being oppressed has the right to defend its sovereignty. So, they enter an unjust war.

It too often leads to the tyranny of the masses where a minority, even just of one, must suffer for the benefit of a greater number. — gloaming

My thoughts exactly! :cool:

I have failed my master. :cool: — Agent Smith

I am your master.

I haven't been able to determine the sex of individuals on this forum based on their intellectual activities. — Agent Smith

I have a way of knowing it -- but I won't say it here because then forum members would know not to do it anymore. And no, it has nothing to do with intellectual activities.

So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

You can kiss the family goodbye. Free love denies attachment, commitment, and deep affection. "Free love" is an oxymoron -- no one can love you if the goal is to go around fuck one another with no restraint. Even swans stay with their partners for life! Oh and yeah, they're beautiful too.

What??

If those were people, we wouldn't videotape them and show in youtube for people's entertainment. Did you know that that's an inherited condition? What do you think would happen if we video an epileptic person having an episode and uploaded on youtube to get monetized?

Already before they were considered psychopathy was thought to "run in the family". Which it does. But not because of genes. — EugeneW

What does "run in the family" then but inherited genes? This is a question from me.

The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. ...
Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same. — Athena

This is the Lockean conception of natural law and divine law. And no, even Locke would not associate it with superstition. Superstition associated with religion is actually looked down upon, and now in our modern times, this is one way we denigrate religiosity, by calling it superstition.
Back to John Locke. I could find the below (I have his book, but not with me) from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society.
...
As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. In Locke’s theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in content, but they are not coextensive.

Now I need to find passages for the god-given rights to monarchy and power.

Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. — Banno

This has also been fashionable to say here in the forum. I wonder why? For those who disagree with other views, their counter is that the contributions here have been so poor in quality.

I won't go this low. Everyone, there are good and bad posts in any history of forum community. Do not believe the hype.

Global warming might force a return to traditional lifestyles for example. — Gregory A

I'm already practicing for the coming of GW.

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

Empty phrase that needs work.

I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?" — Alkis Piskas

How about the constructivist approach to ethics? In this system, we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions.

Note that we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium: we might not be the "happiest", but at least we don't trample on some individuals so that a greater number could be satisfied.

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the mojor number" is survival: the highest value, the greatest good in life. Any kind of morality must have this as purpose. — Alkis Piskas

And as I have already said, herein lies the problem. I feel like answering in nuggets:

The end justifies the means -- we all know the horror that have been brought to our societies.

The road to hell is paved with good intention -- this too.

Why? Dualism is a statement, oui? It is either true/false, ja? Disproving dualism is to show that it's false. — Agent Smith

:) You need to read up on how theories are presented. This is like going to a fight and bringing with you the wrong training.

While I am aware of religious notions that justified the monarchy and aristocracy, I don't know of it having a connection with laws of nature? — Athena

Their conception of the "laws of nature" is connected with the divine laws (god given rights).

What if a number of people have no chances to survive, e.g. in a fire, a tempestuous sea, etc., and nothing is done? Shouldn't a fireman, lifeguard etc. who have chances to survive try to save some if not all of them, at a risk of their own lives? — Alkis Piskas

Sacrificing your own life to save others is a totally different moral position. Why? Because you are giving consent to your own involvement, even it it means death. The runaway train example, as I've already mentioned numerous times, has the element of sacrificing someone who does not give their permission to be sacrificed. They also did not cause the problem. (you know where we're going with this -- someone who caused the problem must answer to it morally, they have the moral culpability to be involved, if it means punishment).

And yes, we often, if not always, forget this one important element in moral evaluation -- consent.

Should the citizens try only to escape or hide, doing nothing to defend their cities and deliver them to the Russians? What about the millions who cannot escape and stay there to receive the Russian gunfire and bombs? This is not what is happening, is it? A few able citizens take their gun to fight the Russians at their cost of their lives and in order to save their city and their compatriots. — Alkis Piskas

See above. If the citizens would like to participate in the combat, and not follow the international protocol for civilians affected by the war, then they are contributing to the detriment of war. I'm speaking in general, not just the Russia-Ukraine war. We have in place international laws on how civilians should be treated and how civilians behave when their country is at war. If some citizens decide on their own volition to sacrifice their lives and help the army/military and police, morally speaking they are acting on their own consent.

Maybe what you've been meaning to say is "refute" or "challenge" the dualist view.

So, you mean to say no one, no philosopher, has even attempted to prove dualism? — Agent Smith

The word "disprove" is incorrect to use here. Like I said, no one in dualism community had presented a proof. If you don't know the techniques on how they present their philosophical system, then say so and, perhaps, I can explain further. The rest of your post above is a repetition of "disprove".

Thanks for that insightful post.
I wanted to object to some of the points made, but I couldn't. It rings so true.

A question: How would we be able to disprove dualism? — Agent Smith

Disprove? Is there proof for dualism? You don't disprove something that never itself presented proof for its existence. I don't think any of the dual philosophers had presented proof. You either reject it or accept it.

What about the necessity for coherence? Any philosophical theory must necessarily jibe with/square with other existing theories, including scientific ones like the 1st law of thermodynamics, ja? If not, anyone could think up any theory, no matter how discordant it is with the current framework of knowledge. — Agent Smith

Yes, of course, coherence is implied in a philosophical system a philosopher builds. Why don't you read Aristotle's substance and form so you could pick up the coherence there too? The parts of the explanation (the theoretical explanation) must logically connect to make a up a whole system of philosophical view -- that's coherence.

Could you explain a bit more about intelligibility? Thanks in advance. — Agent Smith

I just explained to you in my previous post. If a substance is accessible to you, it means you can understand it objectively -- epistemically it makes sense. In Descarte's cogito, he explained the self as intelligible, and through deliberation, one could understand the mind.

Well I'd think science has a big role in the proof/disproof of dualism, it being the apogee of materialism, no? :chin: — Agent Smith

Not in the sense that one is creating a philosophical theory that can't be satisfied with science alone. Remember that a philosophical theory is trying to show reality in a difference sense, not the common sensical, scientific sense.

One question: why use comprehensibility as a yardstick? It doesn't make sense to me. It's as if I were to say calculus is incomprehensible to me (it is) and so, calculus is nonsense! :chin: — Agent Smith

Because if you look at any explanation of dualism -- cartesian, aristotelian, platonian, etc. they have to argue for the intelligibility of the substance they just now introduced. How did they (the philosophers themselves) know that there is such as thing as substantial form? Is it accessible by thinkers other than philosophers? Is it accessible by the scientific community? Is it accessible by the common sense? If it is accessible, then it is intelligible. And vice versa.

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain? — Athena

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power.

To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. — Agent Smith

Your conflating science with philosophical theory. Aristotle's hylomorphs are an example of dualism -- matter and form. The theory accounted for the form to be already in the universe, and not an extra entity. Your total energy objection doesn't apply here and does not invalidate, per se, the theory of dualism.

If you reject dualism, don't use total energy or something like that, but use (1) intelligibility -- is it necessary that we account for another substance like form and how is it to be understood as a compound of existence. Or (2) there is no dualism -- one composition, i.e. materialism could account for the mental processes.

Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. — Cobra

Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022?

What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality? — Alkis Piskas

Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. Ethics and morality are more complex than what the greatest good theory presents. For one thing, whatever it is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people is essentially a consequentialist attitude. So long as we're achieving the end goal of greatest number of people, it's okay to make some people morally dissatisfied. I gave the example of the runaway train to express my objection to this kind of thinking: saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual is morally reprehensible.

We're not locked in to any one moral systems. Adjustments and deliberations should always be included in our moral decisions.

you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind? — Alkis Piskas

I won't object to your calling it rational thinking -- but I also reserve the right to call other moral systems rational. So where does that leave utilitarianism? They're all can be rational thinking.

Whenever you have only one measure to evaluate how moral your system is -- and that measure is the "greatest number of people" --it suppresses other reasoning that doesn't satisfy this one requirement. That's why I call it stunted moral reasoning.

:up: I hope your brother is living a healthy life now. That's great!

This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good to the major number". — Alkis Piskas

Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. The trolley (runaway train) problem is one. I refuse to sacrifice anyone just so a few could live. That's not moral reasoning. And no, ethics is not defined as that. It's Bentham's theory.

Isn't it clear that five deaths are worse than one death? It has nothing to do with weighing one person's life against other's. — T Clark

In this case it does. The cause of the situation is the scarcity of the drug. I wouldn't save a criminal's life. I'd give it to who is more deserving.

In fact, aren't we doing it now? Those who receive a transplant must pass the "good candidate" test for receiving the organ. Meaning, the person must be suited for the transplant.