Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here? — Matt E

:sweat:

Welcome to the forum, Matt.

What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96

The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really?
Early humans didn't eat meat. They were insectivores, or practiced entomophagy, besides being herbivores.

Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being. Hunting animals stirs excitement in people. This could be an outlet for serial killing, but not using people. The adrenaline is the same. The highs are the same. Now of course, the added advantage is that hunters can pose with the carcass and post the picture in social media for others to admire. They get a lot of views. Short penises get a boost by the number of clicks.

Let's cut the bullshit and call it for what it is.

Is this irrational of me? Or is this a rational confrontation of what is? Is the collective turning our heads away the true irrationality, the enabler of this crisis? — hypericin

I would say abnormal. You're not supposed to feel that way when it comes to thinking about what lies ahead, even though you could be pretty much correct. The reason is because we have an internal mechanism -- stages, if you will -- which protects us from existential anxiety. Apparently, it's in the brain, this protector.

Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. — javi2541997

At the risk of eschewing other things involved in this consideration, I'd say that in some ways, animals do have a sense of time passage. Just observe the animals in the wild. The pups would wait for the mother to come back, but once it's taken too long and no mom in sight, they would wander off, against the instruction. Same with the mother -- looking for a lost pup and when to give up relies on time. It isn't that the mother didn't find the pup, it is that time tells the mother to give up.

But yes, I see his point. Animals do not think of aging and when end is near. Or do they? There was a video of a mother cat who was seriously bitten by a dog. Sensing the end is near, the cat prepared the hiding spot for the kittens, and collected them in that hiding spot. Then she waited nearby to die.

Without transitoriness, without beginning or end, birth or death, there is no time, either. Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

So says the man who came from being born into this world and has only limited time. If humans are immortal, which is what it's about, we wouldn't know what "beginning" is. We're just are here. Thoughts of such nature wouldn't register in our immortal minds. He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of.

Why? Larry seems like a good one to pick, no? Assholes that make great X output still make great X output.. Isn't X output that is useful to society important? — schopenhauer1

lol.

That's really simplistic, and I'm not asking you to bring in those theories, but that's just an example of how to build an argument around one or the other. — schopenhauer1

I will not pick any of them.

That's because you think you can control Larry or expect anything he can throw at you. I'm sure Larry would choose you too. — Outlander

What's your point?

I think the question should be rephrased:

If we're in apocalypse, which would you choose to be with -- Larry or Bob? I think the answer is obvious.

Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him [Schopenhauer], this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. — schopenhauer1

At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.

Example? Schopenhauer himself. He was making an observation as a rational individual, using the archimedian point, while denying the will. Is this an oversight on his part?

That he was able to make a declaration, such as the reality of suffering, is a testament to his own will.

Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. — schopenhauer1

Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view.

Double post.

However, it isn't a particular war that a pessimist would care about but the seemingly pervasive aspect of conflict and war in human society, governments, and history. It seems like a feature or an irradicable bug. — schopenhauer1

I wrote a previous thread about technology, for example. In that one, I described the pervasive and inescapable nature of the fact that not all humans can truly participate in creating the technology that sustains them. — schopenhauer1

I wrote in another thread about the inability to move to another form of living. This is a pervasive and inescapable feature of being born. We cannot really change the set of choices and harms presented to us. — schopenhauer1

I now know what you really are. You're not a pessimist. You are a cynic. Know the difference. I think you have disdain, not despair, of things humans. Which give me hope -- pessimists annoy me. But cynics bring to life a different flavor of humanity. They're a funny lot, but truthful. Which is what's important. They tell it like it is.

How so? What's an example? — Noble Dust

The harpsichord.

First of all, I think @Dawnstorm has articulated it very well. I couldn't add to what he posted -- well written.

Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal? — Noble Dust

They come together -- function and form. But function is felt, not heard. This is how I listen to music. Of course, when all you could hear is the shredding of the guitar, drowning out all the other sounds onstage, that distorts the harmonic quality of the whole act and then you start thinking art has deteriorated. Well yes, in that regard and at that moment.

Ouais.

How come there are no documented cases of insanity in wild animals? Also, there are no animal philosophers. — Agent Smith

And there are no animal psychiatrists. Diagnosing a mental illness in humans requires the human mind of a trained individual.

Remember that when a trained animal in a circus all of sudden becomes a killer, no one says it's gone insane. What do we always say? It's unpredictable. Animals are unpredictable and become aggressive from time to time.

Greed is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's really not that hard.

By confusing ‘immoral’ intent with a different interpretive understanding of the world, we justify our condemnation , punishment and even violence against them, but we never succeed in understanding how differently their world looked to them than to us. — Joshs

Mon dieu!
We are not confused here. The attribute of greed can be very much understood by the smallest to the biggest individual. I'm leaving out the small-time greedy -- unfair cutting of cake so that one gets a bigger piece than the other. That's boring. I'm talking about those in power, whether in an organization or the whole country.

The fact that someone gets rich does not inhibit the poor guy from getting rich. Where it often can go wrong is that the rich guy makes the poor guy depend on him for certain goods, services or needs. — Deus

An example of that is monopoly, which is still very much alive today but hidden behind, for example, exclusive contracts and technological "obsolescence".

Some have extolled the message that greed is good. — Joshs

You're watching too much movies.

You have to understand that greedy individuals do not try to hide the fact. Arrogance comes with greed. Love of power and wealth with no cap is displayed amongst them. It is understood. But for good PR, of course, they're going to say they're building communities and wealth for everybody.

Unless of course labels like ‘greed’ are our attempts to blame others for our failure to understand situations that seem justified from the ‘greedy’ one’s vantage. — Joshs

And an example of this is...what?

Is this unequivocal balance of good and bad an inherent human trait or is something that can be tackled towards higher human ideals? — Deus

If we could neutralize greed, then we can start looking towards higher human ideals. Until then, it's a fight to the bitter end.

Yes, I agree. The mistake is to assume the universe was created to raise human emotions. — jgill

lol. Where did this come from? Are you just thinking out loud to yourself? Who in this thread is talking about human emotions?

Thank you for mentioning the economic cost of all these hours spent on cell phones and social media. I guess small employers and gov jobs are the most affected.

It would be interesting to see any studies which give a picture of the economic cost & economic gains of the social media. We hear mostly about the jobs & opportunities created by the social media and Silicon Valley companies. But I think you are right to emphasize the cost of these activities. — Eros1982

Yes, the most affected are small employers and government employers. I've worked in different firms and I've seen how productivity had gone down, but somehow, more employees are needed to work on scaled down quantity of work. I've seen a workplace where flexibility is allowed, but often this flexibility is abused and doesn't help the employees fall in love with their jobs.

*sigh* I give up on this thread. It seems that the misunderstanding is rampant here. :roll:

@noAxioms, when you say this.....

But I’m not talking about a model, which is an epistemological tool. I’m talking about mathematics itself, that our universe (and others) is, at the most fundamental level, a mathematical structure. — noAxioms

you are, in fact, exhibiting Hawking's MDR. That's what it means by model-dependent: you have in mind a universe that has a mathematical structure. And the question you should be asking yourself is -- how do I know this? How did I come to think this way? MDR posits that it is inescapable. We, by default, think in terms of a model.

But what else is meant by the "breathes fire", "makes a universe", "should be a universe", and "bother of existing"?
If my interpretation of those words is a bit overzealous, then what did Hawking actually mean by them?What for instance, other than the ontological property itself, would distinguish two sets of rules and equations, one which exists, has fire breathed into it, and the other doesn't exist, no fire, etc. Suppose they're even the same empirical thing. — noAxioms

That mathematical models of the universe is just that -- no actual "reality" was harmed in the making of a model. No fire of life can be felt within a mathematical model. We cannot answer the normative questions such as "why is there a universe?"

MDR (model-dependent realism) is what Hawking is known for. Which makes him a hypocrite by saying philosophy is dead. (This is actually annoying to hear from a well-respected physicist). It tells me he did not understand Philosophy -- it becomes cumbersome to read through passages of philosophical concepts when you have a photographic memory of mathematical equations).

You can test this yourself by just using algebra or calculus, for example. The brain would have a hard time switching with ease between mathematical equation and an exposition of philosophical theory. The brain becomes impatient. You start to doubt whether philosophy is keeping pace with the developments happening in the "universe" -- developments which could be written in a neat bundle of axioms and theorems. ("mechanical" should be the monster we're after here). The slow, meticulous philosophical inquiry and scrutiny of concepts about our claims regarding reality doesn't look like a knight in shining armour. It is the sage, whose secrets are given to those who wait -- and if the wait is forever, so be it.

Little wonder that some of the best writers of philosophy are mathematicians who turned against the mechanical mind of a math purist. They wrote of the power of the lowly, much maligned empirical observations. They went to see the sage. Of course, they're heroes to me because admitting this would be tantamount to a child yelling "the emperor has no clothes!"

So, back to the basics -- because this is as close as we could get to the claim that we've touched "reality" out there.

Do not try. Just tell me and explain or leave.

I am not here to waste my time or yours so spit it out before I lose patience … then address the OP more directly perhaps rather tell me what I think? — I like sushi

I did already tell you. But you seemed to have not grasped what I'm saying.

So, please refer to Agent Smith and Banno's explanation of care ethics.

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

No. The marketing industry would insert adverts in every few lines. Next thing, you'll be reading extra virgin olive oil, yogurt, fromage, and travel guides in the passages.

I know this is probably going to sound disingenuous, but when people talk about social media are they referring just to Facebook, twitter, TikTok, and Instagram? — Tom Storm

Yes.

I've read a few tweets and seen Facebook and Insta used by friends and colleagues, but I struggle to imagine the point of these things. — Tom Storm

You and me both.

Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught? — I like sushi

Okay that's correct -- murder is not the first reaction.

Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP? — I like sushi

I'm trying to tell you that what you think is ethics, it's really not. When you use the family relationships as a measure of your ethical decision, you're no longer talking about ethics, but something else.

All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome. — I like sushi

All ethical systems are ethics. But not all decisions are ethical or ethics. One could decide based on height who to deprive of benefits, this is not ethics.

If we do this, I believe we set societies free from the patronage of politicians and big tech bosses, whereas we make everyone feel responsible for the hours they or their kids spend every single day on internet and the social media. — Eros1982

Yes, it's horrible how for hours on end they're mindlessly on social media. And it's not just children. Even adults who should know better are addicted to them. Employers are now paying for the hours the employees spend not being productive -- some have even resorted to hiring more because employees are good at masking the amount of work, how little work, there is.

And I should qualify my post above by mentioning another ethical dilemma about the man whose wife is dying of cancer but there's a cure, which unfortunately is in the possession of a doctor who would sell it to him for whatever sum of money the doctor wants, or else he won't get the drug. Does he murder the doctor since he can't afford the drug, and that's the only drug available?

Please let me remind you that this is not an example of a zero sum game. The doctor's situation and the man's wife situation are not on par. They're just not disadvantaged on the same level.

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. — I like sushi

And I'm still stuck here until I articulated enough that this kind of thinking is what we do when we discard ethics and start playing the zero-sum game. Ethics is not zero sum.

The trolley problem is meant to remove your personal interest out of the equation and lets you decide for yourself what to do -- you're not supposed to be personally invested in those people.

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. — I like sushi

First off, I think you misunderstood what care ethics is.

You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too? — 180 Proof

:up:

That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives. — I like sushi

That's fair.

To me, whatever action one takes, there's always an imperfect consequence. But it's not necessarily "wrong". No wrong answer.

Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it.

My point here is — I like sushi

What's your point? How would you respond to the trolley problem yourself?
Or have you thought about how you feel about the trolley problem and you find that you're not decided either?

First of all, the universe is treated like an object, which seems a complete category error. Objects are finite physical arrangements of matter (systems). They exist in (are contained by) time. They are all created (caused) by the rearrangement of pre-existing matter/energy into a different form. Their boundaries are apparently human designations, a product of our language. — noAxioms

Secondly, Hawking begs a very strong bias that the universe (category error aside) has in fact gone to the bother of existing. He should first have asked "Does the universe go to all the bother of existing?". — noAxioms

Sorry, I still don't get your objections to the quote from Hawking. And I mean by this, that you sound overzealous in laying down your reasons. As good as they are, they overextend what Hawking was saying. If I try to stretch the Hawking quote, I would say that Hawking had stripped what he was saying of all that assumptions such as universe being treated as objects. Hawking did not give any opening to warrant this sort of objections to his statement.

So, bottom line, you make a good point, but misplaced.

Are you aware of any decent books describing their ethics? — Benkei

Wrong question. Ethics is the examination of principles that govern the moral behavior of an individual. There's no individuality in tribal relations.