Ok, thanks for the extra detail, it made your position clearer to me.
I think we have a lot of commonality in this particular area of discussion.

I think I have a long way to go before I can be compared to you, when it comes to insulting those who you don't agree with. Please keep trying to build your evidence. I will let the other members of the forum judge between us.

because it seems highly unlikely that Greta would warn Trump about losing the election. — praxis

Now that's a good comment and I thank you for it. That tells me that the allegorical intention of my painting is perhaps too vague. Let me give you my main intentions:
The painting is about climate change and Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement etc. It has nothing to do with his failure to get re-elected.
This is mother nature taking vengeance on Trump but I hoped to represent human protesters as well.
I included Greta as she was one of the loudest voices from youth, on the topic of climate change.
The child on the panther again represents the youth that Trump ignores. Those who will inherit our stewardship of the Earth.
I included the American Eagle, a very important American symbol to represent the people of the USA who hate Trump and all he stood for, about o take their revenge.
I include a black panther, partly as a homage to that USA-based organisation that started off with sound intentions but who ended up destroyed by their own corrupt leadership. I also included it to represent angry black people in America. That's why his very angry face is slightly turned towards the viewer as there are many more issues black people in America are angry about.
I chose the white tiger to similarly represent white people angry against trump but the tiger also has black stripes to indicate/encourage black/white unity.
I included the brown lion with yellow shades to include those people. He even has a red middle 'victory' or V-shaped section in the top of his maine to represent angry native/indigenous Americans.
The animals and the threatening flora also represent mother nature herself.
and Trump looks scared! very very scared, as he should be!
I chose the words Natural Responder and an image of the Earth on the 'forrest imp' like uniform of the figure on the panther to indicate a youthful celebrant (as she punches the air) of what is about to happen to trump. I wanted to suggest this was a natural response to all BIG STRONG POWERFUL creatures like Trump who think the youth or the people don't have the power to utterly destroy them.

I do thank you, for the chance to explain my painting a little more and perhaps for the idea that I have to be less cryptic in my compositions.

I'm somewhat underwhelmed by your generous respect for my right to be wrong. "Don't keep fighting the good fight!" he says, inciting the end to violence — unenlightened

I am not trying to under/overwhelm you. I am simply discussing points with you. The fact that I think you are wrong and have a bizarre relationship with your own brain, is my opinion. It's not an opinion you share, I would be surprised if you did, as if you agreed with me on the point discussed, our opinions would coalesce. The fact that I agreed with your initial commentary does not mean I agree with the thinking process you used to arrive at it.

I wonder how we have traveled from agreement to conflict — unenlightened

Now who is choosing to use the word 'conflict'(like a boxing match perhaps?).
I would prefer to label it good-natured dialogue, unless my 'bizarre' label has upset you too much.

I'm not Thanos! — Agent Smith

Ok! good to know.

Suffering is a real problem! — Agent Smith

I know!

I just met someone from work who complained "I don't know where to start! — Agent Smith

I would need more context before I could respond to this

Coming to overpopulation, I simply echoed the views of others. They seem to make sense as far as I can tell — Agent Smith

I concur

I remember a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on how a tabletop (2D) quickly runs out of space, but that once you start stacking items into 3D, we can fit more stuff (area becomes volume). Birth and death at different times (4th dimension) is the same principle in action. We pack more people in the same 3D space by using the 4th dimension. In other words, the overpopulation crisis can be solved by timing births (deaths can't be controlled for to do so might require us to legalize murder of the elderly aka senicide) — Agent Smith

I don't think our overpopulation problem needs a 4th dimensional 'pack em, stack em, rack em, and remove the old ones' approach. I think we need better 3D global politics and equitable distribution of resources.
You seem to be attracted to 'flowery rhetoric' which has, in my opinion. little practical value.
I am not convinced you are an antinatalist. It seems to me that like the rest of us, you are just concerned about global human affairs and our current way of doing things. You don't actually advocate for the end of all life in the Universe due to the existence of suffering. Am I correct?

Based on a time frame of approximately 14 billion years, the Universal state you advocate existed for the vast majority of that time frame. Then at some relatively recent point, life stated to form in the Universe.
There must have been a moment after that when the concept of 'suffering' started.
Was this moment, for you, the beginning of evil?
Can your 'reason' suggest any other need for the invention of suffering?
Does your reason offer you anything on 'what the purpose of the Universe was' before life formed?

Sorry, missed out a word.

So you would agree that some suffering is needed as a comparator, a learning tool.
we will always NEED some bad around so that we can still recognise what good is,
Do you agree?

Until then, don't birth children — Agent Smith

So, you are not advocating that the end of all life in the Universe is a moral imperative due to the existence of suffering. You merely suggest that the Earth is over-populated and due to the fact that resources are not equitably distributed we need to stop producing children that we cant nurture adequately.

Zero suffering would be the ideal we should be aiming for. I don't know if life is even possible after the abolishment of suffering (the trasnhumanist holy grail). If it isn't then that bolsters antinatalism — Agent Smith

So you would agree that some suffering is needed as a comparator, a learning tool.
we will always some bad around so that we can still recognise what good is,
Do you agree?

Antinatalists or those whose main complaint about the experience of life as a human being is suffering or
intensity of suffering. Are you able to conceive of a human existence that you would be content with?
A life experience within which you would no longer be antinatalist.
If there were no more suffering. A paradise on Earth, would you then no longer be antinatalist?
Can you describe your ideal living conditions for the antinatalist?

My advice to you is to inquire into the significance of this piece of meat you obsess about. Notice that it doesn't have as much control as it thinks over basic functions like the circulation of blood, including heart-rate, the digestive system, body temperature, reproductive system, - all the important stuff is controlled elsewhere, leaving the brain to play fingers on keyboards and make funny noises at other brains — unenlightened

Well, as I have often said, I might disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it, as long as you are not inciting violence.

Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. There is also a depiction of what looks like an explosion. I hope that's just misinterpretation on my part and this is an Alpha point (or the end of human inequality), a beginning celebrated by a firework going off.

Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well! — Agent Smith

It's very easy to snap a single twig. Join enough twigs together and they become a lot harder to break.

The term 'pure evil' is at best paradoxical, and liable to lead to contradiction. "How can evil be anything but impure?" — unenlightened

Pure can be defined as 'not mixed with anything else, not diluted, not questioned' which fits with my intention for using the term 'pure evil.' My advice to you would be to concentrate on thinking about why you have difficulty recognising the existence of your own brain.

No. The body proportions clearly show that the man with the “I warned you Trump” t-shirt is an adult.

There is no shame in putting yourself in a composition. It is to be admired, actually, because it demonstrates the courage to truly own the message that is being expressed. An after-the-fact warning is alway 20/20, as the old saying goes, because there is no possibility of making a false prediction. You give yourself all the credit and take no risk whatsoever. It is truly courageous to blatantly demonstrate, and to personally own, such shameless positioning. — praxis

Yeah, in your head, it obviously makes sense to tell an artist who they painted in a composition. The man you mention is actually my representation of Greta Thunberg, but it can be whoever you like in your head. I do see myself represented in the painting, probably the lion or panther or tiger or eagle or rising flora. Take your pick, as long as it indicates a nasty but 'just' end to Trump.

Again we are not of one mind here. I say 'single-minded', and you hear 'bully' or 'tyrant'. — unenlightened

No, I don't only hear bully or tyrant, I merely flag possible consequences of individuals who are too 'single-minded' and do not engage in any psychological conflict. I don't have a strong enough example of what I would consider 'pure evil.' The best offering I could make would be the theist description of satan but as an atheist, I don't like to employ anything invented in the theistic mind. But I could employ terms like single-minded and no psychological conflict when describing pure evil. I could also of course use such terms to describe someone who is determined to defeat or combat pure evil
.

It is the lack of insight that leads to the loss of empathy — unenlightened

Raw hatred has no empathy with its target but it does not necessarily lack insight.
I hate fascism but I do not lack insight into its doctrine.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Ether one of them always existed, or it spontaneously came into existence. There are no other options. What do you think happened? — pfirefry

A chicken has a very large evolutionary lineage, just as humans do. So not being a geneticist, I assume the first creature to look most like today's chicken came from an egg containing some small mutation that its parents did not have. So the chicken egg came first.

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview. — Photios

I don't find theists sad, they are just scared and they need a superhero who cares about them to comfort them when it gets dark. They don't question the existence of god because they need it to exist.

More than 3 dimensions exist in mathematics. Extra spacial dimensions could cause our 3D Universe, the multiverse, Mtheory (branes), The oscillating Universe, earlier Universes as past epochs of time, there are many possibilities that take us way past a cause that produced the beginning of our Universe as a 'singularity.' The Kalam cosmological argument and William Lane Craig serve no other purpose than attempting to make grown-ups believe in fables.

the artist views himself as half the man that Trump is. — praxis

Thank you for this demonstration of your skill levels in logic and observation :smirk:

No, I am not in the painting, The other two human characters are children so yeah, they would be smaller than Trump.

I'm a good-for-nothing, but if you want my opinion,it's this: Take care of yourself; put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to help others. If everybody had the good sense to do that, the world wouldn't need heroes or a Christ savior. It's that simple, the solution that is, but no, some of us just don't do enough to stay away from trouble - we make mistake after mistake until we end up on the streets, homeless, penniless, hopeless, helpless, etc — Agent Smith

So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue.

We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational — Joshs

So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics. — Joshs

I read with interest your exchanges with Garrett Travers.
I am trying to focus past the philosophical historicity you are both discussing and attempt to arrive at the more practical, everyday consequences of your deliberations.

To create a fairer system for all, what structural, societal changes would you suggest?
Let me suggest one.
Every democratic system must have powerful checks and balances so that the 'sovereign will' of any individual does not become a justification for abuse of any powers wielded by that individual.
So, as well as elected representatives in a hierarchy of power, we must also have an elected 'counci//senate/forum of the people.' Such a group can call for a plebiscite from any group of stakeholders regarding the status of any politician in government or the term of that government before a new election is required. The term can never be increased, but it can be reduced or terminated. No such horrors as a lifetime presidency would be allowed, ever!
This group could stop a law from being passed by the sitting government if they obtain the necessary sanction from the people.
This group could remove anyone from their position, again if they obtain the sanction of the particular stakeholders involved (probably those people who elected the individual in the first place.)
This group can consult any relevant mass of population they choose, at any time on any issue.
Is such a group viable? desirable? Would they be effective scrutineers of government actions?

It is the ending of psychological conflict that is required; when one is single-minded, there is no conflict, and things become fairly straightforward. — unenlightened

If a person becomes too 'single-minded' and they have very little or no 'psychological conflict' then they can lose all empathy/compassion for others. The state of mind you describe can be very good in many situations and very dangerous and damaging in others. I rely on my psychological conflict as a monitor of any musings I am having about actions I may/may not perform.

Fair enough! :up:

I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals — Gnomon

My belief that the vast majority of human beings are good people is deeply held.
I will never become apathetic.
The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar.

I don't much like brainspeak. I have never seen or felt my brain and I am not convinced I have one. Nor do i believe that you or anyone else is more experienced wrt their own brain. — unenlightened

All I can respond with is 'what a bizarre viewpoint!'

Alas, you have not understood me; it is so simple, that almost no one does. No one has defeated anyone or anything, and no task has been performed. There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do. — unenlightened

Ok, if that works for you :meh:

That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom — Gnomon

I can't argue with any of the points you make in this response. It sounds like an accurate synopsis of the rise of the current political framework in many countries.

But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. — Gnomon

I don't know enough about this to comment.

the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" — Gnomon

In the UK, the area of historical slavery is taught at secondary school level(12-17) within the subject called 'Modern Studies.' But it's no more than a course unit. I am certainly attracted to the idea of teaching the topic of 'racial conflict/harmony in schools but I agree that it cannot be skewed in the way you are suggesting it currently is in the US schools.

But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. — Gnomon

I am against any religious organisation being involved in the education of children. I don't have a problem with schools informing children of the existence of and the main tenets of the main world religions but there should never be any hint of 'this is the one WE favour.'
I would not allow religious schools in any form.

So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile: — Gnomon

Sounds like the secular school system in America and the UK needs a lot of change.
Surely in US schools, they understand that ignorance of history causes repetition of horrific historical events.

I completely feel what you're saying in all of this. — Garrett Travers

I think we mainly concur with each other's viewpoint in the areas discussed here.
I will spend some time reading on the general area of ethics to deepen my knowledge on the topic.
I hope your deep study of ethics proves fruitful for everyone.

Don't you think this reassurance will be a reason for some to start such a war? I think it's a very scary idea that such a war is possible in the first place. Gives me nightmares! — Dijkgraf

Only those who are insane would do so, but yes, they exist and they can reach the highest levels of power at the moment and yes, that is terrifying. But seriously, we f****** deserve extinction if we let that happen. No individual system should exist where the will of an individual or small group can cause something like a global nuclear exchange to occur or any equivalent or worse technology in the future. We must strive to create a global socio-political system that makes such a circumstance almost impossible. Very powerful checks and balances are needed at every stage in hierarchical authority. Absolute scrutiny of anyone appointed to any significant position of trust and power is essential. We even have to regularly scrutinise the scrutineers. History has been screaming these facts at us for centuries. We have to do this until we have at least billions of us living and thriving off-planet. Then such an event as Earth's destruction would not mean our extinction was assured. Our own survival is the imperative that shows space exploration and development is wise. I am also hopeful that if we can make a future where individual humans are a lot happier with their individual experience of 'being alive' then conflict will naturally reduce its 'threat level,' perhaps even all the way to zero.

Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum — Gnomon

I understand your emotive use of 'cannon-fodder' and 'who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution.' I have often used the phrase 'Lions led by donkeys,' to describe the soldiers on WW1 and those who led them. I am currently reading the personal memoirs of Ulysses S Grant.
A fascinating and somewhat terrifying insight into human conflict.
Should Marx have been on the front line with the people of the Russian revolution? Seems apt to me but I don't know his personal capabilities or circumstances at the time in question but would he have been able to affect the outcomes of that particular conflict if he did what you suggest was his responsibility to do. I don't know.

I could perhaps be labeled with all or any of the tags you suggest, as could many others, including you. But my question is, is it our individual responsibility to aspire to such actions when we see and report discontent with the way things are or do we remain nothing more than at best, armchair warriors. We can try to organise, unite, pressure the system we so disdain. Many do but is it imperative that everyone who does not like our current society becomes an activist? Is this your responsibility and mine? I can get the metal for the lever, will you help build it and the fulcrum? I think we will probably have to do a lot more than that if we are to win this desperate race against time and prevent our own extinction.

Stalin and Lenin had personal autocratic ambitions, in my opinion, and were not much better than the Tsar they wished to replace. Picked leaders often disappoint so we need to learn the lessons of history and never have a revolution which has a single leader. The roman senate knew 'emperor' was a bad idea, we simply still haven't got the very complex issue of a hierarchy of authority correct yet.
BUT WE WILL!
For me, the solution has to lie in very powerful checks and balances. It has to be relatively easy to remove any leader.
All authority must be OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE and must be implemented globally.

I am a little sad to read this. Whenever I try to to operate on myself, to judge myself or force myself to do or to stop doing or feeling something, what is happening is a fragmentation of the person, and the provoking of conflict. It is counter-productive. Please, you have told us that you are a boxing match, a violent damaging sport; ring the bell for the end of the last round, and call it a draw — unenlightened

Showing compassion for another is a strength, so thank you. It was not my intention to portray any element of sadness in the struggle of "I" with "me" and "myself" My own emotion of sadness is a product of me, myself and I. We all have these three voices due to having a triune brain. This is not a fragmentation this is a result of the physical fact that our brain is actually three separate brains connected together. Me, myself, and I are physiological, not metaphysical.
The conflict occurs due to the priority functions of the r-complex, the limbic system, and the cerebral cortex. We all have similar struggles. Gaining balance is my goal, as this will, in my opinion, allow me to be as useful as I can be in the area we label 'human life.'
I accept that 'boxing match' imagery was not my best choice. How about three siblings who all love each other but who have big disagreements about what the family priorities should be?
I hope that disavow's the sadness conclusion.

if I want to smoke, I do not want to not smoke, and vice versa. And from that moment, I have not wanted a cigarette, ever, at all. It is finished — unenlightened

Defeating any kind of addiction is a mammoth task. Sounds like you achieved it. I can only applaud you and add your example to the list of evidence that humans can defeat very difficult, complicated harmful situations and improve their life accordingly. How much more so then, if we had much better and more intense help from everyone else around us.

On the outside, the world can be worked on, improved perhaps, cleaned and tidied and so on, but working inwardly does not make sense; insight and understanding is what can heal and transform. — unenlightened

Surely new insight and understanding comes from internal conflict or musings. If not from the internal then where does new insight and understanding come from?
If you don't like the adversarial imagery of 'internal conflict' then perhaps you will find 'internal musings/debate/rumination,' more palatable.

The main point is not to surrender to exasperation, exhaustion, feelings of the inevitability of personal defeat, placid acceptance of a negative fate etc.

A lot of people perform A and B. C, less so. C takes time, ability, and effort. More people who are capable, though, could do more study, and should — Bitter Crank

Good stuff, I hope you are correct and I can only agree with your comment here.

Well, universeness, our problems may be beyond our capacity to solve. I don't like that, but it may be true — Bitter Crank

I have personal faith that it's not. Our capacity to change has been demonstrated in fabulous labels such as 'revolution,' 'hope,' 'enlightenment,' 'pioneer,' ' explorer,' 'wonder,' etc. I know you could provide me with an equally emotive list of negative labels or you could provide negative outcome examples of labels such as 'revolution,' (Orwells 1984 etc) but no, I will never give up on the human race as it would mean giving up on myself. You have used many words in your posts which are not bitter and are not cranky. I would like to see you change your 'handle' but perhaps you like the 'ironic' element too much and I fully accept your choice of 'handle' is just that, your choice.

It would be nice if we could flip a switch and suddenly have zero carbon output, zero methane output, and so on. No such switch. Too bad. We are DEEPLY dependent on fossil fuels and there is no handy substitute at hand. Wind and solar, nuclear and hydro are alternatives, but we are a long way from deploying them fully. We don't have enough time before things get much worse.
Yes, we could suddenly shut down carbon emitting plants and processes all over the world, then watch the world's economy collapse. World-wide economic collapse and worsening global warming are both bad. Which one shall we have?
We are between a rock and a hard place — Bitter Crank

Yep, all complicated stuff. I think your depiction of a desperate race between reaching a destructive point of no return and a point of 'turn around' towards a better stewardship of our planet is an accrate depiction. We all need to pick our causes, be vigilant and do all we can in pursuit of the latter outcome.
If we go extinct, I for one will go kicking and screaming about the folly of others.

Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. — Gnomon

Yes I am, but I am also asking, should you be doing the same? Should we all be doing so?
I am an atheist so no religious influence apart from the influence of its rejection. I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. I see democratic socialism as a human imperative rather than a political one. It is a political necessity, in my opinion, to create a fair society.
It's interesting to me that you use the term 'perfectionist,' similar to utopian etc.
Do you think a just, fair human society is unobtainable?
I do accept my imperfections but I can still strive to improve, cant I?
I can only leave the judgment of whether or not my actions demonstrate such improvement, to others.
I feel that the term 'diversionary tactics' is unwarranted. What would my purpose be for employing any subterfuge in this thread? Personal aggrandisement is the only nefarious intent I can come up with. If that is my true intent then others will call me out on it I hope. Perhaps your 'diversionary tactics' flag will encourage others to be ever watchful.
I welcome angst, else I should become complacent. I welcome it but will not allow it to overwhelm me.

I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon

Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. If as a small child, I am taught Christian doctrine as the 'true moral code' then I am, for example, going to believe that it is morally correct to condemn nonbelievers and homosexuals and treat women as less important than men.
I may change my moral imperatives later in life but my early education is crucial to the struggles/dilemmas I will face later in life.
Btw I do think the golden rule is indeed a moral imperative.

However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition. — Gnomon

:lol: Very true analysis and currently, good advice but I hope this 'inevitability of war' between opposing viewpoints, as the only final way to 'settle the argument,' will be removed as an option. I hang my hopes on the M.A.D deterrent. I hope that technology absolutely ensures that we will all perish if we use war to settle things. I like the choice of "get it right! or you will all die! all of you, EXTINCT. The Earth will eventually try again with another species," So, we will be motivated to get it right!

Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castle — Gnomon

I lay no blame at the door of Karl Marx for the likes of Stalin and Hitler, in the same way as I lay no blame at the door of the fabled god(s) for the actions of humans. Marx simply suggested a fairer way to distribute wealth and power using the model of a human commune. Working together for a common good rather than allowing a rule by Kings or autocrats. In my opinion, a young Karl Marx would have fought against Stalin and Hitler with equal venom, as he would have recognised them both as autocrats.

I hope that helps in understanding what approach I am coming at things with. — Garrett Travers

Yes, It's reasonable.

I'm sure you can imagine which is which — Garrett Travers

Well, I can look up each label you assign to the label 'ethics' and gain an understanding of the variety that each combination refers to, which I did. In doing so, I gained a more detailed understanding of 'ethics' labels. I was intrigued by the Rand description (in wikipedia) of an objectivist ethic as the concept of man as a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life. I have always rejected this viewpoint. Which I think is clear from my OP. So human debate about such labels continues, as it should.

Ethics is to behavior what Science is to inductive observation. Morality is to behavior what the Scientific Method (s) is to inductive observation. Virtue is to behavior what proper analysis of data is to inductive observation. — Garrett Travers

I think you are saying that these find commonality in the sense that they each provide 'a road towards the development of a general principle.' All this is fair enough, but the deck can be stacked for so many people in so many ways! Is it evil that someone is born with 'paranoid delusions or sociopathic tendencies etc?' I dont think this would be due to any kind of childhood nurture, although it must be true that how such conditions are treated is of paramount importance when discovered. But economic issues or ethnicity or religion or region or any other such dumb barrier should not be reasons why we don't intervene effectively when someone has such a condition. If they go on to behave in 'evil' ways toward others, then who is really responsible here? We even have such concepts in law. Declared insane! Not legally responsible for their actions and they go into institutes for the criminally insane. But are they evil?
In Carl Sagan's book, 'Broca's brain' he cites the case of a Russian serial killer who it is thought to have killed over 50 people. When science eventually studied him, they decided on a process hitherto untried (which was ok as such as he could be 'ethically' used for medical experimentation.) They severed his corpus callosum ( the communication channels between the right and left hemisphere of his brain). He was left with some difficulties but they eventually declared him 'cured' of his urge to kill others.

I completely agree with your imperative for 'ethical consistency,' but even with all of the ethics labels you have offered so far and how they are interpreted and conceived by others, we have not yet, as a human society, achieved a full understanding of the labels, 'ethics', 'good' and 'evil/bad.' To me, it's illogical to see these labels as 'stand alones,' they are intertwined and interdependent aspects of the human psyche. On a practical level, we must continue the struggle to gain a full non-religious understanding of these concepts (Evil is F*** all to do with ghosts and demons etc) and create a just system for all, which is not dependent on economics or availability of services, etc on a global scale.

Sorry I keep forgetting to press t twice Garrett!

I'm off for a wee evening of alcohol and chat Garret.
I will respond to your response tomorrow!
Have a great night!

If it came down to the wire, and your own child sacrificed himself for your life, you would not have to earn his decision, he would not have ever given you a greater reason to believe that you had already done so, even if his choice was one of passion, and not of ethics — Garrett Travers

I understand that such an act can be purely based on 'love' or even a kind of 'biological or tribal loyalty,'
I would still want to 'inherit' whatever I could from 'who they were,' and nurture it as best I could. So I still see an 'earn' aspect. Perhaps it would be more in the form of 'memorialisation,' depending on the age of the child.

I challenge you to find any form of evil behavior that cannot be traced back to some form of childhood, trauma, abuse, manipulation, gaslighting, or ostracism. — Garrett Travers

Well, I know what you are saying but what is evil behavior to some (blood sports or eating meat for example) is good behavior to others. If we consider only 'evil behavior' as it would be labeled by the majority of people then is this not also true for any form of good behavior. Behavior you first learned or garnished from childhood experience.

No, and I would never expect them to do as much for me — Garrett Travers

If (I of course, hope it never happens) one of them did? Would you state/think they had made a wrong decision?
Would it leave you with a feeling of 'guilt by association?' You were not asked, you would not have let them if you had been asked. I agree but such is rarely in our power. To me, I think I would spend the rest of my life living and trying to 'earn' their decision. Whatever was their responsibility in the form of progeny, mother, father, etc would become mine.
I share your opinion towards children.

I reject it altogether. — Garrett Travers

But is your rejection based purely on the hypothetical nature of simulated dilemmas?
Are you simply saying, that a person should base their ethics/morality on what they actually did when they faced a real situation? If so, I agree that such real experience is far more valuable than any preemptive musing, no matter what criteria source you use to produce 'thought experiments.'
But thought experiment is a valid strategy within the scientific method and such thinking has paid off in my own personal experience.

More than any other thing known to man. — Garrett Travers

I agree it's certainly very high on the list. I also put 'willingness to learn/change/improve' very high.

that the state will not provide salvation — Garrett Travers

I agree with most of what you have typed but the 'state' can facilitate a better way for our species, in my opinion, if we can get its structure and functions correct. I see no way to avoid 'a hierarchy of structure,' within a human-based society. Especially when it is (or needs to become) globally based. We have to achieve the very difficult task of spotting and stopping any individual with nefarious intent. Such a structure must be formed 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' It must be fair, democratic and contain economic parity for all and it must also contain very powerful checks and balances. I think we know the formula, but we need the global will.

You know what, just for you, I'll stall my writing for tonight, and I'll pull out a piece of paper dedicated just to poem on this subject, and I'll type you something up with my Olympia SM3, and when I'm done with it, I'll snap a picture of it and it to your inbox. What do you say? — Garrett Travers

I am flattered, thank you. Perhaps I will turn it into an oil painting!

We have to get passionate about ethics once more, my friend. Everything depends on it. Think of the days when the Munich Circle, or the French Philosophes, or the Russian novelists, would gather together in pubs, and dachas, and coffee houses, not to drink their lives away, or to busy themselves with meandering activities, but to discuss philosophy. To theorize on what was right, how they knew it, what it meant for the world if it were true, and to challenge each the other like fucking ravenous lions over the last piece of life sustaining meat in the name the good. Think of all the days Einstein spent alone in his garet slaving over time, and matter, and energy, and after having brought it to the world saying to his fellow peers "Dosteovesky gives me more than any scientist, more than Guass." Think of what the fuck that statement meant for Einstein. Think of this when you feel like you're losing passion. The shit wakes me up everytime — Garrett Travers

I applaud your passion and the content of your message and I wish that more of our teachers in schools and universities demonstrated such passion when delivering their subject to the next generation. Maybe we would have a lot fewer sad conclusions form in human minds such as antinatalism.

Well, he's come round again, and he's glad you're here with him, whoever you are stranger. Keep your gun ready and your aim steady, brother. And I mean it, don't let yourself be angered by ingnorance and stupidity, to the best of your ability. Anger deflates the meaning of the good in a strange internal way and the last thing you need for your own fulfillment is to bitter and resentful because people who are not you are ignorant and stupid. I know it seems strange for a stranger to ask, but trust me on this one at least. Letting go of anger was the most powerful transition I've ever gone through in my life. It's not something you will regret. Anyway, I'll get you that poem sometime soon. — Garrett Travers

Good to confirm that 'the good people will always be back in some form and we will be millions,' We will always be around to disrupt those who seek to be King of slaves. I am here and ready to resist. I hope the guns only every have to be verbal and organisational but if the Kings want to kill you then you have the right to defend.
I will keep my anger and make sure it's directed correctly. I agree it's a dangerous and self-destructive force if misused or manipulated. I really do handle it with care but I need its motivational power. I don't think I have bitterness or resentment in any raw form. I think they coalesce into a determination to protect others against unfair treatment. Looking forward to your poem.

I think you have the answer in your title, to this the most important question of philosophy: -- "How shall we live? — unenlightened

Thanks, you are obviously 'enlightened,' in my opinion.

Alas, it is the mean spirited that spend their lives waiting for the best deal in the accumulation of virtue, and calculating how their act will influence the world. For damaged people like me, full of fear and greed and anger, it would be futile to try and heal the world; we must look for healing ourselves — unenlightened

You get It! totally! Please know you get it! Heal yourself and you start to help everyone else.
That's my fight as well, everyday! The negative feelings used to assault me night after night.
I have battled with them for at least the past 30 years. They still come at me and they come from me.
They are stimulated by daily inputs from the local and global stage.
I think its "I" (cortex based) fighting "me," (part cortex part limbic) and "myself," (part cortex part R-complex.)
I am not comparing my fight with those up against conditions such as clinical depression or schizophrenia etc but perhaps my, by comparison, small success could encourage.

I have "me" and "myself" on the ropes or I have convinced many of their team to join the "I" team.
I now challenge them most nights to 'give me their best shot, I am ready!'
Sometimes I don't get a lot of sleep but I win the f******* battles.......more often than not!
I have a great deal more undisturbed sleep than I used to and I maintain faith that we can be a better species and we will leave the nest of planet Earth and move into the vastness of space.
I hope many of the atoms which make up "I" at the moment, through the possibilities offered by random chance, after I disassemble and dissipate at a quantum level, all over the place. That some of my old quanta will be part of new sentient life in the future and can witness those events. I am content with my disassembly when my time comes, unless science can extend my longevity.

These inner turmoils come from the fact that what has been informing your morality, the world's morailty, the ethical standards by which your idea of moral actions manifest, is not ethically consistent, and never has been. Why would a situation arise where the clear moral action would be to sacrifice your life? And why is such a sacrifice a moral action? Who is it good for? How did you conclude it is, or would be good? A bit confusing it has to be when a part of you knows it wouldn't be worth it if you were villified, in lieu of being remembered in honor. Why would being remembered in honor for dying for other people be preferable? Good questions to really ask oneself. — Garrett Travers

I agree that ethical consistency is desirable. If you are saying that my personal morality/set of ethics is a 'subset' of all the examples I have been exposed to within all information I have accessed in my life so far, then it's a very reasonable assessment, although I like to think there are tweaks which are all mine.
Would you not surrender your life to save your loved ones for example?
Have such situations not happened quite often globally, historically? So there are plenty of precedents.
If such an action is not a question of morality, then how would you choose to categorise it?
You ask "Who is it good for?". There are many possible answers. The people you save or as an example to others of 'ethical consistency,' or to fulfill your own desire to be 'ethically consistent.'
I have always struggled with the 'hero' concept. Most who have been given the label by others during war, personally reject it. I have always been suspicious of my dilemma's/day dreaming of tough situations and how I might respond. Was it about the people I could potentially save or was it about my own memorialisation as 'a good guy.' Which was more important to me? So I wanted to remove the 'credited' aspect and ask would I still be 'ethically consistent.'

and it doesn't strike me as ethical to think of myself as a sacrificial beast before the feet of other men, — Garrett Travers

It's interesting to me that there is a tendency to 'gravitate' to such religious imagery as 'sacrificial beast' and 'at the feet of.'
I don't see it like that although I have also stumbled into such imagery myself. I suppose my view is akin to utilitarianism. Perhaps it's even Darwinian practicality, save the one or save the many. I like the runaway train dilemma, often cited, with you holding the lever which switches the train to another track.
Again these dilemmas are played out in dramas like 'spock's death' in the Star Trek movies.
I understand all the valid points you make, regarding possible nuances of making the decision to risk your/my own life for others but I think you also value ethical consistency, as do I.

Everyday life and how we choose to live are mutually exclusive concepts for the busy-dying, friend. Most people don't "choose to live," they merely let themselves, while telling others how to first chance they get, or taking a backseat approach at life all together. It's why everyone is obese, dying of overdose, seeking therapy for major depression, wasting all of their hours on youtube, listening to shit music and calling it art, reading shit books and callling it literature, watching the news and taking it seriously, smoking their heart into arrest, drinking their gut in ulcers, blaming their kids for their misery, shooting eachother in the streets, shooting eachother in schools, living off of wic welfare and SSRI, giving the government more power, giving their lives to jesus, swearing fealty to Mohammad, and all other manner of nonsense, unjustified, brain-rotting, time-wasting, bullshit that has no place in the 21st century when knowledge has never been closer to our fingertips. Choosing to live is not a part of the zeitgeist of the busy-dying, bud — Garrett Travers

:lol: :lol: I would love to see the above text put into a more poetic form and read by a Mr Angry character on YouTube. I think it would be a hit! I think it clearly frames the frustration of many and the exasperation people have for their species. Do you have any suggestions on how this situation might be improved?

Who is to blame for the state of the world? Why, all of the people are. Don't you see? — Garrett Travers

I do see and I agree, it is my main reason for the OP. We just need 'all of the people' or at least a global majority to agree also. It is only the members of our species that can change what we do. No god will do it for us. It is our job! Each and every one of us! WE ARE RESPONSIBLE!

Wow! I love the passion which is palpable in your last paragraph. Gives me hope. For me, that's where the solution lies. Somewhere in such incendiary beginnings is the big meeting that 'the people' have to attend. An internet meeting probably. I think there are rumblings amongst global youth. I remain hopeful.

I do have some issue with

get rid of beer — Garrett Travers

and

don't get angry with people their idiots and don't know what they're doing, — Garrett Travers

I'm sure we could come to some compromise on the first one and the second is giving me that annoying imagery again. Y'know, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
It's possible that amongst the human writers of the gospel fables, was an annoyed antecedent of Garret Travers