What are your thoughts about equanimity? — Wallows

I would happily replace neurotic worrying with equanimity, sure. But I also like things more rajasic. IOW passion is peachy, if it is focused on processes and relationships that matter to me. Even the process of creating art, for example, need not in the least involve equanimity as a rule. Sports are unfortunately not so much an issue for me these days, but there also I enjoyed really throwing myself in in ways that do not exhibit equanimity. I don't like killem competition, but competition and striving are all fine. And certainly with love, yes, peaceful moments and times are lovely. But then I want times that do not look and are not experienced as equanimity.

Equanimity (Latin: æquanimitas, having an even mind; aequus even; animus mind/soul) is a state of psychological stability and composure which is undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other phenomena that may cause others to lose the balance of their mind.

The reasons we get 'disturbed' by experience is because this has worked for us. We long evolved an active and affecting limbic system that means some things cause this emotional reaction and some things this. We have preferences and things we do not like. Once equanimity because THE heuristic, you are setting yourself up to treat your own self

as problematic.

you look even and accepting.

But in fact you are only accepting what is on the outside.

Inside you are waging a war against facets of yourself you cannot accept

Or you have won the war and those parts are in prisoner of war camps.

True equanimity would not look equanimous, because you would also accept your own passions, reactions, and expressive self. Buddhists and stoics tend to only accept the outside, not their insides.

Now if you tell this to a Buddhist they will often say, no, I observe my emotions and reactions and accept them.

This is like saying I accept that my baby is angry, but I do not let him move or make a sound related to that anger.

I do not see why an ethics regarding procreation, shouldn't involve harm, — schopenhauer1

I didn't argue it shouldn't involve harm. I criticized your arguments that we should not risk harm, and in that specific place in regarding the fact that you seem to know what objective values are. I am not telling you how you should or should not evaluate parenting in your life. I am arguing that your case others should value risk of harm above all else is not justified, for a variety of reasons.

The asymmetry in regards to harms vs. goods comes into play when making a decision to start a life. — schopenhauer1

For you. That's your values. Ones not shared by many, so not universal, and nothing you have said justified one must view it your way. I see nothing objective. That's the way you want us to view it.

Once it is seen that no actual person is deprived of anything prior to birth, any premium put on a value other than harm (to experience accomplishment and love, for example) would not matter for anyone but the parent putting a premium on this value being carried out. — schopenhauer1

I disagree. There is the rest of the family and anyone who cares about people who want kids. This is a core desire of many people, most. Then if everyone follows antinatalism, there are no future generations, which means anyone who wants to leave a legacy: scientists, artists, etc., cannot leave it. That would lead to a lot of feelings of meaninglessness, depression, etc. Then anyone who feels part of some long line of humans accomplishing, exploring creating, even if they themselves are not specifically adding directly to the legacy, these will also feel depressed in large numbers. So if you are effective you are causing harm.

Harm is the only consideration that matters at this point prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

Your value. And one not shared by other people

Again, you are ignoring the a priori logic. No one is in a locked room saying "but I could be living!! — schopenhauer1

Apriori logic? In any case, I never said that or assumed it. I am saying that the very people who harm you are trying to prevent in the vast majority will not, if they come to existence, share your values. I am not saying you are harming them. I am saying that the people you want not to experience harm would not if they came to life share your values.

You are imposing your values on others who are alive and presuming what is of value to be prevented for potential others. It does them no harm, since they are not yet, but it is absurd since they are merely your values and not those you want to protect's values.

So, I could take the harder avenues and provide you theories that people can be harmed by life, but still identify it like a slave who may not mind their situation but is definitely harmed by their situation, but I'll simply take the easy road. I'll refer you to the thousands of posts I've made showing how we are harmed in very particular ways, despite our identifying with the very thing that harms us.. — schopenhauer1

Easy road? save the little ad homs. And seriously why would someone who presents preventing harm as the only value use an ad hom? Hypocrite. I am well aware of the vast ways one can suffer being alive and I am also aware that people can delude themselves. But again, you assume that harm is the only criterion we should use when making decisions. And two, just because it can be the case that people are deluded, who are you to decide that that possibility means homo sapiens should end`? That your values should reign and that you are in a position to evaluate the lives of others. What if you are deluded in your calculations`? You are being vastly more presumptuous than any single parent who decides to have a child. You are universalizing your priorities and your value. A value you cannot live up to yourself.

the only consideration that matters here is the the lifetime of collateral damage of undue suffering and collateral damage — schopenhauer1

The only consideration that matter to you.

You just have a value. Like someone who hates butterscotch icecream. In a variety of ways you keep saying that we must prevent harm to anyone at all costs, period. That's your opinion. And I suppose that's what apriori logic means to you. You know it, so you state it.

Because any other value besides harm to a potential child, would be using that child for a parent's X agenda and outcome they want to see carried out by that child. — schopenhauer1

Nope, see above.

That is the thing, there is no risk with antinatalism. No person actually will be deprived of anything. We are not playing with other people's lives in antinatalism. ANY and ALL risks will ensue if someone is born, however. Once born, other considerations come into play, as the asymmetry of non-existing people is no longer part of the logic. It would be a category error to equate the two as using the same ethical logic in everyday life of those who already exist. — schopenhauer1

You really don't read carefully. You are taking a risk that you are spreading a value that may not be the right one. Maybe your argument is all correct based on your apriori value that we must not create new life because it might suffer. I don't think you have made a case at all. But it is possible that you are right, since I am fallible, being a human and all. But you are also a human, and also potentially fallible, right. You know that right. And as I said above, you are now taking the risk that you will effectively spread a value as the value, but you are wrong about that.

I get it. You can't imagine how. But that's the point. Fallible humans often cannot imagine how they could be wrong.

You are taking a risk your ideas are wrong. And the ulitmate risk you anti-natalists are taking is that you convince people to agree with you, homo sapiens ends this generation

and you were wrong.

And actually what you did was a horrible mistake.

Because we fallible humans might be wrong about something.

Now because I know life involves risk regardless of what I do. My action, my inaction, my ideas, might lead to harming people alive or not alive yet. I know this. And yet I continue to live and try to both make things better and reduce harm. I take the risk that my total contribution will not be postive.

But you, since you think one should not risk anything are being a hypocrite. Both in your daily life, since you risk harming others born and not born, jsut walking down the street. And certainly arguing the end of the species, since, despite your inability to consider it, you might be wrong about what one should value. What you consider objective values might be wrong, even though you can't see it. Unless you are claiming omnsicience. Yet you take these risks.

It's hypocrisy

And it also is very much like the colonialist Christian thinking that others must follow their values.

No explanation why your value is objective.
No explanation how you live up to the rule of not risking harm.
No explanation why your way of evaluating value should apply to people who in the vast majority disagree with you.
Repetition of your apriori.

It's not a case.

You'e expressed an opinion, in a variety of paraphrases.

And you want to impose that opinion on all human life.

I am sure you are capable of paraphrasing your opinion in yet more ways, but I don't have interest in reading more and the ad hom was the icing on a cake I won't eat.

Take care.

"Britain will survive either way. That many on both sides couch it and so binary and end of Britain if the wrong choice is made isn't helping anybody."

I'm not here to help anyone, I'm here to discuss politics. — Punshhh

I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit.

Pretty much any positive attribute can be problematic if other positive attributes are not present or if that attribute is extreme. I just don't see that they are then bad and should be avoided.

ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree with this, but i'l focus on: you are not eliminating your harm. Here you are at a bird's eye view looking at an 'if everyone agrees scenario'. I am looking at antinatalists in situ and seeing they are risking harm in the ways I mentioned and more. If they want to argue this in consequentialist terms - iow it is worth that risk to prevent greater harm - then they open the door for people risking harm in pronatalist ways.

It also assumes that we must look at values via harm.
This 1) presumes objective morals. It is simply a fact that one must avoid harm. That is THE CRITERION 2) begs whether this value should be one that rules over our choices amongst the many options available. 3) It also seems to run counter to the values most people have, since most people are willing to risk harm to others and also would prefer to live even if their lives include suffering or harm. I see almost no one who thinks they must eliminate all the potential harm they might create. Now this could be read as an argument ad populum, but in the absence of objective morals it carries weight what both antinatalists themselves and people in general are willing to risk, despite the former thinking we should never do this. It carries weight because the antinatalist is forming a position to, in a sense protect people who do not exist. But since the odds seem to me enormous that these people will, like people now not share the anti-natalists values, both about having children and also that removing potential harm is the value that trumps all others, there is an inherent disrespect even to the values of those who could come to be. I can see anti-natalism as a personal choice. I can't see why the anti-natalist values should dominate all other values. And I cannot see how an anti-natalist lives up his or her own philosophy, given that they risk harming others all the time. And since their values may be wrong - if there are objective values - they are risking causing a catastrophy, should they be successful if all future human life never comes into existence. yes, if the only or must value is not causing any harm is objectively GOOD, then preventing all future humans would be ok. But there's a risk you are not right about what is objectively good, but you take that risk and try to change the world. Unless you think you are infallible about such things, why do you get to take such an enormous risk along with all the day to day risks you take around harming others?

But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

It simply takes consent off the table. So this means that neither antinatalist nor natalist arguments could be able to bring up consent. So this means that the only issue is harm.

And what anti-natalist is not risking the harm of other people every day? One can certainly avoid driving. But even pedestrians can cause accidents, voting could contribute to the next world war, selling or helping produce a wide range of products could cause harm, buying a wide range of products can and likely does contribute to companies that harm someone. (and these risks are often for those who have not consented, but then, consent is off the table, if both sides agree on that)

There are reasons not to believe in mainstream religions because of problems with their scriptures such as contradiction, incoherence etc. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but I was focusing on the reasons people believe.

I am not devaluing experience. I have personally never had a religious experience or encountered God and I spent my whole childhood in a religious environment. — Andrew4Handel

That doesn't contradict my points. I am not saying that all people who are raised in the church or in a religion will have those experiences, seek them, engage in practices with any particular interest, etc. I was describing what I hear from people who believe. That even in the states, where practice is often toned down, people will refer to experiences they have, in church, socially in the religion, in experiences that fit the more traditional religious experience - not necessarily visions of angels or such dramatic things, but a sense of peace or connection after prayer, etc. IOW they are not believers because they decided to fill in the gaps, say, around what set the Big Bang in motion or why is the universe seemingly so fine tuned, but rather out of their experiential lives. This is even truer of people who turn to religion out of despair, catastropy, addiction, powerful experiences. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is religious or a theist because God filled in the gaps in knowledge. Yes, theists will often argue in online discussions and elsewhere, but it's not what made them or kept them theists. And if you investigate how they became theists you will hear experience based answers.

If I personal encountered God tomorrow I wouldn't be able to prove this to anyone probably, so I could not use this to convince anyone else of God's existence. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but it might affect your own belief. That was the topic in my post. Perhaps it was too much of a tangent. People believe all sorts of things they can't convince others are the case. I would say we all do.

I see your last post about what you are most interested in and I will try to keep my focus on that if I participate.

I think our abilities , capabilities and judgements should not be the objects for our confidence ,
instead our "efforts" — David Jones

I don't see why one should choose, and confidence in both is important. A surgeon needs confidence both in her effort to do all she can for the patient on the table and in her abilities. This does not mean she should presume she is infallible. In fact part of confidence should also come from noting that she checks herself, learns from mistakes, perhaps consults with assistant surgeons at tough choice moments and so on. They can't just go in their confident that they will try really hard, but with no take on their own abilities. Otherwise they should in fact refuse to operate and let someone they do have confidence in operate.

And just remember those cops who shot too recklessly and killed innocent people and even children or the elderly. — David Jones

The argument here is: if some people have confidence and mess up then confidence is bad in general. Of course confidence can be illfounded. Perhaps those cops had little confidence in their own abilities to identify threats and so they shot while overlooking warnings the targets were not what they thought. Perhaps there are other flaws. You would need to demonstrate that those cops were flawed because they were confident, rather than they were impulsive or prone to violence or hadn't got enough sleep or racist or burned out. I see no reason to assume it was confidence that was the problem. And even if their confidence was a problem that does not mean others should not be confident. Perhaps those cops had confidence in their effort making, a quality you see as ok.

A painter is willing to work extremely hard,e ven though it is uncomfortable at times and becomes a good artist. They someone says, this other would be artist worked extremely hard, so working extremely hard is bad and artists should not do it.

Or some is nice and becomes a beloved member of the community while another person is nice and fails to notice warning signals and is raped and killed. So, then, being nice is a bad quality. Actually it's a necesarily quality but it needs to come with other skills and qualities.

Confidence in your work as a police should also come with not being racist, not being jumpy, being cautious and so on. But it is necessary.

I don't know if gods are an important unknown. It would probably depend on your notion of a god.

Certain's notions of gods would be less plausible or clearly non existent. I think the most valid reason to invoke a god is due to gaps in explanation such as a first cause. — Andrew4Handel

I disagree. For a couple of reasons. First it is as if one is not already in a belief system and looking at some options. And then one notes that one does not have an explanation for X, and then decide that God would provide one. I think that is an extremely rare situation. It is more likely that one has grown up influenced by religion, directly or not, and experiences of that religion or that notion of God either seem to 'work' or work, so there is no real reason to move away from them, or one reaches to the religion (at all or more deeply) or to God (as one thinks of it) and this helps, or out of curiosity or yearning one engages in the practice (more or in a real way for the first time) and the practices lead to experiences which seem to fit and/or the process makes one feel better and one's intuition is it is correct, in the main, in part, to some important degree. This is much clearer in, say, some versions of Hinduism where practice is central and experience is central and talked about constantly as part of getting feedback on practices. It is a decidedly empirical process - which of course does not mean it is corrent is some, all or any of the conclusions or explanations.

Here is the West, often in intellectual discussions, it is as if we arrive at beliefs via argument and deduction or, often, the empircal research of others.So when people thing of theism or religion or spirituality or belief in God, it is as if one can only rely on arguments and experts or faith. But, in fact there is a huge empircal (that is to say, experiential) facet to this.

I guess one could make a distinction, that between true reality and normal reality. The former is inaccessible as some posters have mentioned but the latter is what most people perceive and have a consensus on. What if psychotics are those who can, at certain times, perceive true reality? The rest of us would find that "abnormal" and put all sorts of labels on it. — TheMadFool

Another similar take is what if what they are experiencing is real, but when they try to translate it to everyday reality it gets taken the wrong way. They experience their spouse as a demon, but the spouse has not horns, does not breathe fire and his eyes are not red and glowing. However in a subtle way he take great pleasure in undermining the self-exteem of his wife. So when the 'hallucination' gets applied to a description the wife seems delusional.

Now that's an example taking our usual ontology as generally correct.

There could be all sorts of other situations where the so-called psychotic person is seeing things that are true that, as you say, is of the true reality and seems crazy. But here, generally, that person makes practical mistakes when trying to apply or relate that knowledge. They probably should not tell most people, certainly not psychiatrists. They would need to work with that knowledge, perhaps find peers - might be shamans, or alternative scientistists, or even physicists, or certain types of political people or....in any case, people who have an understanding of the realm the person encountered and how that realm/entity/hidden process interactions with what is taken as real by most people.

They need to be nuanced when dealing with people who have different experiences and beliefs than their own.

Feel free to educate me if both statements can be appreciated with a comparable use of the word 'probability'. — JosephS

They cannot, unless one goes off on some extremely skeptical tangent in relation to the make up of mundane earthly reality as we know it, the dice scenario we have a lot of knowledge of the factors. How many universes have we studied to see how much they need or do not need deities? What branch of science does the testing for such things? And so on.

Another statement that falls into the former category would be the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. — JosephS

I agree, though I see this is somewhere on the spectrum closer to the dice scenario then the question of the deity.

I can believe that you believe that God is likely/unlikely, but I'm not sure why I ought to believe it as well. — JosephS

Sure. I find it really odd that in such discussions the experiences of the people involved are considered to not play a role. If person X has a wide variety of experiences that lead them to believe X is likely or true, and person Y does not, this can mean that each person reaches different conclusions about probability and BOTH can be being quite rational.

There is an overriding assumption that if it is not rational for me, then it is not rational for you. Or if you believe and it is rational, then you must be able to convince me, and often online, you must be able to convince me via words on a screen.

If we use the example of rogue waves. Sailors and others in ships on the ocean saw what they experienced as extremely large solitary waves in otherwise fairly calm seas. Scientists told them they were reacting emotionally and were incorrect, because then current models seemed to indicate that such waves were not possible. There is no reason to work with the model that if it is true then experiencers and non-experiencers should draw the same conclusion. After time technology changed and the bridges of ships had video cameras and it sure seemed that there were huge lone waves. Still there was resistence until satellite photography came in and they could be seen. Then the relevent scientists found a way to explain them - motivated by the knowledge that they did in fact exist.

Now the rogue wave experiencers should not expect that everyone believe them. They should understand that the experience is key - until such time that some other kind of evidence than witness reports can be provided - and the scientists and other experts should be wary of ruling something out because it does not fit with current models.

But no, in most such interactions it is as if there must be only one possible rational conclusion for all parties so you are close minded and you are a naive or delusional or hyper emotional simpleton.

Now, note, I am not weighing in here on the various reasons, for examples, people based on experience believe in God. I am black boxing that.

I am pointing out that there is something weird and also extremely wrong headed on the part of all parties when they expect that the other must believe or disbelieve regardless of experience. As if experience does not matter. And also what I consider ridiculous, the assumption that if you are rational about something, then you must be able to convince me through rational argument on paper/screen. That's practically insane.

How could they possibly have convinced strangers that what they experienced on the sea was in fact as they described it via reports? And yet they were rational to have believed in what they experienced and how they interpreted it.

In many situations different people with different experiences can be rational and yet reach different assessments of probability or the existence of certain entities (and other conclusions). And it might take decades before a bridge can be made. Or, in fact, such a bridge might never come.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse

He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely.

Are psychiatrists implicitly direct realists? They diagnose only certain people with psychosis because they hear or see things that aren't there. If we never perceive the world but only our own sensations, we never see anything that's really there, making us all psychotic — Purple Pond

You have to suffer, not clean yourself, not work well, mess up relationships to get the heavier diagnoses, in general. You do your work, function in a marriage, eat,shower and shave, you can think you are Napoleon.

Yes, but just the title sounds already impossibly inept: "Is dark matter theory or fact?" I am not even going to read it. Furthermore, this article is not an experimental test report — alcontali

Precisely. Because test reports do not explain how physicist think in general. And in the mainstream astrophysicist position is that there is dark matter and dark energy. They are a mass of reports that lead them to these conclusions. What I was addressing was your confusion about 'observations' and also presenting how scientists, in that field think. But you consider anyone who disagrees with you about dark matter and energy as non-scientists. Good luck with that.
They probably did not pick the title, but they are physicists explaining why something not directly observed is consider confirmed. There is consensus that dark matter exists in astrophysics.

According to Abrahamic religious rules, God has no physical incarnation. Therefore, God cannot be tracked down by conducting a search for his physical presence. Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, I personally see no value in furthering that kind of heresies. — alcontali

I already addressed this issue. In a couple of ways. But now you repeat an opinion from an earlier post of yours. Snore.

I do not deny (or confirm) that there is unexplained, excess gravitation that can be observed through its effects on observable matter. I do not deny that it could be interesting to design experiments that would further shed light on the problem. In the meanwhile, however, we must considered any explanation for this "calculated excess gravity" to be hypothetical. — alcontali

Well, pass that on to the astrophysics community.

Further research could even discover that there is actually something wrong with existing calculation rules. Why not? — alcontali

Oh, heavens, you mean that a scientific position might need to be revised in the future? Any postion that might need to be revised in the future, well that just ain't science. There are so many entities and processes that scientific theories now include that are not directly observable. in fact that whole line of reasoning in my earlier posts you just ignore.

But you go ahead and act like it is knowledge that science will never be able to take a position on God. Let me know when you find the test reports on that. (and yes, I know, you think you've ruled it out using deduction. But since your defense of your deduction here is mere repetition of your opinion without addressing my points, consider the possibility you are just speculating wildly. Stringent, you think with others, free to make stuff up yourself) I'll leave your posting style to others to interact with.
There's a direct link to test research at the end of this article...

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-dark-alternate-explanations.html

Replace "Pain" with "deteriorating state of affairs" and "pleasure" with "improving state of affairs" — khaled

There is a vast range of values that can be hidden in deteriorate and improve.

Hey, did I give you consent NOT to give me money? I don't remember doing that. How dare you not give me money then? Isn't that risking imposing your value of private property on me?

Again, if anything (future life or current) is somehow asking you for something that would improve their state of affairs, you don't have to give it. However you owe them not deteriorating their state of affairs no matter what. — khaled

And more of your values. You keep repeating your values as if they are obviously universal/objective ones. That's why I felt we are at an impass and now address other people.

And your posts made me feel bad without my consent. :razz:

No but seriously. I don't see where you and I can go forward. To me it is an impass. To you, you are demonstrated it. I think your demonstration includes value assumptions and also not noticing risks that you take for others. IOW you continue to exist and take risks of doing harm or doing things that will lead to the deteriorating state of affairs of others without their consent yourself. You allow yourself this but not others, both when arguing for antinatalism, but also in general. And then you have an axiomatic moral that one cannot do anything that might lead to deterioration for someone. And present this as if it was a fact. And that's not even getting into whether values can be objective. Even if they can be, i see no demonstration that your axiom is the one that is objective. You thnk you have demonstrated this or do not need to. You think that your continued existence in general and the specfic acts of promoting antinatalism in general do not involve hypocrisy around risking deterioration in others without their consent. I disagree.

So, there we are. I mean, you do present a more nuanced case than I have encountered. I think it is the best one I have seen on the internet in discussion forums. I am not making some blanket rejection of you as a discussion partner. You're a smart cookie and treated me with respect even if perhaps we both came off a bit cranky here and there.

But I can't see going forward. I see repetition without advance.

This would only be possible if God deterministically responded to a particular input with the same output. In that case, it would be a function. If you feed input I to God, the effect will be output O, i.e. O=f(I).

In that case, God would be a deterministic device. — alcontali

See, I find all this extremely speculative. But even nere their might be facets that are predictable in the ways that intelligence responses are predictable, but not mechanical. And of course there is no reason to argue that God, say, is not deterministic in the complicated sense that we are. IOW he would, say, respond to prayers for intervention when the attitude was of the kind God is looking for. Or some other pattern that indicates the criteria of what could only be consider an intelligent and in this case vastly powerful other - who could create anomolies in what we call natural laws. And all this is just me speculating possibility. Sitting around and saying we can rule out what science could possibly detect and decide is confirmed, is as problematic as a scientist in early enlightenment ruling out what we could detect and corfirm now.

A scientist is the author of an experimental test report in which he fed input I and received output O. If he did not receive output O, then his experiment has failed. If this person then still considers the hypothesis to be scientifically justified, then he is simply not a scientist.

The scientific method simply does not allow for claiming that a theory is justified in absence of successful experimental testing. — alcontali

Here's an article by physicists on why dark matter is considered to existt due to the effects it has. I suggest you tell them that they are not scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/

Earlier you expressed the possibility, merely, that scientists would be able to determine there was dark matter and energy. But in fact a majority consider it real and have written papers on in it in rigorous scientific journals.

I am not familiar enough with very low-scale research to pinpoint what exactly in contemporary research is merely hypothesis and what has been properly confirmed by experimental testing.

Some researcher may deliberately confuse things, but in principle the concept of scientific status is easy: If you can confirm it by reproducible experimental testing, then the theory is scientifically justified. Otherwise, it is just a hypothesis, possibly awaiting successful experimental testing. — alcontali

They observe effects. They don't observe things in all cases. There are many things considered real that we cannot observe. In fact it can be argue that all observation is observing effects and using deduction - thinking of this as a philosopy forum and issues relating to perception. So, sure they need something they can track but not necessarily at all the ding an sich. We could deduce the existence of an intelligent alien species without ever observing them. We could be many, many effects away from something to decide it exists. Yes, scientists need patterns of effects to work with. I can't see how we can rule out that this would never be the case with a deity.

If a theologian says, God will never let his effects be noticed or tracked, then that theologian's idea of God is one that I can't imagine scientists could ever think they have confirmed. A deist God would certainly be very hard, though perhaps there would be 'archeological' indications in cosmology that something intelligent made everything. Of course perhaps that would have been an AI.

But to rule out scientists deciding there is a deity, it seems to me is making a very strong metaphysical claim and also a claim about an ability to encompass both future finds in the universe and the make up of the unvierse and future scientists abilities.

I think all talk of what science will never be able to find is intuitive. Which is fine, if one's intuition is really good, and given the topic rather remarkable given the dearth of good training or evolutionary need for ths kind of predictive intuition about future knowledge.

Well, other religions may have physical gods, but the Abrahamic ones, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, clearly don't. — alcontali

But they have interventionist gods, with interventions with physical effects. They also have communicative gods. Both these phenomena, should they be real, could potentially be tracked by scientific research. This is not me taking a stand on what the results will be.

The creator of heavens and earth, in his capacity of first cause, is deemed to be the ultimate reason for every physical and non-physical effect in the universe. Therefore, extracting one such effect out of the many does not produce any interesting or useful information. — alcontali

Right, though see above. But further we really cannot predict what future science will decide was necessary for creation or what is indicated by, say, things prior to what we can now examine in the Big Inflation time period.

These things, no matter how small, are still physically observable in one way or another. — alcontali

The phrase 'physically observable' contains a redundancy. Effects are detected. And 'things' are posited. What their qualities are keeps expanding. Or are not.

All long as their existence is treated as a hypothesis awaiting the production of a successful experiment that confirms it, there is nothing wrong with such hypothetical research subjects.

The journalists -- sycophants really -- who report on scientific research activity seem to be exceedingly inept at distinguishing between hypotheses and confirmed theories. — alcontali

Scientists, not just journalists, take as real things that have not been directly confirmed. They draw conclusions about what happens inside Black Holes due to relativity, since this holds in other places. Most astrophysicists believe in dark matter and energy because the effects have been observed. And in fact a lot of observations are observations of effects. We don't observe quarks or particles in superposition. We observe effects, sometimes effects of effects or machine interpretations of effects.

The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation — alcontali

I have a number of objections to this...
1) it depends on the deity, some versions do interacti with or even encompass the physical. Nearly all have effects on the physical. Whatever, regardless of qualities, that science determines is real, gets called physical. It is a term with metaphysical baggage but not longer with content.
2) the physical is a placeholder term. Sure, theists have tended to be dualists, but since the physical now covers fields, massless particals, things in superpostion and potentially the rest of the multiverse, as some examples, theologians might say, oh, well, if you expand the physical to such things, then what we refer to as the spirit might well be part of something that you will one day call the physical.
3) it seems to me science sometimes deduces the presence of things that cannot be detected (now). The multiverse is believed by a large percentage of scientists despite us currently not being able to detect this, because it solves problems related to what seems like fine tuning and also retains determinism.

There is no situation in which no person is harmed. But there is a situation in which harm is minimized and ceased altogether for humans.

The pain people may feel by not having children can easily by topped by the pain created by having children. One couple having children can lead to generations of harm to people and, animals etc.
— Andrew4Handel

I was just pointing out that it's not the case that no one might be harmed when no one has kids.

You've pointed out before that the "calculus" you'd use simply ignores the "pleasure" side of the equation. So sure, if you do that, what you're saying follows. But of course, many people aren't going to adopt that calculus, and they will figure in pleasure, too. — Terrapin Station

And further many people do not value just in terms of pleasure and pain. Most life, as far as I can see, in humans and elsewhere, decides with great passion to protect their lives, even if they are tough lives. They confirm over and over that they want life for other reasons: meaning, expression of self, curiosity, some subtler underlying passion. So to evaluate in terms of pain and pleasure alone means that antinatalists are deciding how we all should evaluate life, despite how we do evaluate life which is more complicated. Any antinatalist is risking that his or her rhetoric will be effective and manyr or even all future human lives do not come to be. How can they take the risk that this is imposing their values on what would have been future life that cannot consent to these values being applied. (I realize that the consent of the not yet existent is a tricky thing, but since the ant-natalists often talk in those terms, they have to live with the downside of this for their act of arguing for anti-natalism also.) Risk abounds.

But if they lose , should they lose their resolutions in doing their best in playing other games ? — David Jones

I don't see why, but I was not sure what you meant in your first paragraph. I think strong players of just about anything learn how not to let the occasional loss undermine their general confidence.

Sometime we are encountered with complicated situations that even a single mistake or wrong decision would impair our whole actions — David Jones

Sure, that happens. But having confidence is still, generally useful there. A cop without well founded confidence in his or her abiilitiies is at a disadvantage in a gunfight in a way another cop would not be, one who was donfident. One can be confident without considering oneself perfect or unable to make mistakes.

My sense in this passage is that the dispute doesn't stop the philosophers from avoiding moving trains. — JosephS

Well, they know they believe in the trains enough for them to be dangerous. (lol, but also seriously) We often talk about belief like it is binary and also often like it is under our control. I don't think it is either. The superman guy might have been denying his fears that trains might actually still be dangerous for him. We have all sorts of mundane examples - iow not paradigm threatening ones - where people ignore their fears and do things that hurt them. Oh, I can helicopter in and alpine snowboard after 4 lessons. I believe in my abilities. Well, you might also be suppressing your nervousness and also lack of confidence because you wanna be up there with Sammy. Truly believing something that goes against whatever main paradigms you grew up in takes incredible work/exploration/experience, and there are all sorts of intermediate stages, where you hold contradictory beliefs to different degrees.

What would it take for you to believe you could receive a frontal crash from a train. Well, it would likely take noticing anomolies with matter. Odd experiences. REality checks and looking for other explanations. Perhaps searches thorugh alternative science for some justification then being critical of that. Experimentation with vastly safer challenges to the current paradigm. We would be looking at years of exploration, with moments of thinking, shit, this might be true, while still doubting most of the time.

Beliefs like this go way down, deep into the unconscious.

Running out on the tracks is impulsive and does not indicate to me that the guy actually believed deep down in some binary way. He could have been avoiding incredibly amounts of emotional pain and that gave his strong motivation not to notice what he actually believed at the very least also.

The train still makes a mess. — Banno

Sure, but the other model leaves room for finding value in what the other person is experiencing, but putting it in a different context: metaphorical, related to interpersonal dynamics, related to the past, related to something other than a particular train. The binary approach is problematic. People, for example trauma survivors, often come up with best explanations for what they are experiencing. And these are false or partially false, if takne about the here and now, or the boyfriend they consider the devil, but if investigated turn out to be about past events. This is a banal example, in the sense that we need not have a new paradigm for reality to see that a nuanced approach to the 'hallucination' is better than merely dealing with it in a binary way and trying to, for example, medicate it away.

Personally I think even more things can be going on and reality is more complicated then many realize.

What do you think? Does the possibility of psychosis prove that there is an objective reality? — Purple Pond

I think it might be better to say that the diagnosis presumes it, rather than proves it.

In their current conceptualization of psychosis, both the APA5 and the World Health Organization8 define psychosis narrowly by requiring the presence of hallucinations (without insight into their pathologic nature), delusions, or both hallucinations without insight and delusions.6 In both of these current diagnostic classification systems, impaired reality testing remains central conceptually to psychosis.

Hallucinations - A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.

So we have a way of determining something is not there or not like what they experience. One unified objective reality assumed.

Delusion - refers to a strongly held belief despite evidence that the belief is false

IOW we have a way of determining which beliefs (about the way things are) are correct. One unified objecive reality assumed.

]impaired reality testing - just the name should make this clear.

At some level, reality testing is impaired in all psychotic phenomena. Dysfunctional reality testing is evidenced by: auditory or visual hallucinations. fixed false beliefs or delusions.

I still cannot solve this logical conflict : one cannot trust something that's fallible . — David Jones

YOu can't trust it to be infallible, but you rarely need infallibility.

Michael Jordan was not infallible, but coaches, fellow players and he himself could be confident that he would help his team win. All of them could trust him, in general, to help his team win.

Trust is not binary, all or nothing, nor is confidence.

Well, I suppose, in the sense of apart. But it would be like, oh, you like this way of life, here's a universe for you. Apartheid in the south african system of oppression sense was: you stay over there even though this means you're life is not like you like it.

Sorry, my meaning extraction process failed utterly with this. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

In a multiverse you could have the people who like war, say, and keep out the people who would like other kinds of challenges. Store them in the 'hey let's make art universe'. Our universe, in fact just our planet, needs to be sorted. So, perhaps there is a solution where a God could seem good to everyone, but God needs to do some sorting. Separating. Puttin' in the right box. It's like a club that plays all genres of music at the same time.

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you. — Pattern-chaser

Perhaps in a multiverse, God could be. Though it seems to me, not enough has been sorted. Like people best put in several universes are here mixed.

I think there are a bunch of scientific attitudes:
1) let's make sure it's what we think it is by eliminating other possibilities
2) let's do it a lot to make sure it isn't change
3) maybe if this is true then that is true, and that's interesting
4) I wonder what could make it seem that way I haven't thought of
5) I wonder if this and that and those are true, which they seem to be, what is a good way of talking about the whole set of things (iow what's a good model=
6) I love taking things apart and seeing what the pieces do
7) I love putting things together and seeing what happens
8) I love doing things many times
9) I wonder if this pattern follows a formula
10) Anomolies itch like heck and you must scratch them. You can't just let them sit there unexplained.
11) You are curious at least within your area.
12) You need to know if anything is being assumed
13) you enjoy testing things in the minds simulator

No because I didn't force them to read it. Unlike with children who you force into this world. — khaled

IOW you're not especially effective at spreading the ideas, but you know people are curious, especially philosophers, and presumably hope that they will read it. So either you think what you are doing is futile, or you don't really care about consent. So, it's either a strange activity or less directly going against consent. And either way, any person you convince will not have the consent of children who will no longer get born. Your values will keep them from living. What if they would have preferred to?

Then it's not your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to make someone happier, but to not make them suffer more — khaled

Who says? That's sounds like you thinking your values are objective.

I believe inaction should never be morally punishable. — khaled

Ibid.

I never used pleasure and pain and if I did I didn't intend to. I don't need to appeal to hedonism. I said "do you know your child will find their life Worthwhile? No". To elaborate, do you know for sure that your child will have a system of value that he himself finds satisfaction in, be that hedonism or whatever you're doing? No. You don't. So it's still a risk. There is a chance your child becomes miserable by his own standards and finds no meaning in any of it — khaled

There's a chance that your ideas will lead to the cessation of all life. The implications of antinatallism are that no one should be alive after we all reach natural deaths. What if that's an atrocity for all the life that would have happened?

No. That is a side effect. An antinatalist simply doesn't want to risk others' wellbeing for his own — khaled

But you are. If you are effective in your polemic there will never be well being again.

Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled

I know the developing world well having lived there half my life. I see people choosing to live, their children choosing to live and resisting having their lives ended with great passion, perhaps even more than in the pampered West. I have no denials about suffering and how horrible life can be, but I see life wanting life and fighting to keep it despite conditions. I see no basis at all to say that people in developing nations wish they'd never been born. There are people who feel this way, but not in general. If you were effective you would end all sentient life. And all future generations would not come to be without their consent.

The fact that life seeks more life doesn't mean life is enjoyable or worthwhile or whatever value you want to measure it by. — khaled

Nor does it mean that you somehow have the consent of future generations to try to eliminate their coming into being with what is basically a massive guilt trip based on anti-life.

Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled

I missed this. Again, there is a pleasure/pain analysis implict in your position, even if you do not say it outright. This is you presuming you can measure, with your values, what people should think the measure of life is.

An antinatalist doesn't necessarily try to convince that life is bad, but that propagating it is risky for no good reason — khaled

According to your values that include an anti-pain hedonism, since you think you can dismiss my opinions since I come from the West.

You don't owe future life it's existence. — khaled

I never said I did. I am not saying any person must procreate. I was pointing out the problems with your position if it is effectively argued.

You do however owe everyone not taking risks that might hurt them without their consent. — khaled

Then you are violating your own rule. And note the word 'hurt'. Pleasure pain is how you measure life. I see people, in both the developing world and elsewhere valuing life in much more complicated ways, of wanting to live anyway, of finding value even when there is struggle and pain. Meaning, love, creating, small successes, curiosity....there are so many things that keep people living and wanting to live. I see not the slightest indication they would prefer someone had decided not to risk their being allive.

If you are even slightl effective with your rhetoric, you are making some few parents feel bad and guilty about having brought their children into the world. That is a risk you take without their consent. If you are extremely effective, you may be ending all future sentient life. If a scientist antinatalist is influenced by your rhetoric, he might invent a tool to eliminate future generations.

We all take risks. Doctors take risks inventing drugs for children. It's true that once these drugs are made, some few children might die of the side effects while many others are saved. those children could not consent. I cannot see that doctor's work as per se immoral.

Most children will show they consent retroactively.

In your eyes, to live one must be perfect. Well, let me tell you, each time your write, each time you leave your apartment and do anything, you risk that your actions will cause harm without the other person's consent. Perhaps you will accidently drive and cause an accident. That accident would not have happened if you didn't leave your house. So presumably you don't drive. Because your actions might cause a death without the other's consent. And that will cause their families harm at the very least. But then even pedestrians can cause harm. And whatever job you have.

But I will bet you take risks everyday. Trying to be responsible, no doubt. But still your continued existence entails actions that might lead to to serious harm. yet, you continue to live.

Perhaps you will argue that your parents will feel bad if you die, but my guess is even if they pass you will continue to live. And you could have cut off relations with all others to minimize their loving you and being sad if you were gone.

Of course a lot of parents would suffer if they don't get grandkids. And a women who loves you might suffer.

we are not perfect, but life wants to continue. With great passion. There is a seed of hatred of life in anti-natalism, and trust me I have a lot of sympathy for that hatred. A lot. Despite my having been born int he West, I went through repeated trauma as a child. I am glad someone like you did not convince my parents to never have let me live. Because I do not share your values system. And I hope you do not undermine the coming existence of children, the vast majority of whom do not either.

We don’t matter. — SimonSays

Let's say that's true. Then us knowing this or thinking this wouldn't matter either. Whatever happens in the mind of creatures that do not matter, would matter even less then them or also zero.

So why bother arguing that it is the case? What difference does it make if we go around thinking we do matter, which might be more pleasant? Why begrudge people an idea that does not matter? Why write a long post, that does not matter`? If I though nothing mattered, I can't see why I would ever go online to write an argument. Unless this was the most fun I could have. Or unless I wanted people to suffer like I am.

We need a definition of happiness. But right off the bat we do things to avoid pain, or unhappiness. And parents would die to save their children, which does not increase their happiness, since they are dead.

But I think happiness is not what many people seek. I think they seek to express themselves, for example, even if this leads to more pain and unhappiness. I know artists who suffer their art, not just suffer for their art. Now there are positive things they are seeking to experience, but I don't think the word happiness is right. I think they feel like this is the right expression of their bodies and selves, regardless of what it feels like on the scale of happiness, unhappiness. It's something else. Like animals may have their niches and habits and thrive in some way there. Perhaps they might be happier somewhere else, livng as a human child, with human parents, less fear of predators. But I think their lives would be improvrished. Just as taking a hedonistic happiness focused heuristic for me would lead to a life that is improvrished, even if happier. I am nto chasing a mood, much of the time, but myself and what I truly want to do. Not because what I truly want to do makes me happy, but becuase, there, that is me, being me. A sense of rightness.

The point isn't going AGAINST consent. Any action that risks harming someone required explicit consent. — khaled

What if a parent reads this, feels like they have committed some kind of crime against their kid and kills themself`? Shouldn't you get consent before spreading your ideas.

What about inactions? Should we get consent for not acting if this harms someone?

What if my kids would view never having had a chance to live as harm?

Why are pleasure and pain the measure of a life? I oftne set goals for myself that require dealing with more pain than if I was a hedonist. I do this because the life in me wants to experience certain things and be expressive in certain ways. Am I harming myself? And yes, I understand that I can give consen for this, but my point is that I think harm is being defined as if hedonism was the obvious choice that life makes. I dont think this is the case. Or if it is, the type of pleasure is so nuanced it is really not a good term for it. And pain too is misleading.

I have had a hard life, at least for a Westerner. Repeated trauma, as one example. But I am glad that I got this life. I am life. I want it.

An antinatalist wants life to stop. I think the universe is better with life and as far as I can see most life agrees, in its general avoidance of death. In its seeking out more life. And in us even creating challenges and goals that require suffering that we could avoid.

The antinatalist dislikes life. I have sympathy for that.

But the antinatalist talks about consent, when they try to convince life that life is bad and should not have been. Imagine if they were effective in convincing people. Where did they get the consent to try to end all future life? Do they have the consent of the unborn to try to convince the living not to have them?

In the end it is guilt in the guise of kindness. Life, you have committed a crime, because really Life you don't want to live.

It won't be effective, this proselytizing, but the goal of it is quite hypocritical.

Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer, from human experience, has been a resounding NO. — BrianW

Of course, they do this. In school I was not allowed to defend myself physically. The teachers, at least many of them would if they were attacked on the street. A fight between kids, both kids got suspended, period. Parents can give orders which children must follow. They on the other hand need not follow the orders of children. Police can decide to put me in the back of a car in handcuffs and cart me off overnight. I cannot decide to do that to them. They can even make and error but not be punished if they followed their rules. I cannot do it to them even in many situations where it would not be an error. There is no situation where I can kill a lot of people including innocent ones. Governments and military leaders can do this. I am mentioning examples where I think most people see this and most people consider this to often be correct, though sometimes it can be wrong.

I won't repeat this again. I don't understand why you cannot see this phenomenon. All over the earth in every culture ever, some people get to do things they can tell others not to do, and people go along with this. Not always. They can hate this dictator, etc. But there is absolutely no rule. We humans, as a rule, as a rule, have many situations where because of age, knowledge, skills, roles, we allow people to do things most people are not allowed to do. And these people are leaders on various scales.

The concept is not considered wrong per se. It is all over the place.

Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer is a resounding yes. And what I mean here is not only that they can and do, but even that most humans think this is ok in many circumstances.

But I will stop here. I feel like I am pointing at something so obvious and it keeps getting denied in new wordings.

Have I now proved that God must be good? no. Have I now proved that there is no problem of evil? no.

Have I demonstrated that the idea that this is incorrect...
Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer, from human experience, has been a resounding NO

Oh, yeah.

Your response has been that we are critical in many cases. Well, sure, humans are not gods. Humans will make mistakes in the application of a general principle that we accept. IOW sometimes they will do this in ways that are not good. But then humans are not deities. Have I proven there are deities? no. Have I proven that if there is a deity, he must be a good one? No.

Have I demonstrated that ruling out per se that one cannot impart discipline which they do not adhere to? Oh yeah. I've even gone a step beyond. We not only all accept this, with people with certain skills, roles, experience, etc. we see it as necessary.

My personal experience is different because I used to call out my parents on their nonsense, for example, I asked my dad how he thought he could impart to me the notion that smoking was bad when I knew for certain that he began smoking while in high school. In the end, he fessed up that such lessons were an attempt to have one's kids do better than the parents but were not necessarily definitive lessons on morality. — BrianW

Sigh. I mean, sure. I am not arguing that parents are infallible. Mine weren't. But the truth is you, when you were younger, had to listen to your parents or you would probably be dead. You would have wandered out in the road. And you probably did not understand why they were right. If there is a deity with knowledge vastly greater than ours, then we may be wrong about the best ways to run a universe. I am not telling you what to do, or how to relate to authroity figures. I am on the rebellious side myself. My point is that if there is a deity, vastly more knowledgeable than us, than just like toddlers or even older children, we may mistakenly think that this 'parent' is wrong, because we lack the knowledge.

If we go back to the original reason I brought in parents and other types of experts it had to do with you presenting it as if

one cannot accept another entity telling us to do one thing but doing other things themselves. If that was the situation, according to you, it must be wrong.

I disagree.

I presented many situations where most of us allow experts, people with more knowledge, to do things we would think was wrong if regular people or people without extpertise or children did them.

This has morphed into....you must not question or analyze. Or God must be good in my opinion. Or I am saying parents are infallible.

No, I am saying we all allow some people to do things we do not allow others to do and still consider that first group potentially moral.

That is the argument I am putting forward.

I am not telling you how to feel about floods and war. I am focused on your argument.

which does not mean I am, either, putting forward the opposite argument that if it happens it must be good because God is good. I think that argument is weak also.

And, for the record, children do know. It's just that their knowledge processes (conscious and sub/un-conscious minds) have yet a ways to go in terms of integration, but they always suspect or intuit certain hints about their parent's actions. — BrianW

I don't think so. I think I was quite convinced my parents were wrong about anything from bedtime to the importance of certain kinds of interpersonal behavior. The truth is as a middle aged person I am still realizing nuances of things where I am just now realizing they were right. There is absolutely no way a kid can understand that eating more sugar, wandering out in the street, putting her hands through the cage at the zoo. playing with fire in certain ways are just plain dangerous. Left to their own devices they will do all sorts of things over and over until statistics catch up with them. Or we could leave them alone. We're not deer, who know a lot of the rules when they pop out of the womb and start walking, near mom.

I'm not saying there isn't or couldn't be another side to this coin but, any reasonable being should hold everything to proper analysis and critique. Not only do we question our parents but we also often act out against them when they try to play two-face. From my evaluation of religions, morality (especially from those of the Abrahamic/Mosaic religions), I find a near perfect analogy with respect to its failings as I observe with human parenting. Coincidence... ? I think not. — BrianW

Sure. I do this too. Now you are saying what you do. That you want to analyze and judge. Fine.

That's different from presenting the case as if you have shown that we can be sure there is a problem with God if there is one.

One is saying how you want to live and why. And I happen to live that way also.
The other is saying that we can demonstrate that God is fallible or not good.

I do the former. I do not think we can do the latter. The latter is a claim to infallibility also on an issue where we are pretty limited.

So there's nothing inconsistent with a supposedly perfect God acting in ways which we know to be less than perfect... ? — BrianW

The whole point of my argument is we may not be in a postion to know. Just as a child might not know. Just as a civilian might not know what was necessary. Just as a non-expert might not know.

Like I said, to some extent we do allow but we also set limits, for example, since WW2 the succeeding wars have been greatly monitored to avoid such occurrences — BrianW

We haven't had a world war. I doubt we'd be all nicey in a broad conflict, especially since other countries wouldn't be, at least eventually either. And besides our drone kill civilians all the time. The embargo on Iraq killed thousands of children.

I don't think it should be the same for a supposedly perfect God. — BrianW

Many theological defenses of evil, iow answers to the problem of evil, imply or state outright that to achieve the best of all possible worlds, there has to be suffering and death. That this is inherent in perfection. That we can't see this but God can. Yes, he could make a bunch of perfect people who live in a big room with cushions, but actually our seemingly more horrifying world - with the attendant afterlifes - allows for something even better.

So, God may be doing perfectly what is questionable or outright wrong for us to do? Hmm, No. Not buying that. — BrianW

And neither do kids and teenagers in relation to their parents, even regarding things where the parents are right on the button. Groups without medical science would look on certain medical interventions as tortures carried out by evil demons. Etc.

I am not saying you should buy it. The truth is I don't. But we are running on gut feelings and we certainly can't demonstrate this logically to someone else. For all we know, we are missing some bigger picture we, with our limited knowledge, can't possibly even grasp. You can't mount an argument that eliminates that possbility.

And your argument that it must appear right to us or an authority is wrong, is countered by the way we relate to experts/leaders/parents in all sorts of situations here on earth.

The misunderstanding would be on your part. Giving a fuck about interpersonal behavior is what morality is in a nutshell. — Terrapin Station

I think the problem is even deeper. To not give a shit about what other people do (to you) requires not giving a shit about everything. A person might knock the ice cream out of your hand on the sidewalk. You can't care that you are not eating ice cream. Extend this to the full range of desires, and not getting them. This is stopping a desire. Then you have the giving you unpleasant experiences. Pouring water on you in winter. Taking your car so you have to walk. Extend this to all unpleasant experiences. To maintain not giving a fuck you can no longer dislike unpleasant experiences and prefer ones you want. You can no longer prefer, desire, want to avoid. You would be, basically, a motivationless creature. All states and experiences would be the same to you. Civilization, even continued existence, would collapse. Why work? Live? Eat? make? kiss? Homo sapiens ends on a shrug.

My solution to this conundrum is, please don't laugh, to ''not give a fuck''. That is, you don't give a fuck that John stole your stuff--in fact, you don't give fuck about ANYTHING that would be considered transgressions towards you. — Three-Buddy Problem

That would require something equivalent to setting up a prison state inside myself. IOW John's argument would be even stronger in related to my giving a fuck. Why should my giving a fuck be more problematic and less causes by society than this stealing?

Sure, this may sound ludicrous and counterintuitive, but think about this:

The less fucks you give about your property, the less John would want to STEAL your property.

I truly doubt that. I don't see the causal chain.
Ah, ok, it isn't a causal chain....

The difficult part is that this solution can only work if EVERYONE in a given society sticks to it. But once everyone does, society as we know it would be so much better that the conventional concept of morality becomes obsolete.

Yes, if no one gave shit about....

Well, wait a minute, how extensive must that category be? How about rape? Child abuse?

Ok, the idea is that we all stop giving a fuck about anything, then we don't have trouble with each other.

But then, we don't have any motivations, because all experiences are the same to us. Nothing is negative, nothing is positive. Eat ice cream or lick an ashtray...I don't give a fuck. So if someone steals my ice cream or forces me to lick an ashtray...it's all good or the same, at least.

So if everyone could no longer give a fuck about what anyone did, they would simply not give a fuck. And this would mean they would have no motivation to go to work, find love, create art, not step in front of a train, eat, breath.

We can elminate all moral conflict by all killing ourselves, but I am not sure if it's a solution either.

What are your thoughts on laziness? — Purple Pond

I think it's a floppy misleading term with moral baggage that is of no use.

I think the only fair use of laziness is when someone has a particular goal/expectation and as far as we can tell, the only way to achieve that goal or meet that expection would involve activity/effort that the person does not engage in.

So then laziness is really a kind of entitlement in relation to the universe.

Or it points to a lack of desire. You say that's your goal. But it doesn't seem to be. You don't have much interest in achieving it. If you really wanted it, you'd be worried that couch surfing isn't getting you there.

But otherwise, the mere fact that someone is not doing what we consider much doesn't seem like laziness to me.

Why support only one school of philosophy?

Officially people may support only one school, but in practice pretty much everyone is eclectic. They will use a number of different epistemologies to arrive at beliefs they will act on (as if those beliefs are true). They will use some mish mash of deontology and consequentialism (and subdivisions therein), to arrive at actions (and that's when they ar being actively rational about it.) They will internally at the very least, see themselves as determined in certain situations, and having free will in others. They will talk about it these differing ways. Discussions will reveal all sorts of ideas, implicit mostly, about ontology. People present unified fronts with themselves and the guy up there in the observation tower will claim to be this or that, but if you follow them, over time, in situ, they will most be all over the place. And the ones who are not - I would guess they would scare me a bit.

That's the point I'm making - that, the 'do as I say' teaching is inadequate when the teachers don't do as they say. — BrianW

Right but my point is that we accept that already at the human level.

None of them claim to be perfect or above censure. Unless we accept that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God is just another being liable to faults just like all the other beings we have encountered. — BrianW

Right. But that doesn't really affect my argument. My argument is that we accept that experts/leaders/adults make decisions and perform acts that non-experts/non-leaders/children are not allowed to make, and so the idea that there is a God who does not act like he tells us to act, cannot be considered immoral or hypocritical per se.

We allow but we still know it is wrong and we still define the limits of such allowances. — BrianW

I disagree that we 'know it is wrong'. Unless we are complete pacifists we allow people to knowingly kill even innocents in wartime. We allow police powers we do not allow other citizens, powers most do nto consider wrong at least in many types of instances. We allow parents to do things we do not allow kids to do, both in relation to kids and in relation to things, other adults, and more.

If there is a God who has incredibly more knowledge than us, and presumably perception also, the fact that such a God does certain things that seem immoral to us cannot be ruled out as immoral or hypocritical, since we, if this is the case with God, do not know what God knows. And sure, we limit those powers - thougn in wartime those limits are far out there: Hiroshima, Dresden and then a lot of smaller acts where innocent people were killed.

Parents often make decisions that to children with their limited knowledge find reprehensible. And some of these decisions are ones that children would not be allowed to make, even with their pets or belongings.

And again, why are we holding God to the same standards we have for humans? Isn't God supposed to be above that? What happened to being perfect, all-powerful, faultless, etc, etc? — BrianW

I haven't said anything about holding God to a different standard. If it is true that God knows vastly more than us, God may be doing perfectly.