I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes. — I like sushi

Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!).

I'm not saying it is logical.

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. The remarks made don't seem sensible to me and so I assume they are doing exactly what they want them to do. Why? no idea. Even the Ukrainian leader has asked them to tone it down.

Undoubtedly there is a lot going on we don't know about. I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone by repeatedly pointing out that he has been concerned about the creep of US military forces ... apparently that was a condition the US has offered to them but I think it has come to the imminent threat of war for the US to even bother doing that ... so, yeah. It looks to me like they are asking for it.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West.

Anyway, we could argue and disagree forever. I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes.

Both the US and Russia have some serious hang ups over the results from WW2 and the people in the area are still very much in the grip of what has passed since then and will remain stuck in it for another century or so ... I just hope 'nationhood' ends for a positive reason rather than as a final hurrah.

Judging by the latest news it looks like there will be war sadly.

If NATO is meant to be about protecting and preventing war then perhaps they should not look to expand towards the only country they deem as a threat and wait a few more generations so the nonsense of the Cold War is a memory or a memory rather than recalled by those playing power games right now?

Of course this won't happen so either the Ukrainian government will ease off or Russia will wreck the Ukraine one way or another in order to prevent NATO expansion.

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. Why? Who knows. Maybe it is not Russia looking to destabilase Europe?

Either way this is looking unlikely to blow over as I first thought unless the media reports are exaggerating the tone of what is going on.

Someone who annoys people consistently and constantly with things they find 'interesting' or 'intriguing'.

The rest is academic pomposity most of the time and playing with ego conflation.

There is a good deal of information here on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

I think it is basically down to what the Ukraine government decides to do regarding setting up future military camps in their country. Russia has repeatedly stated - truthfully or otherwise - that they are concerned with the US creeping closer and closer to their border with missile sites capable of hitting their capital and ask how the US would feel if they started do the same to them (think Cuban missile crisis).

If the Ukrainian leaders want to flex then I think it will be a mistake. If they can make an independent deal with the US and Russia regarding military placement within their borders then it will all blow over and nothing will happen for a few years. If they insist on joining NATO with no conditions (something apparently against an agreement Russia had with US?) allowing military creep towards Russia I expect we'll see more proxy wars spark up around the globe soon enough involving China and Russia ... that would be how I would 'go to war' without having to 'go to war'.

Overall the threat from NATO is just sanctions. I think that is just code for something else though as if it was ONLY about threatening sanctions if they invaded I think Russia would happily invade and take the sanctions - they don't need trade with Europe or US really.

Yes. Some people simply want to focus on Putin as the singular reason for the turbulence.

I'm by no means siding with Russia or NATO. I just know the whole thing has very little to do with the actual people and there is a lot of politicking involved all over (France and Germany are being tested it seems). The ball is in Russia's court and they are in the better position.

They did let people vote in Ukraine. Guess what? Pro-Russia candidates were given the boot. Since that unpleasantness over Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbass, Ukrainians' attitudes have shifted significantly, and not in Russia's favor. — SophistiCat

Ukrainian attitudes in what section of the country?

From wiki:

The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004, winning 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the votes cast. The candidates who came third and fourth collected much less: Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate had won more than 50% of the cast ballots, Ukrainian law mandated a run-off vote between two leading candidates. After the announcement of the run-off, Oleksandr Moroz threw his support behind Viktor Yushchenko. The Progressive Socialist Party's Natalia Vitrenko, who won 1.53% of the vote, endorsed Yanukovych, who hoped for Petro Simonenko's endorsement but did not receive it.

I don't know for certain but I'd bet the voting was divided between Russian speakers in the East and Ukrainian speakers in the West.

War has been ongoing since this time I believe. With both US and Russia supplying men and arms to the fight (although both denied doing so).

There is plenty of sense in Russia’s view that the US has been steadily encroaching on Russian territory. The US has no good reason to help strengthen Europe and the most powerful nations play a game to keep the status quo not to bring others up to their level.

I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). If Ukraine joins NATO I don’t see things getting better any time soon.

The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people. Crimea is/was basically made up of Russian speaking pro Russian people and the eastern half of Ukraine is basically the same.

If they just let people vote maybe the war would finally end. Instead it has been another ongoing proxy war between Russia and US.

I think both sides are wrong btw. Ukraine should never have existed in its current form due to the opposing positions of the people within its borders.

... it remains a fact that power corrupts ... — Olivier5

You expressed an opinion and called it a fact. It should bother you far more than it should bother me I hope.

I thought philosophy was basically diagnostics? You and apply and view different methods for some problem/question as well as exploring the question and the method underlying the origins of the question/s.

Diagnostics is more or less about presenting possible solutions/factors for a given case. The decision is not really about arriving at a conclusion it is about allowing us to make a next step in order to narrow, or open, our field of investigation (this is what happens in medicine too where a procedure that will not help the patient directly will reveal new information that shuts down or opens up new possibilities).

Fashion is fashion. The youth is prone to appearing 'fashionable' and being 'fashionable' may mean despising monetary wealth or aspiring to it.

You tend to find that mainstream artists dream of being fringe or underground whilst underground artists dream of commercial success. The stress between the two encourages people to sway back and forth.

Worth is subjective, but for most items in life there is a general consensus. Artists making money is more applicable to certain fields in certain times. The music industry is waning because live music is overtly commercial now. The Beatles and Elvis basically turned the industry on its head and the advent of MTV followed by the internet has started to make current forms of music less 'fashionable'.

Look to what teenagers aspire to be to see how things have changed. Once it was every teenager wanting to be in a band and now it is more about esports, podcasts, and streaming. These are the heroes of today not Bowie or Elvis. Now people want to be Elon Musk or Joe Rogan.

Anything that gets popularised comes from underground sources. Hip-hop was alive and vital and then it became commercial ... it is just how things are. The 'value' will shift with novelty. The true artists don't care much for money they just make stuff because that is what they do. Others fawn over them or are inspired by them.

Money is a reasonably good fungible means of trading and interaction between seemingly different areas. Monopolies are the issue. Another issue is that of immediate reward. That is why education is plagued by business models that are detriment to education as the 'pay off' of a good education is hard to measure/predict and takes a considerable amount of time to reap the benefits from. Some times school students do poorly in one year because the students in that year are just dumb yet schools are often rewarded based on the performance of students ... it is insane.

Money is better than barter ... but maybe with current communications and technologies a combination of the two may be more possible? No idea what that will look like though ... it would take someone extraordinary to come up with and implement an alternative.

Your opinion. Fair enough. You can argue/agree/question/view my point here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11886/choice-the-problem-with-power

It was about the way people use the term 'power' and questioning the validity of doing so when talking about 'power' in terms of 'corruption'.

Giving direction isn't 'bad' though. That is my point. Simply because someone is capable of applying their will here or there it doesn't mean it is 'corrupt' the corruption is more about exactly what they are doing, how they are doing it and why they are doing it.

Power is just as likely to make changes for good and it is for bad (whatever the perception of good or bad may be).

I see far too much people trying to drag down others because they are competent and/or possess abilities they don't possess.

Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. Is someone 'coercing' or 'suggesting' or 'guiding'? The term used to describe someone generally tells us more about the person saying it than the person they are referring to if they view power as some root of corruption (not that I am saying you said that).

If you are defining power as something that necessarily corrupts then it does obviously mean that. I don't see why power necessarily corrupts (power meaning ability to influence/control events to some degree).

I would basically equate power to ability. The 'ability' may be used as a detriment or not. If I have the ability to kill people (which I do and so does practically everyone else) I can apply this in ways that can be deemed as 'corrupt' or 'just' depending on differing circumstances.

Using power for personal gain and interest above all ease is 'corruption'. That is nothing like saying power causes corruption anymore than it is to say evaporation causes thunder storms or water causes animals to swim. Power can undoubtedly be talked about in terms of how corruption manifests but it is not a root cause in and of itself.

it remains a fact that power corrupts — Olivier5

No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though.

I think they are hard to find. A lot of people come to philosophy forums because they have a vague interest in expressing something, asking about something or just out of curiosity.

Most people are capable of philosophical thought and they are usually the kind of people who don't seek out philosophy where there is a sign saying 'philosophy' to start with.

Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless. — Olivier5

A person without any power is merely useless as they cannot do anything. A person with power can do something.

Good people exist because they possess the power to do something not because they are inept. I could just as easily argue that refusing claims to power would make you a bad person because it could be framed as cowardice and refusal to take responsibility.

To talk about differences in sex isn’t inherently ‘sexist’. I think it is a cheap shot and antithetical to any kind of level-headed discussion to try and tar and smear what someone is asking/saying/looking at.

Even if there is a general agreement that whether man or woman we should behave within certain boundaries it still comes to the point that there are general differences between men and women and that perhaps the general agreement about human bahaviours we wish to aspire towards (as men or women) necessarily means that there is a general difference in paths towards such an aspired place of civil communication, laws and such.

The underlying question I have is whether or not the differences in how men and women value certain aspects of human life differs enough to warrant justification for any discussion into how society can be better directed towards equality for all (as in equality of choice).

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

Overall I would probably expect this to be so. On an individual to individual basis I’m not sure it would hold up just as we cannot say definitively that one random woman is less aggressive than one random man (although I would bet on it being the man knowing the odds are slightly in my favour).

But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. — L'éléphant

No, because I agree there is a difference. I don’t care for ‘morals’ as I’ve stated. I have made quite clear (so I thought?) that men and women in general will have different ethical maps because they are different.

I mentioned the way feminine and masculine are used because I wasn’t convinced you were aware of how they can be used in psychology. If I was wrong I was wrong, it doesn’t hurt to state how the terms are used though.

Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction. — L'éléphant

But there is also a ‘motherly protection’ aspect too this. Shielding people from harm. We can argue for both maternal and paternal instincts here. Restricting freedom is seen by you as masculine/paternal but not feminine/maternal … probably because feminine and maternal are not exactly synonymous. The virtuous character traits if women (historically) have been more or less ‘passive’ traits, but for archetypes like the all consuming mother figure there is a large amount of tyranny involved as well as great danger.

I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.

The same goes for scientific procedure.

Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent.

Why? What for? If I wanted to post on facebook I would use facebook.

I think the one thing it is hard to argue against is that overall human development is what is it is and that men and women are distinguishable. That is not to say they are completely different but it is to say that they are most certainly not the same and that the overall pattern is that there are males and females.

Gender has recently taken on a slightly different take distinct from sex, but I think it has been overly politicised by a small minority within a small minority. As a technical term I'm fine with using the term any way people like just as long as we're both clear we're talking about the same thing.

The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. Generally the serious types are not screaming they are just asking questions and considering different views rather than pushing an agenda.

My position is basically against 'morality' as some kind of 'rule'.

When it comes to groups and individuals the very differences being discussed here take on a different means. Collectively women behave differently to men and are different to men in attitudes and psychological make up. On an individual to individual to individual basis the chances of distinguishing a man from a woman purely based on psychology alone is more or less guess work.

It is incredibly easy to confuse the behaviour of a rain drop with the behaviour of rain - as in the behaviour of a man/woman with the behaviour of men/women.

@L'éléphant Reread and stop overreacting. It is utter gibberish to replace ‘gender’ with ‘physiological’ in that sentence. I used the term ‘sex’ not gender. I have no issue with people using ‘gender’ in the same way as ‘sex’ but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something and don’t appear to want to talk about why you deem ‘feminine’ as ‘female’ and ‘masculine’ as ‘male’ when these are absolutely NOT equivocal in psychology. All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk).

Yes, what are called ‘feminine’ characteristics are traditionally (universally even) associated with females. Society has shifted.

It is a ‘touchy subject’ and if you’re touchy about it it doesn’t help anyone.

I think it is reasonable to say that on the whole there are differences in values between me and women and that these things have changed as society changes too. How are they different? There are personality traits that show some differences between men and women. It also follows that different values will give different moral stances.

The question for me is not whether men and women have different moral maps but exactly how different they are.

@Astrophel Here's a thought. If there is some underlying principle (core elements of) 'ethics' then can an alien species exist and have a completely different set of ethical views/rules? At the heart here is is basically about ways of valuing things.

Example: Maybe in an alien culture the females would select males based on how well they kill dolphins or build temples made of wood ... this would lay out a 'value system' upon which ethical schemes are based. In such a society maybe they question the underlying value of caring about temples made of wood or killing dolphins BUT they would still care about them to the point that such things have gone hand in hand, or tentacle in tentacle, with their evolutionary history.

When we look at humans we could take this tack too. How do females select mates? How do males select mates? How have such choices laid out the evolutionary groundwork for our ethical views via our biological predispositions and how influential are these 'innate' parts when it comes to us living out our lives?

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.

Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear.

Sapolsky refers to humans as the confused ape as unlike other ape species the difference between male and female is far less pronounced. The vast number of differences scientifically/statistically documented are more or less only noticable at the extremes or when culminated across large population groups (ie. height or muscles mass, as well as personality traits too a far lesser degree).

As for morality ... I personally don't see any reason to care for it :)

Asking why will eventually lead to foundational justifications. — Astrophel

Because you say so. I don't buy it. I'm not into atomisation. This is literally one of the main contentions Husserl had.

It doesn't matter why, or in what circumstance, or how evil one's intent is--- liking something, adoring it, despising it, and so forth, have in every case an existential counterpart: that which is in the world which is adored, despised and the rest. — Astrophel

I don't believe this via certain experiences I've had. I cannot share those experiences though only state that I cannot fully justify what you are saying or really hold to it with a large degree of seriousness. Nor should you care about my experiences too much just go about your business splitting things in half and you'll find the loop eventually or deny it (or maybe I denied it?).

Just to add, the argument for moral realism I defend is quite involved. This is but an iceberg's tip. — Astrophel

I find immoral to argue for a moral position. I think the term is far too suspect being entwined with social norms, claims of justification, reducing life to formulas and embedded in a medium (this one of words) that exists in a social format rather than one which is orientated about the individual being (Selfhood).

Humans are Legions whether alone or together.

As an exercise of thought anything can be justified and some things more easily than others. Understand it is a game though and not much more - that is probably the heart of what you are asking so there it is ... ethics is a game and it becomes more about what a game is ... you can go round and round, and so you should, until some of the parts and perspectives make more sense. What ever the hodgepodge conclusion you arrive at as sufficient will be nebulous and avoid precise articulation because we're not just words bundled up in a mindball.

What about this obvious point drove you to post it instead of posting about the sky being blue or circles being round?

I guess you just want us to pay attention to it more. Fair enough. I don't really care much for the post and if there is nothing more so be it.

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine, but I'm not sure where you expect this to go or want this to go?

This is a radical, and overarching openness that runs through all things, and is overwhelmingly alien to familiar thinking. — Astrophel

That is the phenomenological approach. There is no statement of what is or isn't only constant reorientation through consciousness.

You said it yoursef: your taste will vary due to mood, etc. I am not a mood. When a mood comes to me, I can deal with it, true, but the mood and its alternatives are givens. You are thrown into a world of givens. Choice intervenes, but choices are only among what is given to choose; and so many are now beyond choice: I can't choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. — Astrophel

Where does the 'mood' come from? France? Make sense or don't speak. What is it you are 'dealing with' and what does this 'dealing with it' entail? Note: I'm not trying to be funny or evasive here nor am I expecting an answer ... that is counter productive to disentangling oneself from 'ethics' as a reasonable quest.

You can choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. Saying you cannot does not make the plasticity of your taste disappear it merely covers it up. You may or may not be predisposed towards x more than y but that doesn't necessarily make x a certain choice over y.

If you say you cannot choose it is because you don't wish that to be the case because it is upsetting on some level of rationality (which includes emotional aspects too as it must ... unless I'm wrong!).

The Self is not ethical.

btw Ethics doesn’t exist. The illusion is believing in a system of laws to the point that it overrules what you actually want/need/wish to do with your life.

The selfless man is spineless, selfish man is spineless. But the man who cares for being neither one nor the other … is the Self.

As psychological example …. Morbid curiosity! I can be ‘attracted’ to something I find ‘repulsive’.

What makes something ‘repulsive’ is the same as what makes it ‘attractive’ … novelty! Fear is part of discovery in some step of the journey. Discovery without some initial comprehension of fear isn’t discovery it is just ‘normal’.

I ask then, what is in an attraction or repulsion? — Astrophel

Are dichotic features real? How are difference defined? What is a the difference between open and closed as opposed to hot and cold? Opposites come in various forms and some are harder to categorise than others. Some can be called gradable in one situation and something else in another.

I can be NOT hot but not necessarily cold. The door be open OR closed NOT somewhere in between.

Attraction and repulsion are just two ways of saying the exact same thing depending on what features you are focusing on.

Still no mute button? :(

Blah blah blah. I don’t respect your opinion because I understand it.

As good a place to start as any. Any starting point needs to be seen as wrong at some point though.

What ethic we/I use is regarded in terms of emotional wellbeing and logical analysis (or rational thought).

The ‘emotional wellbeing’ involves self-deception as much as revelation (or perhaps more so).

The ‘rational’ is tied to the disassociation of authorship over our actions. All too often people ‘rationalise’ their actions (pre/post) in order to protect/confront their emotional states. To look at ourselves and see how monstrous we are (not can be, WE ARE) is not an easy task or a sensible one for that matter, unless we understand the danger … which we cannot. This is basically the Jungian Shadow.