Great title. Other than that I am not quite sure why I should care at all about this?

Are people that bored that this is actually ‘news’ now?

Ever considered that ‘suffering’ may be a goal rather than something to be avoided?

Think about it. What have you ever achieved in life that was of value that did not require some degree of ‘suffering’ … then think about the old adage of ‘the journey not the destination’.

Maybe you did not read my response. The OP asked how do we decide what matters. I said, plain and clear, we do not ‘decide’ at all. What I say ‘matters’ to me may not actuallu matter at all.

The OP did not ask ‘does anything matter?’ Also, the last question is incoherent and the person in question has not bothered to correct the grammatical errors so I am still not clear what they were asking there.

What we wish to do is not always what we ought to do. Nor can one derive what we ought do from what we in fact do. Basic stuff. — Banno

Yes. I never said otherwise.

Profits are used/abused by varying degrees at different times in s company’s history I would imagine.

It is a little like asking ‘where do your personal earnings go?’. There is no ONE answer to this question. I think the only consistent theme is we, and companies, generally try and meet the minimum means of sustaining ourselves then venture, store, save or invest in future schemes.

I have a feeling there is a punchline to this OP?

Like I said, irrelevant. My reality is the only reality I know.

Such a scenario only shows this better. You cannot expect me to be completely fooled by your hypothetical simulator and yet not be fooled by it at the same time.

Question: Should we listen to arguments rather than people? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This is basically the foundation of philosophy is it not?

I think there may be some issue with assessing more opened ended ideas. Meaning sometimes there is no obvious conclusion and a perspective is being looked at and this can be when ‘people’ act as if the ideas presented are either ridiculous or construed as facts.

‘Debates’ are for personalities ‘winning’ but merely ‘winning’ a debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the position. A debate is just a case of jousting rather than a genuine pursuit of ideas and possible truths.

We do not decide what matters. What matters is present it is just a case of paying attention and being honest with yourself. - not that this is an easy task.

Note: Edit your OP as it is incoherent in places.

Call me crazy but I think it is the responsibility of the parents rather than the taxman when it comes to nurturing children.

Labour have recently committed to the latter. — Michael

Shame they didn’t back it when Lib Dems tried to make it happen. Maybe because the Lib Dems were basically the true opposition for decades in terms of proportional representation.

The campaign waged against proportional representation was taken on by both Labour and Conservatives AND set back the Lib Dems very, very, very far sadly. Imagine a choice between three parties … would at least increase the odds that one of them might not be so bad.

The public is mainly to blame to though. Too many people want to hear make believe policies above the harsh reality.

Anyway, I don’t live there anymore and have no intention to in the future. Good luck

I think it would make more sense to let public decide who leads the party … seems bizarre that the last two candidates standing were probably the worst two.

I heard a lot of interest from friends and family in Nadhim Zahawi.

‘Sanity’? Nice joke :D

Is anyone surprised? I doubt it. This decade long war only ends with both sides sitting down and negotiating peace. It could probably have been avoided. Hindsight is hindsight though.

I was just pointing out that ‘partial mobilisation’ is about putting people on the military payroll into battle. If someone is willing to sign up and take money that is their choice.

If you are in the Russian territorial army or not I would not blame you for running, but I would ask such people to think before grabbing a quick buck next time maybe. I have seen some suspect reports about calling up people who are not in the TA, but needless to say any hint of this kind of story will get wide attention in western media whether it is fully validated or not.

Partial Mobilisation means they call up people on the payroll in the territorial army basically. The people fleeing are likely fleeing to avoid the next step - full mobilisation.

The western media is reporting it like all Russian men of fighting age are being pushed into the military. This is absolutely not what ‘partial mobilisation’ means. Are the Russians sticking to ‘partial mobilisation’ or actually enforcing a ‘full mobilisation’ policy? That is another question.

Conscription? I a not a massive fan of it. I can understand arguments both for and against it. It would be interesting to see how opinions varied between men and women on this matter.

Assume for a second I actually know what I am talking about and stop ranting.

You have not addressed the OP because maybe you did not understand. Ever consider that? If your ‘answer’ was yet another rant about me not knowing what ethics is that is not addressing the OP.

My point was - to repeat for the last time - that Applied Ethics (case determinate) and Care Ethics (interpersonal focus), as they stand alone, both resist any sense of responsibility.

Banno appears to have actually understood. He does not see how Care Ethics is ‘opposed’ to Virtue Ethics though and it DOES NOT MATTER as I have stated several times already. I am not pursuing this to be constantly sidetracked by insignificant points. Either way I have already stated that Care Ethics was set up in opposition to Virtue Ethics because it was deemed as ‘personal’ rather than ‘interpersonal’.

If you again keep on about that I will just ignore you so for the sake of an actual discussion how about addressing the OP? Last chance.

@Agent Smith There are some very well accounted psychological difference between men and women. In many circumstances we could state that women ‘care too much’ due to being more tilted towards ‘anxiety’. Men tend to be more ‘aggressive’ so maybe you could say this makes them less caring?

The point being there are some differences and the fact that women are more interested in people than men (overall) does not necessarily translate as them being more ‘caring’. Also, ‘caring too much’ is not really ‘caring’ - assuming you were framing ‘caring’ in a more positive sense that is.

And I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop. — Banno

Well, we are unlikely to see ‘justification’ for an action as a negative thing. We know from the neurosciences that we are bias in terms of authorship to basic actions; meaning we deny or accept responsibility depending on how the outcome is perceived.

This is why I state that Applied Ethics and Care Ethics both shift the responsibility from the individual, in favour of the individual scenario or in favour of the nebulous interpersonal relations tied hard into societal norms and adherence there to.

Maybe if you back up your claim I will answer. If it is just your personal opinion based on nothing much more than personal experience I am not interested.

Nah! They just tend to care about different things.

His account of the wiki page was at least more accurate than some.

My point - which is overall irrelevant to the OP - was that the primary difference between care and virtue ethics is that care was set up in stark opposition to virtue ethics focusing on relationships whereas virtue is more about the individual.

And yes I am aware that philosophers have claimed that our relationships are who we are therefore care ethics is about the individual.

I guess I will need to rewrite the OP and start again as there is too much distraction.

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

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

Hypotheticals are meant to be tinkered with imo.

If the cancer problem was framed ‘if you do not kill and steal the cure your wife will certainly die’ then it is similar to the Trolley Problem. The biggest difference being the ‘hands on’ element of committing homicide whereas with the Trolley Problem you are in the situation with no vested interest … but that can easily be altered by saying your wife is on one track and the inventor of the cure for cancer is on the other.

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

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

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

I do not. That point was one of the issues Care Ethics has when it comes to addressing interpersonal relations.

By responsibility I thought it was clear enough? If not … the ‘responsibility’ is shirked when the Ethical doctrine is held up as ‘justification’ for actions after the fact.

‘Benevolence’ is just a vacuous stance that does not intend to do good only to behave as if one is caring and well meaning. No one can truly be ‘well meaning’ and ‘kind’ in the face of problems life throws at you. Virtue Ethics is not merely an isolated part of humanity being raised on some pedestal above all other human attributes and characteristics. Nor is Virtue Ethics an isolation of ‘masculinity’.

Anyway, I guess I will have to explain the problem with Applied Ethics again as well if that was not clear. The problem with Applied Ethics is that it avoids any kind of definition clinging on to relativism. The perpetual response being ‘it depends’ … true enough generally, but useless overall.

Of course I DO NOT think either idea is so dogmatic. Together Applied and Care Ethics do a damn good job of complementing each other. In isolation they are pretty hobbled.

Anyway, to be clear about the debate of how Care Ethics is classified there is no actual clear cut answer.

I will say that the whole development of Care Ethics was someone in opposition to Virtue Ethics which focuses on individual flourishing and it is this precise point where Care Ethics strongly stands in opposition to it.

Gilligan is where the idea originated. Storm compares Care Ethics to Buddhist Virtues. None of this is particularly relevant to the OP and my claims.

Take your patronising tone somewhere else matey.

Bye bye.

Check your own source you referenced. Jason Josephson Storm Is not the originator of Ethics of Care at all.

So I was not wrong. You are making a judgement based on how some individual chose to classify it (based on buddhist views).

When I hear Virtue Ethics I tend to think of Aristotle and the foundation of ‘know thyself’ rather than cleaving to ’benevolence’ as the most important item.

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

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. The ‘justification’ is @180 Proof where the ‘responsibility’ is shirked as one is ‘justified’ without a need to claim responsibility because ‘The Ethics of Care’ is your back up.

Point being that strict adherence to Applied Ethics or Ethics of Care is a means of ‘justification’ where their use is truly about exploring ‘how we wish to act’ rather than applying ‘justification’ in a social realm before or after the act.

The very idea of some ethical doctrine seems contrary to me.

Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think? I believe Virtue Ethics is more or less about how we wish to be as a person rather than focusing on our degrees of empathy to those familiar and unfamiliar to us?

Correct me if I am wrong. I generally see Ethics of Care as a very narrow scope of the human condition but certainly an important one when dealing with ethical problems.

My point was that both Applied Ethics and Ethics of Care essential avoid responsibility and that the real issue is people’s constant crutch of ‘justification’ above and beyond any actual responsibility.

My answers to such Trolley problems are irrelevant here because I do not believe public statements made about how we would act in such a scenario are anything but social posturing. That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives.

Then why bother? Humans are quite capable of making mistakes and being creative with them. That is basically our best quality is it not?

I am pretty sure this is due the realisation (or rather subconscious arrival of) that traditions and cultural values are separate entities rather than being tied at the hip.

Given modern shifts - as in over the past few centuries - and the seeming acceleration of these shifts due to technological advances and greater integration/clashes, we are jumping from one huge cultural revolution to the next within a generation rather than within several generations … this has destabilised many people’s views of what is or is not ‘true’ because where tradition and cultural values tended to pull each other along back and forth over time (like the skis of someone traversing a flat surface) we are now witnesses each ski going off down its own slope. What seemed like two united parts are now having to be reimagined and we are stuck with two monopole entities and frantically trying to create two new complete poles to compensate for the disorientating effects.

What you might be able to see here is that the item that needs to be addressed is ‘change’. Change is the monopole that shadows both so some kind of paradigm shift needs to be imagined in order to create a better sense of stability.

How can ‘Change’ be two different items? I do not pretend to know. I can say that ‘tradition’ and ‘cultural values’ are certainly pieces of the puzzle. Accepting that they are two completely different things will be the first step.

I honestly do not think any of the three issues in the OP is the biggest problem humanity currently faces.

The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. It is a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do but it can at least be something we can all direct ourselves towards more and more through time and instil in our species as a cultural virtue.

I think there is a real danger of voices being silenced and speech being policed to the point where we are going to have a terribly hard time turning the tide back on itself.

Ironically I think the answers lie in unravelling precisely how and why we communicate in the first place. This will be a major area of work for cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers alike. In political realms we appear to be living in the ‘death of nation’ stage of human civilisation. It is just a question of whether we create something ‘new’ or simply revert to some convoluted semi-religious paradigm that does a reasonable job of mimicking patriotism.

I have heard it said that ‘Art’ is a good predictor of how human culture will develop … given the state of the world of Art appears to have been more or less geared towards corrupting Art into some nonsense that is merely the whim of an individual’s insanity (so-called ‘contemporary art’). We can possibly expect the philosophical, or rather pseudo-philosophical, to start begin to take centre stage in human culture.

Note: I am not convinced that ‘Art’ does a good job of predicting the course of human culture just having a bit of fun there ;)

This would indeed be interesting. I'll wager that accomplishing such a showcase wouldn't be too difficult. — Bret Bernhoft

Would be nice to see each AI argue using a certain philosophers body of work and then adjusting according to what other AI say from their philosophical bodies of work.

It would at least be a way of showing inconsistencies and commonalities between philosophers … I am not convinced they would do a good job though. There is a great deal of complexity in human communication and one small error could throw the whole thing off the track.

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans? — Bret Bernhoft

Humans can actively create new phrases that actually have intent behind them. AI cannot. AI would, at best, be a pseudomystic - spouting phrases that others attach meaning to.

It cannot. It basically cherry picks from human thoughts. It does not ‘create’ any new ideas and anything that looks ‘new’ is simply due to the reader’s interpretation.

It would be interesting to see several AI ‘philosophers’ tackle a problem and see how well they are able to use all the philosophical works ever written to counter each others points. Still, it would require human input to set the parameters of each AI bot.

The western body of history is simply greater. I think it can well be argued that the Japanese are strong/er in terms of maintaining a long line of cultural traditions and a familiar symbolic language.

On second thoughts … I would say western because it has a strong line of development. The major problem in the western arena is that ‘mysticism’ is viewed with a lot of cynicism (likely due to the religious heritage). Also, movements like the New Age movement were a huge setback.

I think Jung pointed out the issue well enough by stating that the longing for something ‘unique’/‘alien’ in the western mindset was quickly filled by setting eyes eastwards. Yet in the west there is already a rich and varied repertoire of mythos and symbolism that we could more easily tap into and identify as a ‘tool’ for ‘piercing the veil’ yet the association with the judeo-christian symbolism (which inevitably attached to all western ancient and prehistoric mythos) looks stagnant and repulsive with a fleeting look. The east holds ‘mystery’ and a ‘new view’ yet to the average westerner it is actually harder to trace any relevance due to the language, historical and cultural discrepancies. Perhaps many forget that our everyday lexicon is infused with mythos and fable through idioms and metaphors passed down through the endless ages. We cannot simply unravel and forget our origins anymore than we can supplant this with a foreign body even if we try hard to adopt other cultural attributes from neighbouring states and institutions.

Much like someone who has worked as a fisherman for 30 years cannot simply ‘forget’ what it is to be a fisherman so a ‘westerner’ cannot simply forget to be have bee raised in the ‘western’ world speaking the language they speak (which as I stated is infused with symbols and mythos dating back over millennia).

It is dangerous. Since the beginning of time people have feared and worshipped in the name of ‘knowledge’. Ironically those who oppose technology are able to spread their ignorance by using technologies they oppose.

Leaders of nations would excel if they were educated professional scientists who could weigh the risks against the benefits by understanding what experts were saying and taking any accountability out of their hands. The whole covid situation was badly mismanaged due to appointing ‘experts’ and essentially backing them into a political corner where they will er on the side of caution when it comes to mortality rates.

Other instances are genetically modified foods and livestock … it is utterly ridiculous the ‘safety’ measures that are put in place because they end up causing more damage and creating a food industry based on public opinion over public safety. It is quite shocking how wilfully ignorant some people are.

It seems today people are more inclined to source their information from sci-fi movies/series that basically suffer from poor writing, ideological gibberish and barely resemble art as they are there merely to fill heads with garbage (act as ‘filler’ for commercials and empty opinions).

I do have a feeling the next few generations are actually looking better. Probably because they have seen firsthand mass stupidity and are actively trying to avoid being sucked into the madness created by greedy people and the ideologically possessed.

Depends where you were brought up.

It is irrelevant. We are not living in a simulation. If you insist we are then there is only the simulation therefore the ‘simulation’ is in fact identical to ‘reality’.

The question is a basic error in reasoning.

Other questions that follow this dead end are ‘what is real?’ instead of simply addressing what we mean by ‘real’ and understanding that our understanding is necessarily limited. The limitation of our senses allows us to develop knowledge, as knowledge exists purely as a point of reference not as some irrefutable source all springs from.