So, something must have had to ontologically happen to the All-Seeing-Eye when it turned its gaze inward. — Wallows

If it is truly "all seeing" it can never "turn" its gaze. That implies limits of its vision before it "turned inward". If I see ALL, what happens when I turn my head? I still see all. Now if we are calling something "all seeing" that is actually not "all seeing" due to some un-perfected union (I am not exactly sure what this is referring to), then obviously things change.

"You keep hiding from shit in the world, and eventually the world comes to your front door."

- Terry Hoitz, The Other Guys

What happens when the all seeing eye turns inward? — Wallows

Nothing, it was already all seeing.

Spinoza helps ground things if you need reorientation. — Wallows

I would prefer you engage with my examples/ideas. But maybe someday I will get to that. Thanks for the reference.

All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings.
— ZhouBoTong

I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case? — Wallows

Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree).

Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)
— ZhouBoTong

More like the inverse. — Wallows

That makers no sense to me. I gave plenty of examples if you need to use something more tangible to prove your point.

I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world?
— ZhouBoTong

Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not. — Wallows

Fair enough. I have always FELT that the 100% determinist explanation made the most sense. But I have also gotten a strong sense from philosophy types that the question is far from settled...so I am hesitant to make assumptions in that regard.

On a side note (somewhat connected to your "More like the inverse" comment):

Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?)

Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic.
— ZhouBoTong

What do you mean? — Wallows

Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic. — Wallows

This is what started my responses. It says "everything then has to become deterministic". Surely not "everything"? All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. Picture our world 6 billion years ago, whether determinism hold true would be entirely separate from wants because there was no one around to "want". There are still many aspects of our world where there is no one around to "want".

But again, we have to place reasonable limits on "wants" or the whole thing is nonsense (the antinatalists' wants COULD NEVER coexist with those who want to reproduce...or what happens when I "want" the sun to be made of cheese? Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)

Got to run for the day...I will respond later if you find anything I am saying is worthy of discussion...I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? I am probably good with that. I was viewing things from "we don't know if the world is deterministic or not", and from that perspective, I don't see how infinitely fulfilled "wants" changes the whole, just one aspect.

Sorry, this is getting a bit vague, and I may need to use way more words, unfortunately, haha. Let me know where I am unclear, and I will try to improve it.

I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no? — Wallows

I was just responding to the deterministic aspect. Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. Unless we assume some crazy panpsychism, the majority of the universe would still operate under the same amount of determinism or lack there of as it currently does.

Also, for "no wants", I was thinking more of a Star Trek post scarcity situation. To say that "all wants are meant" means things like logic and reason and "A=A" no longer necessarily apply, as people will have all sorts of conflicting wants that are somehow met.

then nobody would want anything more than what they have. — Wallows

And now everyone wants more than they have. Wouldn't their "wants" be equally deterministic to the "lack of wants" in the other world? Heck, "wants" actually seem more deterministic?? I can directly see how their actions are determined by their wants...?

Nobody "wants" air. Does the abundance of air make our world more deterministic? If there was limited air would the world become less deterministic??

And I don't exactly see the connection to panpsychism...but that is probably because that has always felt like mumbo jumbo to me...so rocks, and space, and everything has consciousness?? I can't prove it wrong, but why anyone would put forward such a hypothesis is beyond me.

Prove me wrong. — Wallows

hmmm, seems super easy, or impossible, based on such limited information (I could give an answer that some may agree with, and others may claim it is not even evidence)...if you can answer this one, then I can easily answer yours:

I am the best of all possible people. Prove me wrong.

What's a 'possible world'? I have no clear idea.
— Bartricks

One where things could have happened differently. — Wallows

I was worried that this was just a word game (a certain interpretations of definitions means that this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE world, so of course it is the best). Reminds me of christian apologists defining god as "the most perfect being" and of course a being that exists is more perfect than one that does not...so therefor god exists :roll:

Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic. — Wallows

This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff??

I'm looking for feedback both from people who are complete novices to philosophy, — Pfhorrest

That's me.

I am not sure I will be able to do all the readings, but here are some initial impressions...

I thought your text was very accessible. There was very little that required multiple readings, which is what I prefer if I am being introduced to a subject. I don't know enough about philosophy to know if you are always right, but your history of the various philosophers/philosophies was clear and understandable.

I think the perspectives of the philosophically educated are likely to be more important, but I am happy to let you know that, as a novice, it seems understandable so far :smile:.

With the Bernie model owning a 100m van Gogh will cost you 1,18 million annually. — ssu

sounds right to me. or put it in a museum and it cost them nothing but $20 a visit. I think most people in favor of a wealth tax would share this sentiment? That doesn't make it right, but it is such a different perspective that they will never be convinced by any sort of argument that suggests it is right for individuals to possess that much.

Americans are so fucking dumb, that they can't read and interpret properly even a simple two-dimensional chart. — god must be atheist

It also seems there are people that struggle to read surrounding captions...that graph was responding to this:

Donald: "the US is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the World has never seen before". — ssu

Surely it 100% refutes this claim?? Sometimes these simple two dimensional charts can get tricky :grimace:

And for one more note...I don't think SSU is American...? Sweden or Finland maybe...?

Florida Lawmakers Create a Task Force on Sea Level Rise — ZzzoneiroCosm

That feels like a perfect set-up line....hmmm...

"The task force calls on Floridians to 'stand their ground' against sea level rise. Millions drive to the coast and begin firing on the encroaching sea."

Eh, I give that punchline a C+, someone can surely do better...

To @ZzzoneiroCosm, I will read your article...don't mean to be disrespectful (to you, obviously I am ok with some disrespect to Florida)

I was talking of who was preferred by the public, or art world. — Punshhh

For me, these two categories are almost entirely exclusive...one prefers Shakespeare, and the other would rather watch Transformers. Aren't they both "right"?

I am sure there is someone out there who doesn't particularly like anything by Van Gogh...are they wrong?

Arthur is being treated badly by society. That is so much more intense than loosing a loved one. — Craiya

I tend to agree, but this sort of gives a lot of people the OK to rebel against those (or the whole society) who treat them poorly.

Now to be fair, this sort of situation:

E.g.: The protagonist's parents were killed and so he/she decices to do the same to their enemy - the antagonist. This should automatically make the protagonist a so called false protagonist. — Craiya

Is equally problematic as revenge becomes justification for anything.

I agree with your overall point, but would suggest that people have a problem with Joker because it is too real. There are lots of people who feel left out of society. We already have (in the US), a lot of mass killings by those who feel voiceless (despite many being white males); people feel like Joker would encourage that. However, for something like John Wick, being a super-assassin is part of the premise. So no ordinary person COULD go on a similar revenge spree. John Wick comes across like Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons, Joker seems to be making actual societal commentary.

But overall I agree, both movies are showing a type of revenge violence, with potentially Joker being more justified (how many people did John Wick kill along the way before actually killing the one responsible for his dog's death?...why does he continue killing after getting revenge for the dog?).

I could barely stand to sit through John Wick because it was so boring (action sequences were so repetitive). There is little emotional resonance with the protagonist. — Nils Loc

Interesting, I was bored by Joker and liked John Wick...but that is likely tied to the fact that I almost never emotionally resonate with any protagonist (or antagonist before you go thinking I am sort of psycho, haha). Actions and moments may resonate, but rarely the whole character.

The psychology of resentment hits so much closer to home in Joker than in John Wick. — Nils Loc

Entirely agreed. I think that is why there are some people that whine about the violence in Joker, but don't even consider whether the violence in John Wick is also problematic.

Well this got very long. After this, I may try very short responses to see if we can focus in on our difference. I actually think we generally agree on the changes we want, we just disagree on how to make that happen.

This first response is tied more to the conversation with TheWillowofDarkness than our specific back and forth.

If you were him you would not view yourself as the villain, so if you were that, you would have no reason - in your own mind, that is - to flip your own off switch. — creativesoul

That seems fair. I was responding to the idea that we should admit when we are villains. I agree that, most likely, we would not see ourselves as villains, but if we did, we would have to destroy the villain by any means necessary. Villains are rarely (almost never?) reformed in stories, so it seems a poor metaphor if we are hoping for white people to change their behavior. It is a good metaphor if we are thinking that white people need to be removed from the equation for the good of everyone else...but I don't think that is what @TheWillowOfDarkness was getting at.

Representing an others best interest(s) is taking deliberate action aimed at increasing, protecting, and/or preserving(at a bare minimum) their quality of life. I am saying that we can know that that is not the case when the results can be shown to have unnecessarily caused harm to very large numbers of citizens while others reaped previously unimaginable financial rewards as a direct consequence of causing such harm. Those are some of the extremes. — creativesoul

I actually don't think we are too far apart. I agree with you on where we would like society to be (or end up). However, I keep arguing because I don't see any description of how to get there. Above the word "unnecessary" is an example of the type of things that are confusing me. For example, I believe that capitalism has caused "unnecessary" harm in its efforts to increase people's access to resources (probably because it does not have a goal of increasing access to resources, but instead the only goal is profit). However, I don't KNOW it has caused "unnecessary" harm because we have not seen a society industrialize and modernize without some significant growing pains. I think the US should look at countries that have universal healthcare and better availability of education for all, and feel inferior. However, almost every country that I would say seems to have a significantly better government, is a relatively small country with a very homogeneous population. I don't know how important those factors are? What I do know, is that there is not another America out there that we can compare to. This does not mean we should not try some new shit ("new" for America anyway) in an attempt to emulate those other countries. But we are more experimenting using trial and error than "knowing" the better way. I do think it is safe to say that any political ideology that does not have the goal of increasing the well-being of everyone should be eliminated easily....and yet this is not so easy...even libertarians THINK they have the well-being of everyone in mind (as incredible as that seems).

I'm saying that when very large swathes of the general overall population can be shown to be much worse off than they were before certain pieces of legislation were enacted and it is undoubtedly a result of those pieces of legislation, then we have all the evidence we need to show that that government has failed the people.

It's no big secret how it came to be like this... in the states anyway. — creativesoul

I feel like my history knowledge is not terrible, but I am struggling to discern what is obvious to you here...? Are you talking specific policies like undoing Glass-Steagal? or more general ideas like the Reagan/Thatcher dogma that trained half the country to believe that government is bad and taxes should always be lower...and that we should worship our capitalist overlords that make life possible?

But notice the big problem...how can we solve this when half the country still believes Reagan? (ok, maybe only 40%, but they vote at higher rates than is typical)

Are you saying that a well functioning(properly implemented) representative form of government results in circumstances/situations where unacceptably high numbers of people are unnecessarily harmed, so long as more people are not? — creativesoul

I don't think so.

Surely this would be a mistake, and so if it were the case that actions had unforeseeable negative consequences upon too many people, such acts would be reversed, corrected, and/or otherwise redressed.

Right? — creativesoul

Any time it is clear and obvious, I agree. I think we are arguing because I think it is rarely clear and obvious.

An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority. So... just because there is an over all increase in well being for most people, it does not mean that that government is an acceptable one or a well functioning one unless it's aim was to do as little as possible while still being able to point out some improvements in quality of life. — creativesoul

I think this is important for our disagreement. This is a VERY modern idea. I very much agree with it, but I don't think there has ever been a country where no one felt oppressed? (have you heard the billionaires respond to Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax - the "oppression" is almost unbearable, haha) Do you have a few successful oppression free governments in mind?

So until very recently, a government would be deemed successful if it improved the quality of life for most of its citizens. We are right to demand more. But we should not assume it is just that easy.

The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government. I'm speaking about the United States, in particular, by the way. — creativesoul

I agree, but I am less focused on the "representative government" part. I am leaning toward a constitutional democratic dictatorship these days. Historically, when there is a "good" emperor, things are good for the people. However, history also shows that one bad emperor can ruin hundreds of years of progress. So, the constitution protects human rights and limits the power of the leader. Democracy further limits the dictator's power and allows the people to choose the direction of the country for the next decade. It would also leave a "recall" option.

How do you think the US should fix itself? This is the cause of my entire argument. I agree with where you want to be. I have not seen your way of achieving that other than everyone agreeing with you...which I have some serious doubts about.

Hmm...

I expected you to at least address what I said...

Ok...

I guess??? — creativesoul

Well, Ok, since you asked :smile: . But I think you will find my responses starting to sound repetitive...
And I will have to run after this, so I will respond tomorrow.

It's purely a matter of sensible definition, and rightly so. — creativesoul

I am not sure you ever gave this definition. I only know that, for you, one indicator of a well functioning representative government is an increase in well being for most people. I would say that is one indicator of ANY well functioning government.

If it fails to represent the best interest of the overwhelming majority of the people... it is not representative. To say otherwise is nonsense. — creativesoul

We can't just say there are levels of representation? I hope we can because otherwise there is no such thing as a representative government because there is no perfectly representative government. Like I said, humility is never represented. Uncertainty is never represented. The idea that there are few "right" answers and that the world is not black and white is rarely represented. Not to mention standard stuff like every single religion, race, or creed that exists in the country.

Sorry, I have to run. I am happy to keep going, but worry we are about to start repeating ourselves and wondering why the other person doesn't get it :grimace: Feel free to zero in on anything specific if you think it can prevent us from doing that.

We never get a pass because "We are not as bad as Hitler, Biff or Thanos" because the ill off another does not take away our own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who said anything about a pass? We are just acknowledging that there are degrees of harm and badness? If I view myself in a light anywhere near to how I view Hitler...I should immediately kill myself. No question about it. Look at the impact he had on the world. If there is any chance of me being that, I should die to eliminate the possibility. What am I missing?

In race issues, for example, trying to insist racism is just those intentionally racist villains, rather than any of the structural "whiteness" which is no-one's direct action or intention in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why can't we say that racism includes those "intentionally racist villains", but it also includes a lot of people who think they are doing good (or acting neutrally) when they are actually causing harm?

Seems more objective and less inflammatory?

If you just replace "villain" with "bad thing", your point is made more clearly.

Definitions of Villain:

1. a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.

It's always a person, so structural impacts and identities cannot be villains. Now I get a story could use metaphor to create a character out of an identity or structural element, but that is not what people think when they hear the word.

Not if 'we' revel in knowingly harming others for no good reason at all. — creativesoul

I actually 100% agree with that. I even typed something along those lines, then wasn't sure it fit the points I was making. If we admire villains, then we could see ourselves as such. I like to think that is a very small percent of the population, but I could be way off??

What on earth? — creativesoul

My thoughts exactly. I think we have gone as far as we can. Thanks for the time.

I also don't think the it's physcholgically toxic to recognise oneself as the villain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, I would think it would be terrible (and possibly impossible) to view oneself as the villain. Aren't we all the protagonists of our story?

All that's being spoken about here is regonising the harm the presence of the oppressive social context has done, and perhaps a specific role they might have played in that. To recognise harm which has been done to someone is not toxic, it just honest. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh, you don't mean the villain. You mean the protagonist must admit that they have flaws. I am good with that.

The word "villain" brings a lot of emotion to a discussion that already has plenty. Won't it be easier for people to admit they have caused harm (which many{most?} are still wholly unwilling to do), than it will be to get people to admit they are "the villain"? Hitler was "the villain" of WW2. Thanos was "the villain" of Avengers. Biff was "the villain" in Back to the Future. That does not mean everyone else involved in those stories was perfect, or that no one else caused harm...but they were not "the villain".

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be. — creativesoul

I am not convinced of this. Historically, it would be difficult to provide evidence. Industrialization has been shown to increase the quality of life for the overwhelming majority, but that is about it. China never "properly implemented representative government" and yet if we compare their lives to one hundred years ago (or even just 50 in China's case), they have improved the quality of life massively for hundreds of millions of people.

Why are the happiest and "most representative" countries typically small, wealthy, and have homogeneous populations? How much does representative government matter when everyone in the country wants the same things?

Why is Russia a corrupt mess no matter what form of government they attempt to enact?

Don't get me wrong...I don't have any ideas for a better government than a representative one...but I don't think the system of government matters as much as the attitudes and desires of the people.

And here is a thought...what if the "beta" type personalities want representation? If I want an extremely humble person who is somewhat uncomfortable in their own skin, because I think this is a useful perspective that should be part of our political process..then I AM OUT OF LUCK. Everyone (ok, maybe 99.8%) running for office has a huge ego. They know the problems and they are the best one to fix them. For example, I like Bernie, but the dude is old as dirt (along with most of the viable candidates and trump). Surely, he could find some 55-60 year old protege that he could back as the next President? Bernie could put in the exact same amount of effort campaigning for that person. If his goal is to change things, then that would seem the best way to accomplish it. But HE is the ONLY one to understand the problems and have the RIGHT solutions...:roll:

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people. — creativesoul

Sounds great...reminds me of Anakin Skywalker's solution to government:

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it."

What happens when people disagree? I am not convinced that most people will be willing to give up much of their belief systems to focus on what is shared. Jesus, Allah, the Buddha, etc are not shared beliefs. Is it just going to be that easy for people to give them up? Do republicans and democrats in America FEEL like they have anything in common? (I get they are actually rather similar in their governance, but good luck getting either side to admit that).

t would look exactly like the right kind of effort. It would result in less people being suspicious of everyone. It would make it virtually impossible for people to be taken advantage of. It would result in much happier, healthier community of interdependent social creatures. — creativesoul

Sounds great.

You should try it sometime. — creativesoul

Try what? Their are no behavioral instructions above...just results of some behaviors you have not described.

It would be everyone agreeing that one who does not care about the people over whom they wield tremendous power - have absolutely(I do not just throw such words around carelessly either) no business wielding such power. — creativesoul

Sounds good, what would cause this great agreement?

Power over people is gotten in only one of two ways. It is either usurped or granted by consent. That is me paraphrasing the admirable revolutionary type thinker Thomas Paine. — creativesoul

Good stuff...I might add maintained/inherited...but it still had to be usurped or given in the first place.

It would look like exactly the right kind of effort. — creativesoul

So everyone just needs to act right? I am still questioning how and why that will occur?

Not all ends justify any means. Some ends justify certain means. No end is so noble as to justify any means possible. — Noah Te Stroete

This is pretty much exactly how I have always felt on this. It has always seemed obvious to me, and yet it is a strangely uncommon opinion. Glad to hear it from another human.

Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. — NOS4A2

I have included that I am "much stronger" than the other person in my example. If being much stronger allows me to infringe on their sovereignty, then it is no type of absolute sovereignty. It is not about "easy" or not. If it is ever possible, then absolute sovereignty makes no sense.

You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy. — NOS4A2

Same goes for your sovereignty. Force, violent, and coercion would not work on someone/something with absolute sovereignty.

I tend to think the focus here to ‘combat’ or even ‘end’ racism is misguided. The theoretical aim of the workshop is to increase ‘awareness’ of minority experience - it’s just poorly executed, or poorly understood by the facilitators. — Possibility

That seems fair.

What I mean by ‘minority experience’ is basically an experience of humility, or devalued conceptual identity that is common to minorities. The resistance to it is normal, but the capacity to experience this kind of humility is important to understanding the subjective experience of racial disadvantage, even when active discrimination does not occur. — Possibility

I like this bit, but unfortunately, I don't see humility being particularly valued by society (we don't even demand the appearance of humility from our leaders anymore). Humility is just taken as a lack of confidence. So, while I get your point (and agree), I would expect to see some humility in pop culture before I see it becoming a norm. Heck, if we look at anyone who considers themselves to be "woke" - even those who do somewhat understand the minority experience have no idea what humility is.

What if the participants decided, rather than resist and deflect by blaming managers or the decision-makers, to ‘take the hit’ and experience the humility and sense of persecution that comes with their conceptual identity being devalued. “I am harmful to minorities for no other reason than that I am white.” Forget the question of whether or not this is accurate, and just go with the affective experience of humility and guilt that comes from attributing significance to the thought itself, and the impact of cognitive dissonance it creates in relation to how you see yourself. — Possibility

I don't quite get this part? For me "take the hit" was just accepting that things have been favoring white males for a long time so we should accept that the pendulum may have to swing the other way before we get to the right place. I don't need to "learn" through an affective experience that black people have been given a hard time in America/Australia...that's what history books are for (I entirely understand that most people need to "feel" something before they "understand" it...I have found that I do not experience emotions with the same intensity as most, so maybe that explains my confusion here).

Now, let’s change the conceptual identities: “I am harmful to whites for no other reason than that I am black.” What I understand from the expressed experiences of minorities (particularly here in Australia) is that this fairly closely matches the information they receive from the sum of their everyday interactions with our shared conceptual systems. — Possibility

Yep. Sounds crappy. But I feel that I can understand this without doing the thought experiment you described above...but maybe it is more important for other people.

Perhaps people shouldn’t get so defensive. — Possibility

That was pretty much my whole point. I wasn't really disagreeing with the people that said the diversity training was messed up, just suggesting that being called bad names is nothing compared to actual persecution.

Will people always devalue other humans based upon insufficient evidence and irrational reasoning?

Probably.

That doesn't mean that we ought not do everything we can do to eliminate such.

Right? — creativesoul

I am questioning what that would look like?

Is the person that said (something like) "all white people are harmful just for being white" thinking right? Shouldn't they be killing themselves if they actually believe that? And yet the type of person to spew that garbage would always see themselves as part of the solution, not the problem (despite using words that define themselves as THE problem). What are the chances of straightening out that type of thinking? Can someone like that be convinced to think something else? Probably. But will they actually be thinking better? Understanding better? Or are they just blindly believing the "right" thing now?

Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions. — NOS4A2

No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.

Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life. — NOS4A2

Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.

My worry is that the root problems underlying racism will continue unabated if we approach this with the same fallacious thinking that constitutes the problem. — creativesoul

Wait, won't the root problems always exist? If we don't tribalize over race, won't it just be something else? Religion, nationality, gender, politics, and sports teams all have the potential to foster this mentality. Heck, I used to know a Navy seal that told stories of picking fights with those "jarheads" (Marines).

Life has NOT convinced me that most people care put in the effort to do the reasoning you are referring to. So we often have to take roundabout routes instead of a straight line.

All racism needs to be corrected. One cannot correct it if one uses it. — creativesoul

This makes me think of, "violence can stop violence, but violence can never create lasting peace". This seems absolutely true and seems the same type of statement that you are making (do you agree or is it different for some reason?). However, does this really teach us to never stop violence with violence? Notice it does not, as immediate violence must often be met with immediate violence for short term well-being. One will not consider long term well-being when they do not even have it in the short term.

I will not go as far as saying "we should use racism to combat racism"...but since I have not seen any great examples as to how to end racism, I am not immediately offended by the attempt.

I do not know what a subjective opinion is (aren't all opinions subjective, in that they are made of subjective states?). — Bartricks

haha, yes. You are absolutely right. I think I was adding emphasis and didn't realize I was writing nonsense - my bad. But drop the word "subjective" and the point stands (even if you include subjective it makes sense...it is just stupidly and confusingly redundant).

but that seems beside the point, for there remains a fact of the matter about what we have obligations to do — Bartricks

Well I view "obligations" as only part of morality. What each individual "feels" to be right seems the most dominant aspect and this is as far from objective as anything. If I can take action to help, my morality suggests that I am better (more perfectly living up to moral ideals) if I do help. Obligation is only an initial concern (if I am obligated, I am bad for not doing it...but there can be things that we are not obligated to do that one could still view as a moral positive). No one is obligated to cure cancer...but if one could, surely they should (I understand this is a wholly subjective conclusion)?

I agree that by boycotting meat one could make a difference - but then by staying hooked-up to Mat I could make a difference, but I do not seem to be obliged to hook up to Mat, especially given that Mat's situation is not my responsibility. Likewise, if it isn't my fault the meat industry exists, and isn't my fault if others take my desire for meat as inspiration to go and kill an animal so as to sell its meat to me, then I think I probably don't have an obligation to forego buying it.

I mean, imagine my enemy makes Mat ill in a way that would require me to give up all sweet products for life else Mat will die. Am I obliged to forego all sweet products for life so as to avert Mat's death? Surely not. Something about me has inspired my enemy to place Mat in a position where he needs me to change my diet in order to live, but that does not make me 'morally' responsible for Mat's position and so doesn't seem to generate any obligation for me to forego sweet products for life. — Bartricks

This seems to be defending meat eaters from moral condemnation. I do NOT condemn the meat eater as morally wrong (as someone who does not believe in or understand objective morals - I see very few definite obligations). I simply admire the individual that forgoes on personal pleasures in the hopes of making the world a better place.

I often feel the same way. I guess some stubbornness is warranted since you're otherwise just like a flag waving wherever the wind blows you. But complaining about the same steadfastness in other people is what makes little sense. — Artemis

:up:

It would be better to not have persecution. That won't remedy the injustices of the past, or make current injustices any better. — Marchesk

I agree. But having no persecution seems impossible (won't many people feel persecuted no matter what?). Isn't Nelson Mandela like the only example in human history of the persecuted simply asking for no persecution? Don't get me wrong, his behavior was incredibly admirable and that is definitely how we should all view these situations...but historically, we all suck at it.

How about we 'persecute' the right people... and those, like myself, will be glad to join in. Persecute me for things that other whites have done and/or are doing... and you too(whoever 'you' may be) are guilty of the exact same fallacious thoughts as other racists. — creativesoul

You are right that lumping all white people is the same type of problem as lumping all black people (or women or whatever). But I will also point out that being told I am responsible for all of mankind's suffering, isn't nearly as bad as being denied employment, education, or rights. I think you fear that these ideas will come to dominate society (and then could become a problem - whether de facto or de jure) . Wouldn't that be an incredible historical precedent? If a country that is mostly white voted to limit the rights of white people...I am not saying it is impossible, but I am not worried.

I mean absolute, natural sovereignty. You have no control, authority, or responsibility for my body, my actions, my choices. — NOS4A2

And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).

You cannot make people choose to stand still while being attacked anymore than they can make you choose to attack them. — NOS4A2

I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.

One person spoke to all the white people, explaining how it's difficult to acknowledge that their existence as a white person was harmful to others, — Marchesk

This is obviously problematic. But can't we view it as a pendulum type shift? Surely, we can admit that white males have had a massive impact on world history for the last couple hundred years. If society is a mess, who else to blame but those in power (yes, this is rather limited thinking)? While the quote above is BS, it is better than what many women and minorities had to deal with until very recently (or still deal with - and I say "better" because there was still a room full of white employees)...so I just take the hit for now and hope rational minds win out after the persecuted get to persecute for a while.

@Noah Te Stroete@Virgo Avalytikh

Just wanted to add another perspective on the wealthy entering heaven that sort of makes you both right:

The camel through the eye of the needle quote from Jesus does not suggest "difficult" but rather "impossible". It is impossible for a wealthy man to enter heaven. But this is because one cannot bring their wealth with them to heaven. This means someone COULD be rich on earth and still enter heaven as long as they are not attached to their riches (their wealth is part of who they are).

This kind of makes you both right...but I agree with Noah. Those of us in the middle class and up identify with our lifestyles that are made possible by wealth. Anyone who worries about who inherits their wealth, would be unable to enter heaven. Anyone who justifies why they did not do more to help the needy, will not go to heaven. There can only be repentance for not doing more.

Unfortunately, if we go back to the OP, the native americans cannot be more christian because the number one thing that makes someone christian is them accepting jesus as their lord and savior. Now, did native americans follow the ten commandments better than most christians? Seems reasonable at the very least.

I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body. — NOS4A2

I may be too literal, but I am struggling with this too. I guess you mean legal sovereignty over their own body? Only an omni-everything god could have absolute authority over their own body. I can walk around with a sword just lopping off sections of people's bodies. I would end the day dead or in jail, but that doesn't deny the fact that those people had no bodily sovereignty in that example. I also find natural rights to be nonsense (just to give you the freedom to ignore me if you don't want to get into that :smile:)

Just so I can understand the idea, what would be an example of an individual asserting bodily sovereignty? I can think of abortion (and even that asserts one bodily sovereignty at the expense of another), but very little else.

So, sticking to meat-eating - well, 'I' did not create the meat industry or kill the animals whose meat is now on sale to me in shops. And I did not actively cultivate an appetite for meat. So, it is not my fault that animals are being reared and systematically killed for their meat. — Bartricks

Not your fault at all. But you can take actions to improve the well being of others. Are you obligated to?
Isn't that exactly the type of moral questions that people will simply have subjective opinions about? Personally, I would not condemn the meat eater as immoral. However, I do see something to admire in the vegetarian.

As to your dig that I'm "dug in".... Well, let's just say it's interesting psychologically when two parties won't budge on their positions, but one party thinks the not-budging only makes the other person seem stubborn. — Artemis

For sure. As far as I can tell, most of us are pretty "dug-in" on pretty much everything. I actually spend time trying to figure out how to not be "dug-in". As you can probably tell from some of our conversations (I think there was only 1 or 2 where we somewhat strongly disagreed), I usually fail. But now, I will hopefully at least remember not to blame the other person :grimace:

I agree, I think people are more attracted to the idea of being a performer who is more admired rather than some nerd behind a desk who writes songs for performers. It’s somewhat unfortunate though. — TheHedoMinimalist

I entirely agree it is unfortunate. As much as people are moved by music, songwriting is a vital talent. I guess I tend to think the people behind the scenes in any industry deserve more of the credit (in the case of songwriting, the writer should get MOST of the credit).

I am more impressed by writing (generally), because for every Heart, Journey, Aretha Franklin, or Janis Joplin (people with powerful AND unique voices that define their songs), there are hundreds of Sinatra types (good voice, but any decent singer can make those songs sound good).

The way I laid it out, I omitted some key points which add complexity — Metaphysician Undercover

Haha, I don't doubt that in this discussion. So many factors to consider (many of which have various popular interpretations...like free will).

The intellect apprehends the goodness of the thing, and this is why it is the thing is wanted. The thing moves the rational intellect towards it, because it is good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this mean that dumb or irrational people primary do "bad"? Or good or bad, they just got lucky because they can't understand good? I know there is the Socrates (I think) quote that says something like, "there is only one good, knowledge. and one evil, ignorance." (I may have got that from Civ 5 so hopefully it is right, haha) So this may be what you are suggesting, and that is exactly how I like to think I subjectively select my morals. But I don't see that leading to an objective morality (I am not even certain that is what you are arguing to be fair).

The "real good" is the thing which the omniscient intellect would apprehend as good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Even with total omniscience, I would still only see objective "real goods" in relation to somewhat specific goals. Sorry, as you can tell, I just really struggle with any sort of moral being absolutely right. There is always another "why?".

If I understand the Thomistic argument correctly, if an intellect apprehends the real good (and this might require an omniscient intellect independent from a body), it would also be apprehended as the apparent good, and the individual would be incapable of acting otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dang I am really trying. But with no goal, I am struggling to understand why exactly anything is "good" (real or apparent). An omniscient intellect would know the "good" behaviors for the ideal society. But if I don't add "for the ideal society" what do we even mean when we say "good"? How would perfect knowledge solve this?

So, we can say, and assume that there is a real good, independent from human wants and desires, and try to use this as the basis for an objective morality, but it doesn't do us any good. We haven't got the capacity to separate ourselves from our wants and desires, so we haven't got the capacity to determine the real good. As different human beings attempt to dictate this real good, it would rapidly become corrupted by these individuals' wants and desires. Therefore we would have to determine a "God's perspective", which we could agree on, and attempt to determine the real good from this "God's perspective". But isn't assuming "God's perspective" the same thing as assuming God? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well even if I don't exactly understand what a "real good" might be (part of your point may be that omniscience would be necessary to understand the "real good" and that is why I don't get it), I can entirely agree that at the very least we would need this omniscient perspective for objective "real goods" and, as you say, we are long way from any sort of godly perspective (if such a thing is even possible).

Thanks for trying to clear this up for me.

And this doesn't seem to be a case of self-interest corrupting our intuitions, for our intuiitons say the same when roles are reversed. When I reflect on whether I am entitled to the use of someone else's kidneys if I need them in order to survive, my intuitions say that I am not.

Thomson's original thought experiment has exerted such an influence precisely because people's intuitions are like this - for the case seems relevantly analogous to cases of abortion and thus to imply that most abortions are morally permissible, even if the foetus has a full right to life. — Bartricks

I am still thinking about the vegetarian aspect of the argument. However, I do not feel the kidney example matches abortion. I bear zero responsibility for the guy with bad kidneys, however, when I get my abortion, I had some role in creating the need for that abortion?? I am not sure if that changes the conclusion, but it certainly implies MORE obligation than if I had no role in creating the need. If someone had punched me in the kidneys, and I die unless they hook themselves up, would I expect it...no. Would I do it for someone I had injured, I don't know. But I would call it the "good" thing to do (purely subjective opinion, but that is all morals for me).

For the vegetarian portion, to me it comes down to ideal morality versus practical morality (not sure if there is actually such a distinction). I hold all sorts of moral beliefs that I struggle to live up to. IDEALLY, I would sacrifice simple pleasures for the well-being of others. PRACTICALLY, 90% of the time I do what I want before my brain kicks in with any objective analysis of the situation. I like to think I would jump on a grenade that was about to detonate in a room full of people. In reality, I may run away shrieking like a little girl (or boy, but sexist or not I think girls "shriek" more often).