Of course, I'm not, in a thread where you've asked for "help moving past solipsism" you've adamantly defended your position, choices and values to everyone who replied to you. You say "I've tried to challenge myself and it didn't work", all I see is someone who absolutely refuses to challenge themselves on even the most minor of points.

You're unwilling to be challenged by others, gave up on challenging yourself, and will only defend yourself against any and all criticism. You're compelled by an argument you don't remember, and say you can do nothing about it. If I meet you where you are, I've accepted your position is hopeless.

I am meeting you exactly where you are, I'm just not accepting what you say as truth, because it's not the truth. I could debate you on solipsism, but I've seen your replies to others who attempted that. You gave short, dismissive replies, and I'd just get the same, it was obvious to me that you aren't going to be convinced the way you want to be.

You haven't even explained your position on solipsism and apparently refuse to do so, we need to undermine the quora post's argument instead, but without knowing it. Under these conditions, it's 100% impossible to change your mind there either, you seemingly demand that I choose only paths that necessarily result in you believing in solipsism, or else I'm not doing what you want. You also refuse to challenge any of your interpretations or characterisations surrounding solipsism, you don't see how that makes progress impossible?

Well fine, I hope some months down the line, you try to challenge yourself again and explore new methods until you find success. If you actually give me your position on solipsism I'll respond, I'm sure it's trash and can be debunked easily, considering it's completely illogical to be devoted to concepts like truth and reality, while also believing the universe exists in your mind. Otherwise, good luck to you, I hope find the courage to try again somewhere down the line.

Heh, all I asked is that you challenge yourself and try to change, and yet as predicted, you reject even this and defend the conditions which necessarily lead to your conclusions. This "quora post" is a misdirection that serves to obfuscate the nature of your problem. Your position is that you're a prisoner of an argument you don't even remember, and there's nothing you can do about it? That's insane, that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, and if you only agreed, it could be so good for you, that's according to you.

I find it ironic that an apparently solipsist is, in fact, such a slave to this imaginary concept of "truth", that shouldn't be possible. If our discussion continued and neither of us changed our position, from an onlooker's perspective, I would appear the solipsist, and you wouldn't.

I would tell you that reality is an illusion, that everything exists from the perspective of the individual, the individual holds a privileged position to dictate what is and isn't true, and to legitimatise their way of interpreting and characterising all concepts and things. You would deny that, and talk to me about the harsh nature of reality, and about being unwilling to compromise when it comes to truth. That's your idea of solipsism? What the fuck?

Can you either link me to a post where you explain what you think solipsism is or outline it for me here? I'm really curious about it now.

These moral arguments are good, do you see yourself as somewhat heroic for facing these harsh truths of reality? Excellent, now work to discredit this idea, and emphasise how foolish and impractical it is for one to believe something while knowing it makes them miserable.

You've set up conditions that make it extremely difficult for you to let go of solipsism, if you refuse to let them go, then what other outcome can you expect?

Solipsism is a set of very specific interpretations and conclusions being emphasised to present an argument. They're not truths in themselves, and rejecting them is not the same as rejecting the truth. You should focus on things you do not believe are truths, and challenge them instead. Or as I suspect, you'll insist on changing nothing, in which case, that's the problem, so do something about it.

I'm sometimes accused of being a solipsist, which I deny, but I'm pretty sure that even if I was a solipsist, it wouldn't cause me any mental health issues. "Truth" is a nonsensical conceptualisation that people have way too much faith in. There are many ways for things to be real, a lie is just as real as reciting a truth, for example. An illusion still exists as an illusion. What's the difference between being friends with a real person or an imaginary one, if the end result is functionally the same? Why do you even care? Is being happy as a solipsist really unattainable?

The only difference is your value system, the one that says "I care" and gives reasons, that's a value of yours, not a "truth". Your devotion to your values and ideas is the problem, you don't seem to have any standards for them, even if they make you miserable and are utterly useless, you defend them, isn't that so?

Firstly that I see no reason why solipsism must necessarily have the consequences you're describing. It's not just solipsism that you're unwilling to challenge, but your current interpretations such as what it means for solipsism to be true. For example, AI is making outstanding developments recently, one day, people will perhaps call an AI their friend, or perhaps even romantic partner. I welcome that, and I think a friendship with an AI is a perfectly legitimate friendship, with the potential of curing someone's loneliness.
Assuming you're unable to escape being a solipsist and cease banging your head against that wall, then at least do not leave these other ideas unchallenged.

Most importantly though, you are wrong that you need to disprove solipsism, that's not how belief works.

You only need to sufficiently doubt the idea, and doubt can be manufactured in many ways. Even a small bit of doubt is sufficient, provided it's being emphasised. Currently, it seems to me that if there's any possibility that solipsism might be true, then you are not going to let go.

In essence, you are on the wrong side of this "doubt" factor. You feel like you need to absolutely disprove it, any doubt as to whether it's true or not, and your default position is solipsism.

I would recommend starting from the position that your belief in solipsism is harmful and you want to get rid of it. Then relentlessly assault the idea, with 100% maximum confirmation bias, to reach the conclusion that being a solipsist is stupid. Justify your confirmation bias by recognising it's in your best interests. I think you could do this easily if you wanted, but based on your responses, I'm not sure you actually want to not be a solipsist. Your response to everyone else, and likely me as well, is to justify yourself, defend your actions and defend your belief. As I said, you're on the wrong side of the "doubt" factor, you are biased against reasons for disbelief and will defend reasons for belief.

Until you stop doing that, then you aren't likely to change, or it's more accurate to say you won't stop succeeding at defending your belief. You act like you're going to defend solipsism as strongly as you can until someone finally 100% disproves it and then the spell will be broken.

That's the entire problem, you'll stop being a solipsist easily if you dropped this act. If you refuse, then try what I suggested earlier and challenge your interpretations and logic that connect solipsism to the negative living conditions you describe. If you can't argue against your logic or change your interpretation, search for another argument that is equally valid for you, but results in a healthier outcome, and focus your attention on it, promote it, and justify doing so by characterising your old beliefs by the discomfort they produce.

If you're unwilling to challenge any of your own thoughts, ask why, and challenge your unwillingness to challenge yourself. I promise that you're easy to break, but only if you let it happen.

You didn't deserve the tone of my last response, I was influenced by some work-induced stress and should've waited until I was more relaxed before I commented. My apologies and thanks for discussing this topic with me.

Should we not try to avoid contradictions in law? Aren't parity and justice and general equality before the law to be desired over the short-term efficiency of judging a law only by its theoretical, although perhaps beneficial, outcome - at least some of the time? — ToothyMaw

My issue with your approach to this question is that you are purposefully cherry-picking examples where contradictions are problematic, really, to a cartoonish level. Your example isn't of a law that is contradictory, it's of a law that is so ambiguous that it's utterly dysfunctional. I didn't want to discuss things like law to begin with, and I'm shocked by the silliness of your example & argument.

The pre-requisite to me asking whether you care about contradictions in law is we're judging it based on the outcomes it's delivering. I'm not asking you whether it's fine for a law to be dysfunctional and useless... Those are the things that I care about the most.

I suppose my amendment to the OP is that no belief exists in a vacuum; rational thought requires a prioritization of logic to have better compatibility among beliefs or elements, especially when dealing with an applied logic, such as in law. The selection of the efficient, ostensibly desired outcome by mere selection of which factors give said outcome could have implications elsewhere that are antithetical to retaining overall structural coherence of such a system of beliefs or laws or whatever. — ToothyMaw

You present permeating logic as a fragile, intricate structure that we risk at our peril, causing some unspecified consequences if we try to improve outcomes by making changes to how we think and what we believe.

Really? This is what you believe?

One should abandon a bad chess strategy, they should discard an old way of doing something when they find a better way, but when it comes to opinions on masculinity or something, they ought not to touch it with a 10-foot pole, is that right? Because who knows how it might undermine their position on marriage or gender roles?

And what then? They'll fall over in despair and regret? They'll wish they hadn't tried to fix the real problem that they deemed worthwhile to address. It's too hard to make new opinions, or just find a different way to argue the same point?

So, what exactly are these consequences you speak of? Are they so dire that they can't just be dealt with as they occur? Have you ever seen this be a problem, or experienced this problem yourself? If you are just arguing this for the sake of playing devil's advocate, please don't.

What you mean is more apparent to me now, you are describing a logical chain, where we use conclusions derived from past consideration as factors in present and future thought, yes? And also that our perspective is like a house of cards, each card is necessary to maintain the structure. That "structure" is our internal consistency and represents the coherency of a worldview. Do you accept that explanation, or did I miss something?

This is just a description of how logic operates, in a way, you're describing rational thought itself. One needs reasons for justification, and where else would these reasons come if not belief? Believed to be true, believed to be important, believed to be worthwhile, or whatever else. These beliefs could be about what is true, what is right, what is sensible, what is noble, and much more. Do you agree with the comparison?

In something like law, we can argue about what outcomes we should pursue and why, and that's about all I'm interested in. If I can be convinced that a law will deliver an outcome I approve of, then I will approve of that law. I don't care whether it's logically consistent with the other laws that exist... Do you?

To be honest, I'm still quite unsure as to what amendment to OP you're proposing, or what argument you're putting forward here. I'd like to have a better understanding before saying anything else.

What determines if beliefs are true or not true? Are true beliefs just the beliefs that don't change when one has a perspective they want to change due to a lack of usefulness? Or are they more robust opinions that strictly reflect reality? — ToothyMaw

I meant beliefs that are held by the individual, what they truly believe.

The difficulty of integrating something that is largely incompatible with one's beliefs into their worldview doesn't really address the point that for any given belief there must be some similar logic and reasoning with one's held beliefs to integrate said beliefs into their worldview in a coherent way, even if to do so is a matter of making small, deliberate changes that do not presuppose general reasonableness. — ToothyMaw

I think it directly addresses that point and I don't understand why you think it doesn't. That it's difficult to incorporate incompatible beliefs means it's easier for one to integrate beliefs with a similar logic or reasoning, that fits into their current worldview. Do you think it's possible that we're saying the same thing in slightly different ways? If not, could you restate the difference between our views?

I've noticed that I seem to be using two different meanings of the word "logic". I am designating goals as being logical, and also using the more scientific definition of logic that just means a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements (or beliefs or factors that contribute to belief). — ToothyMaw

I don't think there's a way for all the different uses of the words logic and logical to be unambiguous. Especially "logical", which just has way too many meanings that overlap and apply in the same contexts. So, if there is a way that sidesteps the problem, I don't know about it. For me though, logic has no qualitative value, whereas "logical" might or might not have one. You can say one's "logical chain" purely descriptively, but generally "logical" means correct, valid, rational thinking. If someone's logic was invalid, then their conclusion wouldn't be logical. Maybe that helps? However, I'm no expert on the topic.

Anyway, I think I'll have to ask you to re-explain what you mean by "permeating logic", as I'm just completely lost as to what this refers to.

My point is that even the successful, less logical outcome must contain some logic to be of use given there are some basic logical prerequisites stipulated by a permeating logic. — ToothyMaw

What do you mean by "some logic"? Are you saying it can be illogical, but it must fit into an individual's wider narrative of their world? Or something else?

I think that any given perspective or goal derived at least partially from a permeating logic must agree with some aspects of the permeating logic and also must not contradict it. This means that the ends are indeed a logical perspective or goal, even if that isn't what makes it good, per se. But do we not want to preserve the rules designated by logic, among other things, that guide our forming of perspectives by providing a logic or logical framework? — ToothyMaw

Adopting a perspective that is likely to produce the desired result, but is entirely foreign to someone's overarching views is not feasible, because it is likely to be simply too difficult for them to adopt that perspective. One cannot choose to believe whatever would be practical for them to believe. There are prerequisites for belief that must be followed or this entire endeavour will be pointless.

If someone has a perspective that is producing undesirable results, the reason for disbelief can't be just "it's not useful to be this way". Instead, one needs to attack that perspective using their true beliefs, making purposeful but minor adjustments, that's the path of least resistance. Usually, simply rearranging the same beliefs in a new order of priority, or characterising a premise differently by finding reasons to exclude or include factors or interpretations will do the trick. The less that needs to change, the easier the change will be.

Again, I'm oversimplifying but perhaps you'll understand my point is just that one, of course, can't just insert any perspective or thought into their heads on the basis of utility. I do think that these "permeating logics" are much more flexible than they seem, and there are lots of tricks at one's disposal to change their perspective without feeling like they're betraying their identity or trying to believe something entirely contrary to their current views. Especially once things such as reason and truth value are removed as shields.

What you write about is detachment, a means of circumventing the misapplication, or overapplication, of logic and reason. I am starting to agree with you that yes, this is a useful way of looking at things some of the time. — ToothyMaw

Cool. There is definitely an entirely separate conversation about what outcomes should really be prioritised. If the reason behind what "desired result" they are to pursue is flawed, then there will be consequences for that. It's complicated, and I'd encourage a risk-averse approach, one should aim not to deprive themselves of opportunities to grow, the goal should still be to be the best "you", I think.

So long as I get to be the evil, big brain mastermind that ultimately spells his own doom with his unchecked hubris. — ToothyMaw

Haha, alright, I'll reserve that role for you.

I'm above average at chess, and I don't think we're saying anything too silly.

Thus, I think logic and reasoning are inherently valuable because robustness of opinion is the greatest measure of whether or not some perspective is valuable for accomplishing a goal insofar as it represents the realization of a plausible world that we would want to live in - which I think is the greatest goal for any perspective. — ToothyMaw

Of course, one needs to set good goals and determine whether their perspective will deliver on those goals and this requires reason to figure out. However, once you're satisfied that you've done your best to create a goal, then the perspective needs to accomplish producing that desired outcome, and succeeds and fails by whether it does, yes?

Therefore, a perspective that is accurate and logical but does not produce the desired outcome is a failure, and a perspective that mightn't be that accurate or logical which does is a success, do you agree?

Do you think the rules of chess, by which moves are a function of, are based on a logic that makes it a desirable, deeply satisfying game to play? I do. I see the realization of personal goals as being no different; goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale. People want there to be rules, they just differ on which rules are correct, and rightly act in accordance with said rules when possible - much of the time. — ToothyMaw

There's no disagreement that goals should be logical, it's inconceivable for me that a goal can be both good and illogical.

However, are you talking about a shared logic, like one built by a society?

Something kind of interesting but somewhat off-topic: I think reason plays the long game; if you have a game in which the rules change, the goal becomes to both further the game (so long as it is useful to do so) and to develop new heuristics via experience and reasoning. What you outline, while conceptually efficient, doesn't favor this augmentation of perspectives, but rather provides a schematic for understanding the processes by which people should form perspectives. So, it seems of limited usefulness outside of evaluating the worth of an individual's opinions. — ToothyMaw

What I outline is a focus on the desired result, which entails a process of identifying the method which will produce it. Aren't you just talking about a circumstance where one must change when confronted with a better way of doing things, or look for opportunities for improvement? I would say that this only works when someone knows the desired outcome, and is searching for ways to improve their results. If you tell me the goal is to do "X", then you've made it very clear, that this is the outcome is the measuring stick of success. So, my OP wouldn't be relevant to bring up, since we'd already be evaluating all perspectives or methods by the outcome.

It is only worthwhile to bring up my OP in circumstances where you aren't evaluating a perspective by the outcome. If it's useless, it's because it'd be redundant to tell you to do what you've already been doing.

It's about the measuring stick for success which guides their reason. You keep bringing up cases where the measuring stick is pre-defined to be the outcome. Do you perhaps, secretly agree with me? It's okay to join me on the dark side, you know? We can form a supervillain team together.

For me, nihilism is the idea that there is no objective meaning, and that meaning is asserted by sentient beings such as humans. I would say there is no meaning to life, but I have no problem with the idea that someone could invent a reason for living.

I would disagree that nihilism is implicitly depressing. I personally don't feel even remotely downbeat about the absence of objective meaning. I'd argue the difference comes down to how one evaluates the value or weight that an individual's assertion of meaning has.

I could understand someone feeling depressed by the idea that nothing has any "real" meaning, but for me, individually asserted meaning is plenty real and has a lot of weight. Therefore, I really couldn't care less about the lack of objective meaning, I think "objective meaning" is a nonsensical concept, so, it's not something I even spend time thinking about.

The connection between the assertion that selecting factors to reach conclusions and the idea that all that matters are the outcomes of such conclusions doesn't really follow, I think. — ToothyMaw

I should probably focus more on this aspect of my OP, as I didn't go over it in sufficient detail.

You made the point using chess as your example, that although our necessity to select factors exists, the question of which factors to use is still very important. There is still a need to produce the most robust perspective, and our ability to do this correlates with our success. It's a great argument.

My response focused on the evaluation of perspectives, I pointed out that the outcomes considered a success in chess are largely pre-defined by the rules of the game. The goal is to make good moves, and so that's the measuring stick of success. However, I appreciate that what you're saying is that the chess example proves that our limited ability to include various factors didn't reduce the importance of a good system of selecting factors.

However, don't you see that we agree on this point? My OP is not arguing for selecting factors at random, it's arguing for selecting factors that create perspectives that produce the desired result. You've actually agreed to the very same thing in your chess example, did you not? In chess, a strategy can be logical, but that doesn't mean it will produce good results. To do that, one must carefully select the factors they are to emphasise. If one has a strategy that involves a heavy focus on aggressive attacking, reasoning that it will pressure the opponent to make mistakes, that makes sense, it's a valid line of thought, but that doesn't mean it will succeed.

Ultimately, the outcome is what matters, not that the perspective was rational. In chess, there is this result that separates right from wrong. It's not just chess, if the goal is to do "X" thing, there probably is a "best way" to do it, and a slew of alternatives ranging from suboptimal to terrible. But isn't it the goal that makes optimisation possible?

The goal is the measuring stick of success, it is how we evaluate whether a perspective has succeeded or not, do you agree? What if one's goal is not to accomplish any specific thing, but simply an aim to be logical and accurate? Even if one's perspective would hurt their mental health, or if it made them unenjoyable to talk to, or justified an unhealthy way of living, regardless of the consequences, one could aim to always express things as they saw them.

It is a circumstance such as this that I'd be interested in invoking my point about selecting factors. As it shouldn't matter if one's selection and use of factors is logical and honestly done. Without that goal to define success, there are countless alternative ways to select which factors to include, and emphasise and means of arguing those factors that are equally valid.

Why shouldn't one, as is done in chess, take these countless alternatives as nothing but possibilities, which succeed or fail by whether they produce the desired result? What if a selection process is even a bit biased, or unreasonable? If that's what helps to produce the desired outcome, why would it be wrong? Would you allow yourself to be biased and unfair if the results of doing so were better than not?
If you agree that we're limited to a few factors, yet often have so many possible choices, then what selection criteria is better? How do you go beyond using truth and logic as measuring sticks, and pick the most robust perspective, and by what means do you know that the perspective is effective?

Say one's goal is to obtain self-respect, from where does their lack of self-respect come? Is it not the product of a way of thinking? Is self-respect the goal or not? Is a method that accomplishes the goal successful or not? Of course, there's room for nuance in evaluating the outcome. The best method isn't one that succeeds at great costs or with great risk. But shouldn't a perspective be evaluated by what it produces, not by whether it's logical or accurate? What does it even mean to be logical and accurate without a goal? What do you think?

Reason is not a choice, but rather a necessity, for forming opinions with useful outcomes. — ToothyMaw

I agree with you, and as I said, I am not arguing against the use of reason. I am proposing that one should use reason to find the most useful perspective for themselves, and carefully consider the pros and cons of their perspective before deciding upon it. Exactly as is done in chess, only, in chess it is already determined that a useful perspective is one that wins chess, it's not usually so simple.

I would say that reasoning is imperative as a means of extending one's useful conclusions — ToothyMaw

What does "extending" mean?

If this were the case, then no belief would have any more value than another unless its value was consensually agreed upon by all, and there would be no way of resolving many significant disagreements. — ToothyMaw

It would be far easier and simpler than it is currently since the outcome is the only concern, you'd need only convince others that they'd be better off believing something different.

I don't like these kinds of "what if everyone did this" hypothetical though, even if everyone thinking as I advise did cause a problem since we know that'll never happen, why would it be cause for concern? What if everyone decided to like the same type of music as me? There'd only be a handful of different types of music, and that'd be so sad, would you advise then that I should expand my tastes to avoid such a travesty?

It's not that I admit there would be significant problems, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile debating how the fields of law and science would operate under my system. It's not something I spend time considering.

I don't know how this translates into logic being necessary for an opinion to be good, but logic is an absolute necessity for us to have any means of sorting reality in cases less trivial than leaving for work late because one is a dunce. — ToothyMaw

One must take context into account when deciding how critical the quality of their opinion is in producing their desired outcome or causing likely consequences. One may wish to err on the side of caution in cases where the possible consequences are too severe or just outweigh the rewards. It's really only when it seems highly unlikely for there to be meaningful consequences for their inaccuracies that they should contemplate pursuing an understanding optimised towards their desired outcomes.

You gravitate towards areas of the highest stakes, the ones where there's no reason to desire anything but the most accurate, robust opinion. If those are the circumstances, then I'd advocate for aiming to have the most accurate, robust opinion, there's no disagreement there. Opinions in culture would be a better starting place, or in philosophy, or politics. The ideal circumstance would be one where "there is no wrong opinion". In the case where there is a wrong opinion, a compromise might be possible. For example, you might agree that "X" is necessary, but emphasise some flaws to condemn as it suits you.

Btw, I care only for the individual's position. The idea that my method might wreak havoc on democracy because people would not be voting responsibly is amusing but not my concern at all.

I am talking about formulating a perspective or opinion.

You're right that we don't need to do everything by ourselves though. I guess the question would come down to when a person needs to formulate their own opinions, and when can they simply leave it to someone else?

In philosophy, should we think about things for ourselves, or listen to someone smarter than ourselves and soak up what they say like a sponge? It's only tangentially related to my OP but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

I'm ok with this as long as you're not equating what I'm calling "intuition" with what you call experiencing stimulus emotionally. — T Clark

No problem then.

In my understanding, intuition is a reflection of a model of the world I carry around in my head created by a combination of experience and built-in mental structures — T Clark

That is an unorthodox way of defining intuition, but I'll work with it.

When I come across something new, I can compare it with my existing understanding of how the world works to see how it fits. All this usually happens before or at the same time the process enters my conscious awareness. I know from past conversations that many people don't experience it that way. — T Clark

Right, I think it works that way for everyone, I don't believe those who say it doesn't.

I wouldn't say it's just about pre-existing models though. It's about the habits one has in terms of favouring factors for interpretation, relevance, narrative, characterisation etc. It happens in an instant. Take a simple comparison between a stereotypical introvert and an extrovert. Their preferences, how things make them feel, what their interests are, they're going to manifest in what things they choose to focus on, and how to characterise those things, or feel about them, interpret them and so on.

I don't know if you are talking about intuition when you say "make choices without thinking about them." If so, I disagree. Intuition is thinking; useful, valuable, effective thinking: just not rational thinking. — T Clark

I am not criticising intuition as you describe it, I am saying that one's intuition should be evaluated by what it produces. And that what it produces is of the utmost importance, and one should aim to determine their desired outcomes and influence their intuition in the ways one believes are likely to produce them. Do you agree with that?

I agree with this, although I tend to describe it differently. I need valid information, i.e. knowledge, in order to make decisions. Knowledge has to be justified. Most importantly, that justification must take into account the uncertainty of the information and the consequences of being wrong. What you call "realism" is not a yes/no approach. — T Clark

Your description is better because it's more nuanced and I agree with you.

What is the process used to sequester these factors if not some form of reasoning? — ToothyMaw

Of course, and that's what thinking is, one can only handle so many factors, and so must consider the factors they wish to include, and how to include them.

Even if one picked factors based on what made them happy, that would be a form of reasoning, it's not as though I am arguing against this point.

I find it difficult to believe that reasoning ceases to matter, or becomes less important, the moment you exclude some factor from consideration. — ToothyMaw

I am not arguing against using reason. Chess is not an example where reason determines what perspectives or ways of thinking are good, only what produces good moves in chess does that.

A way of thinking about how to play chess could be entirely logical and reasonable, and one may have made an effort to select the factors that would bring them victory. So, the view is logical, rational, and reasonable, but what if it doesn't work? What if the perspective didn't produce a high rating?

Then it wouldn't matter that your perspective is logical and rational, it's trash because only winning matters.

That's common sense in chess because chess is a game where everyone is playing to win. The measuring stick for the effectiveness of your thinking is determined by the game. Any attempt to justify a way of thinking that doesn't help you to win chess, but has some kind of esoteric value is rejected.

What my OP is arguing for isn't necessary for chess because we already evaluate the perspective by the outcome.

So basically, everyone should believe anything they want so long as it makes them happy because we use arbitrary processes of sequestration to express ourselves. That seems to be what I'm reading here. — ToothyMaw

It's not my goal to promote happiness as the ultimate objective, but maybe if it was broadened to "so long as it's beneficial" and benefit is determined by one's private reasoning, then yes. Could their reasoning be flawed? It could be. Efforts should be made to determine what the best reasoning is, but the measuring stick is the outcome. Please understand that I am giving you responses of pretty much, the absolute bare minimum to avoid my post being an essay, of course, it's complex, and I know that things could go very wrong here. I am promoting an endeavour, not guaranteeing its success.

Are the logic and truthfulness of a belief not important pros or cons, or perhaps even the most important depending upon what we are talking about? And what about morality? — ToothyMaw

Only so far as they help to produce the desired outcome. However, I'm not endorsing any methodology for what outcomes are desired.

Say I plan to leave to arrive at work thirty minutes before my shift, but it takes sixty minutes to get there. I've embraced an apathy about whether my beliefs are logical or accurate, and the prospect of having to travel for sixty minutes is unpleasant, so it makes sense for me to decide it'll only take thirty minutes. Therefore, I arrive thirty minutes late, and I get fired for it, not to mention, I ended up taking sixty minutes to get there anyway.

I'm not endorsing such a completely absurd way of thinking... I should've left at the time necessary to get to work on time, and I should've had more sensible priorities. Again, I'm not rejecting logic, reason or accuracy as having no value, I'm saying that judging the outcome should be the priority.

The stakes here are whether logic, reason and accuracy are mandatory qualities for a belief to be considered good. Not whether they're ever important. Do you think that an unreasonable opinion that produces happiness is better than a reasonable opinion that produces misery? Or is the quality of your opinion dependent upon being accurate, truthful, logical and valid?

Upon reading a few more times: did you actually write this, Judaka? It's like you told ChatGPT to write like a cross between the Joker and someone trying to recruit young men for a domestic terrorist group. — ToothyMaw

Someone is finally understanding that I'm this forum's villain.

My questions were rhetorical...

If you see what I've said as a rejection of reality, then either I've expressed myself poorly or you haven't made much of an effort to understand what I said. Either way, we'll have to leave it at that, I've lost interest.

What's real? Reality? Reality as in, the term that refers to all that's real? That reality is real? And it's going to continue after my death? I guess I'll never be able to find out, that's too bad.

Is there some difference between the cause of your death being a meteor striking and destroying Earth, or dying after being hit by a car? If there is one, it's just some abstraction, practically, what's the difference? Is it that you'll "know"? Because no, you won't, we're talking about death remember?

Your objection is a technicality, you've used intelligence to pick an abstraction over your reality. All you've ever known are sensations, experiences, memories, thoughts and ideas. You say I'm real because you can interact with me, and you'd say what isn't real can't possibly be interacted with, right? What do you think is going to happen when you die!? That's the death of reality to you, what you speak of is a worthless abstraction, why would you call it a reality? Your methodology for determining what's real is completely dependent upon you being alive, but you're saying life will go on without you?

I'm not a solipsist. I know people die every day and life goes on, why would it be any different for my death? However, the only reality I've ever experienced has its existence completely dependent on me. That's what's going to be lost when I die, and that's the only reality I've ever known. Isn't that what matters, and not the idea of reality?

All existence is based on mine, and when I cease to be, so will the universe, for me at least. Nothing will survive my death from my perspective, and I feel comforted by that. I don't need to accomplish something great or worry about how I spent my days, my inevitable oblivion shall wipe the slate clean.

As for right now, I'm insignificant in terms of space and time when compared to the universe but I'm sentient and the universe isn't. I'm pretty sure it's actually my existence that is more amazing, it seems silly to be jealous of gasses and rocks.

Yes, I've written it in an unclear way, but we could replace "we" with "our brains" in many places in my OP. I'm unsure to what extent evolution is responsible for this phenomenon, as the alternative of not simplifying should be unworkable. Nonetheless, I agree evolution has played a significant role here. Much of what I'm describing occurs so quickly that we experience stimulus emotionally before even having a chance to utter a single word. Conscious thought takes a lot longer because it's much slower.

Our brains are highly adaptable though, you've mentioned that you've worked as an engineer, and I'm sure that gives you a unique perspective where it's relevant. One that I wouldn't have, and your brain would use this to instantly pick things up, in this non-conscious way. That's a very highly specific knowledge that has worked its way into your thinking that wasn't there naturally. That's not intuition, it's the result of your education and experiences, it's different, right?

How we interpret, characterise, and emphasise, the narratives we create and the way in which we perceive things, even when done automatically, is influenced by our thinking. Consider how a sophisticated ideologue sees the world, through the narrow lens of his doctrine, that's not intuition, that's the result of their commitment to that ideology.

The simplification is mandatory, yet we do have some control over how it happens. Some ways in which we simplify are strongly determined by biology, but not everything.

Maybe. On the other hand, sometimes facing up to an unpleasant truth now leads to greater future happiness or at least to less future suffering. — T Clark

Certainly. It's complex, and the correct answer isn't to favour immediate gratification over delayed gratification. I'm not proposing we just ingratiate ourselves with whatever we desire. It's necessary to challenge one's self and construct a way of thinking that produces something sustainable and realistic.

I think this is similar to how I see things. I take a pragmatic view - all thinking is aimed at action. Truth is just a tool to help us decide what to do next. — T Clark

I consider truth to be most important in terms of realism, if one's plan relies on a thing being true and it isn't, then that plan is certain to fail. Outside of realism, one shouldn't use the truth to justify themselves, as this world contains many truths and what matters is which ones you're using and how, and that's not justified by something being true. How similar is that to what you meant?

It's not just writing but yes, I agree that writing pretty much guarantees an inevitability of progress.


Truth is something we make, you can choose what to emphasise, how to interpret and characterise the points you deem relevant and reach the conclusion you like. If progress is just, things getting "better", and there's no agreed-upon standard for what's better, then there is no answer we should all agree on.

Heh, I didn't agree to discuss any topic any other poster suggests.

Net improvements? — Isaac

I've got no idea what you're talking about lol. What kind of cost do you want to be included?

Are you familiar with the changes that have taken place over the past few hundred years on how philosophers of science have treated the concept of progress? For instance , the change from inductive to deductive understanding of scientific method , and from cumulative-additive to Popperian falsificationist progress. And then there’s the Kuhnian view of scientific progress, which abandons linearity in favor of the idea that to understand better is always to understand differently. — Joshs

Nope.

Why are you being difficult? You're well aware of the significant medical, legal, scientific, and economic improvements over the last few centuries. Why should I play this game with you? Do you actually want to take Jamal's side and tell me that there is no general progress throughout history? How far back do you want to go that you could even entertain wanting to have a discussion about this?

The cause of the upward trend is technological advancement... People invent something like a wheelbarrow... it boosts their productivity and becomes common use because it was useful. Then someone figures out a new farming technique that further boosts productivity, and humans are able to store knowledge and teach future generations about this improved technique. It's an inevitable consequence of our ability to learn and teach.

If you desire to discredit the pomposity and self-congratulations then make it your target... don't go after something so well-evidenced that even a flat Earther would steer clear. I've made your mistake in the past, when you see the same concept being invoked over and over as evidence for positions you hate, it creates a motivation to take this tool away which muddies your judgement. Your starting position was to find a flaw in this notion of inevitable progress, was it not?

I want to correct the view that there is an overarching general progress in history, like a magical power standing over society that we can either abide by, as Pinker wants us to do, or stupidly ignore, as we do when we do war and genocide. — Jamal

Pinker provides mountains of evidence for overarching general progress in history, what kind of counterargument is there? What you cynically call magic and assumption is simply a belief in charts that plot points and show progress.

And yes, the self-satisfied purveyors of Progress annoy me, because self-congratulation is not in the spirit of the Enlightenment as I see it. It is not self-critical enough. And this is a problem for me particularly because it serves to justify and glorify the system that has raised our productive potential so radically over the past few hundred years. Although the Enlightenment was importantly entwined with capitalism, the internal contradictions in that process bring their own problems, and they are what interest me, as they interested Marx (who did not lament the replacement of the old society with an industrial one). — Jamal

So, is your goal to discredit the trend because you dislike the attitude of those who bring it up? I do share the sentiments you've expressed here. Sometimes people go too far in acting as though the West is a blight on the world and these stats need to be brought up, but more often they're brought up to defend our current way of doing things, especially capitalism. It is very ironic to use the supposed accomplishments of enlightenment values as a way to shield them from criticism. We should be free to criticise and analyse anything and everything so that we can search for areas of possible improvement.

There are many counterexamples. — Jamal

That's fair, and there will be continued exploitation in new ways as we acquire the means for it. Future generations will certainly be able to add things to your list that have yet to occur. But I believe we're trending towards inevitable improvement, it's just far easier to dominate and exploit than to prevent domination and exploitation. We're trying to create technology to improve people's lives, we're aiming towards peace, and we want to solve the conditions Pinker describes. Are we putting our full effort behind it? is humanity united in improving our overall condition? Of course not. But I believe progress will be made and is being made, I believe this trend will continue.

One thing that does annoy me, and I'd guess you feel the same, is how the current year is treated as though it's the end of history. I've little doubt that future generations will view our age with contempt... Our exploitation, our flaws, we're going to be judged as backward people... What's with this attitude of "it's the current year, how can these basic injustices still be here"? Are these people blind? There are horrendous flaws, why are they acting as though we've made it?

I favour the notion that we should judge people and civilisations by standards appropriate to their age, but to see the trend of history, we mustn't do that. It feels wrong to praise an age that liberated one group by dominating another, but it is part of our trend upwards. Imperialism was a mission of oppressing and exploiting other peoples, but it did enrich the cultures doing the pillaging. They experienced improvements in all areas, and brought their people out of their previous state of poverty, liberating them, triggering further advancement, and eventually leading to the industrial revolution.

It's built on oppression like you said, but I'm not saying the trend that I'm using to predict future improvement is a moral one, it's not even related to morality. Many are eager to attribute our recent success to philosophical, economic and political ideas. I'd argue that our recent successes are owed almost entirely to the industrial revolution. There was slow improvement before the industrial revolution but afterwards, the rate of change has become ever more drastic.

People can adopt new ideas or philosophies, and political and economic systems can change, but this technological advancement can never be undone, and it's set in motion things that cannot be undone. It's this that creates the feeling of inevitability. We don't possess the power to stop it, it's beyond being controlled.

What are you trying to correct in this view? Progress isn't inevitable for you, but is it probable? Perhaps highly probable but you want to mention that perhaps something might go wrong and we should worry about the possibility? Or is your goal self-flagellation as the latter half of your OP seems to imply? Does Pinker's self-congratulatory book annoy you because you feel humans are beyond redemption? Do you just feel uncomfortable with a focus on what's going well, and you'd prefer to focus on the areas in which we're failing? What's your angle here?

I don’t want to argue now against increased mastery, but can you explain why you think it coincides with moral improvement? — Jamal

It's partly because increased means changes the calculus to tip the balance towards the moral choice. Such as how the abolishment of slavery in the West coincided with the industrialisation of the West. It's easier to say "let's not have slaves because slavery is wrong" when you've got machines to do the back-breaking labour you wanted to force onto someone else. The promise of being able to do better is given to us by technological and economic improvement. The solutions we rely on today didn't exist before, and the problems we'll solve in the future will be solved with technology that doesn't exist today.

The other half is that outcomes are not just the result of our will to be good. We might look at the state of policing and law and condemn our societies as unjust. But perhaps these are just the limitations of our organisational infrastructure, our laws, and our technology, we're just bad at these things.

It's complicated, and my explanation is not exhaustive, but that's the gist of my point.

Sure, I think of humans like that sometimes. I was really just referring to the suffering of human beings, usually caused by other human beings. War, oppression, and poverty, that kind of thing. That last paragraph in the OP was a rather grand and emotive way of making the point that we shouldn’t reduce those past evils (not that they are consigned to the past) to steps on a ladder to present or future happiness. — Jamal

Why make such a point? Is Pinker guilty of reducing human suffering to mere rings in a ladder? I'd argue it's clear that Pinker resents the suffering being caused by the conditions he's described, and your attempt to critique him for either forgetting or reducing these issues seems hollow to me. Is it somehow offensive to the victims of war and poverty to call those ills primitive? Or... is there a better word than primitive that you would've preferred he used?

I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. It’s more an examination of ideology, of the myth of inevitable betterment, which I think is implied in the unthinking description of unhappy conditions as primitive — Jamal

Considering that poverty, conflict, disease and so on all predate not only civilisation itself, but human existence. I don't think it's that unreasonable to call those conditions primitive. Why are you sure the implication is that any unhappy condition is primitive?

It's the nature of life that is cruel, not humanity itself, and moral improvement almost always coincides with increased mastery over the conditions of life. It's not about will or goodness, it's about capacity.

The only embarrassing feature of the assumption that things will improve is that the improvement is an accomplishment of philosophical and cultural enlightenment.

Why does humanity need redemption? Humanity is just better at killing and dominating than other animals. Life is about killing and domination, competition and conflict, eating and being eaten, and suffering and causing suffering. Shouldn't humans be praised for trying to rise above that, and having any kind of success?

It seems OP is just a question about what measuring stick we should use... And you've decided it should be extraordinarily high. Isn't that the source of your relative pessimism?

Innate to our universe? What does that mean?

Healthy cooperation is based on mutual benefit, between you and the other parties, but not necessarily outside of that. You're imposing this kind of species-wide cooperation mandate that doesn't make any sense, as though all humans need to cooperate with each other.

Doesn't healthy cooperation require aligning interests? Do all humans have aligning interests?

If you have no desire to resolve such disputes, you would not be a good person to associate with. OK. — Mark S

There is only one way to resolve these disputes, and it's through tyranny. Oh, of course, our noble philosophers wouldn't ever dare dream of tyranny, they only assert objective moral truths which do the tyranny for them. The truth imposes itself on everyone by its nature, and so wipes one's hands clean from having to do the imposing themselves. Disagreement is an obvious outcome of freedom, for people to fight for what works best for them, to fight for their ideals and beliefs. What's wrong with a dispute? Is it your desire to rid the world of moral disputes? Why? So we can all hold hands and work together in a beautiful utopia? Ugh, I despise the attempt, and it won't ever work out that way.

We should only aim to limit our cooperation to peaceful means and to reconcile our disputes in peaceful ways. I know I'll never see eye to eye with everyone else regarding what's right or wrong, but we could at least try to be respectful of our differences. Isn't that what things such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on, are all about? We want to create the perfect environment for disagreement to be conducted in a peaceful, civil and productive manner., not eliminate disagreement...

Sure, ethics has grown far beyond cooperation strategies to include answers to broader questions such as “What is good?”, “How should I live?”, and “What are my obligations?” — Mark S

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. For example, through propaganda in the late 20th century, the US demonised communism, consistently morally condemning it and this caught on and continued within US society for decades. This moral condemnation was politically motivated, and it's a good example of how outside influences are impacting moral views. You're acting like morality exists just to solve problems of cooperation, and this is just entirely lacking in nuance, it's rarely that simple, or innocent.

In contrast, the spontaneous feeling of satisfaction and optimism in the cooperative (moral) company of friends and family is a primary source of durable happiness for most people. — Mark S

I'm afraid of the moral views of others, we hurt others in the name of righteousness, and think of ourselves as just. We can be so brutal in doing it... humans aren't saved by morality, we've done terrible things in the name of justice. Look at some of the prisons of our world, people there are treated like animals, deprived of any dignity or safety. It's fine though, they deserved it, and it's morally okay.

Don't expect me to view the invoking of the term morality with trust, I don't have any respect for the concept of morality as a whole. It's a feature of the concept that one views themselves as trustworthy, "we won't hurt anyone unless they deserve it", great, how reassuring. Morality is only beautiful when you're only looking at it from the perspective of what you find moral. Because what you find moral will always take your needs and desires into account, but the morality of others isn't so convenient. Species-wide cooperation lol... under whose rule?

1) Sure.
2) No, it doesn't. Not any more than you can argue against birth control pills or condoms by pointing out sex is for making children, or against junk food by pointing out that we eat to sustain ourselves.

As I've been trying to point out, the cooperation morality is helping to create is tribal in nature. Conflicts are a part of the nature of morality, it's a healthy part of what it evolved to be. I have no desire to resolve such disputes.

3) Morality evolved for the purpose of cooperation, but it's much more than that now, just like so many other things about human behaviour. There's money to be made, power to be had, ideals to be upheld and yada yada. And as I've said, it's not about species-wide or culture-wide cooperation.

4) Why do humans care about bad things happening to other people, for example? Is that rational? Why can I listen to the story of someone going through a terrible experience and cry for them? Why do I feel such an urge to want to help them? It encourages cooperation, yes, but it's not based on the desire to cooperate.

If one person cares about X and another Y, and you say "let's cooperate!" I mean... come on... you can't be serious. They're not caring about X and Y out of love for cooperation, and they're not going to change their minds because the concept of cooperation was invoked.

I'm just trying to point out that if you engage with the complexities of the issue. If you stop analysing the concepts of morality and cooperation together in an isolated environment, then you'll see the problems. Morality is more complicated than its original function, and how it accomplishes this original function is not through a conscious love of cooperation, it's so very far away from that.

Those moral heuristics just get bypassed whenever they're inconvenient, they're not as in need of flexibility as you seem to propose. You say that people are not taking into account what's beneficial for them when forming opinions on morality and that they merely follow what they've been taught. However, as you yourself have noted, it is beneficial for someone to follow the status quo, as the norms are legally and socially enforced. So, it's unsurprising to see people following those norms.

However. take an example such as urbanisation, recent examples are well illustrated in China. The older generation is rural and grew up in a very different, poorer China, while their children are working in modern cities. When you examine these two generations and compare the differences in their moral codes, their rules, priorities and so on, the differences are predictable. Why is this? Because the practicalities of your circumstances weigh heavily on determining what obligations or responsibilities you have, what you should or shouldn't be allowed to do and so on.

Look at a country like the US, it's got large political divides between people who live in cities vs the country, it's a common theme.

As cultures contain many different people living in many different circumstances, with all kinds of dividing factors, it makes sense that moral views would clash for this reason. I imagine none of the above is news to you, so what's the deal? You obfuscate this problem when you just say "our ultimate moral goals" and such, as though there's a presumed unity that there would be such as thing as "our ultimate moral goals". What's your actual proposal? To turn morality into a science? To assert it'd be anti-scientific to go against whatever scientists proposed was the objectively correct way to cooperate?

Contrary to your claim, people do not commonly try to compute the behavior that would be most useful to them when making moral judgments. Rather, people experience motivation to follow the moral norms they grow up with such as those above. — Mark S

I wonder if you are taking morality to be man-made? And our moral choices to be made consciously? One may not be aware of the cold & calculative process which determines what they think is moral, the calculation happens with or without their intent. Find an individual and learn what he values, and see whether or not you can't find the source of the belief in his circumstances. See whether his values promote his circumstances, his personality, and his characteristics or don't they.

Do not steal or kill, but after all, who wants to die or be robbed? What unites us is pragmatic there, that's why there's little disagreement.

Though we do find ways to break these rules all the time, they are not golden rules at all. As loopholes, we separate ideas. Theft is wrong but what is defined as theft is very calculated. Imperialism was not theft to the imperialists, paying someone below minimum wage is not theft, and tax is not theft. How many examples of "theft-like" behaviours could we find that aren't called theft? When something is morally justified, it changes shape. It's not that we can't kill others, it's that killing others is conceptually reserved for killing when it's done immorally. If we're calling it murder, then we're condemning it, if we weren't condemning it then we'd call it something else, perhaps if we're lazy we'll call it by the very word of "justice"?

Why do you imagine the cooperation must be on the scale of a nation? Isn't it naive to expect people to join together and cooperate on a culture-wide basis? What objective basis is this? You're privileging one type of cooperation over another, and yours is less pragmatic and goes against our tribalistic nature.

Pragmatism in morality is not an effective tool for mediating conflict, as it's the very cause of the conflict. Whether a moral norm is useful depends on how it impacts you and those close to you. That's dependent upon your social position and personal circumstances, and morality is proficient in adapting to those.

Religious or not, it makes little difference. Morality functions with or without any conscious agreement, and although something like the 10 commandments seems objective, they're not applied that way. "Thou shalt not kill" but Christians did a lot of killing, the objective moral law saying not to kill was not an impediment to having pragmatic moral views whatsoever.

Why would what personally benefits me be usable as an objective mediation tool? You're emphasising golden rules such as "do not kill", but that's not how morality works, we justify killing when it's useful. To whom is it useful when that occurs? Everyone? No, it will disproportionately impact some groups more than others, and our moral views adapt well to this reality.

What conflicts could you resolve by explaining what would be useful for us? We're already doing that anyway and usefulness depends on your position, you can't explain what's most useful for everyone, right?

There is one point of major corruption for people in power. They can, while others are prevented from doing likewise. Dictators seem to acquire a taste for it, like an addiction. Of course, they were probably inclined that way before they fought their way to the top. — Vera Mont

True.

The dark side of morality always finds a way to do harm without being a potential victim. Racism, classism, retribution or harm done in the name of some great cause. The morality of the weak and meek, those who can only be victims is the most gentle, and the morality of those who can harm yet also be harmed is harsh but measured, but the morality of those who can harm without fearing harm is monstrous.

What's great about democracy comes not from voting, but how it establishes accountability, and how those in power at least have to pretend to care about what the masses want. The cycling of governments in particular is incredibly powerful because if a party is voted out of power, someone else comes into office and looks over everything the previous party has been doing. They'd love nothing more than to find a corruption scandal with which they can destroy their political opponents, and they've got no motivation to protect the previous officeholder.

We've got laws and government bodies set up to prosecute on the basis of corruption, although they're not always as effective as they should be. As you say, transparency is crucial, sharing power and ensuring that no culture of backscratching is permitted. These are important practical considerations.

Why some countries are more corrupt than others, is not a reflection of the personal characteristics of the people there. Do you agree? Or can we point to a country filled with crime and corruption and show how it's the fault of moral failing? If the people there were just better, kinder, and more rational. For the individual, how do we balance their personal failings against the impact of the system they're living under? Is corruption the fault of the corrupting influence or the one who was corrupted?

I didn't claim that. I merely reiterated that it is not power that does the corrupting. Nor is chance, or even games of chance, that cause gambling addiction. — Vera Mont

I didn't mean what I said as a rebuttal, I was just clarifying my point, but I understand you.

Yes. And the early childhood environment also has influence on how much self-control a person has. One they're grown, people can be influenced less and also able to change less about their own behaviour, though both continue to be factors. — Vera Mont

I agree.

A wise electorate would never allow an immature person with poor self-control anywhere near a position of power, because that is the type of personality on whom all corrupting influences will have the most effect. — Vera Mont

Yeah, in the case of corruption, this is probably the most susceptible type of person.

The result would be bad laws and unfair enforcement, and in those cases, the law must be challenged in order to be corrected.
This is a process of push and pull, negotiation, ups and down - it's never complete. — Vera Mont

Agreed.

For me, the foundation of morality is recognising that we need to do what's best for ourselves and others and that if everyone only did what's best for themselves, it'd be worse for everyone. The goal should be to organise rewards & punishments in a way that enforces good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour. I don't view morality as being an effective deterrent by itself, especially not in the case where it's relied on to be self-enforced.

I'm sure I would be easily corruptible as I view morality pragmatically. Nonetheless, I think the majority of people share in my circumstances which led me to my moral views, and my circumstances are unlikely to change sufficiently anyway. I don't want to be allowed to murder if it means others could as then I'd be living in a hellish place where I had to live in paranoia. It's in my best interests to support a system that forbids and condemns murder. I don't expect those with the ability to harm me to not harm me out of moral principles, but I think all of those like me who are at risk of being harmed need to try to set up a system where we're protected.

Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but I don't ever expect people with the ability to misuse their power to not misuse it. If they don't, great but that can never be our expectation. The focus should always be on enforcement, regulation and oversight. The question is how we create a system that rewards & punishes in a way to create the outcomes we desire. I think we evolved with morality to serve this purpose, we lived together better when some degree of cooperation was enforced socially.

It's equally problematic when morality actually reduces our cooperativeness or promotes uncooperative behaviour. OP asks if the rich are just insecure, but capitalist society worships and rewards the ultra-rich, and people hold seminars on how to learn from them and be more like them. They're not corrupted at all, they're just doing what the system rewards and doing it very well, the whole premise of the OP is wrong.

I entered this topic sort of just responding to what others were saying, but in terms of my own view, I think morality is just weak. There are social reasons why we need to present ourselves as being moral and upstanding and incorruptible, and because of that, morality is strongest in public discourse. Morality stirs emotions, creates the loudest voice, and shuts down opposition aggressively. But if you look at the world we've created, you can't even trust priests or imams to not abuse their power. If one only takes how things appear on the surface, their view of morality will be incredibly warped.

Whatever "moral people" are, you can't actually spot them. Even someone as violent and warped as Ted Bundy was seen as a charming gentleman and people who are supposedly the best of us get revealed to be liars all the time. So many scams, with tens of thousands of people, completely oblivious even when it's obvious. MLM leaders are worshipped by those they're scamming, political leaders who are so corrupt, they still get support from millions, tens of millions of people.

At the end of the day, we're forced to try to build systems that protect people, we should never rely on the self-enforcement of moral principles. BTW, not saying this as a rebuttal to you, I just went on a rant.

I should think it's both, as the very concept of moral corruption is exclusively human, as are the environments in which it occurs. — Vera Mont

My point is that you could say the same about something like gambling addiction, it's exclusively human and occurs in our human environment. Yet someone can know their gambling addiction is harming their lives, want to quit and still continues to gamble. There's a risk of us exploring this topic with the view that humans are entirely able to control their behaviours, in a way that isn't the case. I'm not saying I have the answer on how much control we do have in this issue, but I am asserting that it's a factor.

We make rules of behaviour to ensure the welfare of society, but those rules restrain individual freedom to act. But we want both safety and freedom, which causes a constant tension between upholding and breaking the rules; between controlling and challenging the rules. — Vera Mont

One thing which I think explains corruption is that we don't usually try to enforce rules that we don't want to follow. I condemn murder but I don't want to murder anyone, I condemn theft but I don't have any opportunity to steal, I condemn adultery but don't feel tempted to cheat. Temptation and opportunity are not present while establishing the rule, which could explain why their introduction would cause us to want to break the rule.

For me, morality is pragmatic in many ways, and corruption could be a way of describing the reduction in how pragmatic a moral system was by changing the circumstances. At least in some cases.

I enumerated a few influences. Nature, nurture and environment. Physical health, innate aptitudes, temperament, early childhood instruction, role models and peers, Competition, disparity, the rewards and advantages for wrong action as compared to those for right action in the formative years. — Vera Mont

Another way of looking at it is that we're not easily tempted, but easily restricted. Individuals with characteristics that help resist social pressures, lower risk aversion, heightened impulsivity and so on I'd argue are more susceptible to corruption.

In fact, every generation of parents prepares its young for the wrong world. — Vera Mont

I think this is a modern problem, as the rate of change of the world wasn't always as fast as it is now, but it's true today.

Yeah, your example is a good one. The US military is actually one of the more frustrating examples because criticism is so readily used as an attack on service people in a way that it wasn't intended to be. These word games are very common in politics as you've pointed out. Politics is probably an over-the-top example, especially in the US, where these games can be extremely ridiculous and exaggerated. Social media enforcement of wording has been infamous as well, the news is carefully wording things for pragmatic reasons, and there are many environments where this phenomenon has become exaggerated.


That's true, but consider thinking of the phenomenon in OP as a cascading effect, instead of just an isolated incident. It's intuitive based on our feelings to describe criminals by highlighting their negative characteristics, we do that and form a negative view of criminals. After years of doing this, how might that impact our opinions on, for example, rehabilitation versus punishment? Well, we've never allowed criminals to be characterised in any positive way, and only ever emphasised how evil and stupid they are, so that might bias us to think rehabilitation won't work or isn't worth trying.

It was never our intention to say rehabilitation can't work, and our words did reflect our feelings throughout, but we've still effectively biased ourselves here. Had we described criminals using more neutral language, we'd probably have a different perspective. That's a reductive and egregiously simplistic example, but hopefully, you can understand where I'm coming from.

I think Vera Mont is correct in that temptation and opportunity corrupt (or can), and thus, power by itself doesn't necessarily tell us to what extent a person has opportunities, the environment matters a lot too. So, as you say, there are situations where power may actually make certain opportunities less appealing than they'd otherwise be, and having power by itself doesn't necessarily grant opportunities and temptations more than being powerless, it depends on the context.

Vera Mont's moral fibre I can understand, it's neutral and intuitively it exists and it's observable, are you defining a "moral person" in a similar way?

Would a person who truly was the most intelligent and well versed person find any temptation in this? — Philosophim

Hmm, yes I think it's possible. Though, could you define someone as the most intelligent and well-versed person if they did find temptation in being an intellectually dishonest jerk? If you couldn't then I suppose you have your answer.

I find for most widespread phenomenons, blaming individuals is the wrong answer. Poverty, obesity, addiction and so on, we try to put the blame on the people in these situations and focus on what they could do to get out of their situations. That the problem is widespread has already told us that human agency either isn't the cause or isn't the solution to the problem. What makes humans weak to opportunity and temptation that they're so often swayed? I don't know if there's a simple answer.

All Philosophim said was that power is not what causes the change. — Vera Mont

That was afterwards, and I asked for clarification on whether I misinterpreted him, as that statement contradicts what I thought he was saying.

That's all that the phrase 'moral fiber' stands for: the relative depth of conviction regarding right and wrong actions, and the relative amount of psychological fortitude to overcome a temptation to do what one considers wrong. — Vera Mont

I see... I misunderstood.

Sure, but now you're stamping foot and judging. What makes another culture's code of right and wrong atrocious in your eyes, if a not a sense of your own moral superiority? — Vera Mont

Yes, I've got no qualms about asserting my moral beliefs, nor did I mean you couldn't do it. Through my misunderstanding of what you meant by moral fibre, I understood you to think that those with moral fibre would only act according to what was objectively morally correct. So, I suspected you react poorly to my suggestion that behaviour you disagreed with could be morally justified by someone in a way that was organic.

I have a better understanding of you now, I'm not sure if Philosophim is saying what you are, but I agree with your take on this topic, including where you've challenged my claims.

But you don't see the parallel with...: — Vera Mont

I had interpreted the meaning in the context of the rebuttal being made that corruption isn't possible, because moral people act morally, if you don't act morally, you're not a moral person which means you weren't corrupted. The whole point of corruption is a change occurred. It's like saying people can't get sick because healthy people are healthy and people who are healthy are healthy people.

If they remained good, they would use power well; once their character is corrupted and they've gone bad, they misuse power. Action is the result of decision, which is a product of character. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Yes, that is the very path to corruption and moral decay. It can happen in any station or walk of life, not only in positions of power. A morally compromised servant may steal, if his master is so inattentive that he does not get caught, and can justify it after the fact more easily than a judge who takes bribes. — Vera Mont

I agree.

It can be an influence, just as access to the source of temptation can be an influence, or the counsel of corrupt companions. I think I've said that being in a position of power provides opportunity (temptation + access) for more wrong-doing than lack of power does. If the same amount of opportunity is presented to an ordinary thief or embezzler, he, too, will escalate his criminal activities, just as an abusive spouse who starts out with verbal gibes, and is not curbed, ends up doing grievous or fatal bodily harm. — Vera Mont

I agree, power is not the most dangerous of corrupting influences, many others are much worse.

I understand your objection and saying temptation and opportunity instead of power is more specific in a way that clarifies the actual cause. I'm not sure it's unfair to say power corrupts but I see your point and agree that it's better to say temptation and opportunity, and power as just one way of getting there. Power doesn't directly correspond with temptation and opportunity, as with proper oversight, both can be substantially reduced. Theoretically, with perfect oversight, and no opportunity for the misuse of power, then power should not corrupt, and so I concede that you're right.

Where have I written anything that suggests the stamping of feet? Describing human behaviors and motivations is not tantamount to condemnation. When I condemn something or someone, there is no room for ambiguity. — Vera Mont

This talk of "strong moral fibre" is grating to me, because I take it as your way of asserting your moral principles to be true. Aren't atrocities like honour killings or murdering people for their sexual orientation called moral acts by some cultures? Could those who carry out such acts be said to have "strong moral fibre"? Or is strong moral fibre determined by how closely one aligns themselves with your preferences?