I'm gonna disagree with you there, I have changed my sex through hormones and surgery — sarah young

But presumably you have not changed your chromosomes. You have changed your sex if it’s true that nature no longer determines sex but that the mind determines it..

Then we might think that it is moral if the intentions are good, if the decision was taken by people after a very long debate and that they judged that it was more likely that unlikely it would be beneficial. — Jean-baptiste

I was thinking about how issues like the vote for women, black votes and gay marriage had been debated for some time before it happened, even if we may have been unconscious that a debate was happening.

Churchill was trying to win the war. He may have faced a moral dilemma, but that doesn’t make it a moral decision, does it? Were his decisions moral or just pragmatic?

I really trying to decide if the open borders really is a moral position held by those who are for it, and if there’s another similar example I can apply the OP question? Are all real moral decisions made on the basis of a specific objective, not some ideal that may or may not eventuate, or based on hope?

It’s a pretty obscure idea as it stands.

Morality is the natural justice about the law of time. — Qwex

I can’t make sense of that. Nor am I trying to define morality. What I’m trying to work out is whether open borders should be determined by a moral position, that it’s the right thing to do. But maybe it’s not a moral decision those for open borders are actually are standing on, only that it appears that way?

if you want to say that ignoring the practical consideration is immoral — DingoJones

Ignoring the possible consequences seems immoral. That’s why I wonder if it’s an idealistic position that cloaks itself in morality. Idealism rushes forward blindly, conscious only of the ideal objective. But what is it here?

I definitely wonder if their moral position is justified, especially when there doesn’t seem to be a position, or a clear position, on what they’re morally against. The moral position against South Africa was towards a specific, clear cut goal.

I’m not suggesting that the practical outweighs the moral, only that without a real objective the moral action can lead to chaos.

Or is this just idealism driving morality?

But let's take a simpler situation. Lying is considered wrong. — Marchesk

That seems to be more a matter of ethics to me.

People tend to take this for granted , but it's a very debatable question. — Jean-baptiste

My OP is based on those who support open borders and hold a moral position on the subject. So the debate is not over whether morals exist, an interesting and endless argument though they are, but on whether they are the basis for the best decision?

What do you mean by contrasting “moral” and “right” in your question? Is “right” meant to mean “moral”? Or do you intend it to mean something more like practical towards a goal? — DingoJones

In the demand for open borders I’m looking at in terms of being a moral position. So far I haven’t heard any particular objective coming from proponents of open borders except that it’s the right thing to do. (There may be objectives in some groups I’m unaware of). On that basis then it appears to be a purely moral decision, and a decision that will lead to wellbeing for all.

So yes, the question revolves around whether the moral choice is the right choice in terms of objectives. What exactly are the objectives in creating open borders.

Open borders across the Americas could be one of the great social experiments of all time. But what do we want from it: an end to poverty for some, security for all, total integration of all races, or broad multiculturalism, or a new “man”. Just saying something is morally right, that it’s without argument, will not lead necessarily to any one of those goals.

So it seems to me that the moral decision needs to be attached to a pragmatic decision, that the pragmatic decision guides the moral decision.

I don't think a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when it forces those morals upon people who disagree with it. — Tzeentch

Well this might happen More often than you think. Governments often make many moral decisions on behalf of their constituency: gay marriage, voting rights for blacks, for instance. And the pressure applied to South African over apartheid was certainly moral.

If seems to me that if you live in a democratic system then you are also required morally to go along with the decision. Though it might be debatable in those circumstances that a moral is being forced upon someone, because in those circumstances they’re in agreement with the system that applies the moral.

So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". — Gnomon

Unfortunately this subject gets caught in a very tight gap between those who take a firm view on presentism and those who don’t. Of course like so many things they represent the two extremes and consequently both fail to contribute much in the end except their fixed views. However that’s my problem, not theirs. It’s not my intention to prove anyone right or wrong but to pick up any new aspects I hadn’t come across before, which I did.

Edit: by non presentism I actually meant mysticism.

This was moved from “Why do you think the US is going into war with Iran.” in regard to it being necessary for a President to come up through the ranks of politicians, that he must have political experience in Washington.

Is this part of the problem people have with Trump, that he doesn’t behave like a politician? And does that matter?

Okay.

Well you may be more tuned in to things than me. I bow to your experience.

Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.) — ssu

Not forgetting Anwar Sadat.

Is this part of the problem people have with Trump, that he doesn’t behave like a politician? And does that matter?

I’ve just been reading about the intellectual wars during the fifties over Communism and McCarthyism: the blacklisting of people, the breakup of friendships, the accusations resulting in ruined reputations, the social damage, and Its so much like the Climate Change debates. And what happened at the end of the Communist/McCarthy hysteria; nothing but ruin.

I have my ups and downs with Sartre, but he did engage with that world.

↪Baden ↪unenlightened

Does One Million Moms not have anything better to do than invite ridicule on themselves?
— Teller

Don't you have anything better to discuss?
— unenlightened

Don't you have anything better to discuss?
— unenlightened

:lol:
— Baden

Well done you two. How to make someone welcome. — Brett

However, on second thoughts, I realise I have not been innocent if this myself.

I’m confused by the position you hold here about death, or appear to hold to me, and the position you hold with @TheMadFool on “The Simplest Thing” about the immaterial mind. Your argument there would seem to agree with my feelings about death, that it’s only the material body that dies, that there is no “death”.

And 'death'. I am not sure what you mean by it when you use it. — Bartricks

Exactly. That’s my position, too.

How can we discuss death if we don’t agree on the term?

Does One Million Moms not have anything better to do than invite ridicule on themselves?
— Teller

Don't you have anything better to discuss? — unenlightened

Don't you have anything better to discuss?
— unenlightened

:lol: — Baden

Well done you two. How to make someone welcome.

yet I often don't see much deliberate connection these days. Those who go out and fight for a cause don't have much use for philosophers or the students of philosophy it seems, and likewise students of philosophy don't (in my experience only) usually get very engaged with current affairs. — Xtrix

I would agree with this. If activists do discuss philosophy it seems to be at a fundamental level and usually extends to a broad and vague idea of Marxism.

I think this applies to the philosophers we refer to in our posts. I’d be interested to know for sure but it appears to me that most lived a life removed from what was going on around them.

This might have been mentioned in another post, but how many of us actually live our philosophy, or do we just like to think we have a philosophy to live by? It takes quite a commitment to live out a philosophy. I personally know of only a few and I don’t actually “know” them.

On the other hand those activists who commit to a philosophy often commit the most appalling crimes because the end justifies the means, and what they think is right and correct. Possibly the biggest crime, and most dangerous, is to think you’re right.

Does "you will be dead in the future" mean the same as "you are now dead"? — Bartricks

You might have to define what you mean by “dead”.

Unfortunately, it would appear I don’t fit the mold expected of writers in our current world. I’m curious about the true limits of experimentation in philosophy, art, and literature. It seems there’s a vein of culture that abhors experimentation, — Randy333

It thinks it’s more true to say there’s only a small vein of culture that’s interested in experimentation. Which is why you find it hard to find a publisher; the market is too small. Why are you writing, for your pleasure, to connect with people or for money? The problem is how to connect to your market, where are they, who are they? There’s no reason why anyone should have to take an interest in your work, you chose to write and to write in the way you do.

Look, it is obvious what the answer to my question is: it is 'no'. — Bartricks

Then what’s the point of your posts?

It brings to the fore the debate on what is natural and what is unnatural - is man-made climate change just a natural process or is it not? — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree. Are we a natural extension of the planet or not? Are our actions as natural as other organisms? Or are we “Space Odyssey” creatures?

I can’t answer the question because I’m only just getting my head around the theory of Eternalism which I find supportive of my OP.

I’ve put up thus quote and source because I know you prefer to see arguments put into a form you value. Hopefully this does. I myself find it hard to paraphrase this sort of entry, which is why I’ve put up the quote. And I appreciate the resistance to throwing up quotes instead of explanation.

However the point is that Eternalism can be looked at without resorting to mystical forms of explanation, which are rarely convincing or satisfactory.

“Presentism is opposed by Non-presentism, which is the view that there are some non-present objects. More precisely, Non-presentism is the view that, possibly, it is sometimes true that there are some non-present objects.
‘Non-presentism’ is an umbrella term that covers several different, more specific versions of the view. One version of Non-presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist right now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/)

I think this has gone off the rails a bit from what I meant in my post.

What I was getting at was the charges against a Trump that he was ignorant and incompetent when it came to both domestic and foreign policy, that he was an amateur.

Is it necessary for a President to have come up through the political ranks. For instance, can Bloomberg be a reasonably successful a President? And are we seeing the beginning of the end of politicians as we’ve known them, and is that a good or bad thing? Look at the Democrats running for President and the apparent disinterest in them.

Eisenhower's an interesting example. Presumably his war record served him well in that post-war period of uncertainty.

The idea, in its most sophisticated form, seems to be akin to a cardiac defibrillator: to deliver a jolt with the express purpose of reviving us from what the artist probably assumes is a deep slumber. — TheMadFool

Yes, and to remind us about how exciting life can be, especially in a consumer, conformist society. But it’s harder to do this on an intellectual level today, so things have to be ramped up, but it becomes self defeating.

“The world as divine art” - beautiful.

Edit: or maybe artists are just taking the easy route.

Art is risky and exciting, as it should be. Which is why the whole moral aspect mentioned in the OP is a problem; “ Autonomism is impermissible; Moralism is necessary.”

I don’t believe that art of any sort harms anyone. Some if it is visually and intellectually insulting, but I know people like that too, but have no intention of trying to get rid of them. Besides all that what exactly a moral is in this art sense seems to me to be far removed from what we regard as moral. I think the list of morals is pretty short and concise. So I think we’re talking about something else here.

But the problem was the photos were made public in exhibitions and books.

Edit: however, they had faith in their mother and father and as far as I know there have been no regrets.

Well, somethings are not meant to be explained but lived. Philosophy is action.

Sally Mann us another interesting example of morals and art. She took photos of her young children, most of them naked because they were taken swimming at the river or playing around the country property free of clothing. The objections are fairly predictable. But does the argument against her work mean that we must never look on the naked body if a child. Now I know one of the arguments is that the children did have the opportunity to give or withhold permission, that Mann took that right away from them. And that is a problem, but I don’t think that was the real problem. The problem was the morality of the nude body. Her photos are images of innocence but the controversy turned them into more than that.

The general consensus here seems to be no.

Edit: but what’s a capable politician, one that can win the Democratic nomination or one that serves his constituency?

A question for everyone:

Can only a politician be a capable President?

The problem as I see it is the approach of academic philosophy. You can see it in the subject/object thread. These intelligent philosophers going around in circles chasing their tails, over the difference between the neumenon and the thing in itself, — Punshhh

I tend to agree with you. Everything’s pretty much set in stone. I don’t come here expecting much except to play with a few thoughts that occur to me. None of us are going to crack the code.

Well math isnt something that has always existed. — DingoJones

Im missing the connection between man-made things being problematic and the above, — DingoJones

I understand that maths is a description of reality. But the reality interpreted by maths existed before us and apart from us. It’s something we have discovered and are still discovering.

The connection between invention (man made) things and the discovery (existing reality) was brought about by asking if Capitalism was a discovery (an evolutionary process) or an invention. An invention would be a Command Economy, a feature of Communist regimes, which so far has not worked out and not only failed but created hardships and poverty while producing nothing, therefore problematic.

Obviously malaria is problematic, which is a discovery. I don’t know how to address this aspect of my post.

Fate; our fate exists, in the future but already actual. It appears at the end of our life. If we died right now our fate would be there. Our fate is always close at hand, right beside us every day, shadowing us. It must exist to happen suddenly. It’s always the future but it has to be right here to happen.