Okay then. Maybe just cut it down to everything prior the semi colon?

"Hi Baden, I slightly messed up the title to my Pigliucci OP. The Part after the Semi Colon should read "How does Stoicism bring Balance to and justify its place in our Moral Ecology?"

Message I sent to Baden. Sorry I just thought I'd let the other mods know just in case one of you can sort this issue for me. Sorry I got excited and shared too early so I fucked up the title :/

I'm a bit hesitant about that being OK by itself, I think it would be OK so long as the quoted bit is contextualised explicitly by you in your discussion. — fdrake

Of course, naturally. I fully intend to use my better judgement and best foot forward on this and do my best for our community. I won't embarrass you guys. Extremely grateful for this opportunity!

However I will still attempt to converse with Professor Pigliucci (side bar; How would he prefer we address him?) In as authentic manner as is respectfully possible by what I believe to be the highest standards expected. I want to have a meaningful and fruitful conversation and collaborative discussion, but I think we can all agree that I shouldn't pull well framed punches if I feel I see inconsistencies in his approach, so long as I relay these respectfully, charitably and in a steel man fashion.

I was thinking more along the lines of quoting You or wallows for example within just my discussion or potentially reference Massimo from his other discussions within my own.

As many here have been quick to point out, positive flavours and fundamental aspects of anarchism are all in line with The Spirit of the law and justice theory but are obviously prone to as much error as any human endeavor in application. Its the root of civil disobedience though.

If it is just playing with words, I am really not interested — A Seagull

Then why are you writing anything at all?

Do we need to explain to you mathematically that even an illusion of a reality is still part of a sum reality greater than 0? Whatever reality is, it is not nothing. We might not be perceiving all of it but what we do perceive and what is that we don't perceive, for example dark matter and other forms of hypothetical matter, is indeed most certainly not Nothing. Nothing is the only true meaningless word there is for it describes a truly impossible to conceive state of affairs.

You can never really imagine nothing. Go ahead and close your eyes and start to imagine nothing. I promise you that the closest you will come is thinking of the colour black and the sound of silence which to a human means just the sound of their heart beating. Nothing is nothing, show me nothing and I will see a something. Even sleep and unconsciousness have somethings in the form of dreams and minute amounts of sense data which makes sure we are never really fully asleep which would be death for the body is always sensing internal data and it was the thing that told you to sleep in the first place. Failing all that you'll still be thinking of the word Nothing which is in itself not nothing.

Oh and to the physics interpretation of a nothing that preceded the universe; this is an assumption about the nature of the universe based on flimsy and literally explosive evidence. Entirely forgetting that explosions in and of themselves are also evidence destroyers. A false Vacuum is still a something as is a quantum fluctuation for it means that Quantum mechanics was a something prior to the fluctuation. So I dont feel there has ever been enough evidence to suggest that it all started with a big bang. A bang certainly happened but while it was the start of this cycle or phase of what we call the universe, it was also likely the end of whatever the previous phase was. Our phase has a time mechanic, that doesn't mean however that the previous phase didn't also have one.

We can’t fight climate change. To fight it is to refuse to accept that climate changes - that it should change - as if it’s the change that threatens us, as if it’s us that’s most important. It’s the wrong focus. We need to be more aware of what is really happening without fearing it, to connect with what is happening, and to collaborate with it. All of it. A good start would be to stop referring to it as ‘climate change’ - it’s humanity that we need to halt... — Possibility

This is all very well said! You're right, the man made version of climate change we are facing now was made a reality due to the same old injustices most of us have been fighting for our entire existence. Consistent morally progressive leadership I feel is something we have never truly had as a species as well as consistent humility and responsibility in leadership too. I wouldn't mind certain leaders so much if they just had the balls to do what is right and admit mistakes or admit to lies and save us all time in deciding whether or not to give them another chance or not. There needs to be much more trust and assumption of forgiveness when it comes to callousness. Intent is certainly a contributing factor in judgement of wrong doers and if its a genuine mistake from a fallible human at least have the decency to own it and let people make informed decisions about forgiveness, forgetting or justice. If the form of justice wasn't so violent and aggressive as it is now maybe this would be easier for people to do. As it is too many people spend so much time trying to micromanage how people perceive them and its boring and totally inauthentic. I like the narrative of being in a debate with someone and wondering whether or not you or they are the "Bad guy" in this. More often than not the end of that narrative is usually realising we aren't all so different deep down. These social failures and successes are what define us really. Failure is certainly character building but we get to decide in what way this shapes our character. Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to what we do.

think that there are a 2 or 3 billion people who, if told the truth about global warming and if given clear behavioral options (like wearing shoes completely out before replacing them, buying a very limited number of clothing items per year, not eating meat, not flying, not driving, and so on) they would rise to the occasion

There are another 2 billion people, give or take, who are already effectively doing what we should all be doing because they are too poor to do otherwise. and maybe there are a couple of billion people whose reductions in lifestyle would be more limited. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. A resource conservative maintenance heavy humble existence is going to be a necessity for most if not all.

New technology with new renewable low carbon energy sources with many contingencies will most likely still be relied upon heavily and I think we would be fighting a losing battle to call for pure abstinence of anything but the fossil fuel and dirty fuel aspects of it all.

However it should go without saying that we need to change our relationship with technology and restructure how we see it's utility. The kind of utility we need is not the kind of access to easy living we have become used to and the lazy cult of "making things easier". We can use our technology to potentially make any lifestyle streamlined and efficient if not easy and completely safe. Whether that is energy consuming technology or human energy technology like old style plows. All it really requires is the will to see it through and change our behaviours if we want to survive. The will to do all this will grow; I just hope it doesn't take so long that governments only wake up to the problems when politicians or their loved ones start dying of heat stroke, malnutrition, dehydration and diseases associated with these conditions. :/

But then maybe the duty of philosophers in this time is to finally take up the burden of leading by example by really taking the "Leading" part seriously. People crave philosopher leaders and they are idolized in fiction well enough for us to see this is true. At some point, we have to realize when the armchairs need to be left and the podium needs to be mounted. Else some judgemental philosopher of the future is going to have the ability and strong argument to label those of us alive today as "The Great Moral Apathists" obviously the great part will be a joke about the magnitude of our apathy. There is no greater injustice in this world than Apathy as all other injustices spring forth from this one. A lot of people like to talk openly about their views on what they call "Psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists like they are the real problem. It isn't, it is everyone else's full apathy of what is really going on that allows the mental and physical crucibles to exist in childhood that create these demographics.

How people expect children to all believe in justice when we cant give every child justice is beyond me. Now I know that every now and then some psychopaths are born broken to the rest of us. We need to be aware though that the criminality and immorality that come from these individuals isn't always related to their neurochem in fact it rarely is. Genes only decide how a person will respond to certain environments but the environments will always be a string contributing factor in what that person ultimately becomes. Non criminal but clinical psychopaths genuinely aren't all bad. All talents and dispositions have a context they fit symbiotically into. Take the list of professionals that have high levels of some of the more positive traits of sociopathyy and psychopathy which have been manufactured by their training; I want a surgeon who can genuinely not see me as a person and see me as a machine to be fixed if they are going to be performing surgeons on me as this is how the most successful surgeons operate. Bedside manner is a seperste skill and some great surgeons are still able to be good at this and see you as a person when checking up on you after surgery. Competitive fighters can go from focussing pure hatred on a rival to embracing them with respect and love upon completion of their bout and the sheer psychopathic positive thinking and focus you get from Shaolin Monks is terrifying in its consistency yet positive presence.

Not all psychopaths are criminals by nature, they are criminal by environment. Our brains give us all the capacity to turn off and shut out different peoples to our empathy. Its a defence mechanism we use which does have its uses still. It is maddening to try and empathise with everyone all the time.

It is up to us however to be rational enough to know when the defence mechanism is actually increasing the levels of danger we are in. Apathy toward climate change is an extremely maladaptive defence mechanism as it will not avert the crisis here. This isn't some starving child on the other side of the world we are forcing ourselves to ignore for sanities sake, its all children everywhere that are at risk. Insanity is ignoring that now.

I’m not suggesting we should do this. What I see is a totalitarian form of government because people will be required to do what is good for the state. Even now if you disagree with climate change you’re a pariah, in the future there will only be solutions, if you get my drift? — Brett

Yeah I get what you mean. At some point it isn't even "edgey" to be a climate change denier if it ever was and people are definitely waking up to that.

I'm okay with that form of government so long as it still gives some rights to an individual that don't conflict with our abilities to fight climate change.

Would you have to live in areas relevant to your work or position or family size? — Brett

Careful; while I do see the pragmatic placement of the populations of earth argument you are trying to build and agree with the need for the effort, try not to veer too close to the caste system or if you are make sure to ingrain it with equality and egalitarianism as well as fairness and justice. I'm sure you get what I mean though.

As for a segue into hope; have you noticed the phenomenon of people becoming much friendlier with one another during terrible weather and natural disasters? The shared plight of our dangerous existence here in the universe and its nature does have a tremendous power to bring people together in amazing ways. Surviving this is going to be a major part in our moral development I feel. I think humanity will survive but I hope it is able to survive in a maturer way than our ancestors could have.

All moral debate and argument will have been for naught if the only people to rise from the ashes of our world are the rich immoral elite who drove the world to this all for the purposes of the ever consuming "More".

The sheer shame that we have always been in Eden yet put up fences to its richest pastures will be unforgivable if these Elite win. Hopefully if that is the case they will one day know future generations of theirs scorn in the very least.

If a caste system is required that's fine but it has to be for everyone and everyone has to be identified or molded into the best contributing cog in the machine of life that they can be.

Just what sort of consumption reductions would be necessary?

We would switch to a vegan diet, or at least a largely vegetarian diet. Meat/fish/crustaceans would rarely appear on the table.

We would stop traveling farther than we needed to get to work (if we still had a job) and back. We would use our feet, bicycles, or public transit to get there. We would forego leisure travel beyond the distance we could get to on our own two feet or by bike. Forego air and auto travel altogether.

We would buy no new clothing, shoes, furniture, gadgets, cars, houses, appliances, etc. We would buy food and an occasional replacement item for clothing that was too ragged to use (not just too familiar--too worn out).

We would live in warmer (in hot zones) or cooler (in cold zones) houses, within the limits of safety.

ETc. — Bitter Crank

Ahhh to have the simple life. If only humans weren't such complicated creatures. You have me convinced about what needs to happen.

So how do we structure effective arguments and give people meaningful narratives with which to fully comprehend the beauty and complexity of the sort of life we will need to lead in order to survive? I feel that here in the West some of us may have been too brainwashed by the fantasies of infinite economic growth here on earth and the ever maladaptive money cult we are all forced to take part in.

The worst thing is; what the west has to offer is access to the cornucopia of opportunity to succumb to all manners of temptation.

Common men like myself here in the west live lives that ancient Kings could have merely dreamed of while our siblings elsewhere still struggle for what we consider basics like running safe water and central heating and real locks on our doors, with our double or triple glazing and our foamy lattes and our mobile generators we call automotives. Mark Renton tells us all to choose life but the fucker never bothered to go into what kind of kife, but his disdain for life in my home country clearly speaks for itself and speaks to my feelings on the matter too. Choose the good life but dear god figure out what good is first. For me, that is the life of balance and seeking and contributing toward external balance.

Let's look at what objective truth means. The way I said it and the way I think you understood it is that they are facts about the world which have certain qualities, some of which I mentioned.

However this is not the whole story. The concept objective truth includes the process of acquiring and confirming facts about the world. It isn't just about facts per se but also about knowing and using correct methods to acquire reliable knowledge of our world (rationality?).

If you believe sense data is good enough to build a worldview on, you're doing so not out of whim or fancy but because of reasons you think are adequate for such a belief. In other words if you chose sense data it's only because you think they're objective truths. — TheMadFool

A good segue here into whether or not true knowledge is possible and very well put.

This is why when it comes to epistemology I always only make a claim to know what I perceive to be pragmatic knowledge based on scientific consensus in sense data where it can be found. By no means an infallible point of view and one that assumes the existence of objective morality but the entire approach is to assume the best and most rational answers to be true and act on them unless proven otherwise through the same mechanisms. However I use a very broad approach in what I term to be science and it delves into soft science in the arts and humanities also and I try to keep the science balanced with morals and personal spirituality.
It's all part of the many masks we wear;
under all masks, we are scared.

That is how they fix issues with drones during their flight. Of course, these flights are closely monitored. There isn't anybody suggesting that flight control would no longer be needed. Still, why does that person need to sit inside the plane? In what way would that help anything? — alcontali

Ahhh I see what you mean now. Yeah sorry, I misunderstood. Human remote operating is a thing although you do need to account for stability of connection in distances between remote piloting via either man or machine.

For example; if the mars Rover were ever in a situation where it was in immediate danger where only quick immediate human intervention can save it; it's probably already a goner by the time the feed gets back to control to be able to avert disaster.

However, a control center in orbit around Mars would have much greater success so your point is still a very valid one and I'm admittedly pro science so I don't see the need to fight you on this one too much. You understand the human margin for error in programming and have still given good answers to the piloting issue.

How do you feel we should come at the problem of human error in coding? I know it needs to be more accessible to non-whites and Asians for starters. A lot of AIs that do facial recognition and machine learning, incorrectly learned that black people don't go to or attend parties due to the fact that the affirmitve examples of parties it was shown as its frame of reference only showes the faces of tech demographic parties full of Asians and whites. Racial bias being taught to machines. Scary prospects. I'm saying all this being White myself although my arguments on race aren't really required here as racism is thankfully not allowed on here :) so no open racists to crush into submission. Yes, I see the irony in a white person claiming to not be racist talking about submission.

What do you imagine the psychological consequences would be to this happening in such a short time. I imagine huge consequences. — Brett

Probably for sure. I can foresee a lot of insecurity and despair over whether or not any of it will even work and for some, they may never get to see the fruits of their labour either through failure or a success so long-term they outlive it being recognised. However isn't this the price we all pay when fighting any form of injustice, be it small or great? William wilburforce, Abe Lincoln and others may have did their part to end the legal slave trade; but what about the practice of slavery? Its still alive, just illegal or subversively hidden in complex corporate policy designed to create hurdles in legal interpretation which creates hugely exploitative and detrimental working conditions with pitiful levels of normal pay nevermind hazard pay.

However the spirit of the justice we fight for everyday lasts as long as a human is alive who believes in justice and seeks to give this spirit the power to make us as safe as is humanly or technologically possible in all avenues of danger, be they from ourselves or from nature itself.

The problem with this situation, though, is that the value structures of this consequence-free environment are not as ‘isolated’ from the value structures we use in other environments as we’d like to think. The very relativity of value suggests that there is a structure that determines the circumstances under which we would apply our different value structures, enabling us to interact with everyone and everything else regardless of the value structures they might apply in the situation. We need to be conscious and critical of how we determine this overall structure - as a more ‘objective’ reality - to avoid prediction error (ie. suffering) in how we interact with others. — Possibility

An excellent point to raise! Maybe I should review how I am using consequence free here; Real consequence free. That isnt the same as completely consequence free. For example we can introduce fixed consequences in video games; for example we if a player deviates from a certain area, they automatically are transported back there and are denied the forbidden area.

You can design a super cop in a simulation of reality with the ability to mete out justice through either punitive of reformative justice without fail.

Or you can design realistic consequences and just have someone repeat scenarios until they figure out which consequences aren't bad for them or others.

Yeah it should be I absolutely agree with you. Only if people collectively act now though. If not we are going to have to figure out how to reduce what is going on from underground, moon, mars, ocean habitats, wherever survival is possible. A lot of what was science fiction 20 years ago is now science reality today. As for the science that is needed to survive, escape or avert; some or all of it needs to stop being science fiction very soon.

You know we are both on the same team on this. I feel we both agree that the main focus of our priorities has got to be here on earth too. That wont stop Elon Musk from trying what he has the money to try though. Not like I have a direct line to the guy to have this debate with him unfortunately. :/

That's all fair enough! I'll compile all the free learning resources I know for you. In the meantime @Pantagruel has an amazing Reading list he can share with you on Goodreads which I have been through and out of the few I have read before or heard of its diverse and extensive with some really engaging subjects to pick from.

Can you tell me where in the world you are from? I could recommend some local philosophers of historical significance if I know any from there.

You are understandable so that is a good starting structure and foundation for you to have already.

For structure, other than Badens thread; studies in logic are helpful and I cannot recommend giving Cohen's preface to logic enough early on studies in logic.

Don't worry about pure formality here. Focus on concept keywords and your familiarity with the concepts themselves and over time and multiple arguments you'll familiarise yourself through repetition the who's, where's and when's.

I think moderators here are trying to cultivate a lenient learning environment and you make a lot of effort to speak rarely, speak well, humbly and clearly as well as honestly and you arent lazy with how much you write in one comment either. You're pretty courteous also.

I'll open up a thread soon asking for people to contribute toward free learning materials too. Restore a little balance in equal access to education where we can even if it's informal.

Just a suggestion; if you don't disagree with anything, ask yourself why you agree and share that. You might have something new to say on the matter which is important.

Cannot stress this enough, I feel an immense sense of satisfaction when I can not onky agree with someone here but bolster there arguments in my own way. That's just me though. I'm that guy at the back who is just like "Yay I'm helping and I'm fitting in! Just hope no one looks us in the eyes because its awkward as all hell."

I think it is beyond kur ability to halt what is coming.

That doesn't mean it is beyond our ability to survive it. The only question we need to ask ourselves; is where do the rich people and oil tycoons hide the keys to their climate change shelters and can we get Elon Musk to start focussing on setting up something on the moon where we can send most of our children to either prepare for Terraforming mars or restoring earth?

Learning should always be fun ;) #nerd4lyfe

Again yes we do. Planes will always need pilots and will probably need contingencies too in case they fail. As I said before the programmers are all human so technology is not infallible.

Some AIs have been logged as genuinely feeling they have won a win or lose game simply by pausing the game permanently or losing level two so it doesn't lose the final level.

So to put that into automated Pilot terms, it might save you from a large crash which will mill you by having you die in a smaller crash. That doesn't sound good to me. Id rather know that a human pilot can jump in at any time if the computer has one of its many many logic farts because the programmer behind it was too busy listening to drum and bass, smoking weed and playing video games when he isn't glued to the screen for work. I should know, my ex flatmate is this guy and he's worked on coding systems for the Australian department of education so I know what I'm talking about here.

can understand why you would say that. At this point in time i don't feel like explaining myself. I guess i wouldn't consider all forms of Nomianism good but i believe people who promote anti nomianism, their ideas should be carefully scrutinized. — christian2017

Agreed, at least a tad more than we should carefully scrutinise anything else.

That's not to say however that civil disobedience can't be performed reasonably, efficiently and justifiably as not all forms of Nomianism are good as you say. By this logic some moderate and temporary forms of antinomianism have to be considered too.

Take the antinatalism example from my response to Bartricks Licensing Procreation thread:

I have to say, this is probably one if your more sensible threads in my honest but unbiased opinion @Bartricks

I feel it highlights the virtues of the utilitarian intent behind your antinatal views and shows a sincere effort to meet people halfway to find some common ground where we can maybe now speak without insulting one another. I feel you have also made efforts to address the demandingness problem in your views to do this. Bravo! Sincerely. My apologies for my part in the circumstances which led to our falling out. Clean slate or would you like to respectfully and formally address specific issues before carrying on with one?

Fundamentally I agree with licensing; but not for the same reasons as yourself obviously, but I think you'll agree with mine to some extent. The thing licensing does is bring in Education! Education and opportunity are the most powerful contraceptives one could hope for in any part of the world. Equal opportunity for education and diverse education at that.

Now the thing about licensing; of course some people are going to have kids without permission, however everyone has to access a hospital or midwife and many of these now offer compulsory parenting classes.

Obviously education isn't perfect and even if we reduce some avenues of suffering more may open. That being said; at least we can improve how we educate as we grow and learn.

How do you feel about child limits set at realistic intervals? For example one child per adolescent cycle? So not until Child A is 16 or 18 can child B be conceived? Laws would have to be cognizant of twins+ also.

I feel these sorts of rules serve the purpose of reducing suffering and improving the quality of life even though a percentage of people will not obey them. It's a good start and so long as education is also at the core of any punitive action against those that break licensing laws I'm also agreeable.

As for issues of equality in giving out licenses; welfare reforms could allow for intensive support and education for those who wish to have children but might otherwise have difficulties in raising them compared to your average person. I feel like this is going back to the idea of community raising where there is enough trust and safety to do so. My point here is simply that access to licenses shouldn't be a problem so long as access to educators is given equally.

Anyway, very stimulating thread. Well done again. Glad to finally figure out some common ground.

- me

I feel this Here is an attempt to take a controversial stance like antinatalism and use it as motivation to apply a Nomian Standard to the utilitarian intent behind antinatalism.

Well then you have competing pursuits of happiness, and unless you want to embrace conflict then some kind of agreement between the people involved will have to be made. Not that you asked me but I had an answer ;) — DingoJones

This is a forum where I feel that technically even when not responding directly we are always asking these questions of the audience too. So your response is appreciated and asked for in my humble opinion.

You make a good point completely and the way we resolves these kinds of conflict of duty sre extremely important. I dont claim to know how to resolve every dispute but first thing I'd personally need to know to make my observations about any given situation I first need to know terms of consent if any were reached, what exactly was consented vs what actually happened and the ability of the consenting party to make informed consent.

For example; The Masochist and the Sadist are a match made in heaven when it comes to consent so long as everyone is informed of consequences to what happens or what is plannes to happen and the same can be said of those who are seeking financial or resource remuneration in exchange for being physically or mentally attacked.

We also have the ability to create and potential to improve upon Consequence free environments through video games and simulations so its not like after a certain level of advancement people wont be able to get their freaky kicks without hurting anyone anyway in a way where they honestly couldn't tell you if its an AI or not but not discounting player vs player simulations.

People who claim to want to reduce suffering and pin their colours on that mast but are not helping. — Andrew4Handel

Yet some are helping? What does my entire job mean if its not an act to help? Arguments like mine are the ones which allow you to spew your nonsense. Freedom of speech is something you have no choice but to value because it gives you a voice whether I like it or not. So again you're still acting out of moral motivation. Unless you are so special that your brain functions by magic? You are asking me to basically ignore my knowledge of how the human body works and how life itself operates just for the sake of what agreeing with your incorrect claims that none of this exists which is essentially your inferred claim by your own beliefs and you can try and deny my appraisals of the faults in your logic all you like but here you are still valuing your time and spending it on me. Thanks for your time I guess. Pity it wasn't more fruitful for you.

am claiming that our moral systems have failed. And that this failure is being ignored because people are still relying on questionable moral ideas. — Andrew4Handel

We are all still alive so doesn't seem like we have failed to me? We have been doing a good job of reducing suffering relatively speaking and are working on the equality issues. Our species used to be a baby and now its closer to a measure of maturity than it has been in awhile if not quite there enough yet for you and yes it slides backwards in some respects. If you're aware of the failures then pitch in and help or shut up really. Otherwise you're just wasting your own time. If it bothers you that an imperfect universe has imperfect life then I'm truly sorry but you're begging the question; What do You want?

To you it is of importance to defend the ideas that sturctures, progress, and value exist in the study of ethics. Therefore your arguments are not ethical totally; they are self-serving. — god must be atheist

Lets say it is self serving, which I agree with but only in that it is serving the external self (the universe). Why would you care if you don't believe in the existence of tangible values? What is motivating you to attack me for mine if nothing really matters to you? Surely you'd be better served by sitting back and laughing at me for my ignorance while you sit back under no obligation to cure me of it? Seems fishy to me. You act a lot like someone who is motivated by internal principles and values in that you are communicating at all. Whoops, looks like someone isn't being consistent with their own beliefs or why the desire to communicate and regale us all with tales of your value system? How moral of you sir to care for me and my ignorance so.

suppose the retort must be "Actions peak louder than word" Are people actually behaving in a way consistent with their moral claims? — Andrew4Handel

A good point to raise. Personally I don't know. I know I try to be consistent in my moral claims but I am just as fallible as the next person.

For you; I suppose you need to ask yourself what your own values are and if they are worth trying or dying for. Not much else for us to do otherwise. I'd kill myself out of boredom otherwise.

Whether we makeup meaning or meaning is already there, I don't know. Life craves meaning it seems though and life values itself and everything the self says; even to the point of valuing the statement that "Life is meaningless" which is a strangely meaningful thing to say.

Also if you look into Moral Psychology on the Stanford encyclopedia you will find a number of experimental evidence which suggest, not proves, suggests that fundamentally people are more altruistic than they are egotistical by nature.

I honestly dont feel like you or others have effectively refuted my claims enough for me to believe the universe is absent value or meaning as I can see for myself that life is of the universe and life creates meaning out of what is offered by the perceptions of the universe. This is fact, life does this. Trying to stop it from doing this is an impossible task. The chemical reaction is happening and we don't know when it will fizzle out and this entity called life will collectively die. Tardigraades are pretty sturdy creatures so maybe they will evolve into a superior and eternal race at some point?

I don't really know but I think that is our conversations natural end. Think and research what I've said and try doing it without the motivation to prove me wrong and see if that changes your bias at all.

Outside of Ph.D. group? Yes. The Ph.D.'s — god must be atheist

Except I have not got a PHD so again your entire argument is based on a false premise and I've stopped reading now. Think I've figured out why people ignore you. They aren't the problem though, you are. Find a way to grow if you want to avoid being ignored in the future. Goodbye.

And no, you did not respond. You INADVERTENTLY responded, not directly. You are losing the grip on what actually happens here, man. — god must be atheist

Yes, I accidentally fell on the keyboard multiple times in a way that produced a identfieably correct human syntax. And I'm the one losing grip on reality? The sheer ignorance in your statement is astounding.

You don't even understand what logic is it seems. Please read Cohen's preface to logic before you next message or I will not reply.

But hardly anyone would think that was acceptable meaning humans are not true utilitarians. So a lot of moral positions people claim to support are never followed honestly or consistently. — Andrew4Handel

Evidently you know nothing about adaptive pragmatism or it's approach to ethics. Nothing is true and that everything is permitted but not everything is yet at symbiotic balance. Balance is the key to all things and balance is the ultimate stable state of the universe. I can prove that physically too! Look at and study neutron stars and then ask yourself about the nature of black holes. If you research the charge of black holes you'll realise that they are most likely supermassive neutron stars with a gravitational pull so strong visible light can't escape them. So the end state of the universe will be numerous balls of highly balanced neutral matter that will slowly evaporate away into nothing which too is a very balanced state of no affairs.

Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly — god must be atheist

Oh I responded so ive somehow proved your point that everyone ignores you? I can see that I'm wasting my time arguing with you when your logic seems to be breaking so often.

do claim that moral philosophers who have earned Ph.D.-s in philosophy overcomplicate things, because earlier I showed that morality and ethics are fields that have no scientific backing, and the claims made are all individualistic; no consensus exists on what morality is, and the principle of morality is absolutely absent from human sphere of thought. — god must be atheist

Except consensus does exist? Easy to claim it doesn't exist when one is outside of it.

Morality is the individualistic study. Tired of saying it, but this thread seems dead now.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept. — god must be atheist

I do try to treat them as standalone concepts however I am prone to making the same mistake as everyone used to abide by some version of a percieved lay norm.

Generally, it is accepted that you can't define a concept or a word by using the word itself to describe its meaning.

Morality is not defined, and is not definable. It is like "love" or "life" or "god"; the concept is immediately understood by all humans, but the concept escapes definition.

Therefore there may be a way to study morality, much like there are ways to study life or god or love; but there is no authority on moral philosophy. Studying life or love has biology and psychology as sciences to back up claims. Religion and morals / ethics / morality have no scientific back-up as their practices and theories lead to self-contradictory claims (as per, for the instance of morality / ethics, the Baby Hitler example that precedes this post.) — god must be atheist

They keyword before everyone's eyes that I used is "Study" or "field". Study has been defined unless you'd care to disagree with that and all I am claiming is that moral and ethical STUDY are defined as inquiries into values and principles.

So unless what you, I and everyone else is engaged in right now isn't study or inquiry then I really do not know what we are doing right now if I can't use those words. Fortunately I'm not stubborn so I like to think that words have to mean something and any argument from the standpoint that words don't mean anything should be backed up with silence.

If a concept escapes definition then by that logic so does the word "definition" and the sentence "I'm going to have a yesterday tomorrow" makes about as much sense and has as much meaning as everything else we write here.

So do you believe that there is no meaning at all? Knowing full well that your response to will therefore mean nothing?

No, I don’t think people are necessarily deserving of happiness, but everyone deserves the right to pursue happiness. — NOS4A2

Does that include those whose happiness is born of other peoples suffering or impeding their pursuit of happiness with consequencial unjustified murder of their lives, livelihoods and status?

Or what about those whose greatest joy is in hoarding happiness away only for themselves on the backs of stronger individuals than they whom they allow to live in severe hardship?

You know full well which questions I'd like you to address unless you have disrespected me further by not having the sense to read my previous messages. It would seem what I said about your memory wasn't innacurate as again here you are asking me to repeat myself.

This is just lazy and effortless responses and I'm not playing your game with you anymore. You are not a philosopher you are a political ideologue and follower of a demagogue. I feel sorry for you really but I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this. I am not going in circles with you asking me to rewrite everything again, I can see what you are doing. Goodbye Russian Asset; willingly or unwillingly whichever it may be.

don't know if you are trying to claim there is a consensus on the definition of morality. there is not a consensus and hence that undermines making moral claims. — Andrew4Handel

I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study if you want it even more simply than I have laid out; you are practicing morality as a field of study by asking the question "What is morality". I can't make this any simpler. When you are asking if the group is moral you are talking about ethics.

I see you haven't answered my responses about Meaning.

Moral ecology makes no such claims. It merely describes differences between malignant, benign and beneficial moral and ethical ideologies in an effort to favour either low or high entropy social structures and civilisations.

Its the difference between your question "What does Morality mean to the Universe?" And my question "What does Morality mean to life?"

Would you like to direct your criticisms toward Value theory which is the theory the universe has values with which to frame our understanding of morality and ethics upon? After you have studied and reflected upon Meaning?

You have disrespected me by not responding to me many times. I have spent a lot of time in responses to you which have yet been unanswered whereas all your claims have been debunked by myself and many others.

You're still not answering questions. I've shared reasonable suspicions and given arguments to back them up whereas as you seem to be practing the 5 D's of Dogdeball. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. That's all you ever do with us so you'll just have to forgive us if we all get a little frustrated with your gaslighting nonsense.

Everyone here knows that usually the lack of a response is usually because the other party doesnt have one. I've never once turned down the option to answer if I think I have a good countsr so why are you withholding on us if you have arguments that haven't already been refuted? Don't pull your punches now.

have you not been paying attention to anything anyone on this thread has been sharing or do you just pretend not to see all the links?

I asked you the questions first so don't deflect. Answer them directly and stop throwing up defenses so transparent that caspar the friendly ghost can't even see them. We have all spent countless hours providing you with well thought out counter arguments to your claims and you've backed down and moved the goalposts on each and every one.

Unless you are suggesting that your memory of this thread is similar to that of a metaphorical goldfish and you are too lazy to simply review the thread and what you yourself have said and others responses to you? That would explain why you keep reverting back to your staple "Where is the evidence?" Argument five minutes after someone has shown you the evidence.

Whistleblower conversation. Now please.

If you cannot counter or engage me respectfully then I suggest to everyone here to just ignore everything you say from now on as you cannot even respect us enough to respond with the equal effort we are trying to give to your lousy responses.

He's not from the U.S. But wherever he's from, he's doing a great job of discrediting White House spin by presenting it here in a form so easily refuted. Maybe he's a closet never-Trumper. — Baden

I thought as much. I might not be from the USA but at least I actually live here and my fiance is American so I know enough to make reasonable observations on the issue.

Is he from Russia by chance? Haha

Most of your responses are just outright untrue and lacking in any evidence and completely contrary to what is really going on in this country.

Where are you from in the USA and what is your socioeconomic background?

You do realise you have just lied to an entire community about the state of affairs in the USA right? We can verify everything you are saying and if your best defense is to just bury your head up the presidents ass and take a direct dose of his BS then you are already lost. Whatever you do, don't listen when Trump demands you to take up arms and kill your evil dem neighbour because the neighbour will defend himself or will be avenged by the majority. So seriously, don't do it. My advice once this is all over and the manchild is out of office is to forget and don't ever let anyone know you were once a supporter of Hitler 2.0 and give up fantasies about perfect incorruptible people worth following into a personality cult.

Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality. — Andrew4Handel

Except it isn't far removed; just expanded upon. Morality is the study of individual value preferences and ethics is the study of external rule systems and their value structures.

We here are not lay people. The only one who is attempting to make these words meaningless is you it would seem because you cannot accept the definitions.

No one is trying to claim authority with their moral views and observations, they are all guides. Most of them are guides to moral frameworks that have existed absent careful observed study and definition for as long as our written history can show, maybe longer.

If you want to get at the true meat of the matter from you perspective; you need to ask yourself what Meaning and Meaningless mean and question their very nature. Then ask if anything has meaning and ask if anything is meaningless.

To put matters really simply; All ethics supervene on moral principles, but not all ethics will match with Your moral principles. Its sort of like saying, all frogs are frogs but not every frog is MY frog even though some look like it. Just steer clear of the ponds who only have one or two non diverse frog species