If the sane people have no interest - more to the point, if they feel bereft of agency - they leave the field wide open to fanatics, lunatics and criminals. — Vera Mont

You obviously feel very strongly about this. One might even say you are full of passionate intensity.

What I said prior was the average person has no interest in governance or politics. How did you come up with the opposite given the stats? — L'éléphant

I was surprised by how high the percentages are. Beyond that, I don't think the activities shown are a good measure of interest. My wife has a strong interest in these types of issues and she hasn't done any of them. I do too, and the only one I've done is contribute to a campaign. I don't think we are unusual in that regard.

He argues that they’re either both morally permissible despite society finding sexual assault far more distasteful and violative than murder or they’re both impermissible. — Captain Homicide

I'm not even sure what "morally permissible" means in this context. Does it mean that in my judgment I shouldn't do it, or that no one should do it? Does it mean it should be illegal? I'm a libertarian when it comes to this sort of thing. It certainly shouldn't be illegal to depict any of these things. I'd also say it's not morally impermissible for someone to perform these kinds of acts in video games, but if I knew you were, it would likely change my opinion of you. I never have played video games much and not at all since my kids were in school. When I did, I sometimes killed people without remorse. I don't think I could bring myself to commit rape or pedophilia.

We evolved to get excited in critical situations. Stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline are released. Our blood pressure and heart rate increase. We start breathing faster. Even our blood flow changes. — praxis

Yes, that's known as the fight or flight response, not the critical thinking response.

Nuff said.

The original Star Trek TV shows contrasted with the Next Generation Star Trek TV shows is an excellent example of what the change in education did to our culture. Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the "Group Think" generation. — Athena

I don't know whether to laugh at your use of Star Trek as a sign of cultural disintegration or...well... laugh even harder at your selection of Kirk over Picard. I wish @TimeLine were here.

Gentlemen, don't fight here, this is the war room. — fdrake

Just wanted you to know I did recognize and appreciate your reference.

Worse, self righteous. — DingoJones

Ah, yes. I believe you sang that song before:

Lol, well come on. He NEVER misses an opportunity to express his self righteous condemnation of other posters... — DingoJones

Well, geez, I have to be true to my calling.

How mean spirited of both of you! — universeness

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

critical thinking could be handy in critical (fearful or otherwise emotional) situations — praxis

Your two uses of "critical" have different meanings. Critical situations require calm to address effectively. Tea is not required, though.

By all means, do so. I remain selective. — Vera Mont

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — Cliche with literary pretentions

We should only think critically when emotionally balanced and calm? — praxis

I said "ideally."

It seems to me that critical thinking would be particularly useful when we're upset and therefore may not be thinking clearly. Rationality alleviates irrationality, in other words. — praxis

In my experience, the calm comes first, then the rationality. Actually, that's not true. They come together.

I certainly think much could be done to encourage people to think for themselves, and even more can be done to make factual, useful information generally available. — Vera Mont

Yes, but then much could also be done to build a sense of common purpose among our fellow citizens. As I noted, we can do something right now - treat people with respect.

I feel insulted by your wording "mythical society" and that does not advance a discussion of truth. — Athena

I can see why you would disagree with me, but why would you be insulted by that? My point is that the society based on dignity and independent thinking you seem to think existed enslaved and oppressed people. It certainly didn't treat black people with dignity. Does independent, critical thinking lead to slavery? That would be ironic.

We are fully supporting "the enslavement and oppression of human beings" today. Only today it is not exactly a human that is oppressing us, but technology. — Athena

There are many bad things to be said about the way our society is running these days, but I find it hard to swallow that there was somehow some golden age in the past when things were better, and, Oh, by the way - we kept people in slavery. People owned people.

Well just out of curiosity, what is the proper emotion to motivate critical thinking? — praxis

I think ideally it requires emotional equilibrium and calm.

Critical thinking can be motivated by fear, hatred, contempt, love, envy, and many other emotions and combinations of emotions. — praxis

I think your idea of critical thinking and mine are different.

I also want to use your iconic thumb. — javi2541997

It is in the public domain. Actually, it's probably not, but you're welcome to use it.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily. — Philosophim

I'm not sure that I agree with your understanding of the appeal of guns, but I do agree that a lot of the motivation for our troubles is economic. The Democratic Party used to be the party of working people. We've lost that.

My older books including grade school books have much to say about human dignity, and we used public education to advance a culture that embraced independent thinking, respect, and human dignity. — Athena

My response to this kind of argument is always the same - this mythical society focused on dignity you describe allowed and supported the enslavement and oppression of human beings. It was only after the events you describe ended that things changed in a significant way. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves.

A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate. — 180 Proof

Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it.

Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me.

I think you have big expectations on people... what a terrible mistake. — javi2541997

Democracy won't work without expecting a lot from citizens.

A true democracy - of the people, by the people, for the people, does not understand guns and gun powder, it understands education and even in its absence gets its way around by trying to understand the situation and coming to a non-violent and peaceful decision. — Beena

I don't think that's necessarily true. A lot of conservative gun owners I know have no trouble with what they consider reasonable gun control. On the other hand, many of them consider rights of gun ownership as important as freedom of speech. I don't go that far, but I can understand their reasoning.

As a registered Democrat, I think the problem is that the Democratic Party has played this wrong. A certain level of gun ownership in the US is fully established. It's strongly endorsed by the Supreme Court, so it's part of the Constitution. A large percentage of the people support it. Putting all our money on heavy restrictions doesn't get us anywhere but alienates people who otherwise belong in the Democratic Party.

People can share a common purpose without respecting each other. — praxis

I doubt that's true. I'll think about it some more.

The problem with uncritical thinkers and a desire for purpose is that they’re easily lead by people with divergent purposes. — praxis

As I see it, the criticism of "them" I've seen in this thread hasn't constituted critical thinking. Seems more motivated by fear, hatred, and contempt, just like we accuse them of.

I never said it can be done at all. — Vera Mont

That makes this whole exercise beside the point except as a hell-in-a-handbasket kvetch.

I wish you all the success in the world! — Vera Mont

Oh, good. Thanks for that enthusiastic endorsement.

As I noted previously - No further questions; I rest my case.

I banned invicta for persistently low quality posts even after multiple warnings and a one-week suspension. — Jamal

I appreciate that you have started using the suspension prior to banning in some cases.

Ranting on someone who no longer can post here...
Pretty humble from your side. — javi2541997

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out.

I think you're correct in your intuition that humans having a shared purpose is more important than critical thinking combined with internecine goals. One of the big issues we face these days seems to be the atomized nature of culture and the lack of solidarity. How do we get important projects initiated and completed without broad cooperation? — Tom Storm

I've been hanging around with other people for more than 70 years. We have much more in common than we do in conflict.

Question - I get the impression that things in Australia are much less contentious than they are here in the US. Is that not true?

You tell us how to go about that, and I'm on board. — Vera Mont

You haven't told us how to go about accomplishing the whole critical thinking, rationality thing. Why do I have to come up with a plan for the why can't we all just get along thing? The advantage my solution has over yours is that it's something you, I, and all people of good will can do right now. Treat people with respect.

I just don't know how to respect people who drive an SUV into a crowd, post death- and rape-threats to elected officials, value their guns above their children and want their republic-not-democracy presided over by Trump or De Santis? — Vera Mont

So, you equate people who support Donald Trump with people who drive their SUVs into a crowd. No further questions. I rest my case.

They shouldn't. I know I couldn't make common cause with someone who would prefer to see me hanging from a lamppost. — Vera Mont

So, you equate people who support Donald Trump with people who want to see you hanging from a lamppost. No further questions. I rest my case.

If you know a way to nullify the effects of dogma and propaganda without critical thought, please share it. — Vera Mont

No, I don't, but I think changing our attitudes toward each other would be easier than somehow creating a nation of so-called critical thinkers. As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. That just makes things worse. Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them?

I've been hearing this for decades. — Tom Storm

One of the advantages of being old is that you've heard everything at least twice. We've been going to hell in a handbasket at least since I was born.

I must admit, though, this feels like a special time. It feels like technology has brought us to a turning point. It makes it easier for people to hate other people they never would have come in contact with before. It makes the whole world one place so what's bad in one location gets spread everywhere. It has allowed us to start gaining control over the basic physical, chemical, biological, genetic, cognitive, and psychological foundations of life that will allow us to change our very natures. It's scary. I'm probably pretty safe, but I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell.

What strikes me is that all of the responses so far except @Joshs show contempt for our fellow citizens. Certainly this is not a sign of reason. We're all in this together, for better or worse. As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking."

that guess is perhaps as good as any other. — Manuel

I think the basis for this is primarily aesthetic. It just seems like it aught to be that way.

@javi2541997

Hey, Javi. I'm reading "Killing Commendatori." I'm enjoying it.

But does this mean (I'm asking semi-rhetorically) that the nothing you and I have in mind is impossible? — Manuel

I don't know, but I have the feeling that if we somehow got rid of the quantum vacuum, there'd be another turtle waiting in the wings.

Wondering if your own orientation in philosophy had anything to say about this... — Manuel

As a sometime pragmatist, I don't think my particular understanding has much to offer beyond "Who cares." As a pseudo-Taoist I guess all I could say would be "Were you not paying attention when I told you about the Tao." As for my understanding not associated with any particular philosophy - seems to me the universe always has been and always will be. It's a roiling, boiling whirlpool of this, that, the Tao, God, yada yada yada. Matter, energy, time, space, existence, something, nothing are all just different color paints of the graffiti on the subway cars of reality. Or something like that. No, I have no scientific or philosophical basis for that belief. It's what's known as seems-to-me philosophy or science. My favorite kind.

So the cosmos begins from a zero, nothing. — Beena

I have no trouble with the idea of something coming out of nothing, but there is a problem. You'll find here on the forum, and I assume elsewhere, that people will tell you your nothing is not really nothing at all. It's really something, e.g. the quantum vacuum.

Welcome to the forum.

It seems clear that popularity doesn't make a moral choice right. If it did then mass killing all people aged over 40 because the majority of people are in favor of it would make this justifiable moral action. But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What is the difference between a community standard which holds gay people are an abomination, or one which holds children should be protected from harm? — Tom Storm

This is something I think about whenever a discussion of morality takes place. It seems to me there is a fundamental difference between behaviors that arise out of my personal values and concern for the well-being of others and those that are intended for application to others, either by me or by the community at large. They certainly are connected, but then sometimes they are in conflict.

Ok, but this thread is about using the appeals to popularity as an indicator of whether something is a moral intuition: “X is a moral intuition because most people believe X". When and how do we determine if this is in fact true or just being used as an ad populum fallacy of justification (X must be a deeper moral intuition or truth, most people believe it!). — schopenhauer1

In the OP, you wrote:

When and how do you determine if a cultural convention (most people do or hold a belief about something in a society) is an indicator of a moral intuition?

It seems to me that people often confuse the two and make the ad populum fallacy. — schopenhauer1

I was agreeing with you. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by "moral intuition." I was taking it to mean:

behavior that reflects our common humanity and capacity for empathy. — T Clark

Conventional morality, if taken to mean "what most people believe" can be a form of social control in that it can be used to shut down arguments because it's meant to be presented as an indicator of what is truly moral (because most people believe it). If the argument doesn't go beyond this, it is simply a tool to advance ones preference that other views should not be considered. — schopenhauer1

I see conventional morality as a social phenomenon - it's imposed by a community, not by an individual - and not to shut down arguments but to control behavior. Otherwise, as I noted, I think we are in agreement.

To start, I acknowledge I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I looked at your profile page and read what you wrote about necessary suffering vs. contingent suffering. That distinction is exactly the difference I was describing.

That being said, I'm surprised by the level of offence you've taken. in what way was what I wrote an outburst? How was it an ad hominem argument?

The purpose of a fool is to provide amusement. — Banno

You said you were going to ignore me. In response I made you and offer, which you have not responded to. You should put you money where your mouth is.