We'd all like to see Russia and Ukraine and everywhere less corrupt and more democratic ... so, how? — boethius

It takes two parties for there to be corruption: One who wants to get ahead without doing the work or waiting his turn, and another who is willing to help him with that, in exchange for money or favors.
You can fire all the corrupt government officials, but as long as there are people who want to get ahead without doing the work or waiting their turn, there will be potential for corruption.

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things.

There is nothing we can really do about that except return to good faith dialogue and deescalate demonising both Putin and the Russians.

We cannot "win" with sticks and stones, and therefore can only "win" with words.

Which words exactly is the question.

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution — boethius

It is my assumption that a diplomatic resolution cannot be arrived at as long as the matter of first principles hasn't been resolved.

First principles provide the bigger picture, the context for all practical interventions.

As things stand, we're trying to figure out what each party's first principles are, by making inferences from what they say about particular events and persons.

Because I am aware of the ignorance and bringing it to light? — schopenhauer1

You seem unsure of your purpose.

These are core to my philosophical viewpoints, so why wouldn't I discuss them at length with those willing to engage in dialogue? — schopenhauer1

But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter.

Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do.

I live in arguably one of the best establishments of this kind of system and it ranks us very high on indexes of life quality and freedom. — Christoffer

And other countries in other parts of the world have to pay the price for your life quality and freedom.

Like those poor South American countries that produce the lithium for your precious electric cars. Those countries are destroying their own land and their own people with dirty industry so that you can be "high on indexes of life quality and freedom".

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others.

one that that never turns the spotlight of interrogation and rigorous judgement on themselves is at risk of attributing too great a benevolence to their own decisions. — Benj96

Why should this be a problem?

We have democracy.

The standards have been set by celebrity culture. — Hanover

The question is how come those standards caught on. There must be something in people that makes them think such standards are not only acceptable, but worth aspiring to.

Your question is what has been done to counterbalance it. — Hanover

Democracy makes such counterbalancing impossible.

When did spitting in somebody's mouth become a thing? It's started appearing in gay porn fairly recently? Saliva -- whether traded in kissing or spitting -- is the same, but how do people interpret the act? intimacy? Love? Contempt? What? — Bitter Crank

People have been used as toilets for a long time. It's perfectly normal. When a man ejaculates into a woman he's basically using her as a sex toilet. In order to relieve himself of urine and feces, he uses a toilet, and in order to relieve himself of semen, he uses a vagina. The mentality is the same. So why not spit into people.



Humans are the pinnacle of evolution, they are the best. They don't need to try harder.

Individuals act independently of society, to be sure, but show me what social mechanisms have been employed to address the issue. Show me the systems that have been collectively employed/directed that are meant to help provide standards. — Ennui Elucidator

We have democracy! We must be tolerant! We must respect those different than ourselves!!!

Besides, there is no society and everyone is reponsible solely for themselves!!!

On the contrary.
I think you vastly underestimate just how alien your -- and Schopenhauer's -- ideas are to most people.
— baker

No I’m aware on a daily basis. — schopenhauer1

Then why this thread?

Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is already within yourself, your way of thinking. — Marcus Aurelius

Yes! But not being bombed by Russians helps. — Banno

Nah. Today, it's Russian bombs, tomorrow it's tapeworms (talk about needing very little to make a happy life and said thing being already within yourself!).

There's always something. The problem is that one is living in a body that is subject to aging, illness, and death, and yet is fully relying on this body for happiness.

There is no reason that existence should exist. — chiknsld

How on Earth can you possibly know that??

How does one control how their actions impact the world when none of us have a definitive knowledge or right and wrong - a perfect moral compass by which to make decisions — Benj96

Pretty much everyone I know IRL considers themselves to be morally objective, flawless. They are dead sure they are right.

Perhaps you didn't see the answer — Tom Storm

But you didn't answer it.

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"?

Will they be happier then?
Will they suffer less?
Will they completely stop suffering?
Will they be more caring then?
Will the world become a better place?
Will they be safer?
Will crime and wars stop?
Will they stop destroying the planet?
...?

If people want or should do something, then they must have a reason for doing so. I'm asking about this reason (or reasons). Merely being "interested" is trivial and doesn't inspire consistent and energetic action.

But the fact remains, people are interested in complex ideas but can't always understand or gain access to them.

Of course.

So your obsession with authority leads you to the superficial conclusion that religion is whatever someone authority says it is. — Banno

You make it sound like shit when you put it like that.

Religion appears to be a phenomenon that is defined by insiders, and can be done only by insiders (only insiders can do religion).
This is another thing religions appear to have in common.

As if the inconsistencies between such authorities could not be the subject of discussion.

How are you going to identify such authorities if you don't even have a definition of "religion" to begin with?

I don't see that yours is a significant contribution to the discussion. Prove me wrong, address the article mentioned in the OP, with something non-trivial.

I'm trying to counteract your dominance and your externalizing, etic approach.

Religion is about doing. — Hanover

Yes, this is the one thing all religions probably agree on.

What is your scope of interest? — Fooloso4

Like I said:

My theme here is how to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker

Denying those who do not hold to an absolute moral authority a decision making voice?

No, saying that those who doubt and relativize themselves shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by others.

How so we determine what is the authentic voice of authority?
What authority do those who are to decide have?[

Like I said:

The whole point of authority is that one's subjugation to it is not a matter of one's choice. Authority imposes itself, and it does so totally. Anything that is less than that is not authority, just someone or something with currently more power than oneself. — baker

As I succintly (perhaps too succintly) made clear in my first post in this thread, it's about contexts and who rules over them.

If you try to define religion as someone who is not religious, from the outside, then your notions of religion will be all over the place, not making a coherent whole.

A, for example, Hindu's idea of religion and a Roman Catholic's idea of religion differ, even significantly, but what they have in common is that their own notion of religion is meaningful to them, respectively.

You, however, seem to be starting from the position that there is or should be a suprareligious, religiously neutral concept of religion. Arguably, such a concept of religion is the product of Western secular religiology.

The idea is that thinking about things properly makes an end to aimless, useless thinking.

*sigh*
It wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't a jibe, it was an honest question. Which you evaded, as if this were a watercooler conversation.
I want you to make an effort.

We cannot make explicit a satisfactory account of the concept of religion? — Banno

Yet religious people do it every day.

So it amounts to acknowledging that no, I can't really demonstrate it 'objectively' even if I have the conviction that it's true. — Wayfarer

The issue at hand isn't something that could be "demonstrated objectively" to begin with. It's something that requires effort both on the part of the speaker and the listener. You know that.

This usually then leads to the conclusion that it's only a matter of 'faith', of 'believing without evidence' - because the 'testimony of sages' and the annals of spiritual philosophy are all simply a matter of faith, not scientifically demonstrable. Thereby falling right back into the false dichotomy which characterises modern philosophy, that there is what is scientifically demonstrable and objectively verifiable, and anything else, no matter whether it's noble or profound, must always be a matter of personal conviction.

The problem is that you're trying to carry out the discussion on the terms set by your opponents. Which, of course, doesn't work out well.

All I'm saying, is I don't claim to be enlightened. Had enough of your sarcasm and constant jibes, baker. — Wayfarer

I want you to up your game. Put some cattle under that hat, a horse under that saddle.

But just like cups neither have essences, which was my point. — Hanover

How can you know a cup doesn't have an essence?

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.

It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world. — Hanover

"You're just saying that because you're depressed and cynical, and you haven't learned to 'live in the present moment and enjoy it'!!!"

The (upper) middle class idea that we're being sold by some seculars is that secular life _is_ good enough, _is_ worth living, _is_ satisfactory, and that there _is_ something wrong with the person who doesn't see it that way and that they just need to try harder.

I don't really have a response to this secular stance.

There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno

Nah, self-help literature does it for us.

Killing in war situations is not defined as murder. — Janus

War is "nothing personal", eh?

If in a discussion between A and B, A insists on the central significance of X while B insists that X be entirely excluded from the discussion as "not even a possibility" - there is literally nothing left for A and B to talk about.

To my view, Wayfarer was relating this simple fact. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure. But he also said something else, which was what I addressed. If one says things that disqualify one, then one shouldn't be surprised of the negative response.

You've not familiar with hermeneutics? — Janus

I'm just not familiar with magic.

If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other. — Fooloso4

Sure, but that isn't my scope of interest anyway.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular? — Hanover

They don't simply shrug it off; they shrug it off _selectively_.
For example, about a 150 years ago in the US, many whites believed it was not wrong for white men to rape a black woman; but they would hang a black man who was suspected of raping a white woman.

I once heard that the Ten Commandments are actually a short form, and were not intended to be taken generally, universally, without further qualification.

So, for example, "Thou shalt not kill" wasn't actually a general prohibition of killing, but was intended to mean "Thou shalt not kill any members of your own tribe, unless specified otherwise (e.g. if they committed adultery, etc.)", and outsiders were not included in this prohibition (ie. it was not prohibited to kill outsiders).
Such a reading explains the apparent contradictions in what adherents of the Ten Commandments profess to believe and what they do.

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

Your assumption is that the action is all that matters, regardless by whom it is done, to whom, and under what circumstances. It is on this point that many people disagree.

It's why the US goes to war, for example: They go kill the terrorists, so that social order can be established.

Or take on smaller scale example: That husband who shot and killed his wife, claiming he did it because she wouldn't stop nagging him. The nagging was the disruption of the social order, killing her was his (final) act of (re)establishing social order.

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

No, it is goal-oriented, purpose driven: In order to attain goal X, you must behave in such and such ways.

If your goal is to never cause a traffic accident due to drunk driving, you must never drink and drive.
This is incontrovertible.

Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When these acts occur in animals they are part of the social order, not disruptive of it. — Janus

What makes you think the same doesn't apply to humans?

People generally kill people for the sake of (re)establishing social order (whatever they understand by that in any given case).

Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).

Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible.
— baker

This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated. — Hanover

It's dictated by our need for our moral behavior to be relevant, meaningful, worthwhile. And to be such in various life circumstances.

When things are going well for you in your life, it might seem to go without saying that it is morally wrong to steal and you won't steal. But what about when you fall on hard times, or when an opportunity for an easy theft presents itself: What will then be your motivation to stick to your moral principle of not stealing, even though sticking to that principle can sometimes be inconvenient, hard, or even life-threatening?

Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).

But this applies only to Jews, not to everyone, correct?

The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.

Since there are usually good times and bad times in a person's life, the matter is a bit more challenging.

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

Rape and murder are easy examples.

How about other examples of virtue:

If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not drink alcohol, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not tell white lies, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not illegaly download stuff from the internet, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not spit on the floor in public areas, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not walk on the lawn where there is a sign "Do not walk on the lawn!", even when other people walk on this lawn, you are morally bankrupt.

Do you still agree?

why is it relevant that we evaluate our incorrect knee jerk reactions? — Hanover

1. How do you know they are incorrect?

2. Our "knee jerk reactions" are relevant because they are our starting point, our foundation.

No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant.
— baker

Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? — Fooloso4

They are the only ones who can be taken seriously. In contrast, those who shoot themselves in the foot by openly declaring any extent of incompetence disqualify themselves from the onset.

Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral.

Of course.

Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

It's not clear what you mean here.

My theme here is how to regard one's moral judgments as relevant.

What you say of the word "religion" is not unique to the word "religion," but is a universal limitation of word definition. The term "religion" includes a number of examples, all of which are clearly designated among speakers for what they are, for example: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Janism, Hinduism, Islam, and then there are thousands of others in every corner of the world, many of which have come and gone over the millennia. We can try to find the element common to all that defines "religion," but, try as we might, we will continue to find that there is no essential element that must exist in order for the belief system to be a religion. The reason for this is because essentialism is not a sustainable argument as it relates to definitions of terms. — Hanover

No, this isn't because essentialism would be wrong, but because an inductive approach to the definition of something is backwards.

We cannot come up with the definition of "religion" by "observing" "religions", for without an a priori definition of what we're looking for, we cannot even decide what to look for, what to speak of looking for it.

You cannot figure out what a cup is by observing cups. Without having any idea what a cup is to begin with, you won't know what to focus on to begin with.

The process of how a word gets a dictionary-level definition, a meaning, is simultaneously inductive and deductive. We start off with some preconceived notions with the help of which (through which) we observe reality, and then we sometimes adjust based on "what we find" (in line with our knowledge, needs, interests, and concerns).

Meaning is using terms to refer to things that are not words. If the word does not refer to anything that exists outside of one's own mind yet it is used to refer to things outside of one's mind (confusing the map with the territory) then it is a meaningless word - just like the term, "god".

Now, if it is correctly being used to refer to a concept (those things that only exist in minds) then it has meaning. The difference is do those concepts then refer to things in the world.

Religion is the belief in things outside of, or beyond, the natural.
— Harry Hindu

If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God."

My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.

For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism. — Hanover

No, he wouldn't. He would only claim one particular meaning to be the correct one, or the most common or relevant one.

It's always opinion, even when it is theistic. That's the point. It's always going to be an interpretation of what someone thinks a god wants or what someone thinks is best for humans. No way out of that. — Tom Storm

When you put it like that, all hope is lost, of course.

I think something that is missed in its absence is any reason for 'being good'. After all, if life is the outcome of chance, and humans no more than physical, then there's no greater purpose to be served other than possibly warm feelings of self-justification. — Wayfarer

Indeed.

For virtue to be "its own reward", being virtuous has to be about more than just the gratification of one's ego; instead, it has to have real-world consequences that are advantageous for the person acting virtuously. Otherwise, virtue becomes something vestigial, expendable.

In some religions, being virtuous serves the purpose of purification (mental and bodily), and purification is done for the purpose of attaining goals that would otherwise not be attainable.

And even in entirely worldly settings, morality is implicitly conceived as serving a purpose. For example, a student needs to behave virtuously in order to complete his studies. If he focuses (too much) on drinking and partying, he won't be able to concentrate to study, won't have the time to do complete his academic assignments, and so on.


- - -

The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do...
/.../
So, what is it that one receives from being a part of a ritualistic community that is necessary, or needed, to make one a good person? — Banno

By being part of a _religious_ community, one has a context in which certain actions seem meaningful and worthwhile even when they are hard to do or don't have immediately visible positive outcomes.

There are other communities membership in which gives one such context, but a religious community ideally provides a broader metaphysical framework than other communities can.

Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. — Hanover

But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. When we use words, we don't think of them as some kind of amoebic, shapeless, shape-shifting entities that can mean anything and perhaps even nothing.

We can substitute cups for religion in this debate is my point, which would be an easy way to avoid the loaded topic of religion. — Hanover

On the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion.