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.

Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

It means different things in different contexts.

"Religion" means something different to modern Western secular culturologists than it does to a pious Roman Catholic, for example.

And back to Humpty Dumpty:

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality — Hanover

The problem isn't relativistic morality per se, it's moral trivialism. Ie. the view that moral judgments are essentially trivial. This comes from viewing ethics/morality as a subcategory of aesthetics. It renders ethics/morality as a matter of "ethics/morality is in the eye of the beholder".

In order for our moral judgments to have weight, to seem relevant, they need to be assumed to have more to them than being the mere opinion of an individual person.

One need not posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard rape as wrong. — Fooloso4

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

Ethics are either a code of conduct set by a culture, based on values, traditions and evolving attitudes, or they are handed down by a transcendent source - (deity or idealism). — Tom Storm

The issue is how can we or how do we consider a certain moral standard or moral judgment relevant, binding, as something that is more than mere opinion.

Perhaps, since we don't see other social animals murdering their fellows — Janus

Of course they do.
See cannibalism and infanticide in animals.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

I think you missed it. — Tom Storm

No, you didn't answer my questions. You made a deprecating remark about some people (apparently aiming it at me), then stated the obvious, and asked a loaded question. But you didn't answer my questions.

Here, again:

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

Can you actually spell it out?

Step out of your comfort zone (or off your high horse, as the case might be), and really spell this out.

It strikes me that there's a point when the inclination to discount any assertion or argument because we can't really know anything since we're permeated with prejudices and "culture" should serve to end discussion as well as judgment. Why bother? — Ciceronianus

In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself.

I guess my points landed. — schopenhauer1

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

You didn't answer my question.
I want to see how you answer it.

This or that authority must be chosen, may be disregarded. — Banno

No. 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.

If I attempt to relate that - even considering I possess it, which I don't - if you're not even open to the possibility that it is so, then there's nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

That's how you shoot yourself in the foot, and why so many here don't take you seriously.

Such a self-deprecating remark as you make above is either a sample of false humility (which is offputting), or just a plain declaration of incompetence (which is also offputting).

Now that we've stated what we believe, let's figure out what that belief entails, and I'd submit it demands a morality that transcends time and place. — Hanover

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.

Exciting how?

How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated folk can employ to enlarge their perspectives? — Tom Storm

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

Seriously, can you answer that?

And is it even possible to answer that without sounding like yet another patronizing bourgeois?

I was thinking more in terms of exhilarating stuff that happen before we kick the bucket. — Agent Smith

You mean, the distractions?

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?
— baker

Free speech — Christoffer

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech".

and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters.

It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it?

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Well, self-sufficiency indeed seems awfully unrealistic and practically impossible.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?
— baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care.

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole. — Christoffer

No, that's all your doing. I said I want every country to be self-sufficient:

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.) — baker

If it were up to me, I would enforce self-sufficiency at all costs. How this works out in any particular case depends on the particular cirucmstances.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further.
— baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

The masses cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. This is the entire scope of my claim.
That doesn't mean I "defend authoritarian dictatorship". The masses want panem et circenses. If they are allowed to pursue that, they will destroy everything.

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society.

I favor self-sufficiency.

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot?

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of limited natural (and other) resources.

A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

The way people in Western society are different from one another is trivial, superficial. Those differences are merely artificially trumped up, so that people can brag about them and their "tolerance".

The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact.

You should read some modern Western books on psychology, such as the DSM. Then you'd understand what authoritarianism really is.

I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

Being able to criticize those in power is overrated anyway. It doesn't affect those in power (other than to give them reason to retaliate). Moreover, the critics just want to air their outrage, vent their emotions. They aren't interested in constructive action.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

How politically correct.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what?
— baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

In the West, we have no freedom in terms of sex, food, how we go about relationships, what we think the meaning of life is, and so on. It's all prescribed, all standardized, normativized.
The freedoms that we do have pertain only to trivialities. It's a golden cage we're in.

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

More pc.

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

The differences are only in terms of practical circumstances, but not in terms of morality.

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this.

I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it.

Or, more likely, you're so politically correct that your "criticism" doesn't "rub anyone the wrong way".
From what you've said so far, you sound very politically correct, just the kind of person Western societies like.

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia.

Again, you're failing to see the similarity.

Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here?

You're unable to see the similiarity.

Understand the grey area we're discussing?

Hold on. You call it a "grey area"??

France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

Try being poor in France then.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

And I said: self-sufficiency.

Nice is-ought mistake there. — Benkei

No, that one is only in your mind. I'm not going to defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

Selective in your history too.

*sigh*

I didn't say all societies throughout history had a soldier class.

And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same.

Your use of "we" says otherwise.

And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy.

Then you need to read up on infanticide in animals:

In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of the same species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) but including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.[2] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable.[3] This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice.[3] It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well.

And, of course, intrauterine cannibalism.

The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You are really mean. I addressed a topic, and you shot it down with a taboo.

Is this a philosophy forum or the watercooler??!!

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.
— baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. — Alkis Piskas

The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people.