Virtue ethics, then. It's about growing, becoming better. — Banno

Let's not sound like a cheap self-help book ...

All the things you have described can certainly occur in the context of “romantic love” then again they tend not to in such a large amount together and even alone each only occurs on occasion they aren’t necessarily the most common possibilities.

Which leads me to just see this as more of a personal dislike/ bias against the concept of “romantic” love. Which is fine. But cherry picking isn’t the most objective argument one could offer — Benj96

Those things are a potential blemish on the face of "romantic love". A face, if it indeed should be so wonderful as you say, should be completely free of blemishes. One blemish is one too many.

Suffering the negative side effects of an antiviral vaccine, for example, is quite another matter. One probably didn't vaccinate oneself out of some romantic, idealistic notions about life, but approached the matter in a fairly rational, cool, pragmatic manner, weighing the costs and benefits. Distinctly different from the way one approaches "romantic love."



Again: Are you familiar with the reception history of the Minnesang?
It's an instructive example of how notions of romantic love were once understood criticially despite being indulged in, and how that criticial distance became lost over time.

Define "suffering".
— baker

A phenomenal experience with negative world-to-mind fit. — Pfhorrest

I don't understand what this means.
What is a "negative world-to-mind fit"?

FWIW Baker misrepresents that I don't care whether my methodology "actually has the potential for ever being applied by humans". It's an aspirational methodology, an ideal to strive toward, and doing anything closer to it is still better than doing things farther from it (IMO, of course), even if it does turn out that we're so irreparably flawed that we'll never do it perfectly. We definitely can apply my methodology at least sometimes, at least to some degree, and that's fine enough for me. — Pfhorrest

The problem with idealistic ideologies like yours is that they are an all-or-nothing, now-or-never kind of deal. Anything that is less than the perfect application of an idealistic ideology is still a complete failure.

You and your comrades definitely can apply your methodology at least sometimes, at least to some degree, and as long as that is viewed by some people as wrong/aberrant/defective/pathological, and those people are in positions of enough power, then those applying your methodology will simply be deemed criminals, losers, or at least defective in some way -- and you, because of your commitment to equality, will have to value their judgment. If you don't, you yourself have failed to apply your methodology.

I'm not sure just what Natural Law is, myself. — Ciceronianus the White

Some passages from Wiki on natural law:

Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality."[4]

/.../

Stoic natural law
The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics. The rise of natural law as a universal system coincided with the rise of large empires and kingdoms in the Greek world.[20][full citation needed] Whereas the "higher" law that Aristotle suggested one could appeal to was emphatically natural, in contradistinction to being the result of divine positive legislation, the Stoic natural law was indifferent to either the natural or divine source of the law: the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which inspired actions that accorded with virtue.[7]

/.../

Natural law first appeared among the stoics who believed that God is everywhere and in everyone (see classical pantheism). According to this belief, within humans there is a "divine spark" which helps them to live in accordance with nature. The stoics felt that there was a way in which the universe had been designed, and that natural law helped us to harmonise with this.

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

If it exists, however, I think laws adopted by human governments are not the same as Natural Law. They exist apart from it, and regardless of it.

How do you think a Stoic would reply to this?

/.../ What the law is is not what we think it should be, or we think Nature or God requires it to be. If we think a law is bad, we think it should be changed or revoked, not that it doesn't exist.

So the issue at hand seems to be the legitimacy/authority of the laws adopted by people?

I see your point. Perhaps it is for the indulgence of seeing oneself as somehow better/ inflating the ego but what bothers me is that if this type of love doesn’t exist, and the mind can only work in a “transactional” sense... and can be reduced to simple interactions of chemical “give and take” then we must dispose of any form or notion of consciousness that isn’t based firmly on materialistic mechanical scientific objectivism. — Benj96

This is quite a leap. It's not clear how the above follows.

Such a reduction as you mention above can simply be avoided by conceptualizing "romantic love" in a less utopian, less idealistic way.

Are you familiar with the reception history of the Minnesang?

The mystery as it were is sapped out of the human psyche and replaced with very cold hard objective grounds for the existence of a subject.

You know what else is very cold? Having abortions, damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, having children one does not want or cannot afford, going bankrupt, contracting dangerous diseases, missing out on opportunities to earn a living -- things that one can expect to accompany "romantic love".

That’s why I believe this romanticised “delusion” may exist. Also in order to use the term “delusion” I would imagine you would have to have some superior knowledge of what the true “reality” is from which we all deviate when we are “deluded”. Please elaborate on such a reality as I’m sure the world would find this a very revolutionary discovery

Oh.
Of course such a delusion exists. In their sober moments, a person sees and admits that they've been behaving foolishly when they indulged in "being in love".

I understand why people believe this is naive or stupid/ daft. That someone is deliberately letting themselves be a pushover. But on the contrary I think it’s one of the strongest character traits: to get out of the grip of transactional thinking. To not reference every act either directly or indirectly to how the self benefits. — Benj96

People who indulge in romantic delusion are still engaging in it for the benefit they assume it has or will have for themselves.

The whole point of romantic delusions of the kind you describe is to derive pleasure from thinking of oneself as having "overcome transactional thinking", "being someone who is able to love unconditionally", and such. Such seemingly self-sacrificing romantic delusions are a massive ego boost.

That is unfounded and a cliche. You can be poor and pessimistic. You can be digging in a field and think in your mind the whole time "I hate this shit.. Why is life like this?" — schopenhauer1

Duh. Of course one can be poor and pessimistic. Many people are. But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor.

I just checked the Stanford one. — javi2541997

Wiki has actually been a pretty good source for quite some time now, no need to eschew it anymore (as there was in the olden days).

Much of what I do involves showing children how to look after each other so that they look after themselves. — Banno

How do you do that?
Can you give some examples?

- - -

I think, to use these terms, morality derives respect (care) for oneself by one habitualizing (non-reciprocal) respect (care) for others. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly ... but what you're saying seems to describe a person whose self-respect depends on how they treat others. Is this correct?

Surely you’d grant that morality derives from respect for others, not for oneself... — Banno

Surely you mean that morality derives from respect for _specific_ others, and not for just anyone.
Those specific others being usually one's parents, teachers, other people of importance in one's life.

Do you actually think that moral issues can be adequately addressed without reference to the person's intention?
— baker

Queer, that you could garner this from my post. — Banno

It's a point on which I'd like to see where you stand, because it's not clear where you stand on the issue of intention.

The whole point of inventing stories that illustrate moral dilemmas is to use them as a cue for analyzing problems of morality, or to get a person to explicate their own moral reasoning (in the way they justify a particular course of action).

Two useful references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/

Unnecessary and unfounded ad hom. Are you a trust fund baby for writing a meaningless quip on a philosophy forum? — schopenhauer1

*sigh*
Hold your Rocinante!

I myself realized, unfortunately rather late in my life and much to my regret, that the pessimism I used to be so fond of is something I cannot actually afford. And by "afford" I mean literally, in terms of energy and money that I have. I sometimes still look back on those days with a woeful happiness. Sometimes, I actually envy the pessimists and the antinatalists and the cynics and such. They can still indulge in something that has become unavailable to me.

It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. — Benj96

Provided they do the same for you, first.

Besudes, what you're describing is known by the name "obsession".

Besides, it would presumably ruin your day, were you to find something positive in the world. — Banno

Living off a cozy trust fund has it upsides, such as one being able to afford decadent pessimist views. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around: indulging in misery doesn't make one rich.

Most theists believe that God created everything. But if antinatalism is true, then God did not create us - or at least, we seem to have very powerful reason to believe that God did not create us. — Bartricks

That would hold under the condition that humans created God.

I'm wielding Galileo's telescope like a club - and I'm asking:

'What the hell is wrong with you?' — counterpunch

It's tough to be enlightened, innit?

And Galileo, the Recanter, as a role model? Sheesh.

The first noble truth, 'life is suffering' is outdated. — TaySan

That's not the first noble truth ...
The Buddha didn't say that life is just suffering and nothing else.

But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing.
— baker

Well, no. The real question is "What should I do, now, in this situation?". Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.

Rules don't make actions good or bad; it is easy to find examples of evil committed by following the rules. Consequences do not make actions good or bad; it is easy to justify acts of evil on the basis of their consequences.

Hence my preference for virtue ethics. Deontology and consequentialism serve virtue. — Banno

Different theories of morality saliently differ precisely on this one point: the issue of the motivation/justification for acting morally.

Each such theory prefers or takes for granted a particular line of motivation/justification:
"You should do X because God commanded it, and you must obey God."
"You should do X because it's in your own best interest."
"You should do X in order to show you're a good person."
"You should do X because X is virtuous and virtuous acts are their own reward."
"You should do X because it's the norm of the culture you're part of."

And so on.

Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.

The fact that some people sometimes lie about their intentions, motivations, justifications for acting one way or another does not detract us from operating under the assumption that people actually have intentions, motivations, justifications for acting the way they do.

Do you actually think that moral issues can be adequately addressed without reference to the person's intention?

*sigh*

Don't you think it would be good to be able to trust folk? — Banno

And whose failing is that lack of trust?
The person who lacks trust, or the person who hasn't earned others' trust?

The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others. — javi2541997

If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.

Give the dynamite to the fat man and let him decide. — Banno

And how exactly would you do that? He's literally blocking the hole.

Well, there's an interesting question for them. — Banno

You're the one implying that they're wrong.

But as I've pointed out several times, the empirical evidence is against him on this. — Isaac

Likewise.
But he doesn't seem to care whether his theory of morality actually has the potential for ever being applied by humans.

What are your thoughts about this dilemma? What should you do? — javi2541997

The dilemma is spurious. Fat men (fat like they can block a tunnel) don't go hiking to begin with.

Note to self: Don't follow fat people.

Right back atcha!

It's that moral judgements are inherently collective; and I don't mean that in the way that their conceptualisation is essentially a social enterprise like any other; but that they are judgements about what we, notI should do. — Banno

But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing.

For example, five people can say that we should not steal, but they can have very different reasons for prohibiting stealing. One will say that we shouldn't steal, because if we do, we'll be punished, and getting punished is bad and should be avoided. Another person will say that we shouldn't steal because if we do, other people will think ill of us, and we mustn't risk that. Yet another person will say that we shouldn't steal because the law says we must not steal. Etc.

Why do you ask? — Banno

To get a context on the matter.
You said earlier:

Morality and ethics are about how one is to relate to others. — Banno

This view is far from universal. For some people, for example, morality is all about laws and rules: what matters is that one obeys laws, rules, and it doesn't matter how people feel about that or how they are affected by it.

(Japanese society at large, for instance, is a good example of that.)

You're vacillating. — Banno

?
You'll need to say more.

The law can and often should change. Once it is the law, though, it is the law regardless of its wisdom or morality. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, and this is a considerable part of the problem. Once a law is passed, it's like boarding a plane: one is stuck with it / on it for a duration of time, with no safe or easy exit.
How does one endure that time, how does one make sense of it?

By which I mean that if law is the reinforcement of morality, what is the mechanism by which that connection is made? — Isaac

When people believe that might makes right.
— baker

Wouldn't that just be self-fulfilling anyway. If some group were not able to enforce some proscription on behaviour then by definition they wouldn't be the 'mighty' in that case. This is true regardless of what the current law happens to say, so can't itself be a mechanism whereby law is tied to morality. — Isaac

I mean that it is people's belief (the fact that people believe) that might makes right that is the mechanism that ties the law to morality, or, rather, morality to law. "Such is the law, therefore, such is moral." (I'm actually paraphrasing a conversation I had with a police officer last summer.)

This fits the 2nd level / stage 4 in Kohlberg's theory of moral development.

Some problems in addressing issues of morality are certainly due to the fact that not the entire population is (or can be) at the same level of moral reasoning.

Yep, though it's more often called the principle of charity in a philosophical context.

Failure to to apply it is pretty rampant here, as with most everywhere. — Pfhorrest

When discussing the dog-eat-dog nature of life, only a simpleton would be indiscriminately charitable, or goodwilled.
IOW, the topics of philosophical discussions are often enough in conflict with charity and goodwill.

That's an agreeable statement. Don't you think, however, that deciphering a larger meaning can aid the living of one's life? — Aryamoy Mitra

That assumes that there exists a "larger meaning" and that one only needs to "decipher" it.
Based on what should one assume that (or better yet: take it for granted)?

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; it doesn't explain it. It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation.

What say you to that, if anything? — Ciceronianus the White

In order for people to take the law seriously, they must assume that the law is somehow a reflection of objective reality, objective morality, of "things as they really are". People need to take for granted that the law is more than a matter of political machinations between politicians.

In contrast, take, for example, some people's reasons for disobeying traffic laws: they believe that speed limits are just a way for bureocrats to exert power over other people.

By which I mean that if law is the reinforcement of morality, what is the mechanism by which that connection is made? — Isaac

When people believe that might makes right.

I guess in this way, a question arises, "Does knowing a lot about something, make one more of an expert in philosophical concepts like the human condition?" — schopenhauer1

I think it's an urban myth that this is so. But it can certainly happen that a person who has expertise in one field takes for granted that said field is as important to and revealing of humanity as a whole as it is to said person's career and means of living.

But I am also trying to reveal that people often deem that knowing minutia in a field itself confers by some necessity, better understanding in existential matters like antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa.

I calls them as I sees them — god must be atheist

This _is_ interpreting them.

Morality and ethics are about how one is to relate to others. The OP ignores this. — Banno

On which level of moral reasoning, according to Kohlberg's theory, would you place the OP's arguments?

This is my main gripe with any kind of hedonism. It ignores the basic psychological fact that our affects are fabricated, in part, from social cues. Part of why we feel good about some things and bad about others is because we interpret physiological states that way as a result of the models we've learnt from our culture. — Isaac

Yes, and "hedonism" can mean so many things, to the point that the term becomes useless.

There are Buddhist and Hindu dharma teachers who looking at pictures like these would say that those ascetics are practicing "sense indulgence". There are cultural systems where "sense indulgence" can mean a great variety of things, from overeating, getting drunk, to never sitting down or holding up one's arms for years.