Again, this doesn't have much to do with anything, since I already said that moral fictionalism is not only a rational position to hold but also a comfortable position to hold. Like how you can play a game while understanding it's not actually reality. — darthbarracuda

The question is, how does one come to hold the position of moral fictionalism if one doesn't already hold it?

On topic!

I am very dubious about 'the trolley problem' because of its artificiality. I suppose as a classroom exercise it's useful for focussing the mind on the issues involved. But in real life, again, we're not generally going to face anything like that choice.
— Wayfarer

I imagine situations of that kind crop up during war. Do we bomb the munitions factory even though civilians are working there? Should we sacrifice a few to save more? — Michael

And in traffic. I once witnessed the following situation on a highway where traffic is at 110 km/h: Road workers have just driven onto the highway, stopped and began to set up the signs that traffic must slow down and the outer right lane on a two-lane road was to be closed (this is in a country where traffic takes place on the right lane). The workers were already walking on the entry lane and the outer right lane. A car came onto the road just right after the workers. The driver of that car had to decide whether to risk forcing themselves into the traffic on the left lane, or run over some workers. They chose to risk forcing themselves into the left lane. Fortunately, nobody got hurt, but many drivers blew their horns.

free will as effective moral judgement[/quote]
In short: Moral egoism; moral narcissism.

Jesus was not 'convinced of his divine powers'. When asked, he demurred - 'It is not I that is good'. And when he suffered on the Cross, he cried out 'why have you forsaken me?' — Wayfarer

John 16:28
I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 14:31
but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

John 5:19
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 14:28
You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John 8:49
Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Jesus-Christ,-Relation-To-Father

Anyway, that's my 'Easter thought', I'm not going to pursue this as a philosophical debate. — Wayfarer

That's a shame.

It being Easter, there was a famous underdog, born into lowly circumstances, died a horrible death, betrayed by one of his supposed friends. (Forgive me, I’m hazy on the detail.....) — Wayfarer

And his way of coping with his underdog status was to be convinced he is of divine origin with special powers and special rights.

Hardly a heuristic that one could apply to oneself ... and still be able to function in the real world.

Oh I see, you’re confusing is and ought — Pfhorrest

Oh, you're still living in lalaland.

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified. — Maw

Which means what? Something like, "Whatever enhances my wellbeing and diminishes my suffering is moral (morally good, morally right, just, righteous), even if in the process of this, other people or their property get hurt or damaged" ?

I would like to see Hegel's language and that of Heideggers from comparison with High Middle German. This might reveal their ideas better, if only that they may be critiuedt — Gregory

Eh?!

Why MHD, arguably, the least comprehensible stage of German??

All hail moral realism!

What can be expected of people who were born and lived in a kingdom called the "Holy Roman Empire", Römisch-Deutsches Reich ...

If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives — schopenhauer1

It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating.

One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case. — schopenhauer1

The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument.

It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference.

Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.

You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life.

You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it.

And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral.

I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds.

We were born to die. — javi2541997

No, we were born to pay bills, and die.

I've started Kierkegaard's 'Concept of Anxiety', but can't shake the feeling that anxiety/angst/dread is simply what the Buddha terms dukkha. — Wayfarer

/.../ Saṁvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It’s a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range—at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of dismay, terror, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it’s normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complicity, complacency, and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Affirming the Truths of the Heart. The Buddhist Teachings on Saṁvega & Pasāda
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/NobleStrategy/Section0004.html

But does Kierkegaard offer anything that would resemble pasada?

I've often pondered that this may be the case. There is a strong overlap - dukkha - suffering, pain, stress, unease. Is there a text that articulates dukkha/discomfort with more of a psychological perspective? — Tom Storm

What do you mean by this?
Are you not familiar with the Buddhist suttas that talk about dukkha? If anything, the concept of dukkha can be classified as what is nowadays termed "psychological" (the second arrow).

Pretty sure there was something great by Alan Watts on this but can't remember where I read it.

Watts wasn't a Buddhist, mind you.

Throw out Heidegger and you throw out Zen — Gregory

Oy vey!

This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society. — BitconnectCarlos

But maybe it is as good as society can get.

Yes, but I don't accept your proposal that they mean whatever you want to make them mean. They are well understood by very ordinary folks. — unenlightened

Who have far from a uniformed understanding of them. One person's truth is another's lie, and so on.

The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?
Why on earth would one entertain something, in this case, hold an ideal, unless it serves a purpose???

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

Gee, I wouldn't know -- who is the authority on what those values mean?

I have acquired an edition of Anxiety now and will proceed with it. — Wayfarer

Given your Buddhist background, I'm eager to read your impressions of it!

This is what started this:

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.
— baker

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Followed by:

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for? — unenlightened

So your stance is something like:
Truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for person (which can mean anything to anyone) are higher ideals than the profit motive. The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes?

Why not take it at face value and just argue or defend or simply comment on the arguments that antinatalists make rather than try to find these underlying and dubious motives? — schopenhauer1

Because the arguments you put forward are simply not convincing.

It's ill to care about whether someone else even exists or not. So when someone proposes to care so much about others, the simplest answer is that there is something else going on.

A simple argument from misanthrophy, for example, would be far more convincing than yours are.

No not at all. This isn't equivalent to "child-free" movements or anything where it's about lifestyle choice or something like that. — schopenhauer1

Actually, it seems like a way to justify refusing to take up the hassle of being a parent.

Specifically, the whole antinatalist argument reads like a sublimated effort of a man who knocked up a woman and now he wants her to abort, and is looking for ways to convince her to have an abortion.

No it is not. The unjust and unnecessary causing the conditions for harm to take place and overall prevention of starting unnecessary harm for another is mainly the point. — schopenhauer1

Bah. I don't buy this oh-so compassion and oh-so empathy.

What are you, Jesus? Why on earth would you care so much about others and their suffering? It makes no sense to care so much about others!

It is the parent's preference only. — schopenhauer1

And this is the whole point of antinatalism, isn't it?

It's about a person who doesn't want to be a parent, but who feels a need to convince society that refusing to be a parent is a worthy choice and that such a non-parent still deserves full respect as a human being.

Right?

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for? — unenlightened

So manipulation is a higher purpose than profit?

Why is this the default? — schopenhauer1

The default (whatever it is) must be and is beyond comprehension, beyond human power to control. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the default.

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.

That question doesn't make any sense. How do my higher priorities -- things like keeping myself alive -- "match how things really are"? What does that even mean? — Pfhorrest

This really isn't rocket sicence. Duh.
Have you never been to church or some such??

There is The Truth, the How Things Really Are. And a particular person either matches/lives up to that Truth, or they don't.
You might think that something is important, but in Reality, it might not be important at all, and your preferences and convictions could be all wrong.

I mean, really. Have you never spoken to any religious person? I'm pointing out religious people because they are especially clear on these matters. For example, you might think that being a vegetarian is important in life, but a Christian might tell you that it is not only not important, but that it is, in fact, wrong, that it is not in line with How Things Really Are (and How Things Really Are is what God commanded -- and God commanded that people must eat meat).

For some kind of an objectivist, you sure have a poor grasp of authoritarian/objectivist discourse.
Even though you yourself use the authoritarian/objectivist style. For example, you say, in true authoritarian/objectivist manner "That question doesn't make any sense" (instead of, e.g. "I don't understand what you mean here"). As if questions objectively make sense or they don't, and you are the arbiter of this sense-making -- but I am not.

I can just see a rich right winger advocating truth, justice, kindness, democracy, respect for person.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

If only the meaning of those wouldn't be so easy to define in accordance with the motive for profit ...

Higher Ideals than The Profit Motive

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.

I'm saying that "compelling reasons by one's own standards" aren't usually considered as good enough.

Accepting "compelling reasons by one's own standards" as a valid criterion means that we'd need to accept that pretty much anything anyone believes is justified -- from believing that Trump won the 2020 elections to beliving that human civilization on Earth was started by aliens etc. etc.
Neither philosophers nor scientists accept that. Nor do religious people or culture at large. Instead, they maintain that people must have some objective, interpersonally verifiable or agreed upon reasons for believing something, in order for those reasons to count as "good reasons".

though of course I have higher priorities in daily life. — Pfhorrest

And how do they match "how things really are"?

Between this and your say similar question in that atheists thread, you come across as baffled by why anyone would have any concern for truth. — Pfhorrest

Because it's silly, to say the least! It's not how people generally function!

Just as Kierkegaard ignored much in Christian dogma, and was a better Christian than all of them, it could be argued. — Constance

No, you're like someone who reads only a few entries from a language dictionary but claims to be proficient in the language.

You disagree but do you really know what it is I am talking about? All religions, all cultural
institutions, language, indeed, the entire human endeavor is really describable at the level of phenomenological ontology.

If all paths would lead to the top of the proverbial mountain, then everyone would already be enlightened and all your efforts are redundant.

"That's it??"
— baker

Sorry? — FlaccidDoor

It's a rip-off of Goethe's supposed last words -- "Mehr nicht??" (ie. 'Nothing more??')
(The official party line is that he said "Mehr Licht!" (ie. 'More light!').)

But think about it: If one would always wonder whether what one currently has truly is "as good as it gets", then this ought to make one reflect and strive at all times.

"That's it??"

I was asking for _your_ motivation in particular.

I guess my point is, people justify their beliefs by their commitment to them, ultimately. — Pantagruel

This is not a stance generally held by philosophers or scientists.