I agree with the concept that we have a "sphere of interest", but it seems based on emotion rather than reason. — Relativist

Well, it's both, I think. We can reason that someone needs more than they already have (a homeless); but, we don't feel like giving to them at risk that they spend it on drugs or alcohol. Emotion wasn't at play in any of this reasoning.

Turn the tables, would you expect someone you did not know to give you money. Would you asking them for it be immoral? — Sir2u

I meant this figuratively. Just rhetorical tripe, hehe.

what do you think that means? — Aleksander Kvam

It just means what it says. That religious conservatives contribute more to the welfare of others in certain domains than do liberals. The same may be true of liberals wrt. to redustributive political schemes such as Social Security, Medicare, and education.

Perhaps, to be more precise, we care most about those closest to us. We reserve a special place, a primacy, to those whom we know best and with whom we interact most often and most intimately. If this is the case, I could understand it since I don't know everyone, and couldn't possibly do so or interact with all the world's citizens intimately even on a monthly basis. — gloaming

What is this a failure of? The amount of knowledge that one has about the needs of others or something different?

I think you meant that I wouldn't think twice. — gloaming

Depends on the type of person you are. If you do care about others then, I see no problem with that.

However, you'd be mistaken. With experience and maturity working for me at over 65 years of age, I know better than to act without consideration of ALL kinds. I choose to be careful, to be discerning, late in life. I think it's a duty by now. — gloaming

What do you mean, gloaming?

I can't really argue with that; it seems self-evident. I would want the whole planet to treat my grandchildren and their children as they would each other, with equity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc. — gloaming

Cool

Does classical conservatism restrict to favour only those known to them? If so, and it's not demonstrated in anything you've offered thus far, are they different from liberals in that way? Perhaps you are conflating provincialism with a desire to see one's own flourish by devoting the limited resources each of them has to that end. It doesn't follow that classical conservatives have little or no positive regard for 'strangers'. — gloaming

Yes, perhaps you are right. I once heard that religious conservatives contribute the most to charities, moreso than liberals. So, I might be wrong here.

My sphere of interest is larger than myself, my relatives, and my friends. I have no objection to giving a limited amount of money to persons in this "enlarged sphere". — Bitter Crank

Cool. You seem to be of that type from what I gather.

What I object to is other people strenuously insisting that I add their favored group to my list of deserving beneficiaries. — Bitter Crank

Even if this means voting for a socialist who wants to introduce something like Universal Basic Income, or some other redistribution scheme of politics?

I think you know why that is. It is because they matter more to us. And they matter more to us because we have a closer relationship with them. — Sapientia

Yes; I agree. But, on an individual level, why is this?

Yes, to some extent, but there's quite a difference between, say, arguing against cuts to benefits, and arguing that it should make no difference to someone whether it is their own mother asking for a hundred dollars or a random stranger off of the street. — Sapientia

I guess you can take my argument as in favor of a type of social democracy or political affiliation. I kind of had this in mind in making the OP.

For one thing, vote for the Labour Party, or whatever your nearest equivalent is. — Sapientia

Agreed.

So, just to break it down.

P1: We should care about other people to be good moral agents.
P2: Our sphere of interest limits this concept.
P3: We should strive to increase the scope of our sphere of interest.
C1: Therefore, the philosophies that limit the scope of our sphere of interest are morally wrong.

Feels more like a rant than anything that can be addressed.

Care to expand on the rant?

There's a process of desiring? It feels to me like desire is an emotion, or something pretty similar. For that reason, I wonder if there is a process at all, or if it's just something we do - or feel - without process, planning or anything else. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Well, don't you have conflicting desires at all? If you do then, there's something that's guiding you when a decision is made to act on any particular desire. I would call it a higher-order volition.

How can I meaningfully have a desire about a desire? — Pattern-chaser

Well, when it comes to deciding on what desire to act upon, then there seems to be a desire about a desire or higher-order volition at play, no?

Suppose I am at best a mediocre husband and father, but I wish I was better, and try to be better. That's a higher desire or volition, no? (Incidentally, are you happy to say that volition is a desire one tries to realise, as distinct from a desire one entertains but does not act on for whatever reason?) — unenlightened

To the first question, yes, I suppose so; but the reasoning is backwards. It starts from the higher order volition of (in this case) love, that (the reasoning follows here) I want to be a better husband. As to whether a volition is something that can only be acted upon, I suppose so also.

But suppose I am a mediocre burglar, but I wish I was better, and try to be better. You don't want to call that a 'higher desire', though it has the same form, of an ambition to transform myself? — unenlightened

There's no higher order volition in this case, unless we're talking about a burglar that just loves his job so much that he wants to get better at it for the sake of getting better.

What do you mean? The how in self love is just a matter of acceptance, I suppose. How much are you willing to look past your faults and accept yourself and not judge yourself. Easier said than done...

I don't really have an answer to the how part. I'm still rereading the book referenced in the OP.

So, according to Frankfurt, self love is disinterested care for oneself, if I recall correctly. Love generates it's own reasons according to Frankfurt. If your going to save someone in a lake and your wife or someone else is drowning, then love commands that you save the person you love from drowning. No questions asked.

Well, ol Frankfurt in the book quoted in the OP makes the case that self love is the highest good from which virtuous behavior can originate. Do you think so?

Agreed.

No idea Noble. But emotional or originating from a volition, passion, or desire or love sounds close.

So then what's left to say about these profound questions, since you edited your post now? Simply doing or action?

Same boat here, although due to differing reasons.

I agree that we intellectualize ethics every day. I mean how couldn't we? But, again as per the OP it's systematically incholate to do so in my opinion also.

You don't give me much to reply towards.

So, this seems to be indeed a case of whereof one cannot speak thereof one ought to remain silent as I surmise from your posts, @StreetlightX?

Naah, it's fine. We can carry on just fine.

I'll see if I can muster a reply you deserve. I think that ethics can be intellectualized due to the fact that we do it all the time. However, as per the OP and perhaps agreeing with StreetlightX, that such questions are indeed systematically incholate. Thus, ethics can be talked about but not in the normal philosophical manner as we think it could. Hope that made some sense.

I'm fine with you being done.

So, you haven't addressed the second part of that post, which I hoped you would. But, it's alright, I won't make the false assumption that your an authority on the matter if that's alright with you.

I'm doing as best I can. I just was wondering why you seem to be against discussing matters of what you call the only ethical question there is. If it can't be intellectualized, then what's left there to say about the issue, at least philosophically?

Sure it can be talked about, but not intellectualized? Where or how are you delineating between the two?

Not what I said. — StreetlightX

Here's what you said:

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue. — StreetlightX

Then is it or is it not an intellectual issue?

So, then what can anything of meaning be said about them if they can't be intellectualized?

Oh for fuck's sakes. :yawn: — apokrisis

What? I asked how does symmetry breaking lead to the resolution of the issue, and no response on that.

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue. As if it's a question posed at the level of propositions. This coming from a man who wrote 'on bullshit'. It's unbelievable that this sort of dreck passes for philosophy. — StreetlightX

So, you've resorted to ad hom's and gross over-generalizations? Fine.

So, it's overly intellectualized but too plain and simple. What are you trying to say here?

I'm not sure that's relevant? If it is how so?

Symmetry breaking breaks the symmetry of spinning on the spot to produce the local~global asymmetry of hierarchical organisation. — apokrisis

And how does this apply to the topic for sake of redundancy? I must have read it a couple of times but am still struggling to conceptualize it into the grand scheme of things.

Instead of self-referential circularity, you have the mutual-referentiality of a hierarchically divided organisation. One scale represents the extreme long-term, the other the extreme short-term. — apokrisis

OK, I'm still lost.

I don't quite see how this applies to the topic though. Care to elaborate?

Meno's paradox transposed onto a different field, with all it's attendant problems: an overly intellectualized approach to the issue. — StreetlightX

What's overly intellectualized here? It all seems plain and simple thinking to me.

You can escape spinning on a spot via the asymmetry of a dichotomy. — apokrisis

What's an asymmetry of a dichotomy?

Does anyone want to go over the Paris courtroom model to elucidate where Wittgenstein derived his conception of the picture theory?

Re-read it, and have some simple questions if you will:

Call them what you wish, as long as they meet the criterion I'm setting out. The point I'm raising here is that thinking about one's own mental ongoings(metacognition) requires a creature with a common and rather complex written language. — creativesoul

What do you mean by that?

Whatever rudimentary thought and belief consists of, it is not language. It is existentially dependent upon neither our awareness of it, nor our means for becoming so. We can know that much for certain. — creativesoul

Ok, then what are they?

I mean, all thought and belief must have something or other in common in order to qualify as more than just a language game akin to Witt's notion of game where the only thing all games have in common is that we call them such. Thought and belief are no such thing. — creativesoul

So, again what are they?

Games are inventions of humans. Thought and belief are not. The only commonality relevant here is that they are both existentially dependent upon humans. The remarkable difference is that games are created/invented by us, whereas human thought and belief is discovered. Games are existentially dependent upon both, our awareness of them and our existence, whereas rudimentary thought and belief is only existentially dependent upon our existence. — creativesoul

I don't see how they are at the same time existentially dependent upon our existence and at the same time independent of being discovered. If you want to use the term, then they are emergent properties, while culminate within our existence.

So I think we do have these higher-order volitions, but I'm not convinced that they are distinctive enough to recognise separately. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Isn't, at the very least, being a 'good citizen' something akin to a higher-order volition? Or the love for your family? These are things which supersede the basic desires that we have. Not to bring in any psychological jargon; but, it seems like higher order volitions originate from the super-ego. What do you think?

:cool:

Come post in my 'Do we have higher-order volitions?' thread. I think it aligns with your interests. Haha.