Well, my confusion is that "makes sense in the context of," is not normally taken to be a synonym for "is true." Is the idea that these are the same thing? Perhaps it "made sense" to sacrifice people to make sure the sun didn't disappear in the context of Aztec civilization, but surely it wasn't true that the continued shining of the sun was dependent on cutting victims' hearts out on an alter.

Yet the idea that our conversations and practices and generative of all truths would suggest just this. That "makes sense to" is synonymous with "is true." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that’s my position. What we call true is simply what makes sense in a given context. Does truth exist as a separate property outside us by which we can measure other civilization's truths? No. We just have different models we use to make sense of the world. But that's no small thing.

Ok, did reality truly behave this way before we found it useful to say it is so? Either it did, and there was a truth about these "constraints" that lies prior to, and is, in fact, the true cause of, human practices (i.e., these constraints were actually, really the case, that is, truly the case) or else it was our own sense of "usefulness" that made the constraints truly exist in the first place. Or, did these constraints which shape practice and conversations actually exist, but it wasn't true that they existed (which is an odd thing to say)?

If practices are necessary for truth you cannot posit constraints that lie prior to practices as the cause of those practices without denying the truth of those constraints it would seem. For they only become truly existent when declared so in practice. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t see what this gets you. To talk about a constraint before us is to say nothing meaningful about it. To say that there are things in the world that limit us ( but not always or forever) says nothing about truth as such. It’s just a contingency, a product of our interactions with a world.

my individual ipseity would be bound to another that I do not experience, but the place I hold in the world would still be fulfilled. — Moliere

Funny, you say this, I've speculated similarly. But it's getting a little into a strange form of determinism. :wink:

It is likely that my experience is based on living in an area with more gang culture than I was used to in the past. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that could do it. What part of London are you in?

Can you find a safer area?

Sorry to hear about your experiences. I imagine that would be horrible and would remain with you.

I do wonder from interaction with people from gangs if part of the problem is such people's lack of sense of any real.personal identity and significance, which is projected onto those being attacked. — Jack Cummins

Well I guess gang folk tend to be in a tribal subculture which rewards aggression and violence. No doubt there’s also trauma and deprivation involved. Certainly that’s the case for gang members I’ve worked with, not that it’s many. But I have worked with many violent offenders.

Take care out there, JC.

f truth only exists inside the context of human practices—is indeed dependent on them—what truths could we possibly be missing such that we are not omniscient? Wouldn't our (collective) lack of possession of all truths itself show that all truths aren't actually dependent on us and our practices, for how could they exist without our knowing of them if our practices make them true? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are you saying that if truth only depends on us, then we should already know all truths, but since we don’t, truth must exist independently of human practices?

Huh? All I’m suggesting is that we interact with our environment and build stories, models and conversations to explain things. What we call truth emerges for a process. This is in constant flux and never reaches capital-T Truth. But many different models will be useful for certain purposes.

Did the Earth lack a shape prior to man and his practices? Or did it have a shape but it wasn't true that it had that shape? If man once again began to believe the Earth is flat would it "become flat again?" And if it wasn't round before man decided it was round, in virtue of what did evidence suggesting the Earth was round exist? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Saying the world was flat made sense in the context of what we knew at the time. Now it makes sense to say it is a sphere. Today most of us obviously prefer the latter, and it's more justifiable. But where will we be in 1000 years? Will we still think of the world as a material entity, or might we come to see it as a product of consciousness, rather than a physical object? I note also that there is an emerging community of flat earthers and globe deniers. Is Trump one of these? :wink:

If all men died out it would cease to be true that man ever existed? So likewise, if we carry out a successful genocide and people come to forget about it or don't find it "useful" to bring up, it ceases to have ever occured? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If people forget, it doesn’t make events vanish from some independent reality; it just makes them irrelevant in our ongoing conversation. Saying they 'never occurred' I would say is framing this wrongly.

Why would people find it "useful" to formulate such truths if they weren't already the case, and why does it seem prima facie ludicrous that it "would be true that sheeps and pigs could produce offspring just in case everyone found it 'useful' to affirm this?" This is the problem with the dependence claim. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I’d say this misunderstands what “truth depending on humans” means. It’s not that anything could be true just because we say it is. Things in the world still constrain what we can do. Our conversations and practices are built around those constraints. We find some statements “useful” precisely because they help us navigate reality as it seems to behave. Saying that truth depends on humans doesn’t deny the existence of a world, physics, or animal copulation, it just means that what we call “true” comes from the ways we describe and make sense of our world.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all this. It's my current preferred frame.

There is so much brutality and violence, and indifference to violence often too. — Jack Cummins

What are some examples? I imagine the London of 1890 woudl be tougher and nastier than today's?

I live in a big city (5 million people) and there's stress and violence here too. But much of it is also a beat up by right wing media to justify law and order clamp downs and pander to aging and fearful consumers of tabloid journalism who lap up this stuff.

I sometimes question the idea of “dehumanization.” What could be more human than judging, shunning, or abandoning others? What is more persistent, more universal, than our tribal instincts, our constant need to carve the world into “us” and “them”?

The point being that these laments about the value of humanity and our ethical reatment of one another doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality. — Hanover

I don’t have any firm commitments on any particular side here. I am glad to be alive now in this era and see nothing intrinsically moribund about the times we are in. I do, however, notice traits and themes that are unattractive, but every era has its issues.

. You can be individualistic and egalitarian simultaneously. — Hanover

I see no reason to disagree with you.

doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality. — Hanover

Maybe. But isn’t this a bit of an ouroboros? Isn’t an old-fashioned adherence to morality itself a product of contingent factors, like traditional values and broader social contexts?

Someone can knowingly sell cigarettes or cancer causing products and be very successful and live a very happy life. Period.

If other people were aware of him they would probably revolt — Barkon

No. Gangsters, autocrats, thugs and CEOs may continue unopposed despite everyone being aware of who they are and what they do,

if they were to perform bad in any of those endeavours, they would have produced nothing or the opposite. — Barkon

The point is you said this:

You won't sell a product if it's created bad. You won't survive if you do bad to your health. You won't create paradise that lasts if you're not good by nature. — Barkon

I responded with reasoning why this is inaccurate.

Well, are our current theories wrong now, and just not understood as such? Or are they "true" now and will become false at some point in the future? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess it depends on the nature of the claim, right? As a rule, I don’t think things are “true” in themselves, they’re just not false. Water freezes at 0 °C (32 °F) at standard atmospheric pressure, but if the Earth were to die of heat death, that fact would become irrelevant and effectively vanish. In the meantime, we can safely accept it and it has utility. (Mind you it's a truth that's contingent on practices. Saying “water freezes at 0 °C” is true within the context of our measurement practices, definitions of temperature, and shared scientific methods. It’s not “true in itself” outside that framework. But I think you find probably this tricksy and limiting? )

Was the Earth truly flat when dominant practices and beliefs affirmed it as such? If not, the truth of the Earth's roundness cannot have been dependent upon those practices. Indeed, if the reality (truth) of things just is whatever the dominant practice/culture says they are, how could beliefs ever fail to be "pragmatic" and why would they ever change? We are always omniscient in that case, just so long as we don't disagree. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I woudl imagine our ideas change when the ways we talk about and interact with the world change, which is why beliefs shift over time. We’re never omniscient; we just get better at describing the world in ways that work for us. Truth, in that sense, isn’t about matching reality, it’s about what proves useful in our ongoing conversations. Humans are meaning-making creatures and are chronically dissatisfied with what we believe. That dissatisfaction drives us to keep revisiting and reshaping our models of reality, but I don’t think those models ever truly match reality.

But you write as if this is a vast problem: -

if the reality (truth) of things just is whatever the dominant practice/culture says they are — Count Timothy von Icarus

That frames it in a harsh light. It’s not 'whatever' the dominant practice happens to be, as if this were random or irrational. It’s generally based on our best efforts and practices and our sense making impulses.

Since there are no facts outside of practice and language, it follows that there can be no prior facts that determine practice and language themselves. And, since there are no facts outside of current belief and practice, no facts can explain how or why beliefs and practices change and evolve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see why we need outside facts. Practices and beliefs evolve because people try new ways of talking and acting, and some ways work better than others. Change may come from our restlessness and experimentation, not from some external truth. It’s all part of our ongoing dialogue with each other and the world.

the solution of making truth dependent on man leads to some bizarre conclusions, especially if man is considered to be contingent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t think it’s bizarre. This isn’t the same as saying 'anything goes'. Our models and approaches always makes sense within the context of culture, language, and conventions, all of which evolve.

(Edited for clarity)

but any joy they got during that vast age was a part of something good they did. — Barkon

No, I'm sayign precisely the opposite.

You won't sell a product if it's created bad. You won't survive if you do bad to your health. You won't create paradise that lasts if you're not good by nature. — Barkon

I don’t think this is accurate. People can sell harmful products that cause cancer, become rich, build a personal paradise, mistreat those around them, abuse drugs and still die at a vast age, content and satisfied. Isn't this a fundamental irony of life: moral failings and worldly cruelty don’t impact upon happiness? Now some people enjoy myths like gods to provide judgment on such folk in order to restore the balance they believe is missing from the real world.

The information age is also a way of showing how small each person is in the scheme, with the exception of influential celebrities. The media have often looked to external signs of 'success' and not paid much attention to the inner life and the value of each unique person. — Jack Cummins

As an Australian of a certain era, the cult of individualism hasn’t really held much significance, except in sporting excellence. We love our cricket and football superstars. (well, I don't because I don't follow sport, but you get my point) Beyond that, we don’t generally construct the world as an orgiastic feast of individualism in the way Americans so often seem to. Perhaps that’s also why success hasn’t been such a huge preoccupation here. I think most Australians would see a simple shack by the beach, with weekends free for family and friends, as a robust measure of success.

How so? Given your description, if our institutions, habits of checking evidence, and systems intelligibility change—which they do—it seems like the facts change, and so it absolutely could cease to be true that Germany surrendered during WWII, no? You say I am confusing inter-subjectivity with instability, but then seem to present an understanding about the truth of past events that makes such truths unstable. That is, current systems and practices become prior to past history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, as I said -

If those forms of life were gone, the way we talk about truth would likely be gone too, but that does not make present truths vulnerable. — Tom Storm

I should have said fragile rather than vulnerable, perhaps. Pragmatically truth serves a purpose which remains stable while a given truth is of use to us. And you’re right in 1000 years much of present science may well be understood as factually wrong. But this doesn’t mean current scientific understanding isn’t useful now.

Now of course, we might allow that all human knowledge is always filtered through culture, language, history, etc. (as well as human nature) but this does not requires that there are the ground of—a prior to—truth itself. For if there was no truth (no potential for knowledge, no intelligibility) the former couldn't exist in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not convinced. Do we need an extra “truth” hovering behind that to explain why knowledge and intelligibility are possible? The fact that human practices generate and sustain standards of intelligibility is all the explanation we really need.

So if man goes extinct, are there no facts about human history? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Facts only have meaning in the context of a set of practices, without us around to give them context, they’re basically meaningless.

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. It came with an emphasis on personal expectations, demands an individual rights. This was accompanied by a philosophy of being able to master and create personal identity through autonomy.

However, in the twentieth first century the culture of individualism is receding into awareness, especially through the media, of mass culture. In many ways, this gives rise to a sense of personal insignificance for many, especially those lacking in power. Certain individuals are treated as mere numbers, and the vulnerable are often regarded as a 'nuisance' and burden unlike in traditional society, in which there was a spirit of community. — Jack Cummins

I think these are certainly popular tropes. Whether they are accurate or not, I don't know. I think this is a subject that could be teased out into many different strands. Perhaps the Christian narrative of 'you are special, precious and beloved by God' might be foundational to a culture of individualism.

I'm a little unclear what it would mean for something like Germany to not be objective. Does this mean it is not an objective fact that German surrendered in WWII? Is it not an objective fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July, 4th, 1776? Are there objective rules to chess? What about objective truths of arithmetic (which is often considered a "game" like chess)?

If they are "intersubjective" does this mean that if all relevant subjectivity changes, the truth changes too? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wonder if this kind of objection is mixing up intersubjectivity with instability. To say truth is intersubjective is not to say that it shifts with our whims, but that it depends on the shared practices that make claims intelligible. Facts about Germany’s surrender or the date of a declaration remain fixed because our institutions and habits of checking evidence are stable. If those forms of life were gone, the way we talk about truth would likely be gone too, but that does not make present truths vulnerable. It only means there is no view from nowhere that holds them beyond these kinds of practices.

With histroical facts, intersubjectivity is essentially grounded in agreed methods for checking evidence. With morality, by contrast, the agreement doesn't involve measurement, it seems to be about what we care about and the kind of lives we prefer. And yes, all this may well vary over time and across cultures, but essentially not stealing, lying, or killing is good for the survival of a tribe, so it’s pretty easy to see the attractions of a code of conduct/morality, at least at a functional level.

It's a wonderful life.. — Hanover

I was wondering how long it would take. Hence my somewhat cuntish comment near the start of all this...

One of my pet hates is the mawkish It’s a Wonderful Life school of personal significance, which fits neatly with our culture’s romantic obsession with individualism and the putative power of the lone actor to shape and improve the world for those around them. — Tom Storm

The moral facts of (1) useless suffering and (2) fear of suffering are both (A) experienced by every human being and (B) known about every human being by every human being.

How can we show that it is a sound basis, rather than merely a preference, unlike the position of someone who acts without regard for the suffering their actions cause?
Such a person is merely inconsistent, hypocritical irrational or sociopathic – neither logical or mathematical rigor eliminates misapplication of rules or bad habits or trumps ignorance. — 180 Proof

:up: :up:

Here's my secular/naturalistic, negative consequentialist shorthand:
• Good indicates that which prevents, reduces or eliminates harm (i.e. suffering or injustice).
• Bad indicates that which fails to prevent, reduce or eliminate harm ...
• Evil indicates that which prevents, reduces or eliminates any or all potential(s) for doing or experiencing Good. — 180 Proof

I would struggle to see how we could improve on this. No doubt, we could introduce a lot of speculative, abstruse theoretical material into discussions of ethics, but given that morality is firmly rooted in the experiences of conscious creatures, this seems to me a solid foundation.

I am interested in the ethical commitment to preventing suffering. What justifies this as a foundational principle of morality? How can we show that it is a sound basis, rather than merely a preference, unlike the position of someone who acts without regard for the suffering their actions cause? What makes the reduction of harm morally compelling rather than optional?

My own thought experiment is of thinking about how life would have been if I had not existed. It involves eliminating oneself from every aspect and incident in which one has ever partaken in. I wonder about how different life would have been without me for my family, friends and in all respects..How would life have been different for others without my existence in causal chains? — Jack Cummins

I have gently pondered this question since I was a child. Answer: it would have been different, but not significantly so. If I hadn’t been here, someone else would likely have fulfilled most of the roles I’ve held: perhaps better than me, perhaps worse, but who knows? One of my pet hates is the mawkish It’s a Wonderful Life school of personal significance, which fits neatly with our culture’s romantic obsession with individualism and the putative power of the lone actor to shape and improve the world for those around them. In truth, most of us are woven into larger patterns that would carry on without us, differently perhaps, but no worse. Most of us are not irreplaceable, and most of us make little real difference to the world which, for me, is a sobering idea and perhaps even a liberating one.

Democracy hasn't been voting for dictators. It has been voting for influencers.

Liberalism could still be the social structure that works best in the real world. But democracy has become detached from the real world and absorbed into its own reality show version of life. — apokrisis

This is an interesting take.

This realism about what the actual facts are – what people really want and the scale of the surplus that exists to be shared – is basic to liberal democracy working as a coherent system. And it is the realism that has fallen apart in a big way. Voters are now entrained to the various brands of cultural make-believe. — apokrisis

Do you see this as a phase or the beginning of catastrophe?

fortunately wrong reading is unavoidable, so that life and creativity is possible. — Angelo Cannata

I think you and I might agree that there are degrees of misreading. If you came away from Das Kapital seeing it as a guide for trusting corporations and stock markets to solve all social problems, then we have likely crossed a line into uselessness.

My perception is that superficiality is not just in uneducated people, but also in 99.99% of philosophers and intellectuals, which includes me of course. I think that what we need is some art of listening, which modern and contemporary philosophy doesn’t teach us so much, because it is made of enormous efforts to define, understand, express, instead of listening. — Angelo Cannata

I'm quite content to be superficial, to be honest.

But I wonder if this inability to listen well has a contrapuntal echo in people’s inability to read well. I notice that when people read, they often recreate the writing in the light of their own values and interpretive frameworks. To some extent this is unavoidable, but perhaps there is a line where the reading and recreating becomes self-serving, distorting and blind to new ideas.

Your solution here would appear to avoid infinite regress. As a general rule do you find infinite regress problematic?

Or something like that. I think it's maybe easier if you know some famous scientists to differentiate between the brilliant, and those who were also brilliant and seem wise. But it's hard to put one's finger on the difference easily. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, it is difficult. And, as we both know, sometimes the quality of wisdom means different things to different people. It's a bit like the elusive quality of being 'cool'. On the subject of scientists, I once had it pointed out to me that Richard Dawkins is wise, while Francis Collins is foolish - which obviously reflected a bias that secularism was a wiser choice than theism.

Over the past decade, I've observed a notable shift in global sentiment—especially from my vantage point in the East. Not long ago—perhaps 10 to 15 years back—there was a widespread admiration for the West in my country. The U.S. dollar was seen as unshakable. Western democracy was often cited as the highest political ideal. Western consumer goods were considered objectively superior. And the broader cultural narrative—academic, technological, even moral—was clearly West-centric. — Astorre

Interesting. I’ve noticed a self-criticism within the West that has become more rancid over time. It used to be just a leftist posture but now seems to be broad-based. Liberalism has always celebrated pluralism and voices of criticism and dissent. They now seem to be the loudest voices. My perception is that this has been the case for about 20 years, with the signs already prominent 40 years ago.

I think powerful interest groups benefit from the idea that politics is a sham and that all institutions are corrupt or dysfunctional. This means they can be dismantled with little resistance. Possibly the best way to dispatch democracy is not to take it on directly but to undermine its relevance and prestige.

Nicely put. What do you make of the notion that morality is prelinguistic?

Out of interest, if you had to provide some 17 year-old students with a brief definition of wisdom (and not one quoted from elsewhere), what might you say, in just a few sentences?

Ethics is about, foundationally, value-in-being, and value lies outside of language, notwithstanding that I am speaking just this. — Constance

I wonder if it might be more precise to describe values as having a pre-linguistic dimension (in experience, emotion, embodied life), but that they only become social, reflective, and enduring through language. Morality then is social relations with language. Our entire discourse would vanish without language.

Whatever prelinguistic or 'transcendent' origin ethics might have, we cannot demonstrate it, nor can we access it. And, as you say, we are limited to using language. I wonder if it is safe to leave it behind, as it is difficult to see what use this frame has beyond engaging in abstract speculation or intellectual exercises. Unless you add God (which you seek to avoid) which might provide us with a putative foundation or grounding for it all and this also comes with a 'to do' list. (Not that this frame is convincing to me either.)

My question to you is this: how do we talk about ethics as a society? Setting aside the abstruse, speculative material of academia or in a forum like this, what can we say (as per the OP) that is accessible and useful at a societal level about right and wrong?

. If ethics is essentially discoverable, then this implies something outside of thought , addressed by thought to determine how to understand it. — Constance

I’ve heard no good reason to accept this idea but if you want to provide some evidence please do.

is there something timeless and absolute in the presuppositions of an ethical problem? — Constance

I don't know of anything timeless and absolute, do you? Are you thinking morality is like maths or the logical absolutes? I'm not certain they are timeless or absolute and there are philosophers who argue this.

But if ethics is entirely made in the matrix of language dealing with the world, "made up" if you will, then this is end of there being a true independent ground for ethics, and a radical relativism is all that is left. — Constance

I would imagine that suffering and happiness were experienced before language, so there’s that.

I would think also that morality comes from our interactions with the world and other creatures, not just language. But given you wrote of relativism “is all that is left” it sounds like you’re not comfortable with it. I think we’ve had this conversation before.

I don’t see these as moral issues. I see them as policy issues. — T Clark

I find that difficult to understand.

Do the laws and regulations that address these issues protect and serve the members of society in an appropriate way? — T Clark

Do laws which allow for the provision of abortion not themselves present a moral position? Are they not, in effect, sanctioning what some would regard as murder?

Questions about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or welfare aren't merely about administrative effectiveness; they rest on moral judgments about the value of life, autonomy, and justice. Even framing them as ‘policy’ decisions already reflects a moral stance.

I guess there seems to be two things. Whether it is called such or not, there seems to be a sort of social level morality being invoked, right (i.e., what societies ought or ought not do)? However, at the same time, societies are made up of individuals, and if they do not value this social morality and it has no claim on them then how does it apply? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I think this is a significant point. How I behave is of less significance than how a society behaves. The law seems to exist because individual morality doesn't help us keep the community safe or protected.

Morality, as I understand it, applies to my judgments of my own behavior. How do I decide how to behave? — T Clark

Do you have a way of deciding whether a government is behaving with appropriate judgment or within an appropriate ethical frame? How does your 'individualist' approach impact upon issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, welfare for poor people, etc.

Yes. I guess I wasn't being meta enough.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

Anyhow, I believe the correct response here is: "There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - William Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 5, "Hamlet". :smile: — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem with these frequently cited quotes is that they are often treated as a kind of blank check, used to justify all sorts of reckless or extreme views.

Here’s how I see it - this is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

This is how Emerson put it in “Self-Reliance.”

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand those quotes. If they're just saying that we make our choices based on our own conscience then we are bound to admit that that includes Pol Pot and doesn't get us very far in deciding what is right or wrong in society. That said, I also tend to act and not reflect on what is right. I simply follow my disposition and rarely need to think things through. But given that I am situated within a specific culture, society, time, and place, none of my positions are particularly original, intuitive, or brave.

Could there be a third way? I'm thinking that everyone has the capacity to be a kind of scientist of their own experince, they experiment and test as they go, using lived experince to affirm or modify choices. More of a practice based philosophical approach.

Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

Because not enough people care about the welfare of animals, and eating meat is deeply embedded in our culture. The moral conversations of many cultures haven't taken this matter seriously as yet.

You’re understanding my point back to front. Across ethical systems, a common theme is the prevention of harm. This does not imply that every possible instance of harm is recognized or codified into the moral principles of a culture. Ethical systems are selective, shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations. Some harms may go unnoticed or be considered acceptable in certain contexts, while others are amplified as morally significant.

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

I was just describing something I’ve seen. I don’t think it’s a particularly important point. Whether someone is a monomaniac or not hardly matters. We can always ignore them. Who knows, one of them may eventually turn out to be Kant.

If anybody has any ethical questions, they can just ask me. — frank

Yep, that's an option too.

Well this is old one isn't it? Is morality objective or subjective or, in fact, intersubjective? We come to this on the forum every few weeks or months it seems to me.

How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

For my money, I don’t think we decide questions of legality by appealing to some eternal moral law written into the fabric of the universe. Instead, we put together compromises that let us get along with one another while pursuing our different projects. Hence the public conversation about morality which result in law reform and an evolution of what is right and wrong over time.

So it seems that the line between legal and illegal is not discovered, it’s negotiated. What matters isn’t whether a law corresponds to some deep moral truth, but whether it works well enough for the purposes of reducing cruelty, minimising conflict, and keeping social life manageable. So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing. We can certainly decide not to do this and see what happens.

Given humans are a social species and getting on with each other has been the source of our strength and success (such as they are) it’s clear to see how not killing, not stealing, not lying and not assaulting others works to all our advantages. But there are always situations where even these prohibitions may not be useful.

Many people are driven by prejudices. — Astorre

One person’s prejudice is another’s insight.

I agree with you. In this sense, philosophy is a dude who sits in your head and criticizes you. In psychology, this is called self-reflection (if I'm not mistaken). — Astorre

I think it’s often called critical reflection or in nursing, teaching and social work, reflective practice.

But what is often forgotten here is that critical practice also acknowledges strengths: what works, what is possible given limitations and what is successful. Rather than pointing out a need for change or highlighting omissions or flaws, it can actually embolden and be an affirmation of your choices and approaches.

Nice try, I like this and I can see your reasoning but I think it's an inadequate read of what I said.

I wrote :-

probably better understood — Tom Storm

There’s nuance here. I’m not claiming to have fully solved fundamental questions of reality, nor have I developed a system. I haven’t claimed to have understood the nature of reality, either. In fact, I’m questioning whether 'reality' is even a useful term and provided soem reasons. What I have suggested is a provisional orientation, perhaps a soft form of postmodernism that remains open to revision. Which is why I also wrote:

...I don’t rule out possibilities, — Tom Storm

At any rate, the point we're discussing is comprehensive explanations and system-building where there's a claim made that the precise nature of reality has been described, not whether people can hold certain pragmatic presuppositions or tendencies in their everyday lives. What defines a 'crank' (in most instances like this) I would say is the obsession with elaborate system building to 'resolve' age old questions, not the simple act of having opinions or beliefs.

Are you saying:

that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

As you'll note I said :-

it's usually the hallmark — Tom Storm

This does not contain any absolutist pronouncements like the two dot points you’ve provided.

But if I treat these as follow-up questions, I would say that 'reality' is not something waiting to be uncovered but a word we use in shifting contexts to describe what we take to be fundamental. I am not inclined to affirm systems that present themselves as having secured the essence of what is, since what we call reality for me is probably better understood as a contingent product of language, culture, and historically situated practices rather than the disclosure of some underlying foundation.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system. They invariably believe themselves misunderstood, refusing to accept that others regard them as cranks.

A fine literary satire of this familiar type was provided by a favourite English writer, George Eliot. In Middlemarch she created the elderly pedant Mr. Casaubon, forever labouring over his great tome, The Key to All Mythologies.

that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

Maybe that would be better restated as, "only cranks and monomaniacs believe they can undertand reality."

In any case, I don’t rule out possibilities, but I tend to see the idea of “uncovering reality” as an old-fashioned, romantic notion whose prospects are, at the very least, uncertain.