Is that empathy a matter of socialization, or is the ability to understand other persons and groups from their own vantage and moral justifications more akin to the grasping g of a scientific paradigm? Or is the understanding of a scientific theory a matter of socialization? — Joshs

I can't possibly say. Chasing my tail makes me dizzy, so I generally chase other people's. But I do know that there appear to be a lot of people with no or marginal empathy. For some of the cod-social-Darwinists and Christian fundamentalists - this may be seen and as an evolutionary or theological advantage.

So what more is needed here? We agree that suffering is worth eradicating. What more do we need? Why ask "How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?" when you already have the answer? — Banno

I thought you might say that.

So all we have in public discourse are declarations of personal value judgements. Which is pretty much where I've always been.

The person who says suffering is necessary for human growth and poor people should die out because they are inferior, is also just providing us with their personal values.

There is no mechanism to determine whose view should predominate in social policy.

But it brings suffering to many people and that I see as wrong, even horrible and I will if I get the chance, do anything to stop it.
— SmartIdiot

Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system? — Tom Storm

I'm not trying to trap you. I can answer the question for me. I think I was largely socialised to believe that suffering is wrong (but whose suffering matters to society is the interesting question for me - it's not a level playing field) and now I hold a view that the wellbeing of others is a reasonable presupposition to build a basic ethical framework on.

It's remarkable how many otherwise self-critical folk fail to see this — Banno

I made a similar point on one of the religious morality threads.

"Nothing has any Value" includes, and thereby refutes, itself. Objectively speaking. — 180 Proof

Yep, an oldie but a goodie. Using reason to justify the use of reason seems similarly fraught.

Will you act so as to reduce racism? Do you agree that suffering is worth eradicating?

Your answer tells us about you. — Banno

I can answer yes to both the above. So?

Is the issue of others relevant? Who is the us?

How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?

Yes, the old way of putting it was, how did chemistry become biology?

I wonder what would happen if we solved the question of anabiosis and actually managed do create it in a lab. I suspect the debate would hardly change.

Cool. Thanks.

But it brings suffering to many people and that I see as wrong, even horrible and I will if I get the chance, do anything to stop it. — SmartIdiot

Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system?

What I'm advocating here is that philosophy focus entirely (in its ethical endeavors) on answering those kinds of questions, the general and fundamental kinds of questions about how to tell what is or isn't good, what it even means for something to be good, etc. Moral epistemology, moral ontology, moral semantics, etc. — Pfhorrest

I've often been fascinated by similar ideas. Just how does one investigate an action to determine if it is good or bad? I read your brief critique of Sam Harris' wellbeing frame and it seems like you are wanting to redirect this with additional analytic mechanisms - maybe I have that wrong.

I have no philosophy background but have always simply assumed that there is nothing other than the law from preventing us from doing whatever we want. Good or bad can only be determined in relation to some agreed upon criteria - utilitarianism or human flourishing - whatever. But we have to make a choice about where we care about this or not.

You decide what to do next. You can't make that decision for someone else. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's is that it is yours, and hence the one you will use to decide what to do next. — Banno

Sure - which is what I do. But it doesn't really matter what I choose does it, as long as it is the version I most want?

What is your take? How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn

There are many people who are not interested in and probably not concerned by in the suffering of others. What do you think is the difference between those who don't care and those who do?

That racism is objectionable is not like that I prefer vanilla. My preference has no impact on how I think you might act - I will not insist on your eating only vanilla. Ethical judgements do carry over to others. In such things I am the arbiter; no other option is viable. — Banno

Banno, I am representing these arguments as they are generally presented. My own views have not been included. The OP has not yet made a case that he can overcome them.

So what does it matter if your choices impact upon others? If you say there are no objective truths, you have to hold a presupposition that the wellbeing of others matters as a part of your worldview to get there. Or you might get there via what they used to call self-interested altruism.

Ethical positions set out how we want things to be, and hence what we ought to do. — Banno

Based on what though? How people want things to be includes racism, and all kinds of horrors, like eugenics. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's - someone who doesn't care for the wellbeing of others?

But in my opinion it all rest on the fact that there's no objective meaning. — SmartIdiot

Yes, but as you say that is opinion. The matter is not settled. There are members here that believe everything is consciousness and all matter is an illusion. Some physics points to this conclusion. If one accepts that consciousness is all there is and that there is a higher consciousness, there there may be an objective truth (my words are no doubt crude and a simplification).

But you can also be a fascist or racist. Not that I'd like that I hate racism and this stuff but you're free to do whatever you universally speaking. — SmartIdiot

Why hate racism if it is just a subjective position? If views are just opinions then many would argue we have no right to tell anyone else what is better or worse, because there is no foundation or arbiter to any any of it. These are all well worn arguments that have not been settled.

By existence I mean "things that are" but the problem here is of course that we don't know what is and what isn't existing. But we don't have to know that to discuss the problem of meaning. — SmartIdiot

You've answered your own question here. The specific question I responded to addresses the 'objective' and 'universal'. As you say we 'don't know what is or isn't existing'

Resolving this ancient conundrum largely depends on where your epistemology takes you - which then could lead into atheism, mysticism or theism depending on your conclusions and influences. And of course, everyone is free to make up any shit they want in the absence of certainty. I know I do.

But why? Isn't it true that only thinking beings can think of (and therefore create) meaning? — SmartIdiot

Why what?

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning? — SmartIdiot

In answering this kind of question human history is littered with claims in the affirmative and negative. How would you go about trying to determine which ones are true or not? Should you even care?

One of the first stumbling blocks is located in what is meant by 'existence'. The presuppositions people have about what existence is leads them to meanings or the lack of them. So the question is hard to explore without a whole bunch of foundational epistemology.

I want to reply to ↪Tom Storm here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life. — Athena

Not crazy about the word 'redeem' for me it has some awkward religious/conversion overtones - but let's place that to one side. My point was just that some people know very well what they ought not to do and why - they lack the capacity to regulate their emotions based on a fractured sense of self. Many will need to acquire some basic interpersonal skills first just to be in a position to sit still respectfully to listen to anything else.

So why is Nationalism still tolerated and even lauded? Why is the British flag allowed to be be waved all over the place, but the Nazi flag not so much? (Feel free to substitute your own local good and bad flags here.) — unenlightened

Nationalism, amongst the people I know, has always been seen as the first step towards ethnocentric barbarism and to be greatly feared. Hitler himself started as a nationalist or Volk agitator.

For many people I think the British flag, for all the evil done under colonialism, can still be understood more benignly than a swastika flag. Nevertheless, I am sure the Union Jack is widely feared and/or hated by many (especially former colonies) and is a symbol of the bad and good done in its name. For the most part, it just doesn't yet hold the totemic power of hatred and negative emotion of the Nazi flag.

George Orwell's wrote a nice essay on this subject: Notes on Nationalism.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.... Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power."

George Orwell

My comment wasn't a criticism and thank you for responding as you have. I don't dislike Peterson the ways some do. I have watched a lot of his videos and find some of them very interesting. But he has spawned many neophytes who quote his idea almost verbatim without making actual contact with the concepts in these ideas. Is he a brilliant public speaker? I think his presentation is too strained and anxious to qualify for this - he can be hard to watch because it seems so difficult for him to share his ideas.

I can make the connection between neo Marxism, post modernism, critical theory and political correctness; yes, they are all related. It would be a work of some number of volumes to describe the development of these philosophies and compare and contrast their ideas. Let us be much more shallow, and simply describe what actually happened.

Communism failed, and Marxists needed another chicken to pluck. The white working class majority refused to cast off their chains and hand absolute power to the Commies! So the Commies cast around and discovered a rich untapped vein of resentment to exploit, in identity politics. But that's quite a leap - and they needed a stepping stone. Post modernism provides that stepping stone precisely because it rejects such trivialities as truth and morality as socially constructed.

The aim of political correctness is not peace, harmony or social progress. That's a pretence that post modernism doesn't object to, because - on what possible basis could they object? That it's not true? Truth is relative! Because it's immoral? Morality is relative! Post modernism is the perfect vehicle for neo Marxism because such questions are moot.

Power is, and always has been the aim of Marxism; and so political correctness is a concerted attack against the "white male patriarchy" of Western civilisation, with the white working class majority suffering the philosophical and political equivalent of collateral damage. That's why they voted for brexit and Trump; because they are despised by the left. And if you don't believe me; read "Despised" by Paul Embery. — counterpunch

Yep - that's pretty much the standard critique. I heard it many times before and you'd done a good job keeping it succinct. I would probably not use the term 'Commies' as it cheapens your point and makes it look resentful rather than objective. I also think you need to strengthen the point about Marxist resentment - it feels a bit thin. Why are they resentful?

I can't say if Peterson is right on this. I don't think I see overwhelming evidence for it but I grant you it has a low resolution coherence.

My own view is that many of the people who self-identify as Marxists are not interested in social change or class. Or Marxism. I'm also not sure they want power to any higher degree that most Tories. It's interesting to speculate.

No go ahead and befuddle me with your infinite cognitive non-sequiturs, I'll be waiting. — PH196

I don't think we have enough common ground to continue a discussion. Why would we accept claims in the Bible over, say, the Upanishads?

I think you are conflating 'scientific rationalism' with philosophy. — PH196

You seem to be conflating literalist religion with philosophy.

Which you are welcome to do. I just didn't realize from your first post that this was where you were heading. Take care.

define the word 'define'

Before you get into describing elaborate cosmologies and foundation myths it would be helpful if you provided an account of evil and how you know it exists. All I can see under what some people label as 'evil' is a range of different events or categories that do not share many or any characteristics.

A church roof falls in and kills 50 people in the congregation. Evil? How so?
Pol Pot. Evil? How so?
A man steals the life savings of a pensioner who ends up homeless. Evil? How so?

God = infinite Love
Evil = absence of Love — PH196

Those are just words stuck together. We can't even define what love is, let alone the 'infinite' variety and the 'absence of love' does not bring with it necessary negative or destructive associations. A person who helps other people out of a sense of duty may be completely without love for the people they are helping.

'm not sure how this is at odds with the heaven/earth model of existence. The physical domains (matter) can still be considered to be a construct of consciousness. — PH196

Matter being an illusion is not a separate category with identifiable characteristic - there is only consciousness. But hey, I am not a believer in this, I am simply saying that some claims are not easily made and we can't agree on them.

I don't think you can move on to explaining evil until you can define if it exists and in what way.

There is a dual nature to creation: the physical and the Spiritual. — PH196

This is far from agreed upon. There are nondualists, for instance. There are those (including some physicists) who believe that everything is consciousness and matter is an illusion.

So what exactly is this place, how was it created, and what is the origin of Evil? — PH196

I don't accept that 'evil' is a thing - it's an umbrella word to describe a vast range of different phenomenon with not a lot in common - so it cannot have an origin in my worldview.

Can you define what the category 'evil' is and how items given this word are connected and thereby the product of a given cause?

I am honest, when I tell you I have no interest in making peace with political correctness. Indeed, given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake, — counterpunch

This is echt Jordan B Peterson. I'm not trying to be a dick but can you make the connection between those ideas? I don't think postmodernism or neo-Marxism (whatever that is) exists in this way. A postmodern rejection of values does not align with the notion that postmodernists often hold critical Marxist views of culture. These are not a rejection of values. Marxism is redolent with values and positions.

So:
State your positions strongly but civilly. Clearly.
Show some respect.
Take the other guys ideas seriously.
Look for areas of agreement.
Look for common values.
Be self-aware about what's going on inside yourself while you're arguing.
Be willing to change your mind.
If it gets too hot, bail. — T Clark

Very nice TC. Respect and common ground go a long way.

The subject of politics seems to be a hate generator. I decided long ago that much politics is a faith-based belief system and there is almost no sense in debating people with strong views. They are rarely held rationally. Find common ground or talk about movies.

We seem to be living in a culture war and society is becoming increasingly angry and combative and tribal. The internet and the ability to live in bubbles has surely been a problem. An Australian Aboriginal activist I know once said that bigotry and hatred isn't more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago, it is just better organized.

Regardless of the truth of those statements, they seem to have strong therapeutic value to certain peoples and cultures. — Nagel

Yes, that's definitely the case. And we even see this with secular humanist rituals where ceremonies and the right words of reassurance bring individuals and communities together to manage and incorporate their grief. People are simple creatures and gestures of comfort, celebration and closure work across just about every category of belief and disbelief.

That's very well considered, Jack.

True. My main concern is when people's world views are set to take over other's views.

Have you noticed however that the person with the carefully considered, coherent worldview, that seems to make sense of the world for them may not be any more tranquil? I remember a well known Buddhist teacher in my city some years ago who was a mess of anxieties and had a serious alcohol problem. This was generally kept from his students. The person with answers may also be lost.

I think so too. Take care.

I have no reason to accept the idea that there are souls to begin with, however if there were, why would the soul have a gender? Could it not be the case that at a higher level of consciousness gender is not germane? It reminds me of a question a student asked in religious education class some years ago - "Do souls have sex in heaven?" Answer (according to the Reverend Bryce) "No, now get out!"

I am interested Gregory what you are looking for in all this - some eternal essence of male and female? That's what is seems like from your second post. And I'm curious why it matters - are you trying to track this back to here and now?

Apologies for leading the thread on a tangent, I’ve become enraged due to the recent anti-Asian shootings. — Saphsin

I understand. :pray:

One can’t control the immediate fact others in the community have racist thoughts and are acting in a discriminatory way, but you can join in solidarity with anti-racist activists who are bringing the issue to public attention. — Saphsin

Yes! As most of us know, much racism and stupidity we hear comes to us in ways that we cannot directly respond to or fight - in media reporting, drive by abuse, ignorant slogans written against the wall, whatever. Hence the importance of finding ways to build resilience to hate and unpleasant discourse.

I am aware of what others are doing and I do not intend to trivialize ethics. I am only focused on whether a study in esthetics would do a better job, e.g: if people understood (experienced, studied, etc.) beauty (set aside the fact that such an issue could be subjective), they would be more inclined to act ethically (even though that coudl be subjective, too). — ThomasJ

It's a very interesting question. It could be argued that every profession would benefit from lessons in aesthetics and ethics. These are often seen as part of every well rounded education. The challenge from my perspective would be where to start and how to tailor it to engage students who are not necessarily interested in these matters to begin with. Someone at the faculty needs to identify what these subjects could add to the worldview of an engineer and how it could be made to relate to the subject more broadly. I think this requires a specialized assessment for cultural fit and development of an appropriate model of delivery.

As Epictetus said, — Ciceronianus the White

A key influence on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy as it happens.

Epictetus:

“Men are disturbed not by things, but by the notions they form concerning things.”

I thought you'd like it.

You are aggressive. I am going to move on.

t's because we have taught them to do so. — baker

That's one of my favorite maxims, Baker. But you can't teach the whole world.

I was interested in your remark to Madfool about how clinical paranoia — Jack Cummins

You're right, Jack. It's very easy to select a world view that helps you to survive but may also destroy your ability to connect. I have often thought of that famous Howard Zinn quote - “Pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reproduces itself by crippling our willingness to act.”

learning to let things go (good and bad) is the most important lesson in life any of us can learn, that carrying feelings (particularly anger) can have devastating effects not only on the quality of your life, but the lives of those around you. — synthesis

That's close to a key principle in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. The beliefs and responses you hold in relation to an event can do more to harm you and those around you than the actual event. The popular maxim that we can't control what others say to us but we can control how we react is also similar.

No point clogging this thread with AA versus better models. 'Alcoholic' is a pejorative term that labels someone as one thing. It but It is also almost impossible to define what an alcoholic is. It means different things based on situational factors. 'Alcohol misuse' is a more useful term.

Modern, religious people in "western" societies have usually no problem with gay marriage, the role of women in church and society. — DrOlsnesLea

You say "modern" & "western" - modern Western secular humanism has brought many people of faith into the present time and changed the religious views of some. However, I suggest many Western Christians are far from in agreement with your views. Women priests, anyone?

Besides, what God wants is defined by The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule and the prayer at start of The New Testament (come thy will on Earth as in Heaven). — DrOlsnesLea

Commandments are subject to interpretation, the intentions are often far from clear. The first 5 commandments of the famous 10 actually have nothing to do with morality.

But let's just take - Thou shalt not kill. The interpretations just of this commandment are endless. In what circumstances shalt thou not kill? Can I serve in the military and go to war? Some Christians say no. Can I kill a burglar who breaks into my home? Some say yes, some say no. Is capital punishment justified? Christians are divided on this issue. And on it goes.

And you say there is the matter of 'what God wants?' How do you know what God wants? You can't get to this without subjective preferences.

We would definitely need to omit the 12 step approach — Jack Cummins

AA is a nice example of pessimism. It says you have a disease that can't be cured and that you will always be powerless. Even the world alcoholic (which Is no longer accepted in many circles) is a rather limited label. I prefer the SMART Recovery model for substance related issues.