I would have to ask them in person. — Wheatley

whom? race hustlers? :)

Those are misrepresentations. — Wheatley

And what do you think are correct representations?

Critical race theory, for example, teaches black kids that they would not be able to succeed in life because of their skin color, so don't even try, white people will still hold you down.
Feminism, pretty much the same, telling women that there is a 'glass ceiling', that men won't allow them to succeed.

So, instead of taking responsibility and trying their best, they fail because of not even trying and then blame others for their miserable lives.

Do you really dispute who the original instigator was in each of these conflicts you've identified? It's not like blacks, gays, and women were all equal players in society and that they woke up one morning and spun a narrative that they were oppressed and wanted equal rights.

I'm not disputing that in any political fray either side might not be guilty of over-playing their hand well past its moral limits, but it seems fairly naive to hold one side blameless, especially when it's the side that threw the first hundred or so punches. — Hanover

It does seem that the current approach, i.e. for example, blaming current white people for slavery that they ended over 5 generations ago. Or blaming current straight people for some gay oppression generations ago. A healthy approach would be to see us all as people, who have our own interests and we should learn to live together in a society, trying to balance our interests the best way possible, so that the society does not collapse. Also understanding that life has struggles build into it, things very often do not go the way we plan, but blaming some class of people, who supposedly oppressed us generations ago, is a very toxic approach that leads to gulags and misery.

Are you referring to Social conflict theory ? — Wheatley

Yes, you could say so. i.e. Marxist ideology that tells some problematic group that all their problems are because the other group is oppressing them and, therefore, they should somehow oppress that group in return to make things even. Unfortunately, there are lots of gullible, bitter and resentful people, who fall for it.

To which modern slaves you refer? Loan slaves? — Thunderballs

I am referring to lefists, who are promoting the victim-hood culture for their own political gain. who are splitting the society into oppressors vs oppressed and setting them up against each other, be it lgbt against straight people, blacks against whites, women against men, etc.

So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action? — Alkis Piskas

Depending at what cost. :)

No, but intolerance is not limited to or invented by Christianity. It's just a nasty human quality. — Thunderballs

I believe all human qualities are build into us by evolution, therefor it served us well at some point. People are tibale by nature and being intolerant of the competing tribe, at times, might be very beneficial. It looks to me that most problems of the modern world are brought on by being too tolerant.

I can make the prediction that in 200 years everybody participating in this Forum now will be dead. — ssu

Such prediction is based on simple observation that people live way less than 200 years. What does it have to do with climate?

So what is the optimal level of greenhouse gases for our planet? do you agree that without knowing it, all the following thinking is futile?

Are climate models are more accurate than the weekly horoscopes?
Can they predict anything even a month in advance? If not, why should we trust their prediction decades ahead? Especially if they were wrong so many times? ( entire nations under water by 2020 )
I am not a climatologist, nor am I an astrologist or a homeopath. ;)

But told you my main doubt is the way that people could be convinced to follow that path. — dimosthenis9

Easily, if they harm others, they go to jail and get butt-raped. :)

2) Christians had no guns. How could they figjht Roman armies? — Alkis Piskas

Well, by whining and ideological subversion. Romans had lots of slaves, who were not welcome into their religion. So Christians tailored their message so it would appeal to slaves an all sort of other outcasts and, basically, united them under their banned. Pretty much what the left is doing in the US/EU right now.

This is the more clever (intelligence, reason) and ethical thing to do. No lives would spared! — Alkis Piskas

Why? No, I mean I clearly see that you are operating from the point of view of "ethical = conflict avoidance, spare lives, etc." but why do you consider it ethical?

For me it's not that difficult when you realize that if you want to live in organized societies, it is for your own benefit at the end to behave "good". — dimosthenis9

In that case you are taking "if you want to live in organized societies" as a priory. :) How those societies should be organized? Should you be good just to members of your society or should you also be good towards those, who want to destroy your society?

MLK preached tolerance! — Wheatley

So?...

Who cooked up the idea? — Wheatley

I didn't go too deep into the history of this matter, but probably the UN did.

As if the IPCC is the only legitimate organization "promoting" climate change... :scream: — Wheatley

they all are based on the same idea, aren't they? ;) such as there might be lots of 'schools' of astrology.

"So called" emissions? They're pretty real. How did you carefully check that? — Thunderballs

I started from the point of view of philosophy of science, i.e. what is science?
In brief, we have exact science, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. which is based on knowing all relevant factors and an ability to carry out a repeatable experiment.

Next we have non-exact science, such as economics or psychology, where we don't know all the relevant factors, nor can we carry out experiments. We can only rely on observations, build models and attempt to draw conclusions. It is much less accurate and can have multiple 'schools of thought' on the same subject, like Freudian vs Jungian, Austrian economics vs Keynesian, etc.

Finally we have pseudo-science, such as homeopathy, cryptozoology, astrology, etc. they take some proposition as a priory true and start building all their knowledge base on that.
For example, "like cures like" or "position of the plants at the time of ones birth will affect his life", etc.

I would ague that "climate science" in the form currently promoted by IPCC falls into the pseudo-science category, as it takes the idea of "industries emit CO2, which causes global warming, which will cause horrible natural disasters, which should be avoided at all costs" as a dogma.

In reality, it all falls apart if you ask
what is the optimal greenhouse effect for our planet?
what is the optimal CO2 level?
what is the optimal temperature and how do you measure it?
how do you tell apart natural climate variations vs those, causes by human activity?
is there a provable causal link between CO2 and temperature?
what are the pros and cons if we continue emitting CO2?
what are the pros and cons if we cut down the emissions?
knowing that human like to ascribe agency to natural disasters, how to we know if a certain disaster is worsened by "climate change" or, maybe, lightened?

I think you would agree that without a scientific answer to the above questions this discipline can not be taken seriously.

People like blaming natural disasters on someone, be it witches, jews or now folks driving SUVs. :)
I carefully checked the science behind the so called 'CO2 emissions cause climate change theory' and found it to be basically baseless. You can blame the UFO or Yetis for that with equal proof. :)

As one day, people might reach to the point to get their morals simply by Logic. And no need of any God. — dimosthenis9

Not sure how people can create morals by logic?
It does seem they need a 'supreme being' to live, be it Jesus and God and Karl Marx and Lenin. Doesn't really matter what, as long as it is something that gives them a noble goal to strive for, be it paradise or equality.

Like a husky dog needs to run 50km a day to feel happy and fulfilled, while the destination doesn't really matter. Same is with human, they need to peruse something they see as meaningful.

You said "I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system", which is quite general, although I specifically explained that the ethics system I was talking about relies on reason (logic) and that the basis of it, the main principle, is survival, which is something objective and logical (at least, it is accepted as such in almost all civilizations). So, If you meant that you doubt about the viability of the specific ethics system I described, then it's OK. But I would like --not require! -- if you could also tell me why. (I always like to hear things that challenge my reality! :smile:) — Alkis Piskas

I would totally agree with you here, that all ethics are based on survival. Pretty much Nietzsche's idea that ones instincts take into account his capabilities and select a best survival strategy. For example, a strong person would see it as ethical to fight the enemy, as he has a good chance of winning. While a weak person would whine about "let's all be friends", not because he is "ethical", but because it is his best strategy.

This clearly explain origins of Christianity - they could not win over Romans by force, so they opted for whining. But what is going on with modern Christians - why are they so reluctant at defending their values, while they kinda have the tools to do so?

My only opinion is that they want to live out their messiah, they want to suffer for their believes, not to win.

if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'. — stoicHoneyBadger

I agree. That's what I would do too. — Alkis Piskas

Probably best example for this would be Nietzsche, who lived a rather miserable life himself, yet you feel tremendous energy and power coming from his writings.

Well, this sounds like a prejudice. It also sounds that you didn't read what I wrote on the subject! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Probably I misses something, but anyway, how do you derive an ethical system from an observation using logic? Without slipping some value judgement into it, such as "we should all live in peace"?

By "factually incorrect" you mean what?
That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana? — baker

Pretty much. Also that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc. And all religious teaching are scientifically unprovable.

But if a religion or philosophy is not correct (according to the opinion of most people) how can it give them moral guidance and the rest? If, e.g., I say inconsistent, nonsensical etc. things are you going to take my advices seriously? — Alkis Piskas

No, I would not take an advice seriously if it sounds like nonsense to me. )
But if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'.

Well, it seems them have and in fact a massive interest! (Not for me, of course, but for millions if not billions of people.) — Alkis Piskas

No, the interest is because those commandments are wrapped in a story.

To create a successful religious philosophy, it must be based on a sound ethical system. A system that is rational and will resonate as logical to people. — Alkis Piskas

I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system. Also note that it needs to have thumos, i.e. its adepts need to be driven to action, not just nodding in agreement with some ethical ideas.

For example, look at Islam. We would consider the ideas archaic, yet their followers are full of energy to implement them with fire and blood. While all that utilitarianism stuff clearly won't drive anybody to wage a holly war on the non-believers in the holly head of Jeremy Bentham. :D

Are you arguing that all religions should become like secular humanism? — Pinprick

Certainly not. ) I'm just making observations

Ok, but then why not make it plainly known that it’s fiction? It isn’t like knowing that X book is fictional makes it impossible for it to provide meaningful moral lessons. — Pinprick

In that case you get secular humanism. Basically Christianity without Christ. )

Yes! This is very good, an excellent observation. I have noticed, in discussing matters of "ultimate concern", eschatological issues, with certain Orthodox Jewish friends and acquaintances of myself, that there does not seem to be the same feeling of a need for escatological certainty, or for precise escatological definition, that I have noticed within Christianity. This fact begs a question: what, in your opinion, was the origin of the "dogmatic certainty" which seems to pervade Christianity, and appears so needful to Christians? — Michael Zwingli

I would say they were unable to focus on the outcome, so they had to focus on the process. I.e. live a good and pious life, than God with reward with an afterlife in paradise and fry those pesky Romans in hell.

That was a beneficial mentality for an underdog, but once Christianity became dominant, unfortunately it failed to adjust its doctrine.

Finally, a clear and sane mind amidst the great sea of rot that is the West! We are rarer by the day... — Gus Lamarch

Always great to see like-minded people!

I tell you, all those who are currently fighting for the perversion and destruction of the West, in the future, in the evil future, will worship us as saints of a past golden age! — Gus Lamarch

Not really sure about that. More likely people of the dark ages would study history and wonder, why present people did not mount any meaningful resistance, when they still had the chance. Why, for example, Trump was unable to overstep his moral boundaries and have some 10-20 main baddies arrested?...

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” — Gus Lamarch

It does seem that we can learn only from our own experience. I was born in the soviet union, I clearly see what is going on. While those, who lived all life in the western comfort act kinda like that...

But who would think that moral guidance and social cohesion comes from throwing acid in the face of a girl for daring to learn to read and beheadings for apostasy? I'm fairly certain that if religions were tolerant and open minded people like Dawkins would vanish. — Tom Storm

The problem is in the imbalance of powers. If Christianity/secular humanism is tolerant towards Islam, Muslims would feel empowered to throw acid on girls.
So the best solution would be to be intolerant of the intolerant and keep those animals behind a wall.

Truly so!

Religion is not tied to the “truth” of some fact or set of facts or some event or series of events in history. It is an imposition of critics and a reflex of the ill informed. — Ennui Elucidator

Pretty much Dawkins' argument was exactly that religion is factually incorrect. ;)

Apparently you've responded to post (with a link to another post) you haven't bothered to read. — 180 Proof

To be honest I didn't really understand it. )

We want a harmonious society, peace, zero crime, happiness for all, and so on. — TheMadFool

I would say that people are build to overcome problems and once you present them with a society that does not have real problems, they would make up problems, be it climate change or systemic racism, to freak out about.

I'm a strong guy and women like me but I would' t even seriously think about using my strength and good looks to expand my power.

(No irony here...) — Robotictac

Why not?

The "objective" of objective morality is, on the other hand, 'to intrinsically reduce the miseries of self by extrinsically reducing the miseries of others' — 180 Proof

Why do you think it is objective?

That's why people of Afghanistan (a country unknown by most people before the U.S. entered there to give the Mudjahedin a hand and some Stingers in their Jihad against the former USSR, thereby laying the foundations for the war on terror) support the taliban and not want the tali to be banned. — Robotictac

Whether Afghans support Taliban is a very questionable proposition.

Earth is not flat and yet the Earth is objectively round. In this case, if "there is no objective morality, tell me what this (link is below) defense of ethical naturalism gets wrong. — 180 Proof

I would argue that scientific and moral truth are very much different things. Everybody can look at the earth's shadow on the moon and determine that it is round.

Yet we don't have such tools to reach a conclusion on what is an objective moral truth. I would argue it depends on perspective, a wolf wants to eat the bunny, so it goes with the "nature favors the strong" morality. The bunny doesn't want to be eaten, yet it is too weak to win in an open combat, so it with go with more of a Christian morality, making up an afterlife, where it will have green meadows, but the bad wolf would be frying on a pan. :D

My 2 cents - there is no objective morality, but it might be beneficial for a society to act as if there is, since it makes people predictable, provides social cohesion, etc.
About where morality comes from, I would say mostly from our "will to power", our instincts choose a version of morality that gives us the best chances to winning. A strong person would use strength to expand his power, while a weak one would go for whining and appeals to morality.

Dear God first time I see someone is accused for corrupting others with too much... Logic!! What a bastard Socrates was, indeed!!
I really can't understand why so many people here are against Logic!
As long as I am here to this forum that's what I found most shocking and it was the biggest surprise to me!
What the fuck Logic has done to you people of Philosophy Forum and you attack to it so badly?? Is it a sign of ages? Maybe, cause societies seem to underestimate Logic more and more!
The worst that someone can accuse Logic for, is that can't offer solution to everything!! OK. So?? Where and when it is able to offer solutions is the best way to lead you directly to Truth. Which other "method" has better results if not Logic then??

As explained above, logic seems to work well when you know all the relevant parameters, yet is pretty much useless when some of them are missing. Basically in such case you get "garbage in - garbage out" kind of a scenario.

Continuing the analogy of instincts as a general and logic as a soldier - a good soldier uses his skills ( logic ) to find the best way of executing his general's orders, instead of double-questioning it. Since he does not have the full picture which the general has, he would not be able to logically evaluate his decision.

Not all instincts are good for us.If I have the instinct to fuck a woman I see at the market should I go and rape her as to obey my instinct?

Your instinct is to fuck here. Your logic is supposed to come up with a way how to do it in a most productive manner, without getting in trouble, etc. So introducing yourself and asking her out might a good starting point.