Ok. And yet here you are, deciding what to do...

You make it sound so sinister.

Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Well, I think, according to most 'lovers (seekers) of wisdom', to engage in incorrigibly foolish (maladaptive) conduct and/or relationships is demonstrably "a wrong way to live".

*

Well, I think, according to most 'lovers (seekers) of wisdom', to engage in incorrigibly foolish (maladaptive) conduct and/or relationships is demonstrably "a wrong way to live". — 180 Proof

:up: Yet, beware of the man/woman who never makes mistakes, eh? I don't know why I feel like that. Some say having a smart person on a team saves a lot of trouble, others would like to surround themselves with idiots, no matter what the cost. I guess people are looking for different things in people, explaining this rather intriguing puzzle.

What about Socrates' the good life? Do we have a definition to work with here or is it left (purposefully) undefined?

Speaking for myself, if life resembles theater as Shakespeare thought, I've been given the worst role possible (the uncredited stunt double). :lol:

I know that societal rules have a general purpose in keeping order and values and such, but if someone wanted to live a fully hedonistic life, why shouldn't they? — Jake Hen

Watching another person destroy themselves or others gradually destroys people's faith in humanity and it destroys their faith that the whole project of "life" is worth the effort. It tears up the fabric of society. People become increasingly cruel, shallow, and the pursuit of wealth and power becomes the be-all-and-end-all of life.

Well, I think, according to most 'lovers (seekers) of wisdom', to engage in incorrigibly foolish (maladaptive) conduct and/or relationships is demonstrably "a wrong way to live". — 180 Proof

What exactly is that?

If most people around you function in bad faith and their main attitude toward others is hostility, while you are the goodwilled, well-intended ninny, then your conduct is foolish (maladaptive) and the way you engage in relationships is demonstrably wrong.

What is being assumed as the basis on which the question is to be answered?

Giving to a charity because you erroneously thought that you would be able to claim twice the donation back on tax. Does that make the giving to a charity morally wrong? — Banno

“The archer ought not to hit the mark only sometimes, he ought to miss only sometimes. That which takes effect by chance is not an art.” -Seneca

What about Socrates' the good life? Do we have a definition to work with here or is it left (purposefully) undefined? — Agent Smith

You've quoted the value I've plugged into Socrates' "good life" variable. I suppose mine is more of a criterion (which, of course, can be unpacked further but in this context doesn't need to be) than a "definition".

You've answered your own question.

... “The archer ought not to hit the mark only sometimes, he ought to miss only sometimes. That which takes effect by chance is not an art.” -Seneca — Average

:up:

You've quoted the value I've plugged into Socrates' "good life" variable. I suppose mine is more of a criterion (which, of course, can be unpacked further but in this context doesn't need to be) than a "definition". — 180 Proof

I half-expected you tor reply eudaimonia which I understand is to flourish. Is the good life not eudaimonia?

Isn't avoiding / striving against this not a prescription for eudaimonia?

Isn't avoiding / striving against this ↪180 Proof not a prescription for eudaimonia? — 180 Proof

Yep, it is. How could I have missed that?!

How did you put it? Align expectations with reality and all will be well, oui?

If that doesn't work, one can always resort to some form of escapism/fantasy, no?

From a Darwinian perspective, one's objective is to survive; how one does it is up to one! There are rules, values, standards, but if one can find a loophole and jump through it, and if one is fortunate enough to do this when no one's looking, amen to that! I'm beginning to sound like a crook now! Crooks, cheats, bucaneers, what else are we? We didn't climb to the top of the food chain by playing fair now did we?

Align expectations with reality and all will be well, oui? — Agent Smith

No. One, however, has a better chance of reducing misery (i.e. frustrations, dissatisfactions, self-deceptions) than not.

If that doesn't work, one can always resort to some form of escapism/fantasy, no?

I think the function of philosophical reflection is to cultivate effortless escapes from "escapism" (i.e. ego-fantasy) as a way of life.

No. One, however, has a better chance of reducing misery (i.e. frustrations, dissatisfactions, self-deceptions) than not. — 180 Proof

:up:

I think the function of philosophical reflection is to cultivate effortless escapes from "escapism" (i.e. ego-fantasy) as a way of — 180 Proof

:up:

Why is it people are so susceptible to ego-fantasy? The other day, I watched a David Suchet (British actor from Agatha's Poirot TV series) interview and his reason for being religious was that he - his mind & heart - just couldn't accept that this (physical reality) is all there is, there has to be more. He did some soul-searching and found solace in the catholic faith. Is this an ego-fantasy, is this what we'd call being in denial (of truth/facts)? Does this underpin our escapist psychology?

The other day, I watched a David Suchet (British actor from Agatha's Poirot TV series) interview and his reason for being religious was that he - his mind & heart - just couldn't accept that this (physical reality) is all there is, there has to be more. — Agent Smith

It's that old chestnut that people are drawn to religions because of the fear of death and/or meaninglessness. About ten years ago I asked a Catholic convert friend of mine about why they did it. A Suchet style answer: "I couldn't allow myself to accept that this life is all we have." It's a pity when such self-knowledge isn't applied more acutely. I'd opt for Camus over Catholicism.

It's that old chestnut that people are drawn to religions because of the fear of death and/or meaninglessness. About ten years ago I asked a Catholic convert friend of mine about why they did it. A Suchet style answer: "I couldn't allow myself to accept that this life is all we have." It's a pity when such self-knowledge isn't applied more acutely. I'd opt for Camus over Catholicism. — Tom Storm

Nuance and subtlety, not my strong suit. There's a difference between "I'm shit scared of death & dying" and "there's got to be more to life than just this", both being reasons for religiosity. One is clear enough - dread (of nonexistence/death) - the other is not so obvious - hope & dissatisfaction (with life as it appears, very/too physical).

Different ways to live have different consiquences. Obviously, some are much worse than others. I think that the way it works is that we select against really undesirable lifestyles pervading in our society, by substantiating the apparatus of moral judgement. If you don't want to think there is any morally wrong way to live, I suppose you are (probably) not being illogical in doing so. However, there is a degree to which it can be a little bit stingy. If you don't play society's game of denouncing things like murder, abuse and whatnot with the sting of moral condescension, how else will you express your distaste for them (I'm assuming you have distaste for murder and abuse)?

I really appreciate the idea that moral judgments should be taken lightly, cautiously, and sometimes altogether withheld because excessive moral judgment can very easily lead to nasty consequences and interactions. That said, unless you can come up with a better method of incentivising particular behaviors (perhaps a noble pursuit), you need some sense of morality in my opinion. Basically, because I believe some behaviors are preferable to others, and should be selected for.

For example, if I were to say if I celebrate the virtues of health and joy as the central pursuit of my life, please tell me what kind of strategy you can propose that is better than this. Or at least, other strategies, like relativism and fear inspired complacency leading one to engage in directionless meandering through life, according to what reasoning is this strategy preferable to having ambitious goals inspired by courage and love?

The only problem with my view is that it is not hard for it to get overly judgmental. Perhaps it is more of a balance, with both extremes (excessive moral vindictiveness) and (complete moral relativism) each having substantial dangers and drawbacks.

You've answered your own question. — 180 Proof

In that case, it's not clear how your concept of ethics is still coherent.
"Ethical is whatever serves me in any given situation."

The other day, I watched a David Suchet (British actor from Agatha's Poirot TV series) interview and his reason for being religious was that he - his mind & heart - just couldn't accept that this (physical reality) is all there is, there has to be more. He did some soul-searching and found solace in the catholic faith. Is this an ego-fantasy, is this what we'd call being in denial (of truth/facts)? — Agent Smith

I think such interviews are necessarily too short, too superficial, and too polite to offer any real insight into the person's religious choices, so I don't make much of the replies given in such interviews. In them, people give some (rehearsed) socially desirable answer.

To really learn what the person thinks on this matter, one would need to get to know them, spend a lot of time with them, build mutual trust.

:roll:

*sigh*

I believe there is no definitive "wrong" way to live. — Jake Hen

You sure this isn't a definitive statement on how to live?

This criteria is not only dependent on the culture and practices of a given region, but also individual truths and values. — Jake Hen

So, if I place a witch doctor next to Einstein and have them both conduct their science, you mean to say the only observable metric you see as a differentiation in behavior between the two is their culture, practices, and "individual truths?"

I know I would consider multiple ways of living horrible and grotesque, but morally wrong? — Jake Hen

What is morality to you? What are you referring to when you use that term?

Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Is there a wrong way to drive a nail? Can I use a fork, instead of a hammer? How about brain-surgery, will a chainsaw do? If I want to expand my own wealth, should I quit my job, receive as little education as possible, and develop an opiod addiction? If value is something humans generate, should I let other cultures define it for myself, or should I define and act upon it as an independent source of value in the universe? If there is no wrong way to live, is it neutral for me to put you out of your neutral state of being for my own psychopathic pleasure? If there's no right way to live, will I be permitted by those who ask such questions to live freely and without their influence, or any claim over my life to which they have no justifiable reason to ask of me, seeing as there is no right way to live? Time to start considering the idea that the people who have convinced you to conclude these views, are actually evil and don't want you to notice them prepare for another global conflict to ensure control over you, cause after all, there's no right way to live, right?

I think such interviews are necessarily too short, too superficial, and too polite to offer any real insight into the person's religious choices, so I don't make much of the replies given in such interviews. In them, people give some (rehearsed) socially desirable answer.

To really learn what the person thinks on this matter, one would need to get to know them, spend a lot of time with them, build mutual trust. — baker

That's the whole point to anything at all. I don't see why you would find anything wrong with it.

That's the whole point to anything at all. I don't see why you would find anything wrong with it. — Agent Smith

Parse this.

I'm saying journalist interviews (and psychological questionnaries) are not the best way to learn what a person thinks about a matter.

I like to think we're not actually living, that is to say here and now in the way we're told to believe we are, but rather reaching the stage of half-life that will start the living process. For example, for all biological intents and purposes (some intensive) we're really just dying- only with a steady pulse. Homeostasis is being less and less efficient until it can no longer sustain the heart and lungs. Then we reincarnate as old beings who actually get younger but with the knowledge of an entire lifetime until we either A.) decide to stay when and where we reach contentedness ie. children of God, B.) start it all over if you've been unable to reach nirvana ie. son of Man, or C.) ... simply exit ie. dead in Christ/Bosom of Abraham. Minus debts, of course.

Basic principles as "do not take drugs when you are young" "don't get involved in problems" "be careful who are you hanging out with" etc... These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. — javi2541997

"Wisdoms"? More like weak, cowardly advice a terrified, cynical grandfather would give.

Drugs can be awesome and enlightening and fun.
Not getting involved in problems is meaningless. To the degree that we should foster collective action, people should absolutely get involved in collective problems, and work on solving them.
Being careful who you hang out with -- fine. But not too careful. Use your judgment, trust others, and don't worry too much about being betrayed -- have a little faith in your judge of character.

All in all, I'd say your "wisdom" is actually an example of how not to live.

No offense.

Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Living in such a fashion as to be discordant with your own values. This would be a "wrong" way to live, even if one was accepted by society at large.

I realize that with this interpretation one could state that this position would allow any sort of culturally inappropriate position to be interpreted as a "right" way to live, which is accurate, however I am operating from an individual perspective, not society in general, and certainly not from a "greater good" position.

here are some of my thoughts, possible way of thinking:
Short answer:
Because moral (in some meaning) is not real, there is no absolutely wrong way to live, just relatively: in relation to something that you can call real (society, God or idea of God, or some teaching, or human: your leader or beloved wife). But in relation, especially if it is strong (like love), you get wrongness and rightness, maybe even in absolute forms. It sounds paradoxical, but it is true.
Interesting idea (a bit utopian, too ideal, perhaps) is deeply personal, clear moral codex. Like you can go from your PC to any website, but you need own operating system and software on PC.
Moral is (a bit roughly) an image in our minds (or souls) and sources of information. It is virtual thing, but it does not mean we should reject it, as we do not reject virtual reality and gadgets totally.

Long answer:
Your assumption is known (in philosophy) as moral relativism. Surely, it is criticised by traditional or religious worldview. I have strong interest in Catholicism. My position for your question is (maybe) not well articulated, but, roughly speaking, I am against your philosophical position. So I want to make good argument. Here what I came up with.
We want to be masters of our destiny. Relativism gives us situational ethics, so we have more freedom, more power, more opportunities. More fun. Good. We are flexible.
Pitfalls: when you are VIP (or just in subjectively important situation), you're not prepared to make fast and smart decisions. Because you have no theoretical ideal, only the situation and unarticulated properly desires. Bad.
Opposite to moral relativism is moral absolutism. Typical for closed societies. Bad.
Solution should be found in between.
Even if you have wrong (let's hope, only for some degree) ideal (codex of values), you can correct it later. (I'm inspired by J Peterson).
But what about collective moral? We may assume that modern society does not share one common moral. If it causes problems, we should seek for first principles, core ideas, values.
We cannot push our moral codex into others but we can help to open their own codexes and things that are common. Make great social contract again.
Ten Commandments are good starting point imho, as tested basis, to reflect. Using dialogue, we will find reflection of our tradition in another one and vice versa, as it was in history. But we get properly these basic principles.
Things like that can protect and develop beautiful diversity and multiculturalism. Here is smart quote: "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_necessariis_unitas,_in_dubiis_libertas,_in_omnibus_caritas

So, moral relativism (which was, i tend to believe, your assumption) is wrong. It is like Scilla, Haribda is authoritarism, finding path and travelling between is the key.