The more people in agreement, the less subjective the evidence and the more objective. — RussellA

But if you gather up 100 blinded folks in the room of 1 sighted person, then the darkness would be the reality of the world. Hence the reason why you should keep distance from the fallacy of authority or majority. Truth exists under the light of reason and logic, not in the crowd of the blind folks' shouting. :)

I agree that the subjective mental experience of a single person cannot be presented as objective evidence, but the subjective mental experience of 99 people in agreement can be presented as objective evidence. — RussellA

Well, depends on who those 99 folks are. Of course if they are the same type of folks who cannot see what objectivity is, then their subjectivity would be objectivity.

Hence the reason why you should keep distance from the fallacy of authority or majority — Corvus

The will of the majority is the worst form of government there is apart from for all the other systems of government which have been tried.

"Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except For All Others Which Have Been Tried"

Winston Churchill 1947:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.

I also generally prefer Bach' music to Mozart's, although in my assessment there are some profound pieces from the latter. Beethoven and Bach are my two favorites.

It blows my mind that a clump of matter is aware of its own existence, its own awareness, its own thoughts. We are aware of some things that no other species is. — Patterner

I agree it is a source of wonderment. I'm glad to see you are apparently not one of those who go on to insist there must be something more than the merely material going on.

But then this makes me wonder about that:

The blind laws of physics do not bring about everything that can exist. We are doing things that the universe cannot do without us. Knowingly and intentionally, which are qualities no other part of the universe possesses. — Patterner

Why could not mind be an emergent material phenomenon? I agree that mind cannot be explained in terms of physics, but then neither can geology, chemistry, biology, ethology, ethnology, economics, psychology, the arts and so on.

It is one thing to say that there are many things which cannot be explained in terms of physics and another to say that those things are therefore the result of something beyond the physical or material.

Yes, Bach and Beethoven it is. Beethoven's quartets are the most sublime music every written.

I agree it is a source of wonderment. I'm glad to see you are apparently not one of those who go on to insist there must be something more than the merely material going on. — Janus

No, I'm one of those. :grin: I agree with Chalmers that there needs to be an explanation for why the physical processes don't take place without subjective experience. As Chalmers puts it:

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere. — David Chalmers

At 7:00 of this video, Donald Hoffman says it well, while talking about the neural correlates of consciousness, and ions flowing through holes in membranes:

Why should it be that consciousness seems to be so tightly correlated with activity that is utterly different in nature than conscious experience? — Hoffman

So the physical activity of matter doesn't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

I've quoted Brian Greene in Until the End of Time before. Here it is again;

And within that mathematical description, affirmed by decades of data from particle colliders and powerful telescopes, there is nothing that even hints at the inner experiences those particles somehow generate. How can a collection of mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise? Particles can have mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), but all these qualities seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience. How then does a whirl of particles inside a head—which is all that a brain is—create impressions, sensations, and feelings? — Brian Greene

And the physical properties of matter don't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

Maybe we should consider the idea that this macro thing that isn't explained by any theory of physical activity is made possible by a micro property unlike those that a leading expert in the field says don't even hint at it.

Property dualism.

The will of the majority is the worst form of government there is apart from for all the other systems of government which have been tried.

"Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except For All Others Which Have Been Tried" — RussellA

Genuine practice of democracy is rare. Due to the fact, most preachers of democracy give impressions of false pretense and their ignorance. Countless injustice and wrong doings have been carried out by the rouge regimes under the disguise of democracy.

Genuine practice of democracy is rare. Due to the fact, most preachers of democracy give impressions of false pretense and their ignorance. — Corvus

Yes, on the one hand Keir Starmer said 4 January 2024 that he would clean up politics.

No. I say to all my fellow politicians – Labour and Tory – to change Britain, we must change ourselves. We need to clean up politics. No more VIP fast lanes. No more kickbacks for colleagues. No more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate. I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism.

On the other hand, he accepted gifts from Labour peer Lord Alli.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer received an additional £16,000 worth of clothes from Labour peer Lord Alli, it has emerged. The donations, first reported by the Guardian, external, were initially declared as money for his private office as leader of the opposition. The gifts - of £10,000 in October 2023 and £6,000 in February this year - were declared on time, but will now be re-categorised as donations in kind of clothing.

The case of the high calibre politicians involved in accepting bribes seems to be viewed differently from country to country. For example in countries like China, or South Korea, it would be regarded as serious failing of the politician's moral integrity, and be judged as highly serious crime, which will get the politician sacked, or even jailed.

But in UK, the public and the law seem to regard them as just usual perks of the job. Would it be the case?

But in UK, the public and the law seem to regard them as just usual perks of the job. Would it be the case? — Corvus

In case a moderator is reading this, the OP needs an understanding of what is true and what is false, what is better and what is worse. The OP is about the morality of man's behaviour. The following is an example of morality.

The politicians always argue that these perks are within the "law" which may well be the case, but I am sure that the public find such behaviour disgraceful.

Who would not buy their own glasses!

The issue that has emerged with these particular glasses in recent days is that they were not bought out of Starmer’s own pocket. He received a donation in May — while still in opposition — to the tune of £2,485 from Waheed Alli, a businessman and Labour peer, for “multiple pairs of glasses”.

That being legal doesn't make it moral.