there aren't any gaurantees you won't become jaded, it happens for all sorts of different reasons. I didn't answer your question because i don't understand what you want, i thought you were hinting at wanting to get justice.

How do you cope with injustice done to you when you don't have the means to revenge yourself?

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)?

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)? — baker

Well, it seems like in that kind of a situation (being accused of something falsely) means there is no legal recourse without some evidence of the business behaving illegally. The unfortunate reality is that alot of times people do not get punished for harming us...even though dishonest behavior can have long term disadvantages (for example, alienating people who could useful or comforting in the future)

Just checking - does this work the other way? Would it also be naive and idealistic to think a person of high status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of low status.
— Tom Storm
This is moot, because the person of higher status is automatically correct by virtue of their higher status. — baker

I don’t think this is moot. In my experience, low-status people can and do question those of higher status. And changes may result.

Look, I'm not an elitist. I'm interested in having a measure of peace of mind and not becoming cynical and jaded in the face of injustice.

If you look at popular religion/spirituality, as well as popular psychology, the advice usually goes in the direction that the ordinary person (who doesn't have the means to revenge themselves) should embrace a type of amoralist, anomic stance where they are quietly okay with whatever happens or is done to them (or others). Morality doesn't seem to be something everyone could afford. — baker

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure I share this understanding. I guess I'd need to understand this through specific examples rather than abstract principles.

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)? — baker

My previous was a little too depressing, as i was only thinking of it in terms of "getting justice". Things similar to what you have described have happened to me before.

While retaliation tends to be off the table, what does tend to help is finding a sympathetic ear, and looking for what can be learned from the situation. The saying "the best revenge is living well" speaks directly to situations where you want revenge but also realize acting on it just makes your life worse...

Whoo, whoo, you stirred too many thoughts. I can handle maybe 3 concepts at a time. Too many thoughts turn my head into mush, and my mind is like a kaleidoscope, changing shapes and colors, and I can not form a coherent thought from all this sensory overload. :worry:

Note, however, how the conception of 'what the good for us is' influences the 'ideal' of life we have and how the former depends also on the 'worldview' one has.

Absolutely!

By 'libertarianism' I mean the position that equates 'freedom' with the mere 'ability to choose between different alternative'. In my view, this understanding is incomplete.

For sure, it is incomplete. As social animals, our thinking must be inclusive. As supposedly intelligent animals, our thinking needs to consider future generations.

Regarding the differences between cultures, I do think that the best explanation is actually that societies can be wrong in their practices, just like individuals can.

Yep, nations and cultures can need psychoanalysis just as much as individuals. The way nations play war games makes psychoanalysis very important.


Something that you mentioned is the middle path, balance, and harmony. As you know, it isn't all about me or all about you, but it is about us. If I am knocking myself out to be the perfect daughter, wife, mother, woman, it doesn't matter. If I don't know everyone else's idea of perfection and meet it, I am not going to get what I want, approval and acceptance, maybe even honor? I used to do some public speaking, and perhaps the most important rule is "know your audience". This is essential if the goal is to persuade others to accept new ideas. In everything we do, who do we want to please and why?

It was a real shock to me to build my life on the 1950s ideal woman image and suddenly sink to being "just a housewife". Who wants to be just a housewife? It sounded like a dirty word. My 2 1/2 years younger sister was way ahead of me. She took the career path, while I felt like a fish out of water when the change was made. For me, this has everything to do with amoralism and moralism. How fast can we change our morals and keep up with a society that is on the move? But here is the question that really bothers me- was the force of social change really better for humanity?

You wrote in favor of this and that, both being part of the truth. I often find truth is both this and that. But right now, everything is moving too fast, and I am not sure we are on the right path. I am not Christian and want to point out that Christianity is in the line of destroying the goddess and supporting the patriarchy, and I have strong feelings against all this. Many native American tribes were matriarchal, and I think that is better for mankind.

There are so many things to think about, and I wish we began with scientific thinking, not Christianity a personal God, and individuality, that can be divisive and exclusive and include harmful rationalizations. Destroying the planet for temporary benefits is not good thinking. It is not moral thinking.

Whoo, whoo, you stirred too many thoughts. I can handle maybe 3 concepts at a time. Too many thoughts turn my head into mush, and my mind is like a kaleidoscope, changing shapes and colors, and I can not form a coherent thought from all this sensory overload. :worry: — Athena

Well, I was lucky enough to have enough time to write those long posts (and I also have a tendency to 'overelaborate'...). I'll have likely less time in the following days, so I'll reply less frequently .

Absolutely! — Athena

:up: Yet, sometimes it seems to me that many people do not seem interested to live a coherent life in beliefs and deeds, and/or do not seem to be able to appreciate the consequences of certain beliefs, and/or do not live up to their own standards...
Of course, I am included.

Doing philosophy however helps to do that or at least be aware of these kinds of disconnects.

For sure, it is incomplete. As social animals, our thinking must be inclusive. As supposedly intelligent animals, our thinking needs to consider future generations. — Athena

Agreed!

Yep, nations and cultures can need psychoanalysis just as much as individuals. The way nations play war games makes psychoanalysis very important. — Athena

Again, I agree with this. I believe that, in fact, societies and cultures can 'learn' in a way analogous to how individuals learn. One example is, for instance, how slavery became in time seen as the monstrousity which it is. Nowadays we think that a human being can be considered a property as an abomination but slavery was practised regularly. I believe that at least on this point it is safe to say that humanity (on average) has learned a bit better what is better for each and all individuals.

Something that you mentioned is the middle path, balance, and harmony. As you know, it isn't all about me or all about you, but it is about us. If I am knocking myself out to be the perfect daughter, wife, mother, woman, it doesn't matter. — Athena

Well, we can also say that both an 'unconcerned' and a 'perfectionistic' attitude can damage both oneself and others. If I don't care about the 'goodness' of my actions it is of course a problem. At the same time, however, if I care too much I will probably be unable to act in any way and we get entangled in despair. So, yeah, we need the proper balance. Easier to say than to to do.

In everything we do, who do we want to please and why? — Athena

In a way, both us and others. But, again, we should seek to 'please' in the right way. Assuming that the lecture aims to inform the audience of some theme, the goal is to inform the audience in the optimal way. So, one can't either cause boredom to the audience nor entertain them without any real information. The optimal way is to both inform and entertain. Again, more easily said than done. Realistically, this means that we need to put a limit on both the quantity of information we want to share and the 'entertainment/pleasure' we want to give to the audience.

Furthermore, in some context causing unpleasant feelings can be for the good of the other. While 'punishments' should be avoided as far as is possible, sometimes they are inevitable. Not punishing someone for their inappropriate behavior is hardly educative at least in some circumstances. Sometimes the right 'punishment' can be the proper way for a transgressor to come to their senses and change their ways (and if the intent is educative, perhaps it would be better to speak of 'corrections' rather than 'punishments').
Again, this equally applies to someone who behaves badly but also for an addict. If a parent knows that their teenage child assumed drugs, the parent might decide to ground the child and take the child to a doctor against their will. The child perhaps would perhaps find painful this kind of intervention but we can expect that, once the child has become wiser, he or she will be grateful to their parent.

How fast can we change our morals and keep up with a society that is on the move? But here is the question that really bothers me- was the force of social change really better for humanity? — Athena

Good questions. A famous aphorism of Kierkegaard says that life can be lived forwards but can be understood backwords. While I would disagree if this is taken to an extreme, this is largely correct. It is difficult to say if certain changes have been for the better. All we can do is form a well-reasoned opinion given evidence.

A rigid moralism has undoubtedly painful effects on people. Of course, I have said above that painful experiences can be for the better. But, at the same time there are cases where it is evident that a rigid moralism becomes self-referential and makes the 'code of law' something more important than the persons it is supposed to be useful to. If moralism becomes an obstacle to the process to realize the good for the individual and the community it should be put into question.
For instance, if a moral system is supposed to make people more loving but the practical effects are that people become more self-centred, suspicious and so one it is right IMO to question the moral system. But this should be done in a careful way and not in an unreflecting way.

You wrote in favor of this and that, both being part of the truth. I often find truth is both this and that. But right now, everything is moving too fast, and I am not sure we are on the right path. — Athena

Yes, I agree. And the problem with fast changes is that people have not time to think about them in a proper way.

I am not Christian and want to point out that Christianity is in the line of destroying the goddess and supporting the patriarchy, and I have strong feelings against all this. Many native American tribes were matriarchal, and I think that is better for mankind. — Athena

I am also not a Christian partly because I find it impossible to accept some social norms that are generally held by Christians to be 'non-negotiable'. I do believe that there are good arguments for theism and I am very sympathetic to some forms of Christianity but I can't right now join a religious tradition (Christian or otherwise). I know that, perhaps, it doesn't make sense to be a 'non-religious theist' but, to be honest, I can't help myself to be different.

Regarding gender inequality, I think it should be said that we tend to have an 'idealized' view of cultures we are not familiar with. I do not know about native American tribes so what I am saying doesn't apply to them, but over time I came to the conclusion that 'patriarchy' isn't really a problem of a specific religion or culture but simply was a common theme in Antiquity. Indian and Chinese religious traditions and societies haven't generally be 'more open' to gender equality than in the 'West'. Despite its reputation, for instance, you'll find more female writers among in the history of the Catholic Church - whose writings have been highly regarded for centuries - rather than, say, in Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu etc traditions (to my knowledge, I would be happy to be disproven here). I am not suggesting that Catholics are more 'inherently' open to gender equality than anyone else or anything like that but I just note how our assessment can neglect these things.

Furthermore, at least in recent times there are movements inside Christian traditions as well as for instance Buddhist traditions and undoubtedly other traditions that actively try to raise the awareness of the dangers of 'patriarchy', so I am a bit wary to make general assertion about what is the position of a given religion about this matter.

In general, I am persuaded that 'Christianity', 'Buddhism' etc are umbrella terms in which you find extremely huge variations in many aspects. So really if one tells me that he or she is a 'Christian', a 'Buddhist', a 'Muslim' and so on I have to say that I have little information about him or her.

In my humble opinion, I just think that neither 'patriarchy' nor 'matriarchy' perhaps are the best options. Indeed, it seems to me that biological sex shouldn't be thought as a reliable indicator of the place in society that an individual 'should have'. I wouldn't say that biological sexes do not matter at all, but they certainly seem to matter less than our ancestors seemed to believe so firmly.

There are so many things to think about, and I wish we began with scientific thinking, not Christianity a personal God, and individuality, that can be divisive and exclusive and include harmful rationalizations. Destroying the planet for temporary benefits is not good thinking. It is not moral thinking. — Athena

I agree. After all, irrespective of one's own religious beliefs I think that we can establish if certain things are good for us both individually and collectively. As you say ruining the very environment in which we live is certainly not a good thing to do. It is also frustrating how difficult is to get a substantial change here.