Intellectual habit (i.e. reasoning).What would be the cause of us doing no harm? — Brett
Moral habit (i.e. judging).What wouldcompelus?
lot of things don't make sense to us, but maybe when you consider the bigger picture things change a bit. — BitconnectCarlos
I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power. — Brett
I tend to agree with Mr. Carlos, that suffering and tragedy are simply part of life, and that having to endure them can be beneficial; but it seems liberal democracy has no taste for this, as there are always public awareness campaigns being waged in them against one or another of the societal ills that exist and will always exist despite our most strenuous efforts to eliminate them, for example, “the war against poverty”, or against homelessness, or hunger or racism, the call for world peace, etc, etc, each of which hopes to put an absolute end to the evil it strives against, rather than simply diminish it. — Todd Martin
The question "Is morality objective?" — 180 Proof
is there a higher power and is there an objective morality? — Brett
IMO suffering often does have a purpose and it can teach us important lessons. — BitconnectCarlos
If you want an existence with absolutely no suffering you're talking about non-existence, — BitconnectCarlos
I was saying that even if we managed to eliminate these social problems suffering is still intrinsic to the human experience. — BitconnectCarlos
If I was to chose a Higher Power it would be because that power was perfect; it could not be anything but perfect.
I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power.
If I’m to chose a question that leads to a better future then there has to be less or no suffering at all in it. So I’m back to rejecting my choice of a higher power. — Brett
what is to be learned from suffering? Endurance. If suffering is a necessary element of life, then what better than that morality offer us a virtue to combat it? — Todd Martin
The suffering of the world could only be addressed fully by a Higher Power, one, because a Higher Power is perfect and two, the universe was created by the Higher Power. Our perception of a Higher Power as we see it, through religious dogma, is limited in understanding. A true Higher Power would have no reason to create a world that included suffering. What would be the purpose of that, to teach us endurance? For what purpose would you need endurance in a world created by a perfect High Power? — Brett
Who’s to say this ‘High Power’ is done creating perfection? — Possibility
To state the question is to limit it to concepts in a grammatical structure — Possibility
Edit: sorry was that your question: could anything be possible? — Brett
"Hateful" being synonymous with harmful (as I reflect), the latter was neither stated nor implied to be an effect of the former.It seems to me that asking “What is hateful?”,which causes harm, doesn’t offer a result in terms of making a betterfuture. — Brett
Quite, surely not the one I gave. My answer is harm.To strive to live by the ancient maxim is not an answer ...
Not at all. Taking direction from the OP, "my experiment" consists in examining that ancient maxim only for clarity's sake, focussing on the key word "hateful", which when examined closer, translates as synonymous with harmful (if substituted for "hateful" in the maxim), or more concretely, with harm; and, only then, the ancient maxim can be more reliably applicable to everyday living. No question is begged because the answer I proferred is not to your question but to my own.... because it begs the question what is needed for us to strive to do no harm?
You're moving the goalposts. The OP makes no mention of having or trying to "convince" anyone of anything or to accept anything they do not already accept. I've already accepted this ancient maxim: my "philosophical question" only concerns uncovering the extent of its meaning(s). 'Why', one might ask, 'have I accepted the maxim'? Well, that's a biographical matter and not a philosophical one ... so not relevant to the OP.So what would that be: a Higher Power, an objective morality, wisdom or something you think would convince us not to harm?
"Hateful" being synonymous with harmful (as I reflect), the latter was neither stated nor implied to be an effect of the former. — 180 Proof
Harm (I posited that answer to my question). — 180 Proof
Answer: Harm.
Question: What is - do I/we find - "hateful"? — 180 Proof
And as my first post makes clear from edits in quoting your OP, Bretr, my concern with positing and then answering a 'philosophical question' is for living presently rather than, according to your premise, "making a better future" (which, to my thinking is a category mistake: philosophy is not comparable to politics, or vice versa). — 180 Proof
“So what would that be: a Higher Power, an objective morality, wisdom or something you think would convince us not to harm?”
You're moving the goalposts. The OP makes no mention of having or trying to "convince" anyone of anything or to accept anything they do not already accept. — 180 Proof
my experiment" consists in examining that ancient maxim only for clarity's sake, focussing on the key word "hateful", which when examined closer, translates as synonymous with harmful (if substituted for "hateful" in the maxim), or more concretely, with harm; and, only then, the ancient maxim can be more reliably applicable to everyday living. — 180 Proof
There is a deliberate ambiguity to my question that gives freedom to the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.