How can then a feather be a rock?

How can then a feather be a rock? — john27

Unlike the rest of nature, dear John, a human being can transform him- or her-self into a different creature through the use and force of reason. After all, what is impossible for “...the particular being that can know the universal, the temporal being that is aware of eternity, the part that can survey the whole, the effect that seeks the cause”?

I suppose so.

@john27

Would you say then that this sentiment you expressed earlier in the discussion...

I would have to confess that yes, I am terribly infatuated with mediocrity. It has consumed me, by a large margin. — john27

...is far beyond you now—now that you perceive that a human being, through the application of reason, can overcome the greatest adversities that fortune might inflict upon him?

...is far beyond you now—now that you perceive that a human being, through the application of reason, can overcome the greatest adversities that fortune might inflict upon him? — Leghorn

Not yet!

The application of reason takes effort-a will, or a want to overcome. Mediocrity however is already innately a part of my character. Why would I take effort to change, when I can simply apply what I have? Perhaps I wouldn't be able to fully overcome a great adversity, however so long as I can manage it averagely, that would be ok with me.

@john27

How old are you, John—if I may ask—?

Not that old. Fairly young, perhaps incredibly young by some standards.

The application of reason takes effort-a will, or a want to overcome. Mediocrity however is already innately a part of my character. Why would I take effort to change, when I can simply apply what I have? Perhaps I wouldn't be able to fully overcome a great adversity, however so long as I can manage it averagely, that would be ok with me. — john27

Let’s parse this statement: “The application of reason takes effort—a will or a want to overcome.” Are you aware of the ancient “economy of the soul”? That the soul is divided into a dwelling together of reason and the passions?

Are you aware of the ancient “economy of the soul”? That the soul is divided into a dwelling together of reason and the passions? — Leghorn

I would have to say that I was not aware of this ancient economy. Could you elaborate?

@john27

According to the ancient philosophers, the human soul is divided between reason and the passions. It is said to be an “economy” because they all dwell in the same “house” or οίκω, that of the body (brain).

Reason is one: she only wishes to know the truth according to nature; the passions are many, and have many names: lust wishes to get the greatest pleasure from sex; avarice wants to gain the most money; anger wants to get revenge; fear wants to escape danger at all cost; pride wishes to be indebted to no one etc, etc...

...for the ancient philosophers, reason ought to rule the passions: when lust desires flesh, reason says, “sex is for the propagation of the species”; or when avarice desires money, reason says, “money is ambiguous: it is both wealth and the means to wealth”; or, when anger wants to get revenge, she says, “that tooth you require for a tooth will not replace the lost tooth”; or, when fear imagines terrible possibilities, she, reason, says, “what you fear is only in your imagination: wait until the sword come to your door; then have a plan ready to either oppose or flee it.”

In this way reason, wielding her peculiar force, keeps her house in order by suppressing the inclination of the cohabitant passions whose desires, if left unchecked, would throw this whole little society of the soul into disorder. For the passions are naturally at odds with each other, and, if left unbridled, war against each other for supremacy.

Mediocrity however is already innately a part of my character. Why would I take effort to change, when I can simply apply what I have? — john27

And I suppose there are souls, perhaps your own, born to mediocrity—then why are you attracted to a philosophy forum? I suppose, since you are avowedly mediocre, that you don’t hope to enlighten us with your superior wisdom; and I suppose that since you can apply what you already have that you don’t seek any extra wisdom from me or anyone else in here...

...maybe you are incorrigibly mediocre. Maybe, when you live long enough to finally experience great adversity, a crisis in your soul, you will take it in stride and “go with the flow” and admirably adapt—but it will only be because you really don’t care that much, not because you were able to apply any great principles of wisdom to your plight:

Perhaps I wouldn't be able to fully overcome a great adversity, however so long as I can manage it averagely, that would be ok with me. — john27

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to? — DingoJones

DingoJones
Yep. — Banno

Then you would have to agree that animal cruelty is perfectly amoral, as long as there is noboby else witnessing what you're doing.

I'm sure the poor wee beastie would object.

I suppose, since you are avowedly mediocre, that you don’t hope to enlighten us with your superior wisdom; and I suppose that since you can apply what you already have that you don’t seek any extra wisdom from me or anyone else in here... — Leghorn

I guess I'm more or less here to admire.

maybe you are incorrigibly mediocre. Maybe, when you live long enough to finally experience great adversity, a crisis in your soul, you will take it in stride and “go with the flow” and admirably adapt—but it will only be because you really don’t care that much, not because you were able to apply any great principles of wisdom to your plight: — Leghorn

Perhaps. This raises an interesting question; if an object cannot/does not attempt to conform to the universal constant (the soul), would he be applicable to it (have a soul)?

I'm sure the poor wee beastie would object. — Banno

That's a funny notion: beasts making ethical objections.

Go back to my reply:

Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. — Banno

Animals can be included in the others to which one may relate. So, have you something to say?

Animals can be included in the others to which one may relate. ow, have you something to say? — Banno

I would believe this to be false. if you were alone with an animal, your point of reference to treat the animal morally would be yourself; hence making yourself a moral agent. In other words, you're really only treating the pig how you would treat yourself. A moral mirror.

your point of reference to treat the animal morally would be yourself... you're really only treating the pig how you would treat yourself. — john27

Rubbish. The interests of the animal count. That you wish to be arse-fucked does not excuse your arse-fucking a pig.

Rubbish. The interests of the animal count. That you wish to be arse-fucked does not excuse your arse-fucking a pig. — Banno

But how can one know the interests of an animal?

Neat sidestep.

Same as with people: from the noises they make.

Same as with people: from the noises they make. — Banno

If only. However, In my belief it's rarely so simple.

You sidestepped the point: Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. That fathoming this relation might sometimes be difficult does not change this fundamental observation.

Hence, your

we base our morality on things that give us a positive reinforcement — john27

is misguided. Yes, we do act so as to seek positive reinforcement. But ought we do so?

Considering this question might show you that there is a difference between doing what you want to do and doing what you ought to do.

Ethics concerns "ought".

Addressing this to your title, there is a difference between "Is life equal?" and "Ought life be equal?"

Can you see that?

Ethics concerns "ought".

Addressing this to your title, there is a difference between "Is life equal?" and "Ought life be equal?"

Can you see that? — Banno

I agree with you that ethic concerns ought. My argument concerns your point of differentiating preference from ought. While yes in certain circumstances you must reference your moral character to that of another, in other contexts you must align the two.

While yes in certain circumstances you must reference your moral character to that of another, in other contexts you must align the two. — john27

I'm not sure what this means. As in, your point here eludes me.

Sometimes you have to base your ethical behaviour relative to another, other times you have to be your own moral agent.

For example, how could you care for something ethically that has no brain? Well, you use what you know. How you like to be treated. You could kick it down the street. But ought you?

Sometimes you have to base your ethical behaviour relative to another, other times you have to be your own moral agent. — john27

Ethics concerns the implications for others of what one does.

One is an agent in so far as one brings about a consequence. One is a moral agent in so far as one brings about a consequence for another.

Banno, The choice to not exercise is not exempt from morality... People do, and should, at times, be morally obligated to their well-being. It is not simply a question of preference. Is this not self-evident?

People do, and should, at times, be morally obligated to their well-being. — john27

Why?

Because a happy/fulfilled life is the wish of all human beings. That is the point of ethics. I think we can agree on that.

Because a happy/fulfilled life is the wish of all human beings. — john27

But why ought one seek a happy/fulfilled life?

Note that this is not the same as "why does one seek a happy/fulfilled life?"

But why ought one seek a happy/fulfilled life? — Banno

Because I like being happy. Is everything all right?