Your opening post is a bit diffuse, but you do ask the perennial good questions.

Where does the 'responsibility for the way things are lie' and what personal responsibility (if any) do each of us have as a consequence? — universeness

"The way things are", both the good and the bad, are a consequence of mostly insignificant individuals acting within very large, deterministic systems.

You and I can can choose to ride bikes to work and the grocery store instead of buying big gas-guzzling SUVs, but neither of us are in a position to do anything about the 1 billion cars on the world's roads, or the giant auto, oil, steel, and rubber businesses committed to continuing business as usual, or even changing gears and replacing 1 billion gas guzzling vehicles with 1 billion electricity guzzling vehicles.

You and I can bicycle across the country to help out in the next big disaster, but fortunately there are large organizations like the Red Cross, FEMA, Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Relief, and so on that are prepared to get there first and to start major relief efforts.

You and I can try to replace the major system behind a lot of the world's problems, like global capitalism, but we are 2 sardines up against a big herd of sharks.

What options are left? The same options that have always been open:

A) Behave generously, fairly, and kindly to those in your immediate community, for whom your behavior makes a difference.
B) Find a larger system and make a contribution of time and talent.
C) Read widely and gain knowledge about how the world works.

"A" is a clear and present opportunity. It yields good for others and good for you.

"B" offers many options. It doesn't have to be as big as the Red Cross. There are ay small NGOs trying to ameliorate the world's problems. Yes, some are more effective than others, but better to be involved in a so-so effort to heal the world than fecklessly dithering over the sad state of the world all by yourself.

"C" is very important--you probably already do this. One has to make an effort to make sense of what is going on -- the puzzle won't put itself together by itself. Personally, I find history to be my best source understanding -- not so much ancient history or medieval history, though those are interesting, as 'modern history' the last 200 years or so.

One of the pleasures of reading history (provided it is accurate) is the "ah ha! So THAT IS WHY things worked out the way they did" moments. Not every history will yield a lot of "ah ha!" moments, but eventually they pile up.

Here's an example of a really good recent history: The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein (2017) is a history of how the Federal Government, banking, and real estate interests undertook a major housing segregation and home construction program starting before the 1930s, but really getting under way then. This history explains how much of the present segregation of black and white people was brought about, particularly in the new suburbs built after WWII. It wasn't an accident: racial segregation was explicit in the enabling legislation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Legislation and court decisions have since undone the laws and regulations, but the consequences remain.

A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation. — universeness

This kind of hypothetical moral quandary puts people in untenable situations. If you accept the machine-like logical computation of Utilitarianism, or the god-like Categorical Imperative, then the moral solution would be obvious -- if you could instantly calculate all possible consequences of your decision. But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way.

Instead, we do quick back-of-the-envelope subconscious calculations, based on personal emotional values. That's usually good enough for small-group ethics. But when faced with global ethical repercussions, such as the Holocaust, ordinary people tend to do mundane acts (followed orders), and hope for the best. That's what Arendt called "the banality of evil".

You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world, were idealists, working toward Utopian dreams. Hence, there is no price too high to pay for Heaven-on-Earth. So their "final solutions" were not realistic, and were not calculated logically or mathematically. :sad:

“a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin

Do sites like TPF give individuals the opportunity to justify why they have not done more to help others? — universeness

People act, so my take is that if a person has to ask the question, it's unlikely they are going to do anything about it. So I figure they can just get on with whatever it is they do. :wink: Scenarios and conundrums are diversion strategies.

a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin — Gnomon

A single death is a statistic, a million deaths are a tragedy.

A difficult scenario I have always struggled with is this:
A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation. — universeness

These inner turmoils come from the fact that what has been informing your morality, the world's morailty, the ethical standards by which your idea of moral actions manifest, is not ethically consistent, and never has been. Why would a situation arise where the clear moral action would be to sacrifice your life? And why is such a sacrifice a moral action? Who is it good for? How did you conclude it is, or would be good? A bit confusing it has to be when a part of you knows it wouldn't be worth it if you were villified, in lieu of being remembered in honor. Why would being remembered in honor for dying for other people be preferable? Good questions to really ask oneself.

As for me, no. No, I would not do this, and it doesn't strike me as ethical to think of myself as a sacrificial beast before the feet of other men, or that making myself such a scape-goat would mean that I lived an ethical life, or that my dying to save other people could end in me knowing I was successful, or that I should be responsible for actions I didn't commit that placed those people in that situation, or that I could be sure any of them weren't mass murderers, or rapists, or thieves, or liars, or child abusers, Or that they would ever do the same for me if need be, or any standard of rational assessment associated with a decision of this kind.

Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement?
I am not posting this for people to list 'what they do,' or reveal any details about your individual life and circumstances.
To me, for philosophy to be more than just rhetoric, it has to speak towards everyday life and how we choose to live.
Where does the 'responsibility for the way things are lie' and what personal responsibility (if any) do each of us have as a consequence? — universeness

No, it's specifically that people AREN'T interested in their own advancement, but are instead glad to do the bare minimum of biological maintenance needed to survive, rather than inject the necessary mental energy needed for self-realization, and education, and rational engagement with the world, and valuing life as the source of value, and contributing in productive acheivement, and regarding oneself as their own responsibility, and refining their skills, and developing virtues, and abstaining from personally harmful behavior, and not abusing their children, and not blaming people for their own failures, and not violating the individual sovereign boundaries of their fellow humans, and the list goes on. They aren't busy with personal advancement, they're busy dying. It is very, very rare that I ever meet someone who is good; there normally busy living, you see?

Everyday life and how we choose to live are mutually exclusive concepts for the busy-dying, friend. Most people don't "choose to live," they merely let themselves, while telling others how to first chance they get, or taking a backseat approach at life all together. It's why everyone is obese, dying of overdose, seeking therapy for major depression, wasting all of their hours on youtube, listening to shit music and calling it art, reading shit books and callling it literature, watching the news and taking it seriously, smoking their heart into arrest, drinking their gut in ulcers, blaming their kids for their misery, shooting eachother in the streets, shooting eachother in schools, living off of wic welfare and SSRI, giving the government more power, giving their lives to jesus, swearing fealty to Mohammad, and all other manner of nonsense, unjustified, brain-rotting, time-wasting, bullshit that has no place in the 21st century when knowledge has never been closer to our fingertips. Choosing to live is not a part of the zeitgeist of the busy-dying, bud.

Who is to blame for the state of the world? Why, all of the people are. Don't you see? The busy-dying got what they wanted, and it had nothing to do with ethics or philosophy, damn sure not philosophy. Just mention the word philosophy in "good" company and take a gander at the looks you receive. They got what they wanted, and they sold out the reasonable, rational, and ethical people to get it; they out number us after all, 100 to 1. The only thing you can do, my dear fellow, is to continue holding that torch you got. That little fire in your mind that compelled you to write this forum, and on this forum, no less, and you take it with you every god damn place you go. Every seafood buffet, every classroom, every zoom meeting, every hotel party, every single god dman place you step. And with it, shine a light on that which is worth shining a light on; stimulate someones curiosity, get better at something you've been neglecting, fix an isssue you notice that is essential to fix, defend someone being attacked who did nothing wrong ferociously, familiarize yourself with your enemy's epistemology, test your assertions against the might of an intellect that dwarfs your own, write a song or a poem, get a typewriter and make it your best friend, let a kid know he/she fucking awesome, hold bad parenting accountable, get rid of beer, find a job you love, stop voting for fucking creeps, get a partner that's not a walking dumpster fire multi-colored personality disorders, regard yourself as the locus value, don't get angry with people their idiots and don't know what they're doing, find other torch bearers we're here I promise you, and above all else, place your own well-being above that of anyone who is not you, as is demanded of you by your biology and your capacity to be happy while on this planet.

Hope that helps, stay well!

-G

a consequence of mostly insignificant individuals — Bitter Crank

An intriguing choice of words. Are you referring to those in history whose actions had a direct affect on where we are now? In what way are they insignificant?

You and I can can choose to ride bikes to work and the grocery store instead of buying big gas-guzzling SUVs, but neither of us are in a position to do anything about the 1 billion cars on the world's roads, or the giant auto, oil, steel, and rubber businesses committed to continuing business as usual, or even changing gears and replacing 1 billion gas guzzling vehicles with 1 billion electricity guzzling vehicles — Bitter Crank

Well, this is the 'what can I do and its not my fault,' stance I typed about in the OP.
I am not disrespecting such stances. I am trying to dissect them a little more.
Your 'riding bikes,' is I agree, only an individual gesture against the problem you mention. But if more people decided to take a Greta Thunberg type stance then the result could be more effective. This may not be possible for you personally but you might be able to assist causes against the situation you describe more than you do at the moment, me to! To what extent is the statement 'Bad things happen because good people don't do enough to stop or combat them,' really true, and is it really acceptable to excuse ourselves by merely recognising the validity of the statement I just typed or saying things like 'the problem is just too big' etc.

You and I can bicycle across the country to help out in the next big disaster, but fortunately there are large organizations like the Red Cross, FEMA, Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Relief, and so on that are prepared to get there first and to start major relief efforts — Bitter Crank

Yep and all good but the current state of the planet would suggest, it's just not enough! This all needs to keep happening but we need more prevention as well as many more hands on cure.
From those who are willing to spend a day helping out in a local foodbank to those who decide to start a local youth initiative of just get together with others in a local community to sit down and talk about other locals who are having real difficulties and trying to help them. To what level could such be effective if we were taught this 'altruistic' approach to others from primary school.

I love your ABC but how many are actually learning your ABC's and practicing them every day and how much responsibility do each of us have to push your ABC forward against those who see an educated, informed, organised, altruistic majority as a serious threat?

I think you have the answer in your title, to this the most important question of philosophy: -- "How shall we live?"

If you have the great good fortune to be already a kind and decent human being, then whether you are a protestor or a politician, a doctor or a plumber, a big cheese or a glass of fresh milk, whatever you naturally wish to do will spread joy and comfort around the world. No worries, and no measurement required.

Alas, it is the mean spirited that spend their lives waiting for the best deal in the accumulation of virtue, and calculating how their act will influence the world. For damaged people like me, full of fear and greed and anger, it would be futile to try and heal the world; we must look for healing ourselves.

This kind of hypothetical moral quandary puts people in untenable situations. If you accept the machine-like logical computation of Utilitarianism, or the god-like Categorical Imperative, then the moral solution would be obvious -- if you could instantly calculate all possible consequences of your decision. But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way — Gnomon

I agree that such hypotheticals are very difficult. We struggle every day to gain the merest insight into, why me? why here and now? What is the meaning of life the universe and everything? (which is not 42!)
We can never escape complexity in this existence.
But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way
I assume you didn't intend the word 'don't' here. Why is this sentence true?
Lack of education? Due to the deliberate historical actions of others? Why do you think its true?

Instead, we do quick back-of-the-envelope subconscious calculations, based on personal emotional values. That's usually good enough for small-group ethics. But when faced with global ethical repercussions, such as the Holocaust, ordinary people tend to do mundane acts (followed orders), and hope for the best. That's what Arendt called "the banality of evil" — Gnomon

So, is this good enough? Could we do better? are we capable of doing better?

You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. — Gnomon

Yes, I agree but I am tested, every day almost and in ways that are not so disconnected to the scenario you mentioned from my OP. I see problems all around me, every time I leave the house or watch TV (especially the news). Mostly I use one of the excuses I outlined in the OP and I do some painting, listen to some music, eat some comfort food, watch a comedy show, etc.
At some point my mind will drift back to 'the real world' and at some point I inevitably feel ashamed that I don't do more. I do some stuff but I could do more but should it be the main cause in my life?
I am an atheist, I'm 57, There is no judgment day. When I am dead I will simply permanently, disassemble but until that happens, I will always feel guilty that I could have done more. Do we all deserve such a self-judgment? Is it possible to be too harsh on ourselves on this issue? I don't feel I am being too harsh, it feels correct.

Stalin was a horrible person, no doubt, and another example of why adequate checks and balances are vital to apply to any person or group in power or rising towards such.
But that phrase is misleading. 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.' It does not reflect the truth of Stalin's dictatorship. Why was he not brave enough to say;
"When I had one or two people executed, I may have raised an eyebrow or two at first but when I had a million people executed, everyone else became too scared to challenge me."
This would be much more accurate.
Even after such historical lessons, we see Trump elected in the USA. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Arent 'WE THE PEOPLE,' where the responsibility has to ultimately lie? Surely we cant satisfy ourselves with forlorn hopes and ridiculous scapegoating such as, 'God works in mysterious ways, it's all part of its plan, don't worry yourself!'

People act, so my take is that if a person has to ask the question, it's unlikely they are going to do anything about it. So I figure they can just get on with whatever it is they do. :wink: Scenarios and conundrums are diversion strategies. — Tom Storm

Would you describe yourself as cynical?
If 'yes' then why have you become so?
If 'no' then by what other means do you take action if it's not based on self-reflective questioning?

These inner turmoils come from the fact that what has been informing your morality, the world's morailty, the ethical standards by which your idea of moral actions manifest, is not ethically consistent, and never has been. Why would a situation arise where the clear moral action would be to sacrifice your life? And why is such a sacrifice a moral action? Who is it good for? How did you conclude it is, or would be good? A bit confusing it has to be when a part of you knows it wouldn't be worth it if you were villified, in lieu of being remembered in honor. Why would being remembered in honor for dying for other people be preferable? Good questions to really ask oneself. — Garrett Travers

I agree that ethical consistency is desirable. If you are saying that my personal morality/set of ethics is a 'subset' of all the examples I have been exposed to within all information I have accessed in my life so far, then it's a very reasonable assessment, although I like to think there are tweaks which are all mine.
Would you not surrender your life to save your loved ones for example?
Have such situations not happened quite often globally, historically? So there are plenty of precedents.
If such an action is not a question of morality, then how would you choose to categorise it?
You ask "Who is it good for?". There are many possible answers. The people you save or as an example to others of 'ethical consistency,' or to fulfill your own desire to be 'ethically consistent.'
I have always struggled with the 'hero' concept. Most who have been given the label by others during war, personally reject it. I have always been suspicious of my dilemma's/day dreaming of tough situations and how I might respond. Was it about the people I could potentially save or was it about my own memorialisation as 'a good guy.' Which was more important to me? So I wanted to remove the 'credited' aspect and ask would I still be 'ethically consistent.'

and it doesn't strike me as ethical to think of myself as a sacrificial beast before the feet of other men, — Garrett Travers

It's interesting to me that there is a tendency to 'gravitate' to such religious imagery as 'sacrificial beast' and 'at the feet of.'
I don't see it like that although I have also stumbled into such imagery myself. I suppose my view is akin to utilitarianism. Perhaps it's even Darwinian practicality, save the one or save the many. I like the runaway train dilemma, often cited, with you holding the lever which switches the train to another track.
Again these dilemmas are played out in dramas like 'spock's death' in the Star Trek movies.
I understand all the valid points you make, regarding possible nuances of making the decision to risk your/my own life for others but I think you also value ethical consistency, as do I.

Everyday life and how we choose to live are mutually exclusive concepts for the busy-dying, friend. Most people don't "choose to live," they merely let themselves, while telling others how to first chance they get, or taking a backseat approach at life all together. It's why everyone is obese, dying of overdose, seeking therapy for major depression, wasting all of their hours on youtube, listening to shit music and calling it art, reading shit books and callling it literature, watching the news and taking it seriously, smoking their heart into arrest, drinking their gut in ulcers, blaming their kids for their misery, shooting eachother in the streets, shooting eachother in schools, living off of wic welfare and SSRI, giving the government more power, giving their lives to jesus, swearing fealty to Mohammad, and all other manner of nonsense, unjustified, brain-rotting, time-wasting, bullshit that has no place in the 21st century when knowledge has never been closer to our fingertips. Choosing to live is not a part of the zeitgeist of the busy-dying, bud — Garrett Travers

:lol: :lol: I would love to see the above text put into a more poetic form and read by a Mr Angry character on YouTube. I think it would be a hit! I think it clearly frames the frustration of many and the exasperation people have for their species. Do you have any suggestions on how this situation might be improved?

Who is to blame for the state of the world? Why, all of the people are. Don't you see? — Garrett Travers

I do see and I agree, it is my main reason for the OP. We just need 'all of the people' or at least a global majority to agree also. It is only the members of our species that can change what we do. No god will do it for us. It is our job! Each and every one of us! WE ARE RESPONSIBLE!

Wow! I love the passion which is palpable in your last paragraph. Gives me hope. For me, that's where the solution lies. Somewhere in such incendiary beginnings is the big meeting that 'the people' have to attend. An internet meeting probably. I think there are rumblings amongst global youth. I remain hopeful.

I do have some issue with

get rid of beer — Garrett Travers

and

don't get angry with people their idiots and don't know what they're doing, — Garrett Travers

I'm sure we could come to some compromise on the first one and the second is giving me that annoying imagery again. Y'know, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
It's possible that amongst the human writers of the gospel fables, was an annoyed antecedent of Garret Travers

I think you have the answer in your title, to this the most important question of philosophy: -- "How shall we live? — unenlightened

Thanks, you are obviously 'enlightened,' in my opinion.

Alas, it is the mean spirited that spend their lives waiting for the best deal in the accumulation of virtue, and calculating how their act will influence the world. For damaged people like me, full of fear and greed and anger, it would be futile to try and heal the world; we must look for healing ourselves — unenlightened

You get It! totally! Please know you get it! Heal yourself and you start to help everyone else.
That's my fight as well, everyday! The negative feelings used to assault me night after night.
I have battled with them for at least the past 30 years. They still come at me and they come from me.
They are stimulated by daily inputs from the local and global stage.
I think its "I" (cortex based) fighting "me," (part cortex part limbic) and "myself," (part cortex part R-complex.)
I am not comparing my fight with those up against conditions such as clinical depression or schizophrenia etc but perhaps my, by comparison, small success could encourage.

I have "me" and "myself" on the ropes or I have convinced many of their team to join the "I" team.
I now challenge them most nights to 'give me their best shot, I am ready!'
Sometimes I don't get a lot of sleep but I win the f******* battles.......more often than not!
I have a great deal more undisturbed sleep than I used to and I maintain faith that we can be a better species and we will leave the nest of planet Earth and move into the vastness of space.
I hope many of the atoms which make up "I" at the moment, through the possibilities offered by random chance, after I disassemble and dissipate at a quantum level, all over the place. That some of my old quanta will be part of new sentient life in the future and can witness those events. I am content with my disassembly when my time comes, unless science can extend my longevity.

I agree that ethical consistency is desirable. If you are saying that my personal morality/set of ethics is a 'subset' of all the examples I have been exposed to within all information I have accessed in my life so far, then it's a very reasonable assessment, although I like to think there are tweaks which are all mine.
/quote]

Not necessarily your morailuty, but the ethical framework that has been dominating the moral sentiments for millenia are present in this question. Of coursem the rational mind has a tendency to argue with the valididty of such a framework, which is probably where your tweaks have come in.
— universeness

Would you not surrender your life to save your loved ones for example? — universeness

No, and I would never expect them to do as much for me. Now, if I had children of my own, then perhaps, if it genuinely meant that they lived. Children are different, though. They weren't consulted with before they got here, and it is the parents who hold every ounce of responsibility for them until they've been reared. There's a case to be made for one's children.

You ask "Who is it good for?". There are many possible answers. The people you save or as an example to others of 'ethical consistency,' or to fulfill your own desire to be 'ethically consistent.'
I have always struggled with the 'hero' concept. Most who have been given the label by others during war, personally reject it. I have always been suspicious of my dilemma's/day dreaming of tough situations and how I might respond. Was it about the people I could potentially save or was it about my own memorialisation as 'a good guy.' Which was more important to me? So I wanted to remove the 'credited' aspect and ask would I still be 'ethically consistent.' — universeness

Right, it's a good question. I don't think it is actually good along any other lines than a simple utilitarian asstimation. The reason for that is, you're never going to be in that hypothetical situation, and that hypothetical situtation has zero contextual details associated with with which to inform your decision, so you only have you as a sacrificial element to go on. That's not a case for an ethical decision. Ethics a rational practice, based on rational, logical, empirical principles. If it is feelings of heroism that are informing the desire to be sacrificed for the "greater good," a term describing nothing, then there's a good chance that you are actually sacrificing the ethical practice in favor of something more superstitious. It's a bit likt the supposed "trolley problem," which isn't a problem. Most people like to think they'd choose the lever that lifst the most people, and that you're a sociopath if you choose to kick the fat guy in front of the train. There's a problem here: there is no train, there are no people tied to it, there is no fat guy. There isn't a single element to this dilemma, clearly fabricated by some gaslighting weirdo, that isn't entire outrageous from the perspective of actual reality. It provides no details upon which to enact one's moral code, why they're their? Who's the fat guy and why is he just standing by the guard rail? Who is responsible for this? Are the people on the tracks murderers? I reject it altogether.

I think you also value ethical consistency, as do I. — universeness

More than any other thing known to man.

I do see and I agree, it is my main reason for the OP. We just need 'all of the people' or at least a global majority to agree also. It is only the members of our species that can change what we do. No god will do it for us. It is our job! Each and every one of us! WE ARE RESPONSIBLE! — universeness

Yes, and until Man realizes that he is the standard and source of value, that his own happiness is his duty, that ethics is the greatest acheivement of the human race, that each fellow human is to be viewed in the same light, that the universe isn't providing saviors, that the state will not provide salvation, that the human reason is the only means by which to predicate the behvior that is in his control, this will never end. We cannot leave ethics and the epistemological tradition on its own to be overrun by the vermin who now teach it in our Universities, Churches, and from the pulpits of Washington's houses. We have to take it back, or Man is fucking doomed. And make no mistake about it, we've been being warned of this for a hundred years and very few of our predecessors took action. Boomers, all of em.....

I would love to see the above text put into a more poetic form and read by a Mr Angry character on YouTube. I think it would be a hit! I think it clearly frames the frustration of many and the exasperation people have for their species. Do you have any suggestions on how this situation might be improved? — universeness

You know what, just for you, I'll stall my writing for tonight, and I'll pull out a piece of paper dedicated just to poem on this subject, and I'll type you something up with my Olympia SM3, and when I'm done with it, I'll snap a picture of it and it to your inbox. What do you say?

Wow! I love the passion which is palpable in your last paragraph. Gives me hope. For me, that's where the solution lies. Somewhere in such incendiary beginnings is the big meeting that 'the people' have to attend. An internet meeting probably. I think there are rumblings amongst global youth. I remain hopeful. — universeness

We have to get passionate about ethics once more, my friend. Everything depends on it. Think of the days when the Munich Circle, or the French Philosophes, or the Russian novelists, would gather together in pubs, and dachas, and coffee houses, not to drink their lives away, or to busy themselves with meandering activities, but to discuss philosophy. To theorize on what was right, how they knew it, what it meant for the world if it were true, and to challenge each the other like fucking ravenous lions over the last piece of life sustaining meat in the name the good. Think of all the days Einstein spent alone in his garet slaving over time, and matter, and energy, and after having brought it to the world saying to his fellow peers "Dosteovesky gives me more than any scientist, more than Guass." Think of what the fuck that statement meant for Einstein. Think of this when you feel like you're losing passion. The shit wakes me up everytime.

I'm sure we could come to some compromise on the first one and the second is giving me that annoying imagery again. Y'know, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
It's possible that amongst the human writers of the gospel fables, was an annoyed antecedent of Garret Travers — universeness

Well, he's come round again, and he's glad you're here with him, whoever you are stranger. Keep your gun ready and your aim steady, brother. And I mean it, don't let yourself be angered by ingnorance and stupidity, to the best of your ability. Anger deflates the meaning of the good in a strange internal way and the last thing you need for your own fulfillment is to bitter and resentful because people who are not you are ignorant and stupid. I know it seems strange for a stranger to ask, but trust me on this one at least. Letting go of anger was the most powerful transition I've ever gone through in my life. It's not something you will regret. Anyway, I'll get you that poem sometime soon.

-G

No, and I would never expect them to do as much for me — Garrett Travers

If (I of course, hope it never happens) one of them did? Would you state/think they had made a wrong decision?
Would it leave you with a feeling of 'guilt by association?' You were not asked, you would not have let them if you had been asked. I agree but such is rarely in our power. To me, I think I would spend the rest of my life living and trying to 'earn' their decision. Whatever was their responsibility in the form of progeny, mother, father, etc would become mine.
I share your opinion towards children.

I reject it altogether. — Garrett Travers

But is your rejection based purely on the hypothetical nature of simulated dilemmas?
Are you simply saying, that a person should base their ethics/morality on what they actually did when they faced a real situation? If so, I agree that such real experience is far more valuable than any preemptive musing, no matter what criteria source you use to produce 'thought experiments.'
But thought experiment is a valid strategy within the scientific method and such thinking has paid off in my own personal experience.

More than any other thing known to man. — Garrett Travers

I agree it's certainly very high on the list. I also put 'willingness to learn/change/improve' very high.

that the state will not provide salvation — Garrett Travers

I agree with most of what you have typed but the 'state' can facilitate a better way for our species, in my opinion, if we can get its structure and functions correct. I see no way to avoid 'a hierarchy of structure,' within a human-based society. Especially when it is (or needs to become) globally based. We have to achieve the very difficult task of spotting and stopping any individual with nefarious intent. Such a structure must be formed 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' It must be fair, democratic and contain economic parity for all and it must also contain very powerful checks and balances. I think we know the formula, but we need the global will.

You know what, just for you, I'll stall my writing for tonight, and I'll pull out a piece of paper dedicated just to poem on this subject, and I'll type you something up with my Olympia SM3, and when I'm done with it, I'll snap a picture of it and it to your inbox. What do you say? — Garrett Travers

I am flattered, thank you. Perhaps I will turn it into an oil painting!

We have to get passionate about ethics once more, my friend. Everything depends on it. Think of the days when the Munich Circle, or the French Philosophes, or the Russian novelists, would gather together in pubs, and dachas, and coffee houses, not to drink their lives away, or to busy themselves with meandering activities, but to discuss philosophy. To theorize on what was right, how they knew it, what it meant for the world if it were true, and to challenge each the other like fucking ravenous lions over the last piece of life sustaining meat in the name the good. Think of all the days Einstein spent alone in his garet slaving over time, and matter, and energy, and after having brought it to the world saying to his fellow peers "Dosteovesky gives me more than any scientist, more than Guass." Think of what the fuck that statement meant for Einstein. Think of this when you feel like you're losing passion. The shit wakes me up everytime — Garrett Travers

I applaud your passion and the content of your message and I wish that more of our teachers in schools and universities demonstrated such passion when delivering their subject to the next generation. Maybe we would have a lot fewer sad conclusions form in human minds such as antinatalism.

Well, he's come round again, and he's glad you're here with him, whoever you are stranger. Keep your gun ready and your aim steady, brother. And I mean it, don't let yourself be angered by ingnorance and stupidity, to the best of your ability. Anger deflates the meaning of the good in a strange internal way and the last thing you need for your own fulfillment is to bitter and resentful because people who are not you are ignorant and stupid. I know it seems strange for a stranger to ask, but trust me on this one at least. Letting go of anger was the most powerful transition I've ever gone through in my life. It's not something you will regret. Anyway, I'll get you that poem sometime soon. — Garrett Travers

Good to confirm that 'the good people will always be back in some form and we will be millions,' We will always be around to disrupt those who seek to be King of slaves. I am here and ready to resist. I hope the guns only every have to be verbal and organisational but if the Kings want to kill you then you have the right to defend.
I will keep my anger and make sure it's directed correctly. I agree it's a dangerous and self-destructive force if misused or manipulated. I really do handle it with care but I need its motivational power. I don't think I have bitterness or resentment in any raw form. I think they coalesce into a determination to protect others against unfair treatment. Looking forward to your poem.

If (I of course, hope it never happens) one of them did? Would you state/think they had made a wrong decision?
Would it leave you with a feeling of 'guilt by association?' You were not asked, you would not have let them if you had been asked. I agree but such is rarely in our power. To me, I think I would spend the rest of my life living and trying to 'earn' their decision. Whatever was their responsibility in the form of progeny, mother, father, etc would become mine.
I share your opinion towards children. — universeness

I don't do guilt. I am either responsible, or I am not. Guilt is little more than a childhood emotion, generated to reinforce lessons of right and wrong in early development, that parents, and teachers, and generally immoral people manipulate in children to cover up their own guilt they feel for reasons much the same in relation to the parents, teachers, and gennerally immoral people that influenced their purview. This kind of thing resulting in a life-long expression of a adolescent emotion just one should have extricated himself from the prison of long ago.

As to the question: Yes. My life is not theirs. Their life belongs to only one entity, the consciousness bound within their frame, and the frame from which its consciousness is generated. But, I'd have you consider something. If it came down to the wire, and your own child sacrificed himself for your life, you would not have to earn his decision, he would not have ever given you a greater reason to believe that you hadn't already done so, even if his choice was one of passion, and not of ethical assesment. As far as children, that's where the true source of our toubles in the world lie. I challenge you to find any form of evil behavior that cannot be traced back to some form of childhood, trauma, abuse, manipulation, gaslighting, or ostracism.

Good to confirm that 'the good people will always be back in some form and we will be millions,' We will always be around to disrupt those who seek to be King of slaves. I am here and ready to resist. I hope the guns only every have to be verbal and organisational but if the Kings want to kill you then you have the right to defend.
I will keep my anger and make sure it's directed correctly. I agree it's a dangerous and self-destructive force if misused or manipulated. I really do handle it with care but I need its motivational power. I don't think I have bitterness or resentment in any raw form. I think they coalesce into a determination to protect others against unfair treatment. Looking forward to your poem. — universeness

Glad to hear, my man. I'll start on it tonight, let's if I can't come up with something cool.

If it came down to the wire, and your own child sacrificed himself for your life, you would not have to earn his decision, he would not have ever given you a greater reason to believe that you had already done so, even if his choice was one of passion, and not of ethics — Garrett Travers

I understand that such an act can be purely based on 'love' or even a kind of 'biological or tribal loyalty,'
I would still want to 'inherit' whatever I could from 'who they were,' and nurture it as best I could. So I still see an 'earn' aspect. Perhaps it would be more in the form of 'memorialisation,' depending on the age of the child.

I challenge you to find any form of evil behavior that cannot be traced back to some form of childhood, trauma, abuse, manipulation, gaslighting, or ostracism. — Garrett Travers

Well, I know what you are saying but what is evil behavior to some (blood sports or eating meat for example) is good behavior to others. If we consider only 'evil behavior' as it would be labeled by the majority of people then is this not also true for any form of good behavior. Behavior you first learned or garnished from childhood experience.

I understand that such an act can be purely based on 'love' or even a kind of 'biological or tribal loyalty,'
I would still want to 'inherit' whatever I could from 'who they were,' and nurture it as best I could. So I still see an 'earn' aspect. Perhaps it would be more in the form of 'memorialisation,' depending on the age of the child. — universeness

I can understand the emotional aspect in that, it's not the emotions are meaningles or anything. It's simply that, much like with scientific framework, ethical framework lack objectivity in approach to the degree that emotion informs them. If it came down to it, I would also desire such a thing, I think. I hope that helps in understanding what approach I am coming at things with.

Well, I know what you are saying but what is evil behavior to some (blood sports or eating meat for example) is good behavior to others. If we consider only 'evil behavior' as it would be labeled by the majority of people then is this not also true for any form of good behavior. Behavior you first learned or garnished from childhood experience. — universeness

That's where ethics comes in. Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, And Objectivist Ethics are all frameworks that have developed objective standards on which to predicate your moral code, dependent on your respective dilemma, and some more objective than others (I'm sure you can imagine which is which). None of these framework permit bloodsport as ethical behavior. You might think of what you just said in another way, like so: "I know what you're saying, but what is unscientific behavior to some (astrology, witchcraft) is scienctific for others." The two are logically equivalent in nature. We all know that the scientific method(s) does not permit astrology as a scientific approach at reality. So too, is it the same with ethics. Just to further elaborate, and this all may have been stuff you've considered, but I like going over it. A good way of conceptualizing what Ethics, Morality, and Virtue are, is to compare it with like-framework. Ethics is to behavior what Science is to inductive observation. Morality is to behavior what the Scientific Method (s) is to inductive observation. Virtue is to behavior what proper analysis of data is to inductive observation. Tell me if that makes sense, if you've considered it, or if I should refine and reformulate it for better conveyance of the idea.

I'm off for a wee evening of alcohol and chat Garret.
I will respond to your response tomorrow!
Have a great night!

You too, man. Stay cool.

Sorry I keep forgetting to press t twice Garrett!

But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way
I assume you didn't intend the word 'don't' here. Why is this sentence true?
Lack of education? Due to the deliberate historical actions of others? Why do you think its true? — universeness

Yes, the "don't" was an unfortunate typo that reversed the intended meaning. I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. And History is too eclectic & inclusive to apply direct force to specific individuals. Nevertheless, non-philosophers typically prefer simple broad principles, like the Golden Rule. Still, such general precepts must be interpreted for specific situations.

Academic Philosophers are unusual in their motivation to precisely analyze human behavior down to general rules. Yet, their collective conclusions tend to cluster in the shape of a Bell Curve, but with "fat tails". By that, I mean those who are highly motivated (narrowly focused experts) tend to move toward extreme positions. Moreover, the extremists are more likely to be opinion influencers, and leaders of "movements".

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Middle position (Aristotle's Golden Mean) still dominates the statistical distribution of opinions. That's why philosophical wisdom typically advocates a moderate stance, in order to avoid incessant warfare between right-wingers and left-wingers. However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition.

Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castles, regardless of how many follower's lives it cost. And they forced moderates to choose one extreme or the other. Which placed unreasonable and untenable ethical pressure on them. When trapped in the jaws of a moral either/or vise, they had no option, but to "look to themselves" for an incalculable solution. :cool:

I will always feel guilty that I could have done more. Do we all deserve such a self-judgment? Is it possible to be too harsh on ourselves on this issue? I don't feel I am being too harsh, it feels correct. — universeness

Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. :gasp:

how many are actually learning your ABC's and practicing them every day — universeness

A lot of people perform A and B. C, less so. C takes time, ability, and effort. More people who are capable, though, could do more study, and should.

all good but the current state of the planet would suggest, it's just not enough — universeness

Well, universeness, our problems may be beyond our capacity to solve. I don't like that, but it may be true.

It would be nice if we could flip a switch and suddenly have zero carbon output, zero methane output, and so on. No such switch. Too bad. We are DEEPLY dependent on fossil fuels and there is no handy substitute at hand. Wind and solar, nuclear and hydro are alternatives, but we are a long way from deploying them fully. We don't have enough time before things get much worse.

Yes, we could suddenly shut down carbon emitting plants and processes all over the world, then watch the world's economy collapse. World-wide economic collapse and worsening global warming are both bad. Which one shall we have?

We are between a rock and a hard place.

I have "me" and "myself" on the ropes — universeness

I am a little sad to read this. Whenever I try to to operate on myself, to judge myself or force myself to do or to stop doing or feeling something, what is happening is a fragmentation of the person, and the provoking of conflict. It is counter-productive. Please, you have told us that you are a boxing match, a violent damaging sport; ring the bell for the end of the last round, and call it a draw.

I have told this story before here, but...
I was a smoker from the age of 11 until my 60's. Many times i tried to stop and managed once for 6 months, but always fell back. Always there was this conflict: 'I want to stop smoking' but 'I want a cigarette.' and the more I forced myself not to smoke, the more I felt I deserved the reward of a cigarette. And the more I had a cigarette the more I condemned myself as a weak-willed foolish self-indulgent person.

This went on until I had an insight. I have described the situation as though from the outside, but when I say 'insight' I mean an understanding that is not separate from what is understood. I understood the conflict as a whole, and from within. And in the moment of that understanding, there was a change without effort; if I want to smoke, I do not want to not smoke, and vice versa. And from that moment, I have not wanted a cigarette, ever, at all. It is finished.

Of course one cannot force oneself to have such an insight that ends the conflict, gritting one's teeth and urging oneself on does not help, and nor does fighting oneself - even as one wins, one loses. It is a matter of looking without judgement, of looking at oneself without separating oneself between what is seeing and what is seen.

On the outside, the world can be worked on, improved perhaps, cleaned and tidied and so on, but working inwardly does not make sense; insight and understanding is what can heal and transform.

Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement? — universeness

“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
___Karl Marx

Back to your original post --- who's responsible for the evil in the world? : A> God ; B> Politicians ; C> Philosophers ; d> You?
Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum. :cool:

I hope that helps in understanding what approach I am coming at things with. — Garrett Travers

Yes, It's reasonable.

I'm sure you can imagine which is which — Garrett Travers

Well, I can look up each label you assign to the label 'ethics' and gain an understanding of the variety that each combination refers to, which I did. In doing so, I gained a more detailed understanding of 'ethics' labels. I was intrigued by the Rand description (in wikipedia) of an objectivist ethic as the concept of man as a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life. I have always rejected this viewpoint. Which I think is clear from my OP. So human debate about such labels continues, as it should.

Ethics is to behavior what Science is to inductive observation. Morality is to behavior what the Scientific Method (s) is to inductive observation. Virtue is to behavior what proper analysis of data is to inductive observation. — Garrett Travers

I think you are saying that these find commonality in the sense that they each provide 'a road towards the development of a general principle.' All this is fair enough, but the deck can be stacked for so many people in so many ways! Is it evil that someone is born with 'paranoid delusions or sociopathic tendencies etc?' I dont think this would be due to any kind of childhood nurture, although it must be true that how such conditions are treated is of paramount importance when discovered. But economic issues or ethnicity or religion or region or any other such dumb barrier should not be reasons why we don't intervene effectively when someone has such a condition. If they go on to behave in 'evil' ways toward others, then who is really responsible here? We even have such concepts in law. Declared insane! Not legally responsible for their actions and they go into institutes for the criminally insane. But are they evil?
In Carl Sagan's book, 'Broca's brain' he cites the case of a Russian serial killer who it is thought to have killed over 50 people. When science eventually studied him, they decided on a process hitherto untried (which was ok as such as he could be 'ethically' used for medical experimentation.) They severed his corpus callosum ( the communication channels between the right and left hemisphere of his brain). He was left with some difficulties but they eventually declared him 'cured' of his urge to kill others.

I completely agree with your imperative for 'ethical consistency,' but even with all of the ethics labels you have offered so far and how they are interpreted and conceived by others, we have not yet, as a human society, achieved a full understanding of the labels, 'ethics', 'good' and 'evil/bad.' To me, it's illogical to see these labels as 'stand alones,' they are intertwined and interdependent aspects of the human psyche. On a practical level, we must continue the struggle to gain a full non-religious understanding of these concepts (Evil is F*** all to do with ghosts and demons etc) and create a just system for all, which is not dependent on economics or availability of services, etc on a global scale.

I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon

Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. If as a small child, I am taught Christian doctrine as the 'true moral code' then I am, for example, going to believe that it is morally correct to condemn nonbelievers and homosexuals and treat women as less important than men.
I may change my moral imperatives later in life but my early education is crucial to the struggles/dilemmas I will face later in life.
Btw I do think the golden rule is indeed a moral imperative.

However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition. — Gnomon

:lol: Very true analysis and currently, good advice but I hope this 'inevitability of war' between opposing viewpoints, as the only final way to 'settle the argument,' will be removed as an option. I hang my hopes on the M.A.D deterrent. I hope that technology absolutely ensures that we will all perish if we use war to settle things. I like the choice of "get it right! or you will all die! all of you, EXTINCT. The Earth will eventually try again with another species," So, we will be motivated to get it right!

Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castle — Gnomon

I lay no blame at the door of Karl Marx for the likes of Stalin and Hitler, in the same way as I lay no blame at the door of the fabled god(s) for the actions of humans. Marx simply suggested a fairer way to distribute wealth and power using the model of a human commune. Working together for a common good rather than allowing a rule by Kings or autocrats. In my opinion, a young Karl Marx would have fought against Stalin and Hitler with equal venom, as he would have recognised them both as autocrats.

Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. — Gnomon

Yes I am, but I am also asking, should you be doing the same? Should we all be doing so?
I am an atheist so no religious influence apart from the influence of its rejection. I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. I see democratic socialism as a human imperative rather than a political one. It is a political necessity, in my opinion, to create a fair society.
It's interesting to me that you use the term 'perfectionist,' similar to utopian etc.
Do you think a just, fair human society is unobtainable?
I do accept my imperfections but I can still strive to improve, cant I?
I can only leave the judgment of whether or not my actions demonstrate such improvement, to others.
I feel that the term 'diversionary tactics' is unwarranted. What would my purpose be for employing any subterfuge in this thread? Personal aggrandisement is the only nefarious intent I can come up with. If that is my true intent then others will call me out on it I hope. Perhaps your 'diversionary tactics' flag will encourage others to be ever watchful.
I welcome angst, else I should become complacent. I welcome it but will not allow it to overwhelm me.

I hope that technology absolutely ensures that we will all perish if we use war to settle things. — universeness

Don't you think this reassurance will be a reason for some to start such a war? I think it's a very scary idea that such a war is possible in the first place. Gives me nightmares!

A lot of people perform A and B. C, less so. C takes time, ability, and effort. More people who are capable, though, could do more study, and should — Bitter Crank

Good stuff, I hope you are correct and I can only agree with your comment here.

Well, universeness, our problems may be beyond our capacity to solve. I don't like that, but it may be true — Bitter Crank

I have personal faith that it's not. Our capacity to change has been demonstrated in fabulous labels such as 'revolution,' 'hope,' 'enlightenment,' 'pioneer,' ' explorer,' 'wonder,' etc. I know you could provide me with an equally emotive list of negative labels or you could provide negative outcome examples of labels such as 'revolution,' (Orwells 1984 etc) but no, I will never give up on the human race as it would mean giving up on myself. You have used many words in your posts which are not bitter and are not cranky. I would like to see you change your 'handle' but perhaps you like the 'ironic' element too much and I fully accept your choice of 'handle' is just that, your choice.

It would be nice if we could flip a switch and suddenly have zero carbon output, zero methane output, and so on. No such switch. Too bad. We are DEEPLY dependent on fossil fuels and there is no handy substitute at hand. Wind and solar, nuclear and hydro are alternatives, but we are a long way from deploying them fully. We don't have enough time before things get much worse.
Yes, we could suddenly shut down carbon emitting plants and processes all over the world, then watch the world's economy collapse. World-wide economic collapse and worsening global warming are both bad. Which one shall we have?
We are between a rock and a hard place — Bitter Crank

Yep, all complicated stuff. I think your depiction of a desperate race between reaching a destructive point of no return and a point of 'turn around' towards a better stewardship of our planet is an accrate depiction. We all need to pick our causes, be vigilant and do all we can in pursuit of the latter outcome.
If we go extinct, I for one will go kicking and screaming about the folly of others.

I am a little sad to read this. Whenever I try to to operate on myself, to judge myself or force myself to do or to stop doing or feeling something, what is happening is a fragmentation of the person, and the provoking of conflict. It is counter-productive. Please, you have told us that you are a boxing match, a violent damaging sport; ring the bell for the end of the last round, and call it a draw — unenlightened

Showing compassion for another is a strength, so thank you. It was not my intention to portray any element of sadness in the struggle of "I" with "me" and "myself" My own emotion of sadness is a product of me, myself and I. We all have these three voices due to having a triune brain. This is not a fragmentation this is a result of the physical fact that our brain is actually three separate brains connected together. Me, myself, and I are physiological, not metaphysical.
The conflict occurs due to the priority functions of the r-complex, the limbic system, and the cerebral cortex. We all have similar struggles. Gaining balance is my goal, as this will, in my opinion, allow me to be as useful as I can be in the area we label 'human life.'
I accept that 'boxing match' imagery was not my best choice. How about three siblings who all love each other but who have big disagreements about what the family priorities should be?
I hope that disavow's the sadness conclusion.

if I want to smoke, I do not want to not smoke, and vice versa. And from that moment, I have not wanted a cigarette, ever, at all. It is finished — unenlightened

Defeating any kind of addiction is a mammoth task. Sounds like you achieved it. I can only applaud you and add your example to the list of evidence that humans can defeat very difficult, complicated harmful situations and improve their life accordingly. How much more so then, if we had much better and more intense help from everyone else around us.

On the outside, the world can be worked on, improved perhaps, cleaned and tidied and so on, but working inwardly does not make sense; insight and understanding is what can heal and transform. — unenlightened

Surely new insight and understanding comes from internal conflict or musings. If not from the internal then where does new insight and understanding come from?
If you don't like the adversarial imagery of 'internal conflict' then perhaps you will find 'internal musings/debate/rumination,' more palatable.

The main point is not to surrender to exasperation, exhaustion, feelings of the inevitability of personal defeat, placid acceptance of a negative fate etc.

Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum — Gnomon

I understand your emotive use of 'cannon-fodder' and 'who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution.' I have often used the phrase 'Lions led by donkeys,' to describe the soldiers on WW1 and those who led them. I am currently reading the personal memoirs of Ulysses S Grant.
A fascinating and somewhat terrifying insight into human conflict.
Should Marx have been on the front line with the people of the Russian revolution? Seems apt to me but I don't know his personal capabilities or circumstances at the time in question but would he have been able to affect the outcomes of that particular conflict if he did what you suggest was his responsibility to do. I don't know.

I could perhaps be labeled with all or any of the tags you suggest, as could many others, including you. But my question is, is it our individual responsibility to aspire to such actions when we see and report discontent with the way things are or do we remain nothing more than at best, armchair warriors. We can try to organise, unite, pressure the system we so disdain. Many do but is it imperative that everyone who does not like our current society becomes an activist? Is this your responsibility and mine? I can get the metal for the lever, will you help build it and the fulcrum? I think we will probably have to do a lot more than that if we are to win this desperate race against time and prevent our own extinction.

Stalin and Lenin had personal autocratic ambitions, in my opinion, and were not much better than the Tsar they wished to replace. Picked leaders often disappoint so we need to learn the lessons of history and never have a revolution which has a single leader. The roman senate knew 'emperor' was a bad idea, we simply still haven't got the very complex issue of a hierarchy of authority correct yet.
BUT WE WILL!
For me, the solution has to lie in very powerful checks and balances. It has to be relatively easy to remove any leader.
All authority must be OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE and must be implemented globally.