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
"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.
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.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
Do sites like TPF give individuals the opportunity to justify why they have not done more to help others? — universeness
a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin — Gnomon
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
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
a consequence of mostly insignificant individuals — Bitter Crank
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
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
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
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
You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. — Gnomon
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
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
and it doesn't strike me as ethical to think of myself as a sacrificial beast before the feet of other men, — Garrett Travers
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
Who is to blame for the state of the world? Why, all of the people are. Don't you see? — Garrett Travers
andget rid of beer — 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."don't get angry with people their idiots and don't know what they're doing, — Garrett Travers
I think you have the answer in your title, to this the most important question of philosophy: -- "How shall we live? — unenlightened
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
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
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
I think you also value ethical consistency, as do I. — universeness
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
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
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
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
No, and I would never expect them to do as much for me — Garrett Travers
I reject it altogether. — Garrett Travers
More than any other thing known to man. — 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.that the state will not provide salvation — Garrett Travers
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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.But very few humans (academic philosophers aside)don'tthink 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
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: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
how many are actually learning your ABC's and practicing them every day — universeness
all good but the current state of the planet would suggest, it's just not enough — universeness
I have "me" and "myself" on the ropes — universeness
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”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
I hope that helps in understanding what approach I am coming at things with. — Garrett Travers
I'm sure you can imagine which is which — Garrett Travers
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 doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon
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
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
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
I hope that technology absolutely ensures that we will all perish if we use war to settle things. — 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 — Bitter Crank
Well, universeness, our problems may be beyond our capacity to solve. I don't like that, but it may be true — Bitter Crank
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
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
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
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
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
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.