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! — Dijkgraf
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. — universeness
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? — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
Of course, it should. But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. For example, government-funded schools are now political battlegrounds over the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", among other academic concerns. One side seems to view it as an ethical issue regarding fair treatment of "minority" citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition treats it as a political propaganda attack on the besieged colorless race. (note -- I know nothing about the CR theory other than the label)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. — universeness
That "suggestion" was not my personal opinion, but a reflection of the historical & current political polarization between "socialist" Liberals and "capitalist" Conservatives. Throughout history, those on the top echelons of society (owners of capital) were typically status-quo Conservatives. The Moderate mid-levels of society were content to just hang-on to their not-so-bad positions. And the huddled masses, were either passively accepting of their lot in life, or frustrated by the lead-ceilings as they tried to climb-up to the next rung in society.I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. — universeness
We all have these three voices due to having a triune brain. — universeness
Defeating any kind of addiction is a mammoth task. — universeness
Bravo! That sounds much more optimistic than the OP. I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals. :smile:BUT WE WILL! — universeness
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. — Garrett Travers
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. — universeness
There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do. — unenlightened
Tell that to the heroin addict. — Dijkgraf
If we are to depend on our rational faculty to guide our ethical decisions and understanding, what assures us that the truths we arrive at can be nailed down as factual? — Joshs
This is of course the problem of skepticism that occupied philosophers like Hume and Kant. Kant’s solution led him to his categorical imperative and moral ‘duty’. I assume you reject his approach , as did Rand. I could be wrong but I suspect that the whole course of 20th and 21at century ethical theory devolves upon Kantian ethics , even as many approaches submit him to critique. — Joshs
the belief that real objects in the world can only be understood in their empirical scientific truth relative to our subjective schemes and categories of understanding. — Joshs
science can never have direct access to truths about the world, but only approximate and falsify. In other words, for post-Kantian thought a certain degree of relativism is built into rationality. — Joshs
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your notion of rational thought, like Rand’s, give us such direct access to empirical truth? — Joshs
Descartes believed we had such direct access to truth, mediated by the direct connection between the pineal gland of the brain and Divine guidance that equips our brains with the faculty to recognize truth in the causal relations we discover in the world — Joshs
But you are an Atheist so it sounds like you believe that we have that faculty but it is not given to us by God. — Joshs
The domain of existence is apprehendable by the human, using only induction to guide him, let alone logic, experimentation, independent observation, with the entire history of science and innovation predicated upon it to demostrate it. — Garrett Travers
wherein each part only has its identity in relation to its contribution to the larger whole. So Kant’s subjectivism contributes a relationality to causation that sees connections where previous objective causal models saw only independent parts arbitrarily combined in causal sequences. — Joshs
The pre-Kantian rationality accepts arbitrary concatenations of parts as the exemplar of reason. — Joshs
The post-Kantian approach looks for gestalt pattern everywhere. In terms of ethics , the pre-Kantian ethicist sees narrow islands of rational ethical conduct surrounded by a sea of irrationality , psychopathology, emotionality, malevolence and evil. The individual will is declared sovereign because it is the only thing that can be counted on to be understandable and predicable, a machine we know well because it belongs to us. We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational. And even when we see them as rational, they will be operating according to a rationality which, like a car engine, has its own arbitrary causative sequence of working parts. So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics. — Joshs
I completely feel what you're saying in all of this. — Garrett Travers
But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. — Gnomon
the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" — Gnomon
But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. — Gnomon
So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile: — Gnomon
That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom — Gnomon
I don't much like brainspeak. I have never seen or felt my brain and I am not convinced I have one. Nor do i believe that you or anyone else is more experienced wrt their own brain. — unenlightened
Alas, you have not understood me; it is so simple, that almost no one does. No one has defeated anyone or anything, and no task has been performed. There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do. — unenlightened
I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals — Gnomon
It is the ending of psychological conflict that is required; when one is single-minded, there is no conflict, and things become fairly straightforward. — unenlightened
We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational — Joshs
So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics. — Joshs
I'm a good-for-nothing, but if you want my opinion,it's this: Take care of yourself; put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to help others. If everybody had the good sense to do that, the world wouldn't need heroes or a Christ savior. It's that simple, the solution that is, but no, some of us just don't do enough to stay away from trouble - we make mistake after mistake until we end up on the streets, homeless, penniless, hopeless, helpless, etc — Agent Smith
If a person becomes too 'single-minded' and they have very little or no 'psychological conflict' then they can lose all empathy/compassion for others. — universeness
Again we are not of one mind here. I say 'single-minded', and you hear 'bully' or 'tyrant'. — unenlightened
Raw hatred has no empathy with its target but it does not necessarily lack insight.It is the lack of insight that leads to the loss of empathy — unenlightened
I don't like to employ anything invented in the theistic mind. But I could employ terms like single-minded and no psychological conflict when describing pure evil. — universeness
I hate fascism but I do not lack insight into its doctrine. — universeness
For what it's worth, here's my own cosmic calendar. It shows an optimistic upward progression, despite all the physical entropy and political digressions. I attribute the upward evolution to the counter-entropy force of Enformy. Scientists call it "negentropy", but I prefer the more positive sounding term. :smile:The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar. — universeness
So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue. — universeness
The term 'pure evil' is at best paradoxical, and liable to lead to contradiction. "How can evil be anything but impure?" — unenlightened
Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well! — Agent Smith
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.