Just joking about the New Zealand lawyer. He's a bright guy.

It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. — AmadeusD

To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring.

being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD

I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess.

Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill

Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view.

They actually prevent many problems and solve many problems. — Truth Seeker

In some scenarios, this is definitely true. But it touches not what you've intimated, and what I have in turn speculatively responded to. This is prevarication, for lack of a better term.

For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill

This is a great example of what I'm trying to put forward - Compassion literally doesn't solve problems. If the problem is 'I need a hug' that's not what I'm talking about. That's just a mindstate someone is in - and I would only ever employ compassion in that situation.

I take it you have never needed a mother and a father and doctors and nurses and midwives to come into existence and stay alive. I wonder which species you belong to. Perhaps you are visiting from another planet and trying to understand sentient life on Earth. — Truth Seeker

Oh brother. When your response is to assume I have some disparate, alien experience to you, I can be absolutely sure you're not coming to the table with a full basket.
In short: No, Don't be ridiculous. I have a different take on this than you do. As above though, this tells me a huge amount about your intentions here.

I will be happy to give you extensive education on the importance of empathy, compassion and caring for living things on Earth. — Truth Seeker

You're wrong, and not engaging the problem, so I'll pass.

I've wondered about that. :cool: — jgill

You're not alone, obviously. And I'd have it no other way. I don't want to be particularly well-connected with those for whom compassion is the be-all-end-all. I've been through it and its self-destructive at every turn. As we're watching...

New Zealand lawyer — jgill

Not quite a lawyer, yet. But i very much appreciate the kind word :) It is very much returned, though I don't recall your occupation haha.

To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring. — Beverley

Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic.

I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. — Beverley

I responded to a specific occasion of OP claiming this is their stance... It's also very much in-line with two decades of experience trying to do the compassion-as-worldview thing, and it leading me to ... lets say reject it, to be less verbose. My feelings are much deeper than that.

You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. — Beverley

Not in any way. I am pointing out the fallacious point of pretending that emotional states solve problems.

I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess. — Beverley

Extreme certainly strikes me as odd, but otherwise, I more or less agree, but this has nothing to do with what I've said or put forward. This is true enough for me too - which is why I volunteered running a mental health charity for several years among other things. You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done:

There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD

You can ignore the part you view as exaggeration (because you didn't make the statement it replied to..),. But, clarifying this otherwise, I am speaking here about hte fact that in dealing with other individuals we need to employ compassion and empathy. Though, the fact is this needs to be guarded very well. It is the weak carrying compassion who are manipulated, rode over, pushed and pulled etc... Into the people the scenarios OP is whining about.
So, in this context I'm actually in agreement, But i still think the sanguine, irrational mode of OP's suggestions are... exactly that, and do not solve problems.
When it comes to 'world issues' or 'national issues' let's say, compassion is pretty much the worst of all possible avenues to attack from.

A case in point is that currently our (NZ) social housing organisation, Kainga Ora, is under serious fire. What's the reason: Too much compassion.

They have, under successively shit governments been mandated to basically do absolutely nothing about their tenants abusing neighbours, destroying property and generally being violent wankers. Compassion is the reason. These tenants are struggling - some with addictions, some with mental health issues, some with bad socialisation, some with cultural disconnection etc.. etc.. etc.. .All shitty things.
But their behaviour is violating the rights of others to a point that we cannot employ compassion to solve this problem. The victims need seeing to, and the perpetrators do not require further compassion. They need consequences to prevent further harm to others. Compassion will solve no part of this problem. A rational apportionment of force as between two conflicting parties, from without, is required. This is actually true of any group conflict, or even badly-communicated personal ones.

What's actually happened?
What's actually wrong?
How do we solve it?

Compassion isn't involved here.

Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic. — AmadeusD

In your opinion.

You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done: — AmadeusD

If I have ignored you then I apologize. I must have missed something.

In your opinion. — Beverley

Sort of. It's an opinion to which i give my assent.

Rational thinking, and compassion are necessarily different things. Point taken, nevertheless. My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness.

Actually all of us are in our own cage. We are just unaware of it that's all.

This should be a fun exchange fun.

I agree.

I already addressed my problems i.e. what is the ultimate nature of selves? What is the ultimate nature of the universe? Do gods exist? We don't know and probably can't know, so I will not waste any more time on them. I am an agnostic atheist pragmatist vegan egalitarian and every day I save and improve lives.

The plague example is irrelevant. I never said that compassion and caring make all living things immortal. However, it is because of our compassion and caring that we treat people and other living things who are ill or injured.

Living things make choices due to the interactions of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Our choices are determined and constrainted by variables we did not choose. The people who behave irresponsibly most likely had terrible Adverse Childhood Experiences. What is needed is treatment for their mental illnesses and addictions. If they had received compassion and caring since conception and did not have the Adverse Childhood Experiences they would not behave irresponsibly. I have worked with many criminals and it is the lack of compassion they received that made them into criminals. So, the problem is not too much compassion. The problem is that we failed to prevent all Adverse Childhood Experiences. If you don't know what Adverse Childhood Experiences are, then please see https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html

I am quoting the following from https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score You should look at the webpage in full.

There are 10 types of childhood trauma measured in the CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. (There are many others…see below.) Five are personal — physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. Five are related to other family members: a parent who’s an alcoholic, a mother who’s a victim of domestic violence, a family member in jail, a family member diagnosed with a mental illness, and experiencing divorce of parents. Each type of trauma counts as one. So a person who’s been physically abused, with one alcoholic parent, and a mother who was beaten up has an ACE score of three.

There are, of course, many other types of childhood trauma — racism, bullying, watching a sibling being abused, losing a caregiver (grandmother, mother, grandfather, etc.), homelessness, surviving and recovering from a severe accident, witnessing a father being abused by a mother, witnessing a grandmother abusing a father, involvement with the foster care system, involvement with the juvenile justice system, etc. The ACE Study included only those 10 childhood traumas because those were mentioned as most common by a group of about 300 Kaiser members; those traumas were also well studied individually in the research literature.

The most important thing to remember is that the ACE score is meant as a guideline: If you experienced other types of toxic stress over months or years, then those would likely increase your risk of health consequences, depending on the positive childhood experiences you had (see below).

Prior to your 18th birthday:

Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you? or Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you? or Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way? or Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did you often or very often feel that … No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special? or Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did you often or very often feel that … You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you? or Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Were your parents ever separated or divorced?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Was your mother or stepmother:
Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her? or Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard? or Ever repeatedly hit over at least a few minutes or threatened with a gun or knife?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic, or who used street drugs?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide? No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Did a household member go to prison?
No___If Yes, enter 1 __
Now add up your “Yes” answers: _ This is your ACE Score — Aces Too High

I recommend that you read the following books:

"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky

"Free Will" by Sam Harris

You should also watch this TED Talk: How childhood trauma affects health across a lifetime by Nadine Burke Harris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ovIJ3dsNk

My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness. — AmadeusD

I go to lengths to make it clear that these are my opinions, and I try not to state my opinions as facts, which would be wrong. I also frequently let it be known that I respect the opinions of others. I may have, on occasion, fallen short on this (I do not claim to be perfect) and I do not have a problem apologizing if I have caused offense in any way.

it is because of our compassion and caring that we treat people and other living things who are ill. — Truth Seeker

I think having a conscience is important too (or is that the same thing?) When I have done something that, on reflection, I realize may have hurt (not physically) someone, I feel absolutely terrible. However, I recognize that this is a good thing and try to learn from the experience. I would hate to think that one day I might have no guilty conscience, despite it being painful.

I agree that having a conscience is important. The problem is our conscience depends on variables we don't choose i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Because there is nothing necessary about life in Mars, physically, metaphysically, logically. The point of the cogito is that it always confirms itself circularly, you can't deny it, because by denying it you prove it. — Lionino

Physically no, but metaphysically and logically? May be or why not?
Cogito to "I exist" is a deductive leap, tautology or just monologue. Problem with Cartesian cogito is, it lacks the content. Lack of content in cogito allows even denial of Ergo sum. What if, the content of cogito was "I doubt" or "I deny"? Does "Ergo sum" still stand?

The problem is our conscience depends on variables we don't choose i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Is having a conscience a problem? I suppose it could be if it became uncontrollable and developed into a mental health issue.

I wonder if everyone has a conscience though, but people choose to suppress it, or ignore their conscience by deceiving themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified. This could be affected by environments and experiences, but would also involve some amount of choice. I am just playing with ideas here though and am not certain about any of them. I think it must be pretty hard to be certain about any of this. (haha and there I was thinking I was going off topic, and I ended up coming back round to it again :) )

The problem with having a conscience is not that it exists but that different people have different values. For example, fasting during Ramadan is considered mandatory by Muslims but non-Muslims think fasting during Ramadan is not necessary.

I recommend that you read the following books:

"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky

"Free Will" by Sam Harris

Is having a conscience a problem? I suppose it could be if it became uncontrollable and developed into a mental health issue. — Beverley

Scrupulosity is a somewhat relevant mental health issue.

I wonder if everyone has a conscience though, but people choose to suppress it...

In cases of psychopathy I don't get the impression that there is any conscience there to suppress.

I agree.

Scrupulosity is a somewhat relevant mental health issue. — wonderer1

I thought there may be something like that. It must be terrible :(

In cases of psychopathy I don't get the impression that there is any conscience there to suppress — wonderer1

I also had this thought myself, but concluded that I wasn't sure.

For example, fasting during Ramadan is considered mandatory by Muslims but non-Muslims think fasting during Ramadan is not necessary. — Truth Seeker

Are we confusing (or it may be just me) conscience with remorse, if conscience is KNOWING what is right or wrong, and remorse is the feeling people get when they ignore doing the right thing (of course, that in itself can be interpreted in many different ways) But if people can have a conscience, but do not feel remorse, then it would make doing the wrong thing far easier and more likely. But then that makes me wonder if people can chose to do the right thing simply because they feel remorse and not because they care about hurting others. This is getting complicated. I haven't studied ethics, so I may well be blundering through all of this. Also, is there a way of distinguishing between what is considered ‘right’ by some people, but that does not significantly affect others, and what is considered right by some people and does affect others? I would say that the latter is much more important. From what I can tell, fasting would fall under the former.

But would it be possible for someone to literally have no conscience, meaning they cannot distinguish between right and wrong? If so, that would be worrying because then they would not even be able to make a choice. Are there such people I wonder?

The problem with having a conscience is not that it exists but that different people have different values — Truth Seeker

There does appear to be differing levels for different people I suppose, whether it be conscience or remorse. However, I am not sure if this is a problem if we consider the individual because if we, as individuals, are happy with our own consciences, and at least accept that we are trying to do our best (nobody is perfect) then from the point of view of our conscience, does it matter what other people are doing/thinking etc?

I recommend that you read the following books:

"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky

"Free Will" by Sam Harris — Truth Seeker

Thanks for the suggestions. :)

You are most welcome about the book recommendation. According to Islam, leaving Islam is punishable by the death penalty. Most Muslims think this is morally right. Ex-Muslims and non-Muslims think this is morally wrong. Which group is correct? How can we know for sure?

According to Islam, leaving Islam is punishable by the death penalty. Most Muslims think this is morally right. Ex-Muslims and non-Muslims think this is morally wrong. Which group is correct? How can we know for sure? — Truth Seeker

I think that most people are in agreement that hurting others is morally wrong. For me, anything else, such as the choice whether to fast or not, is up to the belief and opinion of the individual and only becomes morally wrong if someone else gets significantly hurt in the process. (but again, I am open to hearing other viewpoints)

True. So things that are occurring in the present moment are certain. Like London being the continuing capital of the UK.

What I was simply saying is there are other ways to qualify certainty.

For example, if something only occurs once in the universe. And is extremely brief. And we measure it and document it as certain -that it definitely existed in a defined state at a defined time. How long can we ve certain about that?

How much time must pass before we are no longer certain it occurred at all?

Which lends itself to my argument that from a scientific standard, it easier to establish certainty for things that endure the longest through time.

Does that make them any more certain? Perhaps not. But it certainly makes them more knowable as certain.

I think any religion loses merit if it is not allowed to be practiced by choice and free will, but by fear and coercion.

After all if you cannot choose to identify with a group, but are instead forced to, how can one be said to have faith in it? To actively believe it despite the option not to. One loses their autonomy as a devotee

I think any religion loses merit of it is not allowed to be practiced by choice and free will, but by fear and coercion.

After all if you cannot choose to identify with a group, but are instead forced to, how can one be said to have faith in it? To actively believe it despite the option not to. — Benj96

I absolutely agree with this. To me, threats of death and coercion cause harm to others and are, in my view, morally wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such people are not behaving like that for religious reasons, but because of the desire for power over others. Justifying actions like this by saying that they are for religious reasons is a very powerful, but manipulative, way of controlling others.

Absolutely. And religion is the most often used mode of this manipulation because many people both revere their religions, yet fear consequences through them. For example loving God but fearing hell. Which leaves them vulnerable when people corrupt or misuse scriptures for their own agendas by saying if you don't do X, Y and Z then well...hell is waiting for you.

The most stable religions in my opinion are ones which are less dogmatic and more about asking questions, philosophising and discussing ideas. Ones that do not punish education and free thinking.

Probability, not Certainty — Gnomon
So you are now saying Bayesian inference is only probably correct...? — Banno

Apparently, by snarky implication, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Below is my original reply to 's question. Do you have a better method for quantifying the feeling of "certainty" in an uncertain world? Empirical Science may be able to approach absolute Objectivity for physical questions. But it has no answer for moral dilemmas.

Obviously, the harsh answer to the OP is that we humans can never know anything with "100% certainty". But I took his question as a sincere search for something to assuage his feelings of trepidation, ambiguity & anxiety regarding the moral imperfections of the world. Perhaps, something to believe in. Hence the reference to Bayesian belief. Do you have a problem with Bayesian inference as a means to approach true belief for vexing questions? If so, tell it to TS. And quit trolling Gnomon. :joke:

from this thread :
Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker
In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". ---Gnomon

A Measurable Morality :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1

While I appreciate your very long reply, it is much more of the same platitudinous stuff that doesn't move me.

I think you are wrong, and you've not provided more than a continuing repetition of your position, without much argument. Your points aren't lost on me - they just have nothing to do with the objections i've put out. It does, though, seem as if this is a deep ideological commitment and discussion isn't eaxctly something that moves you either. It seems that your position is essentially one where you've taken other people's positions on as your own, and labeled yourself just so. That isn't my vibe, and I genuinely don't think you're making a reasonable point.
So be it :)

@Beverley In the previous exchange, I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. But it is my choice to interact with you, so I take that on as it comes. Its nothing something you should apologise for. I am merely observing why I navigate your posts with that type of trepidation, and ahve a short fuse for prevarication.

I disagree.

I agree.