I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world. — AmadeusD
More power to you. That's a good project! — AmadeusD
Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier. — AmadeusD
that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can. — boethius
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic. — AmadeusD
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? — AmadeusD
Too many ideas? — AmadeusD
Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter? — boethius
The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability. — boethius
Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it. — boethius
gets more independent voters
-wins 5-7 out of 13 "swing states" (and 1-2 "red states" (e.g. NC) again like 2020)
2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)
3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain) — 180 Proof
I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion. — AmadeusD
I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug* — AmadeusD
The Supreme Court in Bakke, as on occasion in other cases, played the role of a peacemaker or truce-keeping body by negotiating its way through an impasse of conflict, not by invoking our shared moral first principles. For our society as a whole has none.
What this brings out is that modern politics cannot be a matter of genuine moral consensus. And it is not. Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means, and Bakke was an engagement whose antecedents were at Gettysburg and Shiloh. The truth on this matter was set out by Adam Ferguson: 'We are not to expect that the laws of any country are to be framed as so many lessons of morality .... Laws, whether civil or political, are expedients of policy to adjust the pretensions of parties, and to secure the peace of society. The expedient is accommodated to special circumstances ...' (Principles of Moral and Political Science ii, 144). The nature of any society therefore is not to be deciphered from its laws alone, but from those understood as an index of its conflicts. What our laws show is the extent and degree to which conflict has to be suppressed.
Yet if this is so, another virtue too has been displaced. Patriotism cannot be what is was because we lack in the fullest a sense of patria. The point that I am making must not be confused with the commonplace liberal rejection of patriotism. Liberals have often—not always—taken a negative or even hostile attitude to patriotism, partly because their allegiance is to values which they take to be universal and not local and particular, and partly because of a well-justified suspicion that in the modern world patriotism is often a facade behind which chauvinism and imperialism are fostered. But my present point is not that patriotism is good or bad as a sentiment, but that the practice of patriotism as a virtue is in advanced societies no longer possible in the way that it once was. In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a political and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such a government. Where however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community—which remains unalterably a central virtue—becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me. — After Virtue, MacIntyre
Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people. — AmadeusD
Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing. — AmadeusD
I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position — boethius
a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong — boethius
they had no duty to do otherwise — boethius
some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it. — boethius
That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause. — boethius
The Western enlightenment project has failed. — boethius
ot to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism. — boethius
I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult — boethius
feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. — boethius
it won't be dealt with. — boethius
wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there — boethius
if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare — boethius
once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order — boethius
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. — AmadeusD
Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way. — AmadeusD
I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of. — AmadeusD
Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense. — AmadeusD
Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake. — AmadeusD
They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation. — AmadeusD
Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*. — AmadeusD
I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation. — AmadeusD
I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here. — AmadeusD
This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way. — AmadeusD
What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do. — AmadeusD
I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.
I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense. — AmadeusD
I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. — AmadeusD
The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour. — AmadeusD
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. — AmadeusD
I think it's pretty clear we'll need a new thread to go deeper here. — boethius
at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so. — boethius
However, social consequence is only a clarifying and cannot possibly be an evaluative factor of moral positions and theories. — boethius
I hope that has been clarified above. — boethius
If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument. — boethius
Well if your invoking some sort of social contract — boethius
If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either. — boethius
This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis. — boethius
Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence: — boethius
In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist. — boethius
I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case — boethius
We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense". — boethius
has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past? — boethius
it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable. — boethius
equally bold to simply assume society will simply muddle on despite ridiculous political stupidity — boethius
would you evaluate this as a success? — boethius
how are you even judging success? — boethius
So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful — boethius
Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it. — boethius
I didn't say anything about forcing. — boethius
This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism. — boethius
If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else. — boethius
You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing. — boethius
Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals. — boethius
If you fall back to social norms — boethius
there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect — boethius
Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in. — boethius
history of society repeating to itself those duties are real — boethius
Theadult positionis to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome. — boethius
but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish. — boethius
The only difference — boethius
because they feel a duty to do so — boethius
So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real — boethius
what people felt compelled to do by social pressures — boethius
rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are. — boethius
If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening. — boethius
First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest. — boethius
as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice — boethius
"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it). — boethius
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest. — boethius
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities — boethius
A critical mass of a population — boethius
We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories). — boethius
Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected. — boethius
So ok, "feelings" mean nothing, we have a quite strict absolute moral rule to abide by. — boethius
doesn't really mean anything — boethius
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens. :pray: — Marjorie Taylor Greene · Apr 5, 2024
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.