I can only answer this way: ethics is, as I understand it, the study of (i.e. reflective inquiry into) the extent to which exercises of moral concern (via judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce (net) harm / injustice) cause a moral agent to flourish – to reinforce adaptive habits (i.e. virtues right in/action) which restrain maladaptive habits (i.e. vices re: wrong in/action). An observational axiom of ethics: suffering – species-specific defects which make individual species-members vulnerable to dysfunction (i.e. fear of harm / injustice) – is the most basic moral fact and thereby knowing how to decrease or increase the likelihood and severity of such defect-dysfunction is thereby the most practical moral truth.

adaptive habits (i.e. virtues) — 180 Proof

To equate habits that are adaptive with virtue seems to me a little too Aristotelian or even too dogmatic in terms of right conduct and proper belief. Yet, what examples or comparisons (sources) can you provide with adaptive habits equaling virtue?

Context matter. (Edited) Maybe 'right in/action' is clearer ...

An observational axiom of ethics: suffering – species-specific defects which make individual species-membrrs vulnerable to dysfunction – is the most basic moral fact and thereby knowing how to decrease or increase the likelihood and severity of dysfunction is thereby the most practical moral truth. — 180 Proof

Interesting. I'd like to ask, in correspondence with the OP, whether only through experience can one come to learn, or even know, such basic moral facts?

The way the world seems to be working is that there's some kind of serious deficiency in this regard of being informed of moral facts or truths.

I'd like to ask, in correspondence with the OP, whether only through experience can one come to learn, or even know, such basic moral facts? — Shawn

Yes, through tacit experience (via childhood, socialization, pedagogy, trauma, etc) but explicitly by reflecting on experiences.

The way the world seems to be working is that there's some kind of serious deficiency in this regard of being informed of moral facts or truths.

It's the age-old problematic: ignorance.

Hi,

In my point of view the suffering of other people is given to us (as a possibility) through a process of alterity that affects the self. This process forces us to project our suffering in others:

Our experience of suffering is inscribed in a chain of signification that the self, the ego, cannot dominate. That is why when we speak of suffering in a certain sense we do not speak only of our suffering but of a suffering-other. For the very moment that suffering takes place as something that happens to an "I" it is projected onto the form of a "here and now". All suffering takes place in a "here and now", but not all "here and now" are equal. This inequality in the "here and now" introduces in us the notion of another "here and now": the "here and now" of the possible other, of the other subject: Projection. I perceive myself then not as a simple self, but as an other for the other. Where do we get the idea that another person suffers? From our perception, which presents itself not as something absolutely mine, but already in a certain sense as something-other. Only in this way can we be able to say: I suffer as another suffers, because I am sufficiently other to myself.

Our experience of suffering is inscribed in a chain of signification that the self, the ego, cannot dominate. — JuanZu

I think from this premise a lot of things or considerations can be derived.

If one equivocates the ego with the self, then I believe most of the tenants of Buddhism can be derived. Yet, I don't believe that the ego and the self are the same thing. Hindu scripture talks about the many avatars that the self can assume in the world. With that in mind, Buddha thought that a common unifying feature of the many avatars of the self, in Hinduism, is the knowledge or experience of dukkha, or suffering.

Schopenhauer talked about the vanity of existence, which I think is the life of the ignorant, who do not understand or perceive the suffering of the world. Yet, he had high notions of what a person should do in light of this moral fact of existence, as @180 Proof put it. I think, that the knowledge of suffering, either through experience or tacit knowledge, should provide grounds to discuss ethics.

What do others think?

Don't overlook the fact that Schopenhauer accepted there was a mode of existence beyond suffering. He was of course scathingly critical of the revealed religions and held Judaism and Islam in particular contempt, but at the same time (and paradoxically) he recognised the value of religious asceticism and held up Francis of Assisi and Jesus as exemplars.

In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, Schopenhauer recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.

This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquillity introduces some paradox (only some?!) into Schopenhauer’s outlook, for he admits that the denial of our will-to-live entails a terrible struggle with instinctual energies, as we avoid the temptations of bodily pleasures and resist the mere animal force to endure, reproduce, and flourish. Before we can enter the transcendent consciousness of heavenly tranquillity, we must pass through the fires of hell and experience a dark night of the soul, as our universal self battles our individuated and physical self, as pure knowledge opposes animalistic will, and as freedom struggles against nature. — SEP

I have an illuminating recent book on him, Schopenhaur's Compass, Urs App, comprising a great deal of original scholarship, taken from Schopenhauer's journals, diary entries and margin notes. It shows how much the atmosphere of the intellectual milieu of his early life was permeated by mysticism - there are numerous references to Jakob Boehme, a Protestant mystic of the 17th century (ref). And of course a long account of his readings of the Upaniṣads, taken from a Persian translation.

This passage, taken from the first pages of that book, provides an oversight of his views:

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man. — Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App

So - Schopenhauer's reputation as a philosophical pessimist is warranted, but it must be understood it wasn't the final word. Presumably, in his place and time, he had no opportunity to sit and converse with an actual representative of the Eastern traditions he so admired, and had that come about, it might have afforded him a better insight into what he himself termed 'higher consciousness'.

The reason of why I identify the ego with the self is because the common core of both notions is unity in identity as self-relation excluding alterity and otherness.

However, I would not agree that one can be ignorant of the suffering of the world. First because I would not speak of the world but of persons and sentient beings; second because this process of projection is not knowledge but how the experience of suffering in general is given. But not only of suffering but of any experience (so I'm not a pessimist). It is not something that can simply be known or ignored but that already operates in us and in the way our perception works. In this sense no being can deny that it is possible for there to be another-suffering.

Don't overlook the fact that Schopenhauer accepted there was a mode of existence beyond suffering. — Wayfarer

I haven't really seen anything about the eastern posited higher consciousness. Sorry to say, but it sounds too New Age to ascribe onto Schopenhauer, at the time. Maybe I'm wrong.

I am however aware, as you say, of the pointing out of the belief in the attitude of, especially, pessimism in his work.

Yet, I believe that pessimism should not discourage a person to discuss ethics. To profess pessimism is a step taken too soon by Schopenhauer. Instead a person could affirm the will to live on the grounds that suffering allows one to understand and help one another.

Mankind can only hope that there is enough empathy and compassion within itself to recognised our shared struggles. Without such an attitude, what more is existence; but, a show of vanity and pride. — Shawn

Vanity and pride? What you are suggesting seems to correspond to sociopathy, which is often so indifferent towards others that vanity and pride may be irrelevant to its experience. Perhaps you are hinting at hedonistic narcissism?

Yet, not every person grows up to see the suffering of humanities existence. — Shawn

I think most people, if not all, are aware of suffering and pain. Some just don't care. And some enjoy (or perhaps appreciate) the suffering of others, possibly as a way to set themselves apart from the losers.

So, if it is really the case that man must go through some affair, be it positive or negative, to understand what man-kind faces, then what is the proper way to have the discussion about ethics? — Shawn

I don't see how there would be a 'proper' way to talk about ethics? This seems rigid. Wouldn't it be more likely that ethics is a conversation which involves culture, language and experience and could be arrived at through a range of entry points? Some of these more useful for certain circumstances than others.

Are you suggesting that our experience of humanity (or of being) is enough to allow us to be fully are of our common humanity, which leads to solidarity (or empathy)?

Do you have reason to believe in moral facts?

Vanity and pride? What you are suggesting seems to correspond to sociopathy, which is often so indifferent towards others that vanity and pride may be irrelevant to its experience. Perhaps you are hinting at hedonistic narcissism? — Tom Storm

I was mostly alluding to Schopenhauer's own conclusions on what you call 'indifference' to the situation of the Other. I don't think he was overt about calling empathy or compassion as a unifying force, as that's what I believe is something that many teachers allude to, yet, don't really explain their importance in ethics.

I don't see how there would be a 'proper' way to talk about ethics? This seems rigid. — Tom Storm

Well, I only say that ethics seems to originate from the suffering of others that one may be able to identify with, either through experience or tacit knowledge.

Are you suggesting that our experience of humanity or of being is enough to allow us to be fully are of our common humanity in some way? — Tom Storm

Yes, I believe that through compassion or empathy, people can find a common goal to which they might aspire towards. I believe this was true for Plato, with respect to the injustice of the wrongful death of his teacher.

Do you have reason to believe in moral facts? — Tom Storm

Not really. I'm more in the Hume camp, where people have to have an impetus other than strict rationality to motivate themselves with respect to morality and ethics.

Maybe I'm wrong. — Shawn

Schopenhauer said:

The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought.

I see. Maybe the ascetic life could contribute to such a 'better consciousness', or at least that is how I interpret it. He did individuate a person or 'ego' into his concern with pessimism being the right attitude. It seems this is an important aspect of the subject at hand.

Well, I only say that ethics seems to originate from the suffering of others that one may be able to identify with, either through experience or tacit knowledge. — Shawn

That seems fair.

Yes, I believe that through compassion or empathy, people can find a common goal to which they might aspire towards — Shawn

If this is true, then it would also seem to hold for hatred and resentment.

I'm more in the Hume camp, where people have to have an impetus other than strict rationality to motivate themselves with respect to morality and ethics. — Shawn

I am inclined to hold that the foundation of morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation.

Maybe the ascetic life could contribute to such a 'better consciousness', or at least that is how I interpret it. — Shawn

As noted, he was a reader of the Upaniṣads. There are many similar passages in them e.g.

Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.1:

"In this imperishable realm, Brahman is manifest as pure consciousness, without any duality of subject and object. Whoever knows this enters into that state, becoming identical with it, attaining liberation."

I am inclined to hold that the foundation of morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation. — Tom Storm

Yes, there's a lot to say about this. Goes way beyond what philosophy can hope to elucidate.

Yes, so, just wondering what you would say about why Schopenhauer focused on pessimism as the correct attitude to profess towards the suffering of the world?

It's the age-old problematic: ignorance. — 180 Proof

... the life of the ignorant, who do not understand or perceive the suffering of the world. — Shawn

A point of clarity: in this context, by "ignorance" I mean to ignore for whatever reason (e.g. naivete, sociopathy-narcissism, acculturation, ideology, remoteness-deniability, callousness-ptsd, magical thinking-otherworldliness, masochistic bias, etc).

... morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation. — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

Yes, so, just wondering what you would say about why Schopenhauer focused on pessimism as the correct attitude to profess towards the suffering of the world? — Shawn

It's a curious fact that Schopenhauer is categorised as atheist, when there are such obvious parallels between him and Indian philosophy (and also Stoic and Cynic philosophers). He verges on that rather cliched expression 'spiritual but not religious'. That quote I provided from Apps' book is fair representation of what his pessimism entails, but it's very different from the antinatalists and other modern secular existentialists that @schopenhauer1 often quotes from, who are nihilist in their outlook: natural life is a curse, but there's nothing beyond it.

Magee says in his book on Schopenhaur that his pessimism was more an aspect of his disposition than of his philosophy. Indeed, his philosophy shares many things in common with religious systems like Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which offer paths toward the successful reconciliation of human being with an ultimate reality; hardly a pessimistic message. So although Schopenhauer himself uses vocabulary that suggests a rather dark and despairing orientation toward the wold, one could accept all that Schopenhauer describes while still remaining sanguine. And indeed the biographical accounts of Schopenhauer indicate that the latter part of his life, he was an excellent conversationalist and had an active social life, not that of a dour, brooding philosopher.

But anyway, I think Schopenhauer's philosophy is certainly not a natural fit in secular culture - not because it's religious, or not in any kind of churchly sense, but because of his view that natural life is a kind of state of penance. That's worlds away from the modern view, that this life and the human condition are the only kinds there are.

Magee says in his book on Schopenhaur that his pessimism was more an aspect of his disposition than of his philosophy. — Wayfarer

I don't believe that his philosophy was the result of his upbringing or nurture. Pessimism towards the world that Schopenhauer describes is, to me, still a mystery. I'm hoping someone can help the fly out of the bottle with this one...

I recommend that Urs App book. Plus this one, on Google Books, very generous preview. Both provide insights into Schopenhauer the man.

I have been summoned...

I don't believe that his philosophy was the result of his upbringing or nurture. Pessimism towards the world that Schopenhauer describes is, to me, still a mystery. I'm hoping someone can help the fly out of the bottle with this one... — Shawn

I'll explain again.. I of course invite you to the countless threads on this subject that I have started/participated in but let me add some more...

We are the only species that bears a responsibility that no other animal must endure, that of justifying why we must do/endure anything. We are self-aware creatures, that know that we can do something counterfactual. We are not instinct-driven, as is the case with other animals (for the most part). Thus comes into play "bad faith" in that we must figure out a reason why we stick with what we do, abandon it, or do any other number of decisions. We are burdened with our own reasons for why we do anything. Thus we often try to "pawn off" our self-awareness to a number of things, whether that be distraction, ignoring, anchoring (in roles of socio-cultural origin), or a number of other methodologies.

As I've said in other threads (greatest recent hits):

I think Ligotti had a nice phrase that characterized the world as malignantly useless. When it’s supported by tons of tedium, self-awareness of the buzzing of meaninglessness as its background radiation that we add our bits and bytes to, it’s quite distressing in its malevolent indifference.

Instead of like other animals, driven by the bliss of instinct sprinkled with some deliberation, experiencing in the moment, we are burdened with our own storm of deliberative thoughts. To form goals and habits and to choose to do so. We have gone beyond what is harmonious and we must always trick ourselves which is why things like values, and self-restraint and shame are what keep us from a kind of freedom that leads to hopeless madness.

Your definition of “just world” itself is an unfair game being that no one born agreed to it. If anything, that’s using people for an ends of whatever game of Justice, Karma, or otherwise this world represents.

We are used. Enough said about “just world”. Add to that contingencies of luck, cause-and-effect, our own striving nature, individual pathologies, and a self-reflective animal that knows its own condition- forget about it.

Generally speaking, Ligotti's assessment holds.. we are a species that has gone beyond the "balance of nature".

So yes, in a way, Schopenhauer's compassion for the human condition, and suffering makes sense. We are outcasts from nature, even as we are originated from it. I don't mean this biologically, but in our mode of being, our "forms of life". We are Homo Exsistentialis. Procreation isn't an outcome of simply being, but an understanding of what we are doing. Now even that is suspect. We NEED reasons to put more humans into the world.. Glorification of X, more labor units, expectations, personal fulfilment, and on it goes.

…we are a species that has gone beyond the "balance of nature". — schopenhauer1

And as there is nothing beyond nature, we’re stepping off our own meta-cognitive awareness into the void of nothingness or meaninglessness. The best we can do, pace Camus, is bear it heroically. Fair description?

So yes, in a way, Schopenhauer's compassion for the human condition, and suffering makes sense. — schopenhauer1

I think this is a fair assumption that Schopenhauer wrote his aphorisms with the hope that humanity might benefit from the reduction of pain through aesthetic practices. What I do ponder about is how pessimism is the conclusion that Schopenhauer believes, that would, reduce suffering in the world.

The evolutionary history of humanity points at making tools and practicing some form of empathic concern for those within our sphere of interest. With such an evolutionary history, how can one negate the very will to live that brought us to life through a struggle with nature? Why would anyone want to dispose of one's will to live, and sublimate it with pessimism. In a sense some people unbiasedly might say that it would be irrational to do so.

Thank you for posting.

And as there is nothing beyond nature, we’re stepping off our own meta-cognitive awareness into the void of nothingness or meaninglessness. The best we can do, pace Camus, is bear it heroically. Fair description? — Wayfarer

I would agree with this summary except the "heroically" part. We simply (must) bear it. Camus' hero is ironically a form of bad faith too. It is a form of "ignoring" of the problem. If one can pretend one is a hero, one can try to give a reason for bearing this or that.

The point is then, we are the species that needs the delusions to get by. Ignore, distract, take on a role (existential hero, replete with cigarette or narcissistic personality disorder!.. pace Nietzsche!!!).

@Wayfarer edited above look at last sentence :D.

The evolutionary history of humanity points at making tools and practicing some form of empathic concern for those within our sphere of interest. With such an evolutionary history, how can one negate the very will to live that brought us to life through a struggle with nature? Why would anyone want to dispose of one's will to live, and sublimate it with pessimism. In a sense some people unbiasedly might say that it would be irrational to do so. — Shawn

You are questioning it right now. Isn't this your answer, the germination of which is in your very inquiry? Why is nature creating creatures that question the "will to live"?

The point is then, we are the species that needs the delusions to get by — schopenhauer1

That they are delusions are also a matter of conviction.

That they are delusions are also a matter of conviction. — Wayfarer

Stories that become one's way of coping, I have deemed "delusions" but you can call it a number of things.. reasons, rationale.. etc. Either way, this is not how the rest of nature works, and hence why we are uniquely (suffering) Homo Exisentialis.