You had all these hopes to do all the stuff that I mentioned above and now those hopes are dashed. So is that a loss? I will say this much, it can be very painful when you don't get the promotion you were hoping to get and you don't get to do all the stuff you were hoping to do when you got the promotion, which you don't end up getting. — HardWorker

*Sigh* you just repeated yourself while ignoring what I just said. You are speaking in terms of emotional perception. You didn't have the job of a manager, but you're hoping to get promoted and get that job. But now, you didn't get promoted, so you lost that job? Wrong.

And no, you didn't lose the increase in salary. Or you didn't lose that corner office with large windows overlooking the bluff.

Is there a "fact of the matter" that we can strive to discover about this? Or is each correct for themselves? — PhilosophyRunner

It isn't facts that you should be enforcing -- although it is part of everyone's argument: Fact: you killed my dog. But now comes the measure of the immorality of that act. And so on. We can now get to the issue of morality. Discuss it.

What you're supposed to be thinking of is to optimize the goodness (note I didn't say maximize). Optimize the goodness or the favorable outcome of moral acts.

The point of the post is whether it’s reasonable to believe that there is a worst person alive and a best person alive or would it be impossible to say because of everyone in between being various mixes of the two groups of traits and therefore having different criteria for the best and worst — Benj96

The latter. I used to think boring people are at a disadvantage. Until I find that they're seldom bothered by what's happening around them, and seldom compare themselves to others. I'm sure you know the advantage of having this personality, no? The shitty things life throw at us won't damage them much, if at all.

What you could lose by not getting the promotion is that your ego could be hurt and your hopes could be dashed, so there's that to lose. — HardWorker

But you don't have to. I don't think you're understanding what I say when I say, you didn't lose something you didn't own in the first place. I'm talking about concrete. But you're talking in the sense of emotional perception. If you don't risk going after something, then you don't risk losing your ego-- this is what you're saying. Some people actually do not lose their ego.

Maybe there are better arguments for objective morality that avoid the above pitfall, but I am fairly new to the topic so have only just started reading about it. — PhilosophyRunner

I'm telling you that you are mis-attributing "objectivity" here.

but there is another side to it that might not be as often discussed and thats, "nothing ventured nothing lost." — HardWorker

I beg to differ. Think of the law of 100%. You could only lose something that you already own. If you didn't get that promotion, you didn't lose anything since you never had in the first place. I think we often make a mistake in thinking that the opposite of gain is loss. It's not. The opposite of gain is not-gain.

it is an analogy, and I think an apt one as I am asking whether there are objective facts about morality. — PhilosophyRunner

Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics.

Take the analogy of physics laws (my area). I observe that force applied on an object is proportional to it's mass multiplied by it's acceleration. People have observed that since newton, and it is one of the laws of motion he suggested. This has very accurately and reliably been shown to be true. I'm pretty confident in it. I can use it to make predictions.

However I cannot use it to say how nature should or ought to behave. — PhilosophyRunner

I could only say that you are a victim of incorrectly attributing similarities where there shouldn't be. We are talking humans here. Let's get physics out of here.

I preface my post with, this thread is intentionally contentious, without wanting to come to a common understanding.

Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that — Hanover

So we don't disagree. I thought you meant it's just a social convention.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral.

And yes, many of these folk I can recognise within a minute or so of meeting them. The extent of their capacity for destruction, is not apparent unless witnessed or read about in a file. But the ones that worry me most wear suits, speak softly and run corporations.... I don't meet many of those. — Tom Storm

We're the opposite. I meet them, the ones in suits or run companies. And yes, they're scary if you know what to look for. Their eyes, for one. And their movement when they're "in the zone".

saintly human — Benj96

It was never endorsed by any thinkers to be a saintly human. I don't think you're aware of the make-up of saintly humans.

The rich will always cause inflation because it is how their psychology works. One equal state of ownership couldn't happen because there are too many who want to be rich — Gregory

It is not enough that one has a lot of money. It also must be at the top 1%. So there's never enough, as one should feel that there's enough.

There's your problem, right there. Just don't. There are better ways to spend your time. Take up walking, or gardening. Get a pet, or start making miniatures. Learn yoga. Just about anything. — Banno

:up:

Peterson has debated Zizek on capitalism. They are both extreme in many ways imo — Gregory

Žižek's not extreme in my opinion. Well, I browse through his thoughts on capitalism. And I couldn't disagree -- capitalism encourages greed, and it encourages people, even the ordinary people to be corrupt.

For examole: Buddhists, Jains, Daoists, Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics & Pyrrhonians, each tradition in its own distinct way, exemplify that humans suffer more from what we make of what happens to us than from what happens to us. — 180 Proof

Good point. One thing I noticed is that there's a common idea among these different school of thoughts -- capitalism, which fosters greed and power, is absent.

Peterson says that there are many people with 160 IQ who are worthless at being successful in life. — Gregory

Haha! Is Peterson brainwashed by capitalism, too? Successful in life? In what way? If you create great music that doesn't sell, and you're forced to rely on your parents or partner for support, is that a failure?

I'd like to know what's his definition of success. I bet it's defined by capitalism.

This doesn't really help. One person's harm is another's good. — hypericin

It does because there are fundamental reality for all humans. One, humans would not want their families massacred. That's reality. So, we can all agree that it's immoral to annihilate one's family members. There's self-preservation -- that's built-in in us. That's also true about animals, btw. They do protect their offspring from predators and attacks. I mean, I could go on. We just need to be honest about reality.

Now, killing. Is it always immoral to kill? No. There are cases when killing is justified.

And let's not use religion here since different religions have different views of killing. Some religion requires killing a family member for infidelity or whatnot. So, I want to exclude religion in morality. Just really, what's fundamentals in being human. All too human.

Should you lie to bolster their confidence. Or would you simply be undermining them by being dishonest? And how do you know if your own judgement of fashion is better than theirs?
Which option makes you a more supportive friend? — Benj96

I'm gonna respond in practical sense. No need to use philosophy or psychology. And you know, I know myself -- I shoot my mouth and then hope for "good" consequence.

So, to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they're already dressed, I would just relegate it to "they've made up their mind, otherwise, they've asked me for choices before putting on the clothes. (I'm speaking in real life experience). They look happy with their choice. I'd say, "let's go, that works" in sincere honesty. I could say it without me wanting to wear the clothes myself. And that's support of them. Respecting their tastes and not always insisting yours.

Anyway, I have my own sense of clothing which probably wouldn't work for them. Shit, I wear fitted clothing :wink: which would not work with others.

On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner

Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive.

People who start a moral argument using "right" or "wrong" set the argument up so that it is intentionally contentious and designed to get a rouse out of you, without meaning to come to an understanding.

Well, the ancients were firsts in questioning the universe and objective reality.

Then came the 16th - 17th century with the god meditation and the self.

Then the beginning of the 19th century, existentialism and nothingness.

Then the twentieth century, analytics, epistemology/logic, you know, the clean philosophy who wouldn't touch dirt if their brain depended on it.

Is this a silly question? — TiredThinker

It's not.

It's just... boring.

The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation. — Jack Cummins

Early stage. Radioactive plutonium will disintegrate your insides while you're alive.

I am wondering how marginalised are such movements in the present time, although there were some demonstrations in response to the Ukrainian crisis, including one in Trafalgar Square in London. So, it does seem demoralising that in the twentieth first century a situation exists where mass weapons of destruction present a real threat. — Jack Cummins

Does it really? WMD is a psychological warfare. Mass protests are great. But they won't stop WMD stockpile. What you need to ask is, what can stop any nation with WMDs from using them? One nuclear blast cannot destroy a whole state, let alone an entire nation. So, if you attack the United States, be prepared to be destroyed from the inside out of your anatomy with the more powerful stateside ballistic missiles with accuracy at a blinding speed.

You have introduced sovereignty, rape, torture. These are naturally widely understood as unjust, but they needn't be appended solely to wars. — gloaming

It wasn't me who introduced these elements. It's I like sushi.

BTW, I spend 30 years as an officer practicing and studying war professionally. — gloaming

Then tell me an example of actual war that's just. What nation started a just war?

Sorry, didn’t realise this was some stupid word game. Bye — I like sushi

Goodbye. Word game is a catch all argument if one is not happy with the way the thread is going.

Let's say a theory predicts a reading of between 23 and 25 kilograms. A scientist records a measurement of 24 kilograms. All is well, right? But what goes into taking a measurement? Do we worry about the device's proper functioning? The eyes reading the needle, scooping up sense-date? Is the scientist delusional? Should he measure 20 times, 2000 times? The point is that worry/doubt must come to an end at some point. We must trust in a swampy informal layer of 'experience' or 'common sense' or 'ordinary language.' This recalls On Certainty. — jas0n

Right. There is a point at which doubting is absurd. Which then we know what "absurd" amount is. So, yes, common sense, sense-data, formal measurements, device all play a role. Calibration is a thing -- we're good at calibrating different devices so that we're not being fooled or delusional. Like I said, the bridges would have fallen by now if that's not the case.

I prefer to emphasize the limited applicability of the dichotomy. To eject it entirely is to eject Popper's conventional demarcation of science from non-science. IMO, familiar distinctions tend to be justified in familiar contexts and only become problematic when taken by philosophers as absolutes. — jas0n

Oh no. When I said there's no dichotomy, I really meant that the philosophers meant within the scientific knowledge. So, the dichotomy matters in context. We're not comparing apples and oranges -- scientific observation and the arts, for example.

We do know this. Do we explain knowing this in terms of sense-data? Or do we start with testimony? Can and should we formalize checking that the bridges haven't fallen? — jas0n

All of the above -- that's why I'm saying about no dichotomy exists.

Do we confer and co-articulate what we agree is an apt description of an otherwise private consciousness ? — jas0n

There is public observation (consciousness is a misnomer to use here as it pertains to individual consciousness -- the "collective consciousness" we hear from time to time mentioned in writings is a hip pop philosophy, nothing else. It doesn't mean a thing in philosophy).

So public observation has coherence and objectivity. The bridges would've had fallen a long time ago if it weren't the case. The thing that science philosophers often cry about is the dichotomy between "theory" and "observation", which the likes of Putnam (you can correct me on this, not sure) also have criticized for being mistaken as a dichotomy.

I said this in another thread -- objective reality means that reality (out there: là-bas) contains the components of the scientific theories we develop as a result of our observation. The theories themselves are our observations -- which coheres with reality.

A defender of sovereignty, or of any other principle, law, or custom, deemed universal or not by either side or by onlookers, enters a just war if they enter it at all. — gloaming

It's cause you think of wars you saw in movies. The brave underdog nation defending its territory. War is a political relationship. Let's read up on history as to the timeline of what led to a war.

Would it be just to come to the aid of people in one nation where the powers that be are systematically killing/torturing/raping them?

In simple terms it is a just cause to stop such acts even if it meant going to war. — I like sushi

Yes. So it becomes just? There is only one war in your scenario. It isn't just when there's raping, torture, and killing. One enters an unjust war. And winning an unjust war could not make it just.

To me, even when diplomacy fails, every living human has the right to defend himself against harm, right or wrong. — gloaming

Of course. Any nation being oppressed has the right to defend its sovereignty. So, they enter an unjust war.

It too often leads to the tyranny of the masses where a minority, even just of one, must suffer for the benefit of a greater number. — gloaming

My thoughts exactly! :cool:

I have failed my master. :cool: — Agent Smith

I am your master.

I haven't been able to determine the sex of individuals on this forum based on their intellectual activities. — Agent Smith

I have a way of knowing it -- but I won't say it here because then forum members would know not to do it anymore. And no, it has nothing to do with intellectual activities.

So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

You can kiss the family goodbye. Free love denies attachment, commitment, and deep affection. "Free love" is an oxymoron -- no one can love you if the goal is to go around fuck one another with no restraint. Even swans stay with their partners for life! Oh and yeah, they're beautiful too.

What??

If those were people, we wouldn't videotape them and show in youtube for people's entertainment. Did you know that that's an inherited condition? What do you think would happen if we video an epileptic person having an episode and uploaded on youtube to get monetized?

Already before they were considered psychopathy was thought to "run in the family". Which it does. But not because of genes. — EugeneW

What does "run in the family" then but inherited genes? This is a question from me.

The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. ...
Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same. — Athena

This is the Lockean conception of natural law and divine law. And no, even Locke would not associate it with superstition. Superstition associated with religion is actually looked down upon, and now in our modern times, this is one way we denigrate religiosity, by calling it superstition.
Back to John Locke. I could find the below (I have his book, but not with me) from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society.
...
As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. In Locke’s theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in content, but they are not coextensive.

Now I need to find passages for the god-given rights to monarchy and power.

Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. — Banno

This has also been fashionable to say here in the forum. I wonder why? For those who disagree with other views, their counter is that the contributions here have been so poor in quality.

I won't go this low. Everyone, there are good and bad posts in any history of forum community. Do not believe the hype.

Global warming might force a return to traditional lifestyles for example. — Gregory A

I'm already practicing for the coming of GW.

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

Empty phrase that needs work.

I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?" — Alkis Piskas

How about the constructivist approach to ethics? In this system, we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions.

Note that we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium: we might not be the "happiest", but at least we don't trample on some individuals so that a greater number could be satisfied.