Just joking with you. Forum sociopath. — Wallows

Maybe there should be something along the lines of a psychology, therapy, or guidance and advice section. One thing's for sure, this is hardly blether about kittens. Far from it. There's some serious philosophical merit and depth to some of what you bring up. It's essentially asking how you should live.

Don't worry, the staff certainly aren't always the best judge of philosophical content.

Well, I've had a couple drinks tonight, and I say to you all - vice is moral. What about that? — csalisbury

I like it. Kind of Nietzschean.

Ahh, S, has done it again. I suppose the only place for such a pathetic OP is the lounge. — Wallows

I didn't do anything except offer you valuable insights.

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.

That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism.

From within the system, there were options for a different outcome. I haven't said anything about the "will of the people" in any of my most recent comments. The majority of voters voted for leave. That's a fact. The rule was such that this meant that leave won the referendum. That's a fact. David Cameron pledged an in/out referendum and his party was subsequently voted into government by a majority of voters. That's a fact. These were opportunities for change from within.

As for change from without, clearly that hasn't worked so far either, although I didn't take them to be arguing that in any case. It just looked like attempts to trivialise the result or complain that a different set of rules, like a higher threshold for a winner, would've been better. That's merely theoretical and complacent. In reality, it simply didn't go down that way. You can make a case to handle things like this differently going forward, but there seems little point in crying over spilt milk.

How?
— Wallows

You don't "how?", you just do. — S

Well, you could try this: dim room, lit scented candle, comfortable headphones, volume quite high, maybe close your eyes. Relax. And let go.



I often play this on repeat.

But even if this works, it's important to learn how to apply it in other contexts. That is something you can teach yourself, as I have done with some effectiveness.

Does wallowing count? — Wallows

No. Wallowing is indulgence. Indulgence is contrary to detachment.

How? — Wallows

You don't "how?", you just do.

Detachment. That's what I say. It's liberating.

@S@Wallows :snicker:

Wallow, wallow. Spit or swallow?

10. Fuck it.

Say something — Janus

Okay, I will. I will say this, and only this, and then I will remain silent until I judge the situation differently: here is a spoonful of your own medicine. How does it taste?

Yes, of course, they would have a detrimental effect on the life of the community. — Janus

Of course, he says! Yet he fails the challenge. No, that in itself is not meaningful ethically unless you associate that with being bad, which brings us right back around to the exact same problem I just explained to you. If you don't associate that with being bad, then how is it of any meaning, ethically?

You might say that is because of how everyone feels about it; — Janus

Yes, of course.

and of course this is a part of the overall true picture. — Janus

It is the most fundamental part of it. Without that part, nothing is of any meaning, ethically.

Everyone dislikes being murdered, raped, stolen from, deceived and so on, and that is an objective fact about human nature. — Janus

Yes. But why are you telling me this?

So I disagree with this:

The good of the community consists of the good you judge of it, and that he judges of it, and that she judges of it, and that they judge of it, and nothing more.
— S

because it ignores the actual functionality or dysfunctionality of the community. — Janus

There is no functionality or dysfunctionality of the community, except relative to some purpose someone or other ascribes to it. And that is of zero ethical relevance, unless we judge it to be so. But that we either judge it to be so or do not judge it to be so only really says anything about us and our judgement, whereas you seem to want to say something more than that.

No, this is nonsense. — Janus

No, that is nonsense.

Of course a healthy community is a good community... — Janus

Yes, of course it is, obviously so long as we judge healthy to be good, and obviously not otherwise.

just as a healthy body is a good body or a significantly damaged hammer is a bad hammer. — Janus

Oh my god. Seriously? That's either equivocation on the sense of "good" or you're not saying anything ethically relevant. That is a novice move.

If your life is a harmoniously functional life then it is a good life, if it is a conflicted and dysfunctional life, then it is a bad life. — Janus

Are you really so naive as to not realise the essential part that your own judgement plays in your expression of what you seem to mistake as some sort of objective fact? If we make a bunch of additional assumptions, then yes. But those additional assumptions just kick the can further down the road.

And if that's just your opinion, then fine. But be more explicit about it.

Insofar as we are and want to be social beings functioning well in relationship is an integral part of what constitutes a good life. — Janus

I don't think anyone here is questioning mere conditionals like that. If I want to get by in society, I'll make sure I fit in well enough. If I want to satiate my desire for murder, I'll murder people. If I want to be a good Samaritan, I'll set out to help others. If I want to be a good salesman, I'll learn to be manipulative.

And there are objective facts about what kinds of acts will and won't sustain your ability to do well in relationship. — Janus

Beside the point.

(Ignoring the last bit).

I go by the Lincoln-Douglas style. I take the first negative in opposition to whatever first positive I’m responding. The correct second positive reply to me should address what I said and nothing else whatsoever. If it doesn’t......I’m out. Patience is not my thing. Right before wasted effort. — Mww

Indeed, you've made your attitude clear. And I have made my feelings on the matter clear also. This too is a serious ethical disagreement between us. You think that you're above responding to me directly. You think it beneath you. I think that childish and arrogant. I lack the commitment to such pettiness, as you can see. If I see a point I feel like expressing my thoughts on, I generally do so. You have shown yourself to be very much the type to hold grudges to an extent that I struggle to match. I am more tolerant and forgiving in that regard. I have a different set of priorities.

Here's one potential difference you could feed back to me, that is, if you genuinely do want to engage, and are done ignoring me:

You give me the impression of an unwillingness to take things to their full logical conclusions for fear of giving up in some way on those very "central issues" of which you speak. You seem to have a lingering attachment to wanting your moral judgements to somehow impossibly amount to something greater than your moral judgements. Any central issues are central only because we make them so, because we happen to feel a certain way about them. Now, let's say that we take away that feeling. What's left?

Do you think that the most obvious forms of harm that members of a community could inflict upon one another would mean anything, ethically, absent the way we feel about it?

There's an error here which I think that some people fall prey to, which is to try in vein to detach their own subjectivity from that which they subjectively judge. They think it is because harm is wrong that they judge it to be so, without realising that this is in fact backwards. This is just a story that people tell themselves and others. We do not believe that it's just a story because we do not want to believe that it's just a story, just like how we believed in creation myths and our imagined centrality in the universe. But, just as the work of Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and others, is capable of dispelling certain widespread and deeply ingrained myths, the work of Hume can do so also.

The good of the community consists of the good you judge of it, and that he judges of it, and that she judges of it, and that they judge of it, and nothing more.

Is a healthy community a good community? Well, a healthy community is just a healthy community, unless we judge it to be good, in which case we naturally say that it is so. If we were to judge it to be otherwise, then naturally we would say that it is otherwise. There is no litmus test here which can be appealed to. That is the challenge which is never overcome. Has anyone here provided such a test? No. Some have tried, but have failed to realise that it is not a test, but an act of faith. If you place your faith in Kant, He will show you The Way!

To a hammer everything looks like a nail. — Possibility

Hammers don't have eyes. Have you been drinking?

Don't hate the haters. There's a certain joy in casting aspersion upon others.

The disagreement I suppose is in what we each mean by "to some extent." I probably am less tolerant of drunken behavior than others and not as willing to separate the Dr. Jekyll from the Mr. Hyde, especially if Dr. Jekyll knows that the drink will elicit the appearance of Mr. Hyde. My intolerance is probably the result of my age and experience I guess. I'm sort of over the stage where stumbling drunk is at all okay. At any rate, in your example, I doubt you were terribly irresponsible or dangerous, but more so just a danger to yourself in that you decided to test the tolerance of the police. They probably decided they had enough Ss at the station already and didn't need to cart another one down there, so you lived to see another day.

What I will say is that if this were an aberration, it's more excusable. If you tell us next Monday you've had yet another run in and then this becomes a pattern, I'd say you were worse than the person who intentionally stirred the pot from time to time. At least that person has some deliberation involved, as opposed to someone who knowingly gets themselves out of control and then has everyone around him having to deal with him for the hours it takes to sober up.

If I had a friend (doubtful) and he got really drunk and then told me to fuck off and whatever else, I'd place limited blame on his drunkenness and hold him pretty much fully responsible. In fact, I'd allow a greater excuse to the person who told me that he's been having a really bad day, got fired from work, broke up with his girlfriend, or whatever than someone who had just taken a drunken vacation from reality and went berserk. — Hanover

Sure, I'd be up for a drunken vacation from reality with you. Where are you taking us? I hear there's a good place this time of year just outside of my apartment in the early hours of the morning where you can be as noisy and disruptive as you like, without taking any responsibility for the fallout. We can be like Withnail and I. I'll be Withnail and you can be I.

Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nothing about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. For that to really stand any chance of counting, then you would have needed to be in a position to have done something about it at the relevant time. Benkei isn't even a citizen of the United Kingdom: he rightfully has no say, except to express his opinion of course. The electorate had the chance to vote for a party other than the Tories under David Cameron. The electorate had the chance to vote to remain. The majority was against. Thems the rules, like it or lump it. And this is coming from a Labour supporting Remainer.

What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552

And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei

:roll:

"Do-gooder" isn't conventionally used for "people who are doing things that one feels are good or worthwhile."

"Do-gooder" conventionally has negative connotations. Do-gooders may be moralizers (in the "self-righteous" sense), they're typically seen as naive meddlers, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yep.

Here's one definition I found from Google: "a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer".

I don't think there's much more to this discussion than that. Seems kind of silly to try to turn the tables and argue that do-gooders are fine and dandy. What's the next discussion: Are Idiots Actually Very Intelligent?

Obsession, perfection and control. — Edward

Definitely those three, and others. Curiosity, passion, intelligence, critical by nature, assertiveness.

Exasperation, loss of interest, dispute with staff, spending so much time here that it becomes a problem in your life.

I think that covers the main reasons for leaving.

As for me, I stick around solely to make fun of everyone and everything. No other reason. I don't care about philosophy. I don't even know what it is.

And I certainly don't love you all. I hate you all with a passion. Especially you.

I know why you wish to absolve yourself of guilt, but I'm simply pointing out that the law follows the same logic that I do and it isn't just some arbitrary announcement of a rule. The logic (and this would seem to apply for a moral theory as well) is that you are responsible for your recklessness, especially so if you intentionally engage in a reckless act. It applies in all sorts of situations. If I decide to drive my car 100 miles per hour in order to feel the rush that accompanies it, and I crash into a van full of children, killing every last one, I could say rather unconvincingly that I should be absolved of sin because (a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and (b) I wasn't in full control of myself when the car hit 100 mph because it gets crazy hard to steer at that speed. — Hanover

But that doesn't seem to take into account what I've actually said at all. I never said that I'm not responsible. I think I've been clear enough that I accept responsibility to a reasonable degree, but not beyond.

My lack of intent to cause trouble is somewhat offset by the fact that I engaged in an act that had fairly foreseeable negative consequences, despite the fact that usually I drive 100 mph without incident. Usually I just get that excited scared effect you feel when you think you're going to die, but somehow you don't. Usually I can sort of control my 100 mph hour car more or less, at least enough that I keep at least 2 wheels on the road. So, it would seem that I should be absolved of guilt don't you think? — Hanover

Yes, again, that's consistent with what I said. It's offset by my understanding of the risks. Offset, not completely overruled. An offset is a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of an opposite one. A complete overruling is a complete rejection by exercising one's superior authority.

I'm not suggesting that morality requires you become a teetotaler, but it does require you accept moral responsibility for all the bullshit you dole out, drunk or sober. You (or I) don't get to say "Sorry dude., I... (a) wrecked your car, (b) broke your lamp, (c) ate all your food, (d) punched you in the head, (e) slept with your girlfriend, (f) pissed on your floor... I was drunk" and expect the "I was drunk" part to matter. — Hanover

Same problem. I don't get it. Have you actually read what I've said in this discussion, as opposed to jumping on a single comment? I've made several comments, and I think I've been very careful to qualify and clarify what I've said, so why do you seem to have this misunderstanding? I am certainly not looking to excuse myself, as though I am innocent and should not be judged, yet you seem to have decided that that's my stance. Even in the comment of mine which you originally quoted, I said that I apologised. That wouldn't make any sense if I didn't accept any moral responsibility.

I'm just saying that the circumstances are such that I am not completely at fault. That I should be excused to some degree. My actions aren't as condemnable as the same actions committed when sober. That's the bottom line. I knew it, and they knew it: the people who sought revenge (a premeditated act) when sober (in full mental capacity). Mine was not a premeditated act, it was an act of passion, and I was drunk, so not at full mental capacity.

Too many people too eager to shadow box here. "But you're responsible!", yes, to some extent.

I didn't come here to debate at all and thats why I chose to use those phrases. I came here to discuss and hear the opinions of others. I use phrases like "I believe" because my ideas of morality are not set in stone by any means and if my ideas of morality can be changed I'm open too it. — nsmith

You don't have to throw yourself into debate, but I think that it's important to keep in mind what's relevant to the topic and what doesn't really need to be said. I was curious about whether you have a view on what we're debating. And whether you take a position or lean more one way than the other. It was hard to tell from your comment. With due respect, I think that some of your statements seemed to miss the mark, a bit like saying something like, "I think that morality is important, and about right and wrong. And I think that murder is wrong", for example. That's not what's at issue here. Is morality relative, absolute, subjective, objective, primarily a matter of emotion, or of reason. Is it, or should it be, individualistic or collective? Those are the sort of things we've been discussing.

My answer would be its morally wrong because it causes damage to humanity. A humans fundamental goal is to preserve their life, and to preserve the life of future generations. Thats why suicide is an interesting thing to look at as it goes against all reason. — nsmith

And how do you justify the leap from what seems to be nothing other than a personal judgement, to something more than that? It very much seems to me like one of those statements where you can add something like, "In my view...", or "In my opinion...", or "The way I see it...", and in fact you did this earlier. Yet, if one were to say something like, "In my view, there are 365 days in a year", or "In my opinion, we're in the Milky Way", or, "The way I see it, 2 + 2 = 4", then we'd find that very odd. I think that that's telling.

Can moral statements be true?
— creativesoul

What’s a moral statement? From the agent’s perspective, is it a declaration of an interest (hunger is detrimental to good health), or, is it the representation of an interest in the form of an action (I go to the gospel mission every Tuesday to feed the hungry)? I don’t make linguistic moral statements when the occassion arises to formulate my morality (I can see it in my head) so the truth of that kind of statement is moot. If my action is considered a moral statement, and it derives explicitly from my moral law, then it is a true representation of a moral interest but not a linguistic statement. If I just outright tell you something I consider implicit in my moral agency, then that statement I make to you must be a statement about a true moral interest of mine. But you wouldn’t know if I actually held the moral principle from which the interest came anyway, so, again, the truth of that statement is moot.

Truth or non-truth is not sufficient for moral statements, but only for actions in compliance with a subjective principle. Only then is an agent is morally true to himself.

That's a good example of a needlessly convoluted answer to a simple question. I say yes, like most of us, and then some of us argue over interpretation. There's only one person I know of here who says no. But seriously, what kind of answer is the above? We all know a moral statement, like "Murder is wrong", when we see one. Are they truth-apt or aren't they? Then, are there some which are true? Then, in what sense?

No conflicting statements implies subjective infallibility...

Not really, because of the relativism. One can of course be wrong in the relative sense. In practice, it most certainly doesn't work as though we're infallible, so whatever's going on behind the scenes doesn't make a big difference in that sense. We can change our ethical views, and ethics is about competing moralities. There's no practical difference, from my perspective, between others being wrong relative to my morality, and others simply being wrong. It works that way for you and for everyone else, also.

All of which seems to indicate a problem with “conflicting statements” with regard to what is in conflict with what.

Nope, no problem. And there's a conflict between moralities. I would rather he conform with mine, he would rather I conform with his.

Such problem with statements reduces to a problem with relativism, in which case the question becomes, what is it actually that is relative, and what is it relative to.

There's no problem, and that question has been answered.

His explanations have been met with many objections that he hasn't really addressed. — Terrapin Station

Him and Ranky are extremely hard to pin down. It's like they have an automatic shutdown when things get too tough.

No, I've no idea which of his bare assertions he's erroneously describing as an argument. — Isaac

:lol:

I've had enough of this nonsense. I'm not wasting any more time writing stuff that just gets ignored, I might as well talk to a wall. — Isaac

I know the feeling. :meh:

No it's not. You chose to drink knowing it would compromise your judgment, so you're fully responsible for the mess you created. I suppose if you really didn't know what drinking would do to you, you might have an excuse, but I suspect you've received both formal education in the dangers of alcohol and have learned by prior experience. It's all on you, unmitigated.

The law of the great state of Georgia:

O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)
16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.


It is for this reason that you cannot plead voluntary intoxication as an excuse for causing a motor vehicle collision, arguing that had you been your sober self, it'd have never happened, so there's no reason to prosecute you. That is to say, voluntary intoxication is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. You can't walk around with a blindfold and earplugs and go slamming into things and then argue that the real, fully aware you would never have done that. If there's a better you, then society should expect to deal with that person, not the voluntarily reckless one. — Hanover

Well, it is by my morality, Mr. Lawyer. Intentions and self-control matter as factors to consider when reaching a moral judgement, and when I consumed the alcohol, a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and b) I wasn't in full control of myself when I was drunk. That in itself is sufficient in my judgement for some degree of leniency in moral judgement. Although I used a term familiar in law, I wasn't appealing to law, but rather making an ethical point. You often intervene in this way, and I find what the laws says on issues like this somewhat interesting, but it isn't always necessarily the standard upon which I base my moral judgement, and it isn't in this particular case.

MPs reject all Brexit options again

Lol?

Ah sweet. You made a thread about me. Perhaps I won't murder you after all.

I don't know who you are and whether you really are a closet sociopath; but, seek therapy for heaven's sake! Lul. — Wallows

The funny thing is, I don't know whether I really am a closet sociopath either. But as soon as I get permission to murder you, I promise I'll seek therapy.

Pinky promise.

You're holding a number of false belief and I've given up on showing you. — creativesoul

Woh. Wait. You just said "belief". On its own. You didn't do the annoying forward slash thing. That's a sign of progress.

Seriously. Be well. — creativesoul

You too. I hope you deal with your issues. Be brave enough to face the harsh reality. The world won't come to an end if you do.

Always a nod to honesty. It takes more than that to be a decent human being. — creativesoul

You're a crackpot, but I love you? Let's hug it out? Am I a decent human being if I tell you comforting things you want to hear, in addition to the harsh truth? Or do you think it's better just to flat out lie? You're not a crackpot, you're a genius who has got it all figured out, unlike the entirety of Western philosophy? Oh, and you're really good at writing? Keep up the good work?

Your making yourself look bad. — creativesoul

By being principled enough to tell it like it is?

And you're here to convince others that you have the best notion of morality?

:worry:

... and I'm being called "a crackpot".

Sigh....

Be well Sapientia. — creativesoul

A little off topic, but yes! If I was a crackpot, I would most certainly want people to do more or less whatever it takes to breakthrough to me that I am a crackpot, even if it shattered my false self-image. The first step is identifying the problem.

@Terrapin Station, @Janus, @Isaac, @DingoJones, @ChrisH, @Edward

Any of you know what "argument" @creativesoul is referring to? No, me neither. It's alright, I'll just go on a wild goose chase through 60 pages of discussion.

I would only like to suggest that the reader actually compare what Sapientia claims about my thought/belief - in his report of my worldview - with anything and everything that I've actually claimed here and/or elsewhere, which is a much more reliable representation thereof. The two(his report of that which existed prior to his report, and that which he is reporting upon(that which existed prior to his report) do not correspond to one another. What he overtly claims and covertly implies about my words is chock full of falsehood. — creativesoul

Jesus H Christ. You are really bad at writing. Just say that I misrepresented you.

His is wrong about my position in the exact same way that Western Philosophy has been wrong about what thought/belief consists of and/or how it all works. — creativesoul

Crackpot alert!

Be helpful. — creativesoul

Ha! More than I already have been?!? Good god, man. Learn to help yourself.