I'm curious about a dilemma I noticed from someone that is generally too afraid of confrontation, they practice stoicism in the sense of being too afraid to comment back at something that challenges them. In otherwords, they choose flight vs fight. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think you're doing an injustice to stoicism to suggest it is based on cowardice. Self-control isn't fear.

In any event, the lack of manliness (which seems to be the way you're using "animal" here) exists in your dilemma because your friend is a fraidy cat. But fear doesn't have to be one's motivator when exercising self control. In fact, someone who is diabolical and manipulative would be far from afraid, and he would be far from an urge driven animal. He'd be a sociopath, which would be far from stoic as well. The point being that smashing one's head into an enemy is not the only way to fight back, and lacking that response doesn't make one a domesticated philosopher. It also doesn't make one not a philosopher either, assuming you subscribe to the philosophy of fucking up your enemies in the most complete way possible, far beyond what a mere animal would do.

I'm 1.05.

In real life, my email and text received to response ratio is much higher because I typically ignore emails and texts, except when it's important, and then I call them back.

The idea of an international community service program that is mandatory for young people upon turning 18 seems fascinating and profoundly transformative. — Alonsoaceves

Forced labor is forced labor. We wouldn't allow the government to round up all the 18 year olds and build our roads, so I'm not sure why we would allow them to send them to other countries to do the same.

The volunteers are the primary beneficiaries of these programs, because they arrive; they do their thing; they gain experience; they leave. There might well be zero follow-up. The recipients of volunteer services benefit, but it often takes long term input to make significant changes. — BC

I think volunteers do benefit, but not just for the experience, but because helping others actually has all sorts of postive effects.

I've done a good amount of volunteering, particularly when I was bored and had little else going on, and I was never convinced that the food I prepared, the trees I planted, the medical supplies I sorted (or whatever I was doing) was actually to save money for the organization. It seemed like the goal was to create a sense of community and offer people opportunties to get out and be part of that community. It's also great PR to get people involved because the real support for the organizations comes in the form of donations and political support, which volunteers often also provide.

This is just to say that the benefit was by design for the provider and the receiver. If the goal was just to deliver as much food as possible for as cheaply as possible, it's likely one van with a full time worker could do it without having to organize dozens of volunteers to sign in, get trained, and each drive around a few hours a week. I was though always thankful to find something to do though, which means the program was designed for me as well.

When an evangelical says (as they often do; and I’ve heard this from Catholics too), “But you atheists live by faith all the time,” they’re committing an equivocation fallacy. — Tom Storm

I think they are mean you too have foundational beliefs that lack empirical proof, like causality and the existence of other minds. If causality isn't provable, it's equally as logically to assert teleological explanations are valid.

To the extent you have faith that a plane won't crash, that's just probabilistic reasoning, so I'd agree that's not really faith. That's just playing the odds.

Yes they do. Faith that something exists (i.e. god) without any proof is the religious type and not much different to saying I have faith that it will not rain tomorrow. It’s speculative. — kindred

Some theists attempt an equivocation fallacy by equating faith in God with faith in things like air travel. — Tom Storm

If you identify a difference use, you don't get to just declare your use correct and the alternative use incorrect. The OP asks what is faith, and it's clear it's used differently by different groups.

That is, you're as much guilty of the equivocation as they are if there is no agreed upon definition.

What you've identified is the Jerusalem/Athens distinction, where the former holds to more traditional Judaic/Hebrew Bible (OT) views and the latter is more Hellenstic. https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/three-ways-to-think-about-athens-and-jerusalem/?srsltid=AfmBOooWxM6LOKIjLvfZUHucvTbwFRRRsre7eNMfS4Lep2Q7vGkUzRRR

Old school faith versus philosphical reasoning is a way to think about this distinction, and it should come as no surprise you would be biased towards the Athens approach.

Faith in the OT was trust in the power of God, not in a belief in God without evidence. Thematic throughout the OT is the Hebrews following and trusting in God and their prospering and their doubting God and straying and their being punished.

They did not wander in the desert for 40 years and have Socratic debates about what God is, what "the good" is, or whether he could exist. His existence was a given, and it was based upon their seeing plagues, seas parting, and manna falling from heaven. Even after the empirical evidence (the miracles) ceased, God's existence was never challenged, but only the extent of his power was challenged.

So, yes to a biblically based theist, they would refer to faith in the same way as theyd say they trust the plane will land safely in the sense they trust a bigger plan being in place, but they don't actually ask if God exists. That matter is foundational.

Reviewing how your work-force looks like (age, gender, religion, cultural background etc.) can result in an indication of bias and could be reason to look at hiring practises or training within the organisation. At the same time, we're in essence a software developer and women are still underrepresented. But that starts in bloody university so there's only so much that you can do. — Benkei

I do agree that if you find yourself in a community that is 30% African American and you business is 100% white, then maybe you need to look within.

There are interesting stats about gender, particularly in the trades. Plumbers, for example, I saw were over 95% male. There are instances where women just don't want the jobs. As to software, perhaps it is bias at the universities, but we shouldn't be so politically correct to just assume there isn't a genetic component to aptitude. Maybe men would feel inadequte or strange as a kindergarten teacher, for example, and that explains why there are so few, or it could be that sort of thing doesn't appeal to most men for reasons beyond environmental.

I know this is a whole different conversation, but I have reservations about the whole men and women are the same but for a few anatomical differences argument.

I share in @Ciceronianus sentiments, and I don't cry for big law or expect big law to do anything other than maximize profits. The work environment at big law is crappy regardless of how you cut it. It's about deciding how much of your life you're willing to give away to make obscene money. That they left for ideological reasons is less impressive to me than had they left for family reasons or something that is actually important to me.

The DEI thing had gotten out of hand and this backlash was predictable. At my office, we were trying to get work from a large corporation and they sent us their diversity form. It was a spreadsheet we were supposed to fill out that asked we provide the number of blacks, whites, hispanics, gays, transsexuals, and every category you could think of that worked at our firm, were in management, and had equity. I wasn't going to go around the office and ask each person how they identified, who they liked to fuck, and ask Mr. Hernandez how much hispanic blood he still had in his veins.

My office is diverse, largely because the county I live in is very diverse, so it just reflects the labor market. I don't know what those in Maine or New Hampshire do. Maybe they import diversity from other regions.

I get being fair, and growing up in the south, I know first hand the troubles of racism, but seeing major pushback to these initiatives isn't something I'm bothered by terribly. It had lost it's way. Things aren't ok when you're making a hiring decision and someone points out it's time we hire a lesbian because we're low in that category. And like how am I supposed to know who is who and what is what without falling back on stereotypes?

As to whether it was weak leadership to block the emails, that likely has nothing to do with trying to control gossip. Everyone has cell phones with text, personal email accounts, whatsapp, and whatever else. Keeping it off the company accounts sounds like they're just trying to be sure there is no official company challenge within the firm that might be discovered one day.

There is a position among the right that holds that ADHD is a bullshit diagnosis that translates into childish misbehavior, the cure for which is a kick in the pants. It criticizes the kids and the parents that created them.

The stories they tell are of overly energetic kids who would just rather be acting as the wild animals God intended, drugged into submission by some meth like substance.

The narrative takes a swing at psychology, progressive parenting approaches, and education administrators, so it fits well for the right.

How much of this narrative is actually true? I suspect that's what this thread will debate. I don't have ADHD, nor did my kids, so it's easy enough to deny it exists and pat myself on the back for being an old school, take no shit parent

It's probably like most things in a capitalist driven medical system. If you financially incentivize finding problems and cures for those problems, both will be found. Incentives do work.

It's only in hindsight that we might go back and academically evaluate and ask if the problem we found was real or created and whether the cure offered a real cure or just made a lot of money.

I don't wish to insult anyone who has struggled with ADHD or who found great relief in Adderall, so to them, the diagnosis and cure fit.

I do think it's likely over-diagnosed and over treated, though, with plenty of very real cases within. I know that's not an overly exciting position to take, where the problem is conceded, but so is some acknowledgement it's not all BS, but that's probably where this lands.

It might be true that every thought thunk has already been said, but everytime you open a banana, you are the first person to ever see it.

Generally, social media posts carry a low level of reliability because anyone can post anything without limitation and footnoting it here then elevates it to a supposedly meaningful source.

If someone uses a social media post as a method of formally presenting their position and that is what is being debated, you have no reliability issue, so it should technically pass (like if Trump informs the world of his Greenland invasion on X).

However, I get that nuanced rules can quickly become impossible to enforce and moderation shouldn't require every mod to sit as a judge and sort through arguments. It's easier with a hard and fast rule, even if the net thrown is occasionally too wide.

In any event, I would think the necessity to cite to social media would be very rare. If this rule can eliminate without objection 99% of those cites, the objective has been accomplished. We'll deal with those rare moments when they occur, but generally, no one cares what Bob from Peoria thinks of climate change

In my intense 30 minute exploration of this topic, it seems clear the prevailing theory is that ancient foraging societies were more egalitarian and protective of women than existed in societies with stratified power structures with kings and temples.

As societies progressed in that regard, things were more dangerous for women. These conclusions are not based upon direct evidence, but upon extrapolations from modern hunter gatherer societies, primates, human neurobiology, and various observations of human behavior.

Direct evidence in the form of YouTube shorts (an excellent documentation of base human behavior) is missing, so assumptions must be made. Ancient literature is not supportive of the ancient egalitarian thesis, although it might be rejected as being written post-power stratification. It is true that recorded history is not supportive of the ancient egalitarian thesis, so we must draw a distinction (whatever that might be) between those ancient societies and the prehistoric ones.

But anywho, what is the philosophical import of this sociological discussion? I can see it being used as a Marxist basis to question the morality of a competitive society that elevates the power of the strong over the weak (quite literally men over women), and so we ought (morally that is) rethink our investment in overly competitive structures if equal protection of all citizens is our objective.

The above commentary though might be considered a simplistic strawman that no one really submits, but I offer it just to ask the question of why do we think it matters if women fared better in prehistoric times than today? As in, the evolution of human societies takes a path, and along the route women fare better and worse depending upon the moment. From my vantage point today, it does seem at this moment substantial efforts at female protection and enforcing equality are being made.

This is more or less the same point I was making. "Being against my best interest" is an ethical term; "being medically bad for me" is a scientific term. The two almost always coincide. — J

Counter-examples:

Tattoos, breast augmentation, SRS.

Might be in your best interest and might be medically harmful.

The general idea is in requiring reference to original sources of information as opposed to hearsay or entirely fabricated accounts found on social media and they repeating it as fact.

example, if Trump announces that the US is leaving NATO in a post in X with Elon applauding the act, would it still be OK to post this? — ssu

This would be an exception it seems because it's not hearsay. It's from the horse's mouth.

Any declaration can be made compatible with any theory with the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.

I do much prefer literalism. Especially over sophistry. — Banno

Meaning is use. How do you suggest the Hebrew Bible is interpreted by those who use it? If it is that you believe they read the words and just offer the meaning from that, you are wrong.

If your auto insurance policy says your liability limits in Georgia are $20,000, what then are those limits? The answer is $25,000. Odd.

Something else must be controlling, right. Perhaps the statute that requires minimum limits of $25,000 regardless of agreement.

Genocide" is not so easy to pin down as head-stomping. What says the "moral force"? Do we need "Moral Jedi" to do the interpretation? — Banno

If there is no moral force, then it's wrong if we say it's wrong. Just like head stomping. Right if we say it's right

Not according to the God of the Old Testament. — Janus

Literalism again. Super. I'm as interested in conducting an exegesis on Amalek as you are. Suffice it to say, there is no virtue in sympathizing with the devil.

Anyway, regardless of what the Bible says, is it a hinge belief or not?

A hinge proposition", if ever there was one. — Banno

What about "genocide is wrong"? Is that a hinge belief?

You see ethics as a set of rules. I see it as a conversation, or better, as a progression in our acts. — Banno

No, we see that the same. What we see differently are (1) you think ethics are interpreted differently than laws, and (2) i think ethics aren't man made, regardless of whether they are rule based or arise from conversations.

As to #1, this is our perennial dispute in these religions threads. You think religious rules are interpreted just by reading the rule ""women shalt not attend stonings" and suddenly we know the entiety of the rule.

That is, it is my position that the 613 commandments of the Hebrew Bible are part of a conversation. This literalism where you just read a set of words in isolation, non-contexualized isn't a thing in ethics or law.

You can no more read a legal rule forbidding murder without reference to other legal code sections, the dozens of prior opinions written on matter, the Constitution, and the full complexities of the people doing the interpreting. Same for ethics.

As to #2, once you've arrived at a moral decision, is your knowledge dependent on your justified belief or on your justified true belief? What makes it true? Just that you believe it.?

Notice that this doesn't follow? Another use of false dilemma, a pattern in your posts here. It's not that either something is the result of a constitutive rule or it is "not from the hand of man". — Banno

Alright, then to the point. We have a proscription. Where did it come from?

In the last page or so it was pointed out that ethics might not be algorithmic, that there might be no rules that suit all situations — Banno

But there are rules in particular situations, as in not stomping babies for fun. That rule, where did it come from? Surely there was a day it was not known. How was it found?

Think of it this way: treating a rule as absolute is giving succour to the devil, who will delight in inventing traps in which following the rule leads to cruelty. — Banno

In any scenario rules must be interpreted and considered against conflicting rules. It's not as if the followers of the absolute rules don't spend considerable time in their interpretation. Isn't that the entiety of Western jurisprudence (and rabbincal law)? Not only do we look at our rules, but also at how we've previously interpreted them, analogizing through precedence.

Ethical rules (e.g. "thou shall not kill") are not just a handful of literal words (yes, the literalism I complained of earlier), but are interpreted within the entire context of the tradition.

Why do you have such fear of misuse of moral absolutes but not of legal absolutes? The law in a nation is set forth clearly, and surely it could be misused, but you don't suggest a nation without laws is superior to one with?

The same for ethics: They are laws, interpreted through principles, reason, analogy. etc.

The distinction between ethics and law is only upon where each originated. Laws originate in the minds of men and women. Ethics either do the same or come from somewhere you've yet to identify. If, though, you think morals are human inventions, just like laws, then the moral/legal distinction collapses. They are just two sets of rules passed and codified differently, but not importantly.

The wickedness of stomping of babies for fun is not of this sort. — Banno

So this rule is not from the hand of man. Where did it come from? Are there more of these rules not yet known?

was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.". There wasn't any evil at first. When Eve ate from the tree (after being forbidden to), she gained the knowledge of good and evil (and became like God in this regard just as the snake had advised.) It was a set-up. — frank

Yeah, the story isn't perfect, like any art. I create my own meaning to some extent.

Under your interpretation, if there was no evil when Adam and Eve ate, they didn't sin. If they didn't sin, we don't need Jesus to save humanity from the fall of man. You just fucked up a major religion.

why is murder wrong - becasue is breaches a social institution, or becasue it is a subclass of killing, and all killing wrong? — Banno

All killing isn't wrong. Self defense, for example. The moral decree opposed to killing is limited to certain sorts of killing. The Commandment, for what it's worth, is not to murder, not not to kill. That is, the moral, not the law, was not to murder.

Regardless, change from what I said to "thou shall not stomp babies for fun." Is this just our rule, like a ball in the net counts as a goal, or is it immutable?

The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge is indeed puzzling. I — BitconnectCarlos

I take this as a limitation on a mortal's ability to survive knowledge of absolute truth. It is to see the face of God, so to speak. Consistent with Exodus 33:20, God tells Moses, "But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Consistent with the Midrash that God reveals himself to Moses through a kiss and then he dies. My interpretation of the art.

As in, epiphanies we all might experience throughout our lives might change who we were into what we are.

Believing that putting the ball in the net counts as a goal is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play football.

Consenting to our social institutions is not an act of faith. — Banno

Is this an analogy suggesting that "Believing that murder counts as evil is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play the rules of society"?

Are you arguing that moral compliance is just a consent to a social institution and not an act of faith?

If I've not overstated your claim here, my response is to point out the distinction: Murder is wrong no matter what we decide. We can change the rules of football goals as we wish.

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference. — praxis

A faith based belief in the existence of a moral force sounds theistic, suggesting that without this moral force, it wouldn't matter if we murdered. Meaning is implanted in this belief isn't it?

ask (in my previous post) because to my way of understanding, this so called "pivotal intent" of maximizing eudemonia (which can be translated as "well-being" just as much as "happiness"; and to which suffering is the opposite) is of itself ubiquitous to absolutely all lifeforms and, hence, all sentient (aka, subjective) eings. — javra

This seems to conflate happiness and eudemonia with pleasure. As with happiness, Mill spent considerable time distinguishing simple pleasure from the fulfillment of happiness and Aristotle required reason and virtue for the fulfillment of eudemonia. That is (alluding to Mill), there's a significant difference between a satisfied pig and satisfied person.

My response here is just a push back on the comment regarding the ubiquity of happiness seeking by all life forms.

It's not utilitarianism. — Sam26

It's consequentialism. If happiness is not the consequence you wish to achieve, what is?

How do you know that? — praxis

Because that's what God is to me. Faith.

group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we do some morals?"

The rest of the group stares and one says, "What?"

They all go back to chewing. — frank

Some hypothetical cavemen sat around an imaginary campfire eating anachronistic chicken piccata. Gnurt said to Glint, "you shouldn't hair drag my sister cave to cave." Glint, taking a gulp of his Pinot Gregio says "fuggitaboutit."

And Glint begets la costra nostra and Gnurt its opposite.

Such is the morality origin story.

Note the "we". Not Me. So, where is us deciding what to do "subjective"? — Banno

We is first person, you and me, but it would work just as well if just me, or the members of my house, neighborhood, town, state, etc. Relativity, subjectivity, it all has the same problems. Is murder moral if we agree it is? I say not.

To me, this seems rather obvious. How do we access the harm? We give the evidence or reasons to support the conclusion. The evidence usually comes in the form of testimony, reasoning, sensory experience, etc. — Sam26

Is this not Utilitarianism?

This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

I intend for X, so I declare lying immoral. Mustn't X be moral for lying to be immoral? The point being, how do we know the Good if not discovered? If we can make the Good, is that not subjectivism?

Moral rules don't help normal people. They exist for the soul purpose of condemnation. — frank

Clever soul/sole pun.

Following the commandments generally does yield good results. — BitconnectCarlos

Like not mixing linen and wool (sha'atnez)?

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter? — praxis

Things matter to God.

I think a very strong argument can be made that there is an objectivity to much of moral reasoning even if you remove the mystical. — Sam26

There obviously have been attempts at creating objective criteria or principles to determine what is moral (Utlilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.), but they do have feel of being post hoc, meaning we first list out what we know to be moral and immoral and then we try to arrive at what explains our list. That is, we know murder and stealing are wrong, and then we come up with reasons for why we must think that.

The second question, and the one I touched on above, what dictates the objective? Are you saying it's wrong to murder because human DNA demands that as a social rule? What are you ultimately referencing to prove something is good. With law, you point to the law. With morality, what to you point to?

If arguing from a purely secular point of view, morals are just another form of law, etiquite, custom, or tact. They may or may not be written down and there may or may not be specific consequences for violating them. They are all man made rules of social conduct, some of which are made through formal processes, some arbitrarily, and some just occur organically through interaction.

With morals, we learn them from those around us, the date of their creation lost to time. It's the reason people seem to know the morals of their culture. They just saw others doing the same thing.

If you want to make the argument that morals are not relative to time, place, and the peculiarities of different cultures, you can, but you're going to have argue either some mystical creator of morality or you're going to have argue something inherent within the constitution of the human DNA that demands them.

It simply makes no sense to speak of the world of forms, where the good exists outside the existence of humanity if you take a fully secular view of this. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no humans in existence anywhere, it does not matter. Mattering is a human concern. It is not a concern for whatever deer took a tree to the head.

On the other hand, if God says the tree falling in the woods matters (i.e. it is either good or bad), then it matters, even if there is no human anywhere to assess it.

It's what you do, not what you feel or think, that counts, isn't it? — Banno

Very Jewish sentiment. Catholics require faith and works. Protestants receive salvation from faith alone.

But god, being god, does what it is necessary to do; so if god demands a sacrifice, he could not have done otherwise. — Banno

But see, for example, Exodus 32:7-14.

God says he will destroy those who built the golden calf. Moses tells God that will make him look bad to the Egyptians if he does that and it will contradict God's covenant to provide the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the promised land.

"Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Moses changed God's mind. Quite the lawyer. This seems to indicate God is a tempermental sort, fortunately willing to be talked down. As in, don't forget your promises and don't go looking like a crazy man. Such reasoning prevailed upon God.

Your reference to God lacking free will is based upon a logical analysis of what omnibenevolence requires, and inserts more modern concerns about perfection and freedom. it's not based upon a reading of the text about this particular God (Yahweh).

While I do know the Jewish view is that angels lack free will, my understanding is that human free will comes from the fact that humans were created in God's image (part of the Creation story). That is, freedom is part of a divine nature.

I don't know your analysis of God having free will holds, but it's certainly not an issue directly addressed in the text.

What I'm pointing out here also harkens back to what I said earlier. This is a text about the ancient Hebrews and their covenant with God and their eventual receiving of the promised land. Any event that interferes with that ends the book or at least greatly changes it's theme.

If Abraham kills Isaac, there will be no Jacob (aka "Israel"). The next passage would then be: " And so now God fucked up, having talked Abraham into killing what was supposed to be the forefather of the Jewish people. Ho hum, let's now talk about Ishmael, Abraham’s other bastard child Sarah cast off into the wilderness."

Since it's just a book of fiction, it's perfectly fine to conclude some parts are inconsistent, undeveloped, confusing, non-sense, or whatever. It's not like the world's most well written story.

For example, know why Moses never entered the promised land? The Jews questioned whether it was safe because their scouts saw Nephilim there and it pissed God off that they would question the soundness of his directive to enter.

The Nephilim are giants, half angel, half mortal. They were the reason for Noah's flood (the unholy offspring of gods fucking women) to kill them all off. As in wtf?

The statement "stealing is illegal" is true, verifiable by looking the law up to see see what it says.

But the writing of law is our societal idiosyncracy. Some cultures just have their elders speak their laws, and some may just know them from watching the behavior of others. Verification is achieved by just watching what people do.

In fact, societal laws are known by the vast number without ever having read a legal book. Even those who believe morality arises from its appearance in the Bible must admit they know morality despite never having read the Bible.

Substitute "law" for "morality" in all cases. It's no different in terms of how it's verifiable.

As @frank noted some time ago. The morality/legality distinction is not something universal. That's just our peculiar state/religion distinction we've created. The Torah, for example, provides the direction for everything. It all comes from God in that tradition.

How this links to the OP is the question. We can have morality, law, social norms, etiquette, manners and all such things without any belief in a higher power. Wolves and chickens have their complex social roles too.

The foundation of these norms is the metapysical question. Do we have them just to facilitate survival and therefore ingrained in our DNA? Or do they come from a higher source of wisdom directing us toward higher purpose? If you choose the latter, you have no way of asserting that than faith. The consequence of denying the higher power is to be a complex wolf or chicken though. That worldview is lesser i'd submit.

But having so expressed, I yet maintain that (non-Orwellian) "democracy" is, and can only be, at direct odds with tyranny and tyrannical governance. — javra

If you define democracy as non-ttyranical, then it must you're saying something about a term, not a political system.

Suppose you have a non-tyranical monarchy, would it be a democracy?