I look at it this way Frank, after a long history of human struggle we are on the verge of finally pulling our shit together somewhat. Coming technological advances, in bio-tech, genetics, AI and what have you, have the potential to define the future course of humanity. If we mess up with how we deal with those we could have some real nasty dystopias on the horizon... I think, especially now, it is of prime importance that we keep our sanity as societies, because the state of our societies will determine how we will handle those. Climate change, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to become a problem we definitely could do without.

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey

Based on what we understand now, this is true.

How would you reframe the issue to give it a little punch? — frank

I'm not great at punchy lines but.... We're degrading the earth at the expense of current and future generations? Probably not punchy enough?

The longer version is that greenhouse gasses warm the earth which will cause a number of problems, for us, and for the rest of biological life and ecosystems which will in turn have effects on us. More floods and heat waves, food and water shortages, more extreme weather, disturbed ecosystems, new pandemics etc etc... This is very unlikely to kill us all or even most of us, but a number of people will die because of it and it will make things generally worse for most.

And this are only the direct consequences of climate change. Imagine what kind of immigration problems Europe will have when it gets really bad in sub-Saharan Africa with its massively rising population. It's already a major political and social problem now, and that could be dwarfed by climate refugees to come. The real danger is that societies that are already under tension now, will collapse under the strains of climate change. And when tensions get high that also increases the chances of wars between nations for resources that have become more scarce. If you lose control over that, the problems could compound...

Greenhouse gasses stay a long time in the atmosphere and are hard to remove, even with foreseeable future technologies. This means that if we don't do enough now and in the coming decades we are essentially condemning future generations to put massive amounts of effort in dealing with it... we're restricting their potential to flourish.

I like that interpretation.

Being is becoming... overcoming... over man. Joy is the feeling of 'increase' in power, not the feeling of power itself. The point of the continually changing, non-fixed contingent values and goals, is the overcoming... or put in another, maybe somewhat cliche, way, it's the journey not the destination that matters.

Let me save all the "it's not an existential threat" crowd on here some time. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQAGr1s1XFc

If you're convinced by this, that's your own issue. — Xtrix

I've said this before, I'm not an American, I'm not invested in republic-democratic politics either way. I fully expected some cherry-picking of scientific findings at best and outright distortion of the science more probably... to suit his political agenda. He's a politician afterall, that's what I expect.

But I have to say the claims he's making in this particular video concerning the impact of climate change don't even seem to be all that outrageous (i'm not talking about the particular policies he proposes, which I generally don't agree with). And sure he leaves out a whole lot, but science does seem to support the things that he does say. Democrats are making it easy for him to sound somewhat reasonably on these points because they are overstating the scientific case.

It's not an existential threat, not even close. Calling attempts to clarify or nuance what is meant by existential threat "hair-splitting" is a bit disingenuous. Given the gravity of the claim and the consequences thereof, it would seem especially important to be clear about what kind of threats we should be expecting.

That's just nonsense. Climate change is an existential risk -- there's little doubt about that. What you -- and others -- want to do here is split hairs: "Well, it's not really existential because some humans may survive" or "We'll probably get enough things done, so it's not very likely," etc. You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. — Xtrix

I'm splitting hairs when that's how the term is used in the article you linked to and literally the conclusion of the article?

So where does this all leave us? It’s worthwhile to look into the worst-case scenarios, and even to highlight and emphasize them. But it’s important to accurately represent current climate consensus along the way. It’s hard to see how we solve a problem we have widespread misapprehensions about in either direction, and when a warning is overstated or inaccurate, it may sow more confusion than inspiration.

Climate change won’t kill us all. That matters. Yet it’s one of the biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act will be devastating. — article

And apparently it's not even close to an existential risk, even in worst case scenario's:

Further, “the carbon effects don’t seem to pose an existential risk,” he told me. “People use 10 degrees as an illustrative example” — of a nightmare scenario where climate change goes much, much worse than expected in every respect — “and looking at it, even 10 degrees would not really cause the collapse of industrial civilization,” though the effects would still be pretty horrifying. — article

What kind of rhetoric? The truth? — Xtrix

Poltical rethoric from climate activists and the like... Of course there is rethoric from both sides, that is what happens in politics, only scientists are after the truth.

If that's difficult, I'll put it this way: an asteroid is heading to earth. (1) If we do nothing -- what happens? We're dead. (2) If we act, we'll survive. Suppose someone starts saying, "We're doomed." What does this imply exactly? It seems to exclude (2), and thus no matter what we do we're dead. — Xtrix

See that is exactly not what this problem is, and only further proves the point I was trying to make. Climate change is a slow building problem and can have varying effects on a wide spectrum over centuries and millenia depending on how much greenhouse gasses will be pumped into the atmosphere. It's nothing like an astroid hitting the earth where we either prevent the impact or die immediately.... The analogy is only good if you want to scare people into action, it's rethoric.

--Here — Xtrix

I actually read most of the articles and papers linked too here, and if anything a lot of scientists seem agree that climate change is very unlikely to be an existential risk. It's for the most part politicians and policy advisors that seem to be overstating the scientific case, I would presume because they think that is needed to inspire political action.

And while I do think climate change is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, I don't think this kind of rhetoric serves that cause really. I think it damages their credibility, handing out free ammunition to climate deniers... and maybe more importantly accurate assessment of risks is important to determine what kinds of drastic solutions we need to consider to solve the problem.

What could potentially be an existential risk, and typically not included in these risk-analysis, are the social and political problems we cause as a reaction to the effects of climate change. The last thing we need it is more oil on the fire of an already overheated debate (pun intended!).

It is a theory but it's not recognised as such in analytical jurisprudence. The closest to it would probably be legal positivism which suffers from "turtles all the way down". Kelsen reaches the undefinable and conceptually useless "Grundnorm", which is just "natural law" dressed up in different wording. I don't like the theory for the reason given in the previous post, the weakness inherent to it in establishing what is and isn't law and the fact I'm a firm believer in bad law, not being law. Civil disobedience is required sometimes. — Benkei

Ok, I guess I don't understand why 'turtles all the way down' would be a problem in this case. You have to start somewhere...

I do agree that there are bad laws, I still would call them laws though even if they are bad. And yes civil disobedience should be possible at all times, it's a form of politics... and politics ultimately takes precedence over law because it determines who gets to decide what the laws are going to be or how they should be changed.

I reject procedural requirements because you end up with circular reasoning. Procedural laws are after all laws themselves, so you end up with: the law is only law when passed in accordance with the law. That strikes me as rather meaningless. — Benkei

But this is what it ultimately is, circular. You have a constitution usually, which is a subtype of law requiring special majority to change, that determines how laws can be passed. Of course, behind those procedural requirements there are philosophical ideas, in case of democracies the legislative organ consists of representatives that are voted in by the people etc... So ultimately yes laws are rules that are devised according to a procedure that a certain community has decided on to be the procedure of passing laws.

I mentioned this explicitly in my previous post but I tend to just refer to "signing" to avoid long sentences. I assumed current posters here know this and will forgive the inaccuracy. — Benkei

Sure, but the splitting of hairs does lay bare a distinction that is I think important for the discussion. If some executive power, like say trump, would decide to declare war in violation of a ratified treaty, that would be illegal. If however parliament would decide on declaring a war in violation of a ratified treaty, I'm not so sure that decision would necessarily be "illegal"... because they decide what is law. Then you presumably have a conflict between two norms of equal value, and it would depend on the particular legal system which one takes precedence.

But I'll grant you that in most countries, as far as I know, treaties usually take precedence above a regular law... which makes sense because, as you pointed out, if you - as a country - don't follow up on your contractual obligations, other parties typically won't be as willing to deal with you in the future.

The entering into a contract creates expectations between us about the nature of promises and rights and it also creates expectations in a wider community if they are aware of the promises we made. As a result, we've established rules intended to regulate behaviour through performative acts (two promises). It's these expectations and the underlying intent that is aimed at creating such expectations that, in my view, create law. — Benkei

I don't think this is fundamentally different where it concerns treaty obligations. The system of national laws sets out that any treaty signed and ratified is accepted as binding and that national laws will be set aside in favour of the treaty rules. — Benkei

Laws are rules approved by an organ that has legislative power. Treaties become law in a country if they are ratified by parliament. That is why ratification is necessary. Note that often treaties are not ratified even if they were signed by a country, in which case they wouldn't be law... I don't quite see how contractual expectations would have much bearing on whether something is a law or not.

This is why I don't think enforcement is necessary for a rule to be law, because I think it's about intent and expectations; or, the meaning that arises from the promises made. — Benkei

Yeah enforcement isn't necessary for something to be a law, it just makes the law largely ineffective. It is about intent and expectations, they are normative after all, but I wouldn't say that is what makes something a law. Whether something is a law or not is determined by it being approved in a legislative organ or not.

you agree by treaty that your won't go to war except in self defence or with UN security counsel approval then not abiding by those rules makes the law illegal. If you want to argue you aren't bound by treaties then you shouldn't sign them in the first place — Benkei

Splitting hairs a bit probably... but signing a treaty is done by some executive power. In itself that doesn't lend legal power to that treaty. It's only after ratification (by a legislative power) that it gets that status in an internal legal order of that country... and even then, laws do conflict with eachother (even aside from treaties), it will depend on the internal rules of conflict resolution and hierarchy of norms which law should take precedence.

The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems.
— ChatteringMonkey

The only thing I can currently think of in regard to this is that for it to stand a chance of working there must first be an ideal that is aimed at; one that most folks are not opposed to. Headaches will occur one way or another. But in the absence of such ideal that serves as a common cause for most, I can't foresee the possibility of good results. And I think this is where Xtrix's notion of a global awakening comes into play. Still, in seeing how many have had big problems with the wearing of face masks during the current pandemic, it will take considerable effort to bring such global ideal about. — javra

I would think we need something more concrete at this point. An awakening, a shared ideal would help no doubt, but as I said a bit earlier, that kind of general cultural shift takes time... and a lot of time is something we don't have in this case.

I've been thinking about global governance... So the problem with a real global government is I think it gets to big as an effective ruling structure. You get lots of bureaucracy, you invariably get an even bigger democratic deficit because representation will be ten times removed from the people at that scale etc... The most straightforward solution, and the least conditional on other fundamental changes happening first, is working with what we have now, nation states. This is how we got to that agreement on the minimum tax for enterprises. Something similar could be done for fossil fuels and emission costs. According to that IMF report the fundamental problem is that the costs for the environment aren't included in the prices for fossil fuels (that is how they are 'subsidized'). If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed...

Brings to mind the - acknowledged toothless - global 15% minimum corporate tax that was recently in the news. — javra

Yeah, this was long overdue... even if 15% isn't a whole lot compared to what regular people pay.

I do agree with your point, this can only work if applied globally, because the economy is global.

The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems.

Thx for the info.

I didn't read the whole report yet, but it seems like they also count the non-inclusion of 'externalised cost' as subsidies, which I agree should be taking in account... but the point is they aren't, and so from a competitive point of view, as the cost paid by enterprises, they are cheaper.

Also note that China is again the biggest offender here. They subsidise everything, there isn't even a real difference between private and public sector there, to the point that 'free competition' with them is not a real possibility from the beginning.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing. — Xtrix

I agree in principle that this is the way to go, but for that to have an effect on this particular problem, I don't think we have the time. That kind of basic cultural shift doesn't happen overnight....

But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita. That's significant. — Xtrix

I'm not an American, I'm viewing it from a different perspective I guess. I don't disagree that the US could have a lot more impact than most other countries, but still it can't do it on it's own, it is a global coordination problem.

There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies. — Xtrix

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. — Xtrix

Maybe I need to look into it some more (feel free to share sources that could educate me on this), but I don't think you get around the fact that green energy is just more expensive... I know, not if you would include externalised costs, but the point is that they are not included now. If energy is more expensive, products are more expensive and you loose a competitive edge... which is why I think this is ultimately a coordination problem. Everybody needs to get on board or your economy will suffer... in relation to others, which is how economies suffer.

China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal. — Xtrix

The figures for emissions sure would have me fooled.

But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH. — Xtrix

This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about how the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity. — Xtrix

My point is that if everybody is not on board, or at least the biggest polluters like China and the US, the earth will be destroyed anyway, even if you destroy your economy right now.

And let's be clear about this, the earth will not be destroyed if we can't solve the problem. It will be very very bad for a whole lot of biological life on earth, possibly/probably something akin to the five great mass extinctions we had in earths history. A lot of life will die off, some amount will most likely survive. This is in no way meant to diminish the problem, hard to diminish a problem by comparing it to mass extinctions anyway, it just seems better to say it like it is to pre-empt accusations of doomsaying.

It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.

People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker. — Xtrix

I could easily see it going the other way though. You know, that knee-jerk reaction of falling back on the instinct of saving oneself in the first place, and maybe those closest, in bad times.... let's build that wall etc.

I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem...

I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems.

So yeah, anyway you slice it, it's going to hurt.

So you have read it and liked it? Cool. — frank

Yeah, I read most of his stuff. What I like about this polemic is that he doesn't waste time on pointless discussions about the truth of Christian doctrine etc, like for instance the new atheist would. He pretty much just assumes it is all myth, and goes straight to the heart of it, questioning the values it promotes.

He's similar to Kierkegaard in declaring that only a few people will understand his works.

Was he a revolutionary? Or a lunatic? I'll add comments as I go through it. All comments welcome. — frank

Few contemporaneous people I think he meant predominately. People are educated in the culture of their times, and assume that frame as a given for their thinking for the most part. It takes a lot of work and a certain kind of temperament to be able to create a point of view beyond that. If one doesn't have that particular mindset, one probably won't get it.

He was a philosopher. Questioning the mores of their times, re-evaluation of values as he would put it, is what "real" philosophers do according to Nietzsche. And that is what he does, revealing the psychological motives of the cultural and religious ideas of his time... sounding them out with a tuning-hammer, to see what they mean not in terms of truth necessarily, but in terms of motive.

Anyway, it's an interesting read, especially for the psychological insight into Christianity and the archetype of Christ.

A Boycott only is effective if enough people join in.

People are not likely to join left to their own devices, usually they'll just buy with their wallets.

The usual ways of organising collective action runs via national political parties, which seem difficult to move at this point.

Purchase power taken as a whole however, has enormous political potential. The question is how to get enough of it on board.

Start a site and call it the 'Peoples Purchase Power Party (PPPP)' or something, with the goal of using purchase power all over the world for good causes. Keep it simple, state your goals clearly, list the obvious good causes, list the products that are being targeted etc... do the work and the research for them.

Campaign the internet for people to join purchase boycotts and finance the project. I'd say there's enough people who would would be willing to join ideologically, but still, chances seem rather slim that it works. There just isn't any organised direction at this moment, to much splintering and disinformation, and no faith in the success of such actions....

Until it maybe gets some traction, somehow, at which point people could start to join in droves. Once you have that, the sky is the limit really, you could even leverage the potential purchase power to negotiate directly with governments or companies.

Oh yeah, be sure to find ways to keep the monster under control, should you get there.

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.
— ChatteringMonkey

But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.

If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid. — schopenhauer1

Justification that people give to their beliefs are often not the real reasons for holding a belief... but just that, justifications or post hoc rationalizations. But yeah sure, if that is the reason they give for it, than it's not a very good reason.

↪ChatteringMonkey
To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is. — schopenhauer1

Yes i'm saying this evaluation of these two scenario's doesn't make sense, because it kind of assumes an evaluation for some abstract point of view, where there are no given criteria for evaluation and no entity that can value things.

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.

Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute. — schopenhauer1

I don't think this is true in general, at least not for everybody. I've only been afraid of death a few times, in some dangerous situations, and I know that is not what I feel day in day out... that's not what keeps me going. Can't speak for everybody of course, but I don't think I'm special in that regard.

I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst. — schopenhauer1

I'll respond to this in response your most recent post...

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.
— ChatteringMonkey

But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions. — schopenhauer1

Thinking plays a role, but not fundamentally. We can reflect on certain valuations, and maybe switch them around a bit or change the ordering, but you always have to start with some base of valuation... you cannot get them out of nothing, thinking needs something to work with.

Take for example the basic feeling of hunger. Maybe we can evaluate whether we are eating to much or the right kind of foods, but we can't really come to the conclusion that eating is bad altogether, unless we find some twisted logic to override that basic valuation with other impulses (like say to need for social approval or recognition in case of some anorexics).

I think the same thing applies to us generally valuing life, we want homeostasis, to propagate our living being in time. You cannot get around it really. Even Schopenhauer himself didn't believe in his own pessimistic philosophy, Nietzsche says, because he played the flute!

We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.

Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways? — schopenhauer1

It's bad from the perspective of life, which is the perspective we have, because life generally values life. There's not much else to say about it, it's sort of axiomatic to life.

From the perspective of non-life, from the perspective of nothingness, the question isn't even a valid question to ask because there is nobody to make that value-judgement... it's like asking how much an idea weighs, it doesn't make sense.

Why is human experience a good in itself? — schopenhauer1

1) It literally would not matter to any thing if no thing existed from here on out. — schopenhauer1

Right, without experience there is no one even able to make the valuation of good or bad.

The argument VS nothing cuts both ways though,

- if you think life is bad on the whole then presumably no life would be better
- if you think life is good on the whole then presumably no life would be worse

But these arguments are all of little consequence, because at base the valuation that we prefer life/experience to no life/experience is not based on a rational argument, but on some basic feeling. We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.

Moral philosophers, at least the ones I've read, and I'll admit I had some graduate work in ethics and have done some reading but am by no means an expert, seem to ignore the role human nature plays in morality. A system that doesn't take account of the fact that people are more likely to sacrifice for others the more genetic material they have in common is a system doomed to faliure. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just want to say that I agree with this! It seems so obvious yet seems to be ignored a lot of the time...

The two big competing groups of moral philosophies are the deontological and the utilitarian approach. Both, it seems to me, presuppose an already delienated community as their frame of reference. But does either approach provide a clear answer as to how to draw the borders around that community? — Echarmion

Utilitarianism does to some extend I think, in that it has an in theory simple measure (i.e. pain/pleasure) that isn't restricted to an already delineated community. It's "just" a matter of figuring out how to apply that measure consistently... which is at the same time its biggest problem, it's wholly impractical to do so. That and the fact the theory doesn't really do anything if you don't already agree with the measure it assumes.

Are there moral philosophies which, in your opinion, provide an adequate method to determine the borders of the community? — Echarmion

No I don't think so, we just decide... according to our progressing insight perhaps, to add some very vague qualifier to that.

Are perhaps virtue ethics not just relevant, but unavoidable when it comes to this first step? — Echarmion

Well the focus is on the individual acting in a certain way, so that's your border, a border around 1 person. Or you could say that it promotes moral action without borders because it focuses on individuals acting good regardless of borders and circumstance...

It's pretty much the status quo but no argument has to be made in 99% of cases. Just disregard benefit. How many debates about theism cross over into the territory of whether people should even be trying to convert each other? Or whether one outperforms the other in the area of benefit? Truth-value doesn't go that deep, you simply call the other party wrong, deluded, invalid, unreasonable and walk away. — Judaka

Yes and I think the tacit assumption there is that truth is valuable, which it is... generally. It's a bit like linking someones actions to those of nazi's or thugs, its an appeal to shared underlying valuations.

I see. How would you determine when it's better to accept the utility of a belief or criticise someone for being wrong? And could you see yourself promoting a falsehood you knew to be false because you thought it'd be of benefit to others? — Judaka

I definitely have kept my opinion to myself on occasion, often that is with people I know very well that have certain beliefs and I know they are very unlikely to change their mind, because I tried before... in which case I don't see the point in trying to convince them otherwise.

But actively promoting falsehood is difficult, because I do believe in the value of truth, and so it doesn't come naturally. I guess that it is - more than a benefit or utility calculation - more a matter of virtue-building for me. You try to practice good habits that you think will be good longterm, and actively promoting falsehoods seem counter to that even if it would be beneficial (which is, as I alluded to before, difficult to assess in practice anyway, that is one of the problems with consequentialism).

So ultimately I do think there is something to telling the truth regardless. I seem to have completely changed my mind in the span of two post, which I have to admit does seem a bit questionable :-)... but thank you for pushing me on this point.

Another example could be a Christian who is charitable, compassionate, has a sense of belonging and more, this could potentially take precedence over an atheist's disapproval of what he sees as the Christian's incorrect beliefs or it might not. If the Christian is convinced to be an atheist, perhaps all of those valuable traits will diminish or disappear with the beliefs. — Judaka

That's maybe a better example, because it's I think well documented that de-conversion is actually a very difficult process that doesn't happen overnight. So one could rightly ask whether it would a good thing to try to de-convert some older religious person just because it would lead to more accurate beliefs.

It only really gets interesting when we admit or speculate that the benefits exist but the belief is invalid, faulty, lopsided, wrong. Otherwise, the answer is obvious. I agree that if we have no strong feelings about whether there's a benefit to being inaccurate then we should try to be accurate. — Judaka

Right, here's the thing though, why would it be an interesting question if not because we assume that truth has some beneficial effects? What would an argument that says accuracy/truth should trump benefit regardless even look like? I don't think truth for truth sake makes a whole lot of sense... so I guess that is my answer, truth has utility, and insofar that utility doesn't weight up against the utility of say the belief a religious person has (or dis-utility that person would experience), truth isn't worth it.

I'm no moral realist, but I suppose regardless of you meta-ethical stance, one thing that might happen if you violate moral principles regularly, is social exclusion... which for a social being is bad enough.
— ChatteringMonkey

Violating principles which are believed by society to be moral principles could lead to social exclusion, but simply violating moral principles wouldn't. — Michael

Right, as a moral realist one would make that distinction.

What do you think might happen if you regularly violate your taken-for-granted moral principles?

So what do you think, moral realists? — spirit-salamander

I'm no moral realist, but I suppose regardless of you meta-ethical stance, one thing that might happen if you violate moral principles regularly, is social exclusion... which for a social being is bad enough.

Though I don't pay attention to how I'm received on the internet, I know nobody cares. As for developing my thinking, I don't like the idea of being trapped in the matter of true answer to somebody else's question. A valid response to a question like "is God real" should be "why do you even care to debate this?". Well, maybe I won't actually post that response but that's what I think about their thread. Briefly looking over your threads, you do tend to ask questions beyond the scope of what is true. Your threads could be answered by speaking in terms of and often include a challenge of analysing pros and cons. So even though you say that you aim to speak about only what is true, it seems mostly you are questioning what we should or shouldn't be doing, which I like. — Judaka

I hadn't looked at my posts quite in that way, but good observation, I do tend to think that what matters, or what is valuable, is the most important question.

We can't only ask what is the situation with X, that is not a valid answer. We can't answer what to do without understanding how things are either. We need both. — Judaka

Yes I agree, you can't really make good judgements about where to go if you don't really know where you are.

It's only situations where there's a competing narrative where this "versus' can apply. That a descriptive claim like "I am intelligent and beautiful" we get to choose to emphasise the reasonableness or validity of the claim versus how these beliefs are making the individual feel about themselves. Does that make sense? — Judaka

Yeah, you're talking about descriptive claims... Ok. Though question, because yes context matters. For the purpose of the thread I understand that you coined the question in terms of accuracy of a belief VS product or effect a belief has. But I do wonder if that dichotomy still holds in practice. In case of the narcissist maybe in practice its more a question of short term effects (hurt feelings, blow to the ego) vs long term effects (a more reasonable self-image) that is the effective difference. I know I used to be more cognizant of other peoples feelings and identity, but since have slided more to the idea that in the long term truth is probably more beneficial even if short-term it might have adverse effects on someone. Like, if you don't tell the narcissist that he has an inflated idea of himself, someone else down the line probably will or the world will confront him with his deluded self-image.

So to conclude I would say that, if we would know for a fact that it would have bad effects on someone, short and long-term, then yes I wouldn't necessarily confront them with it... but usually I don't think we know that, it's hard to know what the effects will be, and so I would err on the side of accuracy because in general I think that is beneficial in itself.

Feel free to suggest any of your own examples for discussion on this topic. — Judaka

To put a bit of a spin on the thread, and maybe this is not the direction you had in mind (so feel free to ignore it), I don't think public dialogue, the beliefs we bounce around in society, is about accuracy and validity in the first place. It think it's about where we want to go, and what we should do to get there... so not about "is" but about "ought be" (descriptive vs prescriptive).

Beliefs about "ought be" are not truth-apt in the same way as descriptive "is" claims are. As a moral constructivist I think looking at what kind of effects moral beliefs produce is in fact the way in which you would assess the "accuracy" of that kind of belief.

If you knew that the one which produced the superior effects was the one you believed to be incorrect, would you oppose its promotion or support it? — Judaka

Depends on who I'm addressing and where I am. If i'm posting on a philosophy forum as some random dude on the internet than I don't think the ideas I promote will have much of an effect on way or the other, so I just try to stick to saying whatever I think is true regardless of effects. But when I'm talking to kids for instance, an idea being correct or incorrect is hardly the only thing that matters. So yeah, how people will receive what you say matters, that's an important part of communication.

Yes, there will be more roles (processing food, building stores defending stores in addition to hunting, fishing, gathering) but that doesn't necessitate a hierarchy or an authority. Yes, there will be a territory, more surplus and thus the opportunity for, but not a necessity of, unequal private property. Even if people specialised, that doesn't suggest inequality, and an annual surplus can and did drive peaceful trade between groups.

Cooperatives exist even now in our very hierarchical, very unequal societies. Executive roles exist, but are populated by rotation. All profits are shared equally irrespective of effort or skill. That's more the kind of thing I had in mind.

Stiles outlines in great depth the opportunity for hierarchical structures to form, but concludes that egalitarian DR groups are impossible. — Kenosha Kid

Depends on what you mean with 'necessity' and 'impossible', doesn't it? If you mean physically impossible than sure, that seems like a hard case to make. If it's some soft 'necessity' based on a combination of human psychological tendencies and environmental incentives than maybe there is something there, but that too would be hard to isolate and test either way.

That's in stark contrast to what I've read on the subject, so I'd be interested to hear more. My understanding is that, while we at some point in our lineage evolved social characteristics that drive or give capacity to egalitarianism and altruism that our ape ancestors do not have, there are no similarly unique characteristics for dealing with life in hierarchies. So yes we inherit the pre-social and sub-social apparatus of our parent species, but we are evolved beyond that.
— Kenosha Kid

I did not want to claim that we have a similarly unique tendency towards hierarchy, only that we also have this tendency, which seems to explain a number of biases when it comes to political struggle. Of course these might also merely be side effects of other, more general cognitive biases. — Echarmion

My intuition is the same, we do seem to have a tendency for veneration, to listen to authority too. And from an evolutionary perspective that does make sense to me. I don't think "in the abstract" there is a superior type of organisation, it would depends on circumstances which one is better suited... and so having a certain aptitude for both would seem more evolutionary adaptive.

My hypothesis is that our natural morality, defined as morality without socialization, is under-determined, precisely because we have that capacity for language, culture and socialization... I think it would be evolutionary beneficial to delegate concrete morality to culture for species that have that capacity because culture is more adaptable than genes. it dunno, this is speculation of course, but I does seem plausible to me that the fact that we have that capacity also in turn influenced the course of our evolution. Evolution is never merely a linear sequential development of traits, is it?

Yes, but if you have neither 1 nor 2 then there is nothing you can do.

There will be no social upheaval/discontent because the state will find ways of bribing people or otherwise suppressing their movement.

If there is no appealing political vision, there will be no coherent or organized movement. That's why there isn't any.

You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. That's why you only get minority or single-issue movements like Occupy or BLM. — Apollodorus

Yeah no disagreement here, that's why I tend to stay out of politics these days, because I don't see it going anywhere.

But I don't want to close the door entirely or forever either. Maybe things will get bad enough that societal upheaval can't be suppressed, or maybe someone with the right idea's, charisma and willpower, will stand up and succeed in forging a political movement against all odds...

maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes
— ChatteringMonkey

Do you mean like Trump's Capitol insurrection or something bigger? — Apollodorus

I mean something a bit different I suppose, and it'd need to be bigger in the amounts of people supporting it, yes that too. Trump is a sign or symptom of underlying discontent, not the cause right? He's merely the one giving political direction to that discontentment, like extreme right populist parties are doing in Europe. They find fertile ground for their populist ideas, without which their politics wouldn't gain traction... The problem with populism though is that it isn't a solution, their political 'agenda' is mostly things people want to hear, not things that have a chance of being implemented in any sustainable way.

Political parties in Europe around the period of WWII still were tied to their base via unions, health insurance organisations, representation in the education system etc etc... there were links in all layers of society and the institutions. And so the leaders of political parties were still held accountable for what they did, part of the political decision making grew bottom up... The other side of this representation across society was that, if something was decided, they could count on it being implement by their base.

Now these links seem to be gone for the most part and political parties have become these top-down PR-machines that only seem to be geared at getting into power without the ability and ambition to actually implement a political vision.... which is what I would call the "agency-problem" in politics.

So what I think would be needed is

1) social upheaval/discontent. You need 'fertile ground' to be able to grow a political movement that wants to change things.

and 2) someone or some group of people giving direction to that discontent in the form of a political vision and political organisation. That's what was lacking for instance in the occupy movement or the Arab spring,

The answer is education — James Riley

This similar to what John Dewey proposes, to make democracy really work you need educated citizens. I like Dewey, and I like this idea... but again to get to that point you probably need policy and institutional reforms, and for that you need political will which seems to be lacking.

The way I see it there seems to be an 'agency problem' in politics, which is prior to any proposed solution that needs political action. None of the political parties seem to be able or willing to push through reforms that would actually make a difference for the better. I strongly feel that something needs to be done about that to be able to effective tackle some of the other problems.

And yes, it certainly is possible, post WWII politicians were able to come together and actually implement some kind of vision for society, both in the US and in Europe. It hard to see how that could happen now, so maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes.

We could do a lot, the problem is there isn't enough political will to do any of that. How do we change that?

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human.
— David S

In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.

Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.

Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original. — ChatteringMonkey

So the question is really, why do tend we to think in narratives? What is it about stories that makes us remember them easier? Because we evolved to be good at the social stuff, presumably because that was important for our survival...

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.

Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.

Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Here's a bit of an argument from left field, and one I don't know I entirely stand behind, but devil's advocate et al...

a. Growth and flourishing is good.

b. We need some adversity to be able to grow to our full potential (Disputable to what extend maybe, but generally a case could be made I think, based on scientific findings even)

c. Sciences makes life generally easier by making the world predictable and making all kinds of technologies possible that make life easier.

(a + b + c) Science stunts our growth and flourishing, therefor science is bad.