Thats a good start I suppose, but ethics are sorely lacking in the average person sonI can’t help but want more. I think its just as important as any other school subject.

Not just high school. If they are old enough to learn math and spelling they are old enough to learn about morality and ethics. I would add or even supersede ethics with critical thinking and logic.
I would prefer to see these subjects be treated like math and science, with dedicated classes and teachers. Navigating ethics requires good critical thinking and logic skills though so I would actually start with that as a base.

What would your own ideal education in ethics look like in elementary and high school?

You have your head way up your own ass if you think cancel culture doesnt exist. You simply can’t have looked into it in any depth.
Congratulations on being fooled by left wing framing.

I don't see the basis for your claim. If God is the creator, then God had real existence, prior to your existence, just like your grandmother had real existence prior to your existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, “if”. You would have to show the previous existence of god or a creator. Not so with dear grandma, whose previous existence is not in question.
Since you havent shown god to have previous existence then its fallacious to use this grandma analogy to make your point/case.

The relationship with you grandmother already existed. The same cannot be said about god. The relationship with god doesnt have a previous existence upon which to base it like dear old grandma does. Thats the key, that you cannot have a relationship with something that never existed in the first place.

Pft. Not very imaginative.
You can also laugh AND tell them to go fuck themselves. Live a little Banno.

Well yes, exactly the point being made. Banno is saying there isnt any.

That is also in relation to others. All of your examples are.

When I look at your brain I see a grey, squishy mass. Is your mind a grey, squishy mass? Are you saying the entirety of your experience of the world is just various quiverings of a grey squishy mass? — Harry Hindu

Yes, with your naked eye.

Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu

You can, just not with your naked eye. Brain scans etc with instruments of science.

I would argue the concept mind is not equivalent to the brain but to the entire body. No other entity, least of all parts of that entity, engage in any act of minding. Besides, what is a brain absent the blood or oxygen or energy or support from the rest of the organism? — NOS4A2

I share the view that its more accurate to say body rather than brain, since the brain is affected by the rest of your body. We know that the foods and other things your body processes effect your mind/thoughts. I read your stomach has almost as many neural connections as your brain does.
This is also the reason I don’t by the conventional philosophical free will arguments, like you dont have free will because the decisions are locked in before your aware of them. Sure, science shows us that but just because its happening outside your awareness or elsewhere in your body doesn't mean its not you doing it.
Agency isnt your conscious mind, its your whole body.

Well…both of those are better than mine. I guess Ill just go fuck myself :razz:

We could ask is the physical the starting point for mind? I am not saying that they are not, but I do wonder about this, especially in relation to philosophies of idealism, such as those of Berkeley. Are these outdated ideas? The exact same role of matter and mind, or which is primary seems to be essential within philosophy. Is it possible that it may go beyond an either/ or? What is mind and matter and how are the two differentiated in the first place? Is dualism is an issue here, although I am certainly not clear where mind and body end or merge, especially in the realms of emotions. — Jack Cummins

Ya I think its outdated. We have a lot of data now about how our minds are directly correlated to various parts of the brain. Its possible brain is where mind comes from but until we get new data that suggests otherwise I don’t see a basis to say otherwise.

I would say the opposite, the brain gives rise to the mind. The material gives rise to the immaterial. As the wood gives rise to the fire.
If we stick to the fire analogy, there is slightly more to it than just fire from wood. You need oxygen to feed the fire, and a spark to start it. What is the “oxygen” and “spark” for a mind? If we figure out when the mind comes online, perhaps the “spark” is somewhere around that time…being born maybe?
The “oxygen” might be the brains interaction with everything not brain like sensory organs or environmental influences.

To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire.

Jesus fucking christ! :roll:

"espousing: 1. adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)." (Online dictionary.)“

It couldnt be more straightforward! He declared sexist belief, a belief he has adopted! Also is he not supportive of his own belief?!
Its simple, plain english. So for the love of Oprah and for the sake of baby jesus would you fucking morons quiet you stupid fingers and shut up about it already?!
I cant believe you idiots are STILL arguing about this.
So so dumb.

That definition of god strikes me as so open as to be completely useless. I do not understand how you can believe in something you cannot define. What is it you actually believe in? “God” is just an empty placeholder here, with no substance.

You're right. I should have said "we have no evidence that thoughts exist physically." So... then the question to ask you begs itself, "DingoJones, do all things, of the physical existence of which we have no physical evidence, exist as physical things? Must they necessarily exist as a physical thing? Why must we assume that they do exist in a physical manifestation in the physical world?" — god must be atheist

I think the answer is we do not know. There are things we once thought were not physical that we later learned were physical so judging by that trend we might expect everything to turn out to be physical but we dont know.

My approach is this: I calls them as I sees them. If there is no evidence of a thing, and there is no reasonable need to assume of that thing to exist, then I treat it as non-existent. There may be and are other approaches, but I am satisfied to have it my way. — god must be atheist

A good approach.

If gods decided to interact with us. Why or why not they do or don't I don't know. At present time, again, they never showed us any initiative to communicate -- that is, initiative, that I can believe. — god must be atheist

I suppose it depends on how you define god. Most concepts of god have god doing something that we should be able to detect and when we dont the approach you describe above seems best.

Thoughts exist, but not in the physical world. With any man-made instrument you can't point at or identify something physical, and know that "hey, now, that there thing is the physical manifestation of thought." — god must be atheist

I would say this is where it breaks down. You start with the conclusion that thoughts do not exist in physically but you havent established that. Just because we dont have man made instruments to measure something doesnt mean it doesnt exist physically. We know thoughts have something to do with chemicals and electrical pulses in the brain, that certain thoughts come from certain areas of the brain and that by damaging the brain in part or whole we can effect or stop thoughts in part or whole. These correlations between the physical brain and thoughts doesnt show that thoughts are physical but its fairly strongly implied I would say and that should at least establish we have no basis to conclude thoughts are not physical.

Extrapolating from this: maybe god exists, too, in the same functional way as thought and consciousness exist. God can be thought of as a temporarily created existence by the mind. — god must be atheist

Yes, a figment of imagination. :wink:
Even if god existed in some intangible way we would still be able to detect gods interactions with the physical in the same way that detect thoughts interacting with the physical.

:up:

I think its more specific than politics, its race. As you observed, even normally astute, academic types lose their shit as soon as someone says “black”. Fact after fact after fact unanswered, they just shift to a different attack vector and completely dismiss how they were just uncontroversially shown to be wrong. Its emotionally driven fantasy.
It would be nice to have a real discussion about any of it but as has been shown quite clearly in this thread you just can’t. You might say something that contradicts the dogmatic narrative and then there is no chance at an honest discussion.

I dont know who you're posting that video for, its not going to register to anyone who disagrees with it as has been clearly demonstrated on every other clear headed, rational offering from you and others on this topic.
The level of blind, dogmatic fantasy on display here is the worst Ive seen on on this forum. Lost cause Sushi, anyone who is thinking rationally on this topic already agrees with the video.

He means the facist covid policies (among others) and the racism of the Biden admin. How do you not know that as often as you interact with him?

Where are the thoughts coming from if not from yourself?
Wouldn't thoughts that come from your sub conscious or from biological processes (a fear response for example) elsewhere in your body still be “you”? In that way aren’t you simply making choices elsewhere than your conscious mind?

Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there.

I read it. I disagree with that premise. That you cannot change how many people are stupid hasnt been established.
In the OP it states “education” in its current form. Agreed. Lets talk about changing the form? (Which I did state in my post, speaking of not reading things…)

I understand, Im not calling you down about offering this topic. Im not taking the step Clarke is where he jumps to conclusions about your position or character. I would have told him to fuck off too. Unfortunately I think there is some merit to the comparison he made, I just dont think you were suggestion concentration camps. Like I said though, there isnt much distance to get there from what youre suggesting.
If you’ll recall Ive always been someone who understood the thought experiment style topics you’ve introduced.
I find them interesting and useful, so please read my comments with that in mind.
Anyway, what about better education? Wouldn't that be the best way to stop people from being stupid? Not education in the sense of academia but teaching people the merits of living “smart” (still think its an odd set of definitions re smart/stupid but for the sake of discussion) so they understand its better to be constructive over destructive, to lift yourself and others up rather than down or as stepping stones to your own exaltation.

I get the concentration camp reference. What you are suggesting in the OP is pretty dangerous. I know you specifically said not imprisoning but seizing assets is the same kind of thing. Even if you have the best of intentions and under your guidance its somehow successful, the power to seize assets will be there to abuse. It will be abused.
It is a perfectly fair reference, concentration camps, because this kinda thinking is where all that shit starts. Judgement, anyones judgement, is fallible. It doesnt matter how smart one is (even by the bizarre criteria you’ve laid out for intelligent). When you put rules in place that are so vague its only going to lead to someone gaming that rule to abuse it.
Even by your definitions whats smart or stupid is way to nebulous. As sympathetic as I am to the idea that stupidity is destructive and largely unchecked by society I can’t agree that your suggestions would be a good solution. I mean the distance between your suggestion and the worst examples of fascism history offers us is pretty short. Think about it, you are selecting a certain group and denying them rights that others have. What could go wring right?
Can’t we just educate people better, and across a wider/more useful spectrum? (Like teaching critical thinking in elementary school).

Lol, alright. I’ll keep going.

What - about himself? Then they are preferences, and not about morality. — Banno

Why? Is there no moral treatment of oneself? I don't understand the basis for your conclusion. Where are you grounding morality so that it precludes ethical positions and actions concerning only an individual?

.and so utilitarianism fails to amount to a moral position. Fine. — Banno

Im not a utilitarian, I was offering examples of ethical frameworks under which your claim might not apply.
Have you excluded all these other ethical systems on the basis that they do not have relation to others as fundamental? If not, Im curious as to what basis you give primacy to the ones (or is it just one, if so, which one if it has a name) that do have relation to others as fundamental.

Also, “keep going” is what Im doing when Im not asking other people questions. If Im asking, its because I cannot or have chosen not to “keep going”. I think on my own and ask questions when I want to think with/understand someone else. Telling me to go think more is precisely opposite the purpose of a question and answer.
Thats meant as explanatory rather than snide. Since Im asking you about your views you are the best person to get answers from, not me. Again, not intended as snide but Im asking you to talk to me, not prompt me.

You can do better than that.

What about moral intuitions? Not dependant on other agents. The loner could still have them couldn't he?

What about a utilitarian? Is there not a single utilitarian calculation that effects just the loner?

Maybe you have good answers for those, but it only takes one instance amongst all the different ethical philosophies and standards and I that would exclude relation to others as fundamental, right?

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to?

I observe that people don’t stop playing as they get older, they just change games. When people think of play as childish its really just certain kinds of play to which they refer, namely childish play. Then of course there are those that mistake their own sensibilities for maturity and erroneously label certain play as childish.
An example of that last point would be cosplay at a comic convention. This is a often viewed as childish where as something like wearing a jersey or painting your naked torso with team colours at a sports game is not. Clearly an error is being made cuz that shit is the same thing.
Our play simply get more complex, but they do not go away.

Youre almost there…next step: maybe there is no god at all, and religions are bullshit.
Keep peeling back the layers Gregory.

Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns. — Pinprick

Well…ok, but that doesnt do anything to address that the two are in conflict. All you're doing there is picking one over the other.
In this context it is the moral needs of the many outweighing the moral needs of the few. In other words the moral needs of society (what is good for society) outweigh the moral needs of an individual. (What is good for a person). The two will at times conflict, such as in the case of rule of law vs some morally justified vigilante justice.
Even if you have a personal ethic that puts society ahead of the the individual you will still get the conflict. You’ve just shifted where that conflict takes place from a dichotomy between societies good and the individuals good to a dichotomy between two tenets of a personal moral theory, the dichotomy is exactly the same in both cases. The conflict is still there, the choice between societies good or an individuals good must still be made.

Well neither is ideal I suppose but in my defence I did tag a disclaimer of sorts in the end. :wink:

I dont know what you mean by that.

If you are talking about the motivations of conspiracy theory folk for believing what they believe I think its a few different things. Its about having special knowledge, being part of a special group of “insiders” who are special as opposed to numbed out masses fooled by the “elite”. Then there is the delivery…many of these conspiracies have a staggering amount of content, argument and “science” out there for people to research. These two things make for a very seductive influence for people who don’t have a lot going on in their lives.
I don’t want to paint with a broad brush but when it comes to Qanon levels, I think the above is a large factor.

And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.

lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.

A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly? — SpaceDweller

I believe the misunderstanding is yours sir.
Look a little deeper into it. He actually believes its lizard people, aliens. Nothing figurative about it. They secretly control the world and hide various truths and kill people who oppose them and all manner of blatant conspiracies. When you go deep, all the different conspiracy theories start to intertwine once you get to the Qanon people.
The “illuminati” theory your talking about is conspiracy light these days, unfortunately.

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.

But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting? — SpaceDweller

Again, you simply cannot be familiar with modern flat earth theories and think it isnt a conspiracy. If you look deeper you will find that they think the earth is flat and there is a global conspiracy of all mainstream science and modern governments to hide that truth from the populace. The moon landing was fake as well as any photos or video of the earth being a globe. Airlines are all in on it, falsifying records of flights and suppressing or removing eye witnesses to the flat earth, the ice wall that surrounds it and the airline routes that would “prove” flat earth. They even have their own “scientific” data and experiments (awful, laughable, non-scientific experiments) that “prove” mainstream science and NASA lie and suppress the truth about flat earth.


The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory.

You are conflating scientific error and ignorant belief with conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing, even if there is some overlap with terms and references. You conflate modern conspiracy theory with erroneous scientific theory. (And if you want to talk about the churches suppression of a spherical earth theory you still arent talking about a conspiracy theory…there was nothing secretive about it.)
When we refer to flat earth conspiracy we are making a specific reference to people who believe that the earth is flat and that their is a secret global effort to deceive everyone about it and specifically NOT about humanities ignorant past errors. (Though of course modern conspiracy theorists would say the ignorant humans of the past had it right).

That sounds more like error than conspiracy. There are conventions and orthodoxies in all human institutions, including scientific academia. Calling it conspiracy is an unnecessary dilution of the term.