But you said needs like these are insufficient.

So are they sufficient now? — khaled

The need itself is not, however perhaps the need in conjuction with an assault on something that unquestionably belongs to the individual is sufficient. Perhaps the need in conjuction with the thief's mistake of imposing is sufficient. Maybe a combination of those, or maybe there are more we could think of.

Note, it is not the need that may justify an action, it is the thief's imposition that justifies it.

I don't think so. The thief imposes on their victim first, by threatening their life with direct physical violence. The imposition that follows by the victim is of a different nature than the thief - it is a reaction - protecting that which is rightfully theirs: their life and their body.

But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option.

But one often has a pretty reasonable estimate of how much harm they'll suffer vs how much harm they'll inflict by doing an action. — khaled

Maybe. I cannot be the judge of that. I'm quite skeptical of a parent's ability to reasonably estimate the life of their child.

One could simply treat one's own needs as just as valuable or less valuable as those of others. So don't do something to others that is harmful unless the alternative is equal or way greater harm onto yourself. — khaled

This is not a bad start, but it is not enough. A person often times is not even able to accurately determine their own needs, let alone those of another.

Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them? — khaled

I would argue that in this situation one's needs are sufficient, because they extend only to oneself (self-preservation). One's life and body belong to the individual, and thus one is justified in protecting oneself.

It is the thief whose apparent needs extend to others, and therefore he who must tread carefully and doesn't.

The appeal to instinct seems to me a weak one: animals are not moral agents.

That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of the harm done can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope:

If I can judge for others what is harmful or not, then there is indeed no limit to the actions I can afford myself while still considering myself moral.

If, however, one comes to the sensible conclusion that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge what is good for others, then one will realize one must always tread carefully when imposing things on others, with all the implications that has for childbirth.

I think this probably the key point here. You don't see the pull of having kids. OK. But most people do, for whatever reason. Certainly cultural indoctrination has a lot to do here, with cities being population farms and all that. But people were procreating long before civilization. There is an instinctual aspect to it. For what reason would a hunter-gatherer have offspring, their own material benefit? Hardly, because it's just another mouth to feed. Infanticide and presumably abortions were quite common back then.

Probably a more interesting question would be to ask why people have children, and whether there can be a substitute for doing so. I remain unconvinced that there is something that can fill that need for a child that so many people have. — darthbarracuda

To the discussion about the morality of having children, the needs of the parent are irrelevant, since one's own needs are never sufficient to justify an action that involves other individuals. To argue otherwise would lead to a predictable slippery slope.

That isn't to say that the question isn't interesting.

Maybe it is instinctual, but doesn't that essentially mean people have children because they are incapable of reasoned thought in that regard?

Well your boss exerts authority over you, but you're still responsible for yourself, right? — frank

Unlike life or citizenship, work is a voluntary agreement. But even then an employer carries a certain responsibility for their employees.

As I stated, those who know lack confidence (Socrates?) and those who don't know are full of confidence (Tucker Carlson, et al). — James Riley

Don't you think that this is a bit ironic, given the content of your posts?

You barely know me, but I am sick, a pussy, selfish, etc., and all the other things you assumed I must do or be. Your heart may be in the right place, but your writings suggest you have no ability to sympathize with people whose opinions you do not share, and upon those people with whom you do not agree you project the worst of qualities.

You fault people for not caring about the problems of others, yet you don't care about their problems either.

The link you shared likens those who do not share your opinions to "Einsatzgruppen", Nazis, murderers. It drips with pure, inept hatred, and people that are capable of harboring such burning hatred for people on the basis of ideological differences have no right to call anyone else a nazi; more irony. Well-placed as your heart may be, I sincerely hope yours is not as dark.

Your avatar is a fitting symbol - a walking contradiction? I think I may have said that before, haven't I?

When you quoted Fauci your point seemed to be that others should care. From what you've written so far you seem to care little about others yourself.

The state is responsible for bringing individuals under its effective authority, and thus can be considered morally responsible for every single one of those individuals.

Like, a child does not choose to be born, or who their parents are, so the individual does not choose to be born either, or in which state.

Is a parent responsible for the well-being of their children? Is a parent responsible for the failures of their children? Can a child be held responsible for not knowing things it hasn't been taught? Can a child be held responsible for perpetuating those ideas it has been taught?

Some on this forum consider childbirth to be immoral. What does that mean for the existence of states?


I suppose your intended question was more about what powers states should have, and whether they should control healthcare, but I kind of wanted to share this train of consciousness.

I understand you believe the sacrifices others must make are benign. Others disagree. But I'm getting the impression you are already past the point of considering the subjectiveness of your own position.

But only if it suits the narrative. When the "other people" are the millions of individuals that have to change their way of life, or when the state is walking the thin and slippery line of infringing upon citizens' right to bodily autonomy by attempting to pressure them into vaccination on the basis of incomplete information, I'm not sure if Fauci believes we should care about that.

... , mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living.

As has been pointed out, there are many definitions abound of mysticism, but I'd like to share my view on it.

I don't think mysticism can be called a religion. Religious individuals can be mystics or partake in mysticism, but the two are different.

Religions are belief systems.

Mysticism concerns itself primarily with peak/mystical/enlightenment experiences.

To the experiencer, these are no different and no less real than their sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste or touch (albeit a lot more profound).

The difference between religion and mysticism is that between which is believed and that which is directly experienced.

Next time, think things through beyond the bare surface level before making such ignorant statements.

In an ideal world they'd let fat anti-vaxxers die instead of postponing medical treatment for other diseases because the IC is full. — Benkei

Even anti-vaxxers (are forced to) pay for collective healthcare their entire lives, and you wish to "let them die" because you disagree with how they wish to exercise the right to their own body?

I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, ... — thewonder

I would avoid the term 'western' and simply call the culprits by their names: the United States and Israel.

Europe isn't to blame for this mess of power politics, yet it bore the brunt of the fallout. I'm sure that has suited the United States and Israel just fine.

If God exists, presumably an afterlife exists, and suffering evil is meaningless.

I expected better from you.

I stand by it, actually.

As with every moral choice, we must make sense of it at the level of the individual. Every act, thus every moral act, is carried out by individuals.

Every child starts with "I want...", and to fulfill that want, one must take a considerable risk of harming the child one wants to have. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing whether the child, once its born, actually wanted to be born.

So we have a situation where we take a considerable risk on someone else's behalf, having not the slightest idea of how their lives may turn out or how one's parenting style may affect them, not knowing whether the child actually wants to be born, to fulfill our own desires.

I don't think this holds any moral ground.

I don't think so, for primarily two reasons:

1. Non-democratic states like Russia, but especially China, seem to be taking a dominant position over democratic states. The time of US hegemony is over, and China seems to be gearing up to take its place. As the US weakens, Russia's leverage over the EU will increase. In the long run this will first lead (and already has) to a series of crises as Russia reincorporates former Soviet states. After that, relations will probably normalize but Russia will be the dominant player in EU-Russia relations.

2. Democracy isn't just under threat from external sources. In fact, the bigger threat in both the US and the EU comes from within in the form of corruption. Social engineering, misinformation, propaganda, etc. have all turned the tables on the δῆμος. I no longer consider the US, the EU and many nations within the EU to actually be democratic. The will of the people is no longer the leading thread in decisionmaking. The leading thread has become the agenda of the elite, and the people are to be manipulated and coerced into accepting it.

I believe that you have a useful basis for thinking about evil starting from our experiences and relating it in a wider way to others. Here, I think it involves think about our own suffering and connection it to potential evil of others who may suffer. This may be an existential approach, involving wisdom and compassion. — Jack Cummins

I would consider it more of a placeholder than a basis. "Do unto others..." is generally a creed that if lived by will avoid at least the greater kinds of excesses, however it does not suffice, in my opinion.

After all, just because one wishes to be treated in some way, does not mean that that same treatment is wished for by or good for another.

Unless we know a person and we know them well, it may be difficult for us to tell what that person really needs; what is truly good for that person.

As such, I think voluntary interaction in the widest sense of the word is key. Voluntariness in physical interactions obviously, but also intellectual interaction.

In order to make sense of good and evil, one must start with the concept in its most simple form: within the individual.

Personally, I don't find the concept of evil very helpful. Individuals do what they believe is good for them. The problem is that for all sorts of reasons they can be wrong.

Good < > Not Good ("Evil")

Wisdom < > Ignorance

(Self-) Honesty < > Deceit

What seems radical about Christianity is the extension from self-interested altruism into loving your enemy and helping that most loathed of all people e.g., the Samaritan. This is much harder to justify than being 'good' in your own tribe. This seems to echo the Roman poet Terence - "Nothing that is human is alien to me." By extension, all humans are sacred. — Tom Storm

It might be a response to the conclusion that 'an eye for an eye' (the opposite of 'turning the other cheek') essentially turns one into the thing one hates.

We all know Nietzsche's quote about staring into abysses. It seems appropriate here.

There seems to be a strong correlation between depression and the ideology of “following” one’s heart. — Ladybug

Maybe this is true, because when one initially 'follows one's heart' one may scarcely know where to find it.

The path of self-actualization is long and perilous, and it may lead to all kinds of uncomfortable truths about oneself and others that can cause serious mental distress if one isn't properly mentally and intellectually equipped and prepared for it.

A life spent in fear of death is a wasted one, no matter how long it lasts. Even if it lasts an eternity! But death will catch up, no matter how hard one tries to run away from it. We're all going to die.

If one believes in reincarnation, isn't there even less reason to put much value in nature's winners and losers?

t completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

The cycle having no value to the individual seems logical. As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.

Whether the cycle has some cosmic importance, i.e. life on planet Earth has some greater purpose that we are unaware of, is something none of us can answer, however I lean towards 'no'.

Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. — stoicHoneyBadger

There are people whom you might consider "winners" who are deeply dissatisfied with life. There are people whom you might consider "losers" who in fact are living content. Whatever success they may have in nature's game is irrelevant and these labels of winners and losers meaningless.

On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway? — stoicHoneyBadger

Individuals do things because they believe these things are Good, and happiness to be the result. Of course individuals can be wrong and misled for all sorts of reasons, For an individual to do things that they believe not to be Good, is as irrational as sticking one's hand in a furnace when one's intention is to not get burned.

Indeed, nature doesn't facilitate your happiness. It only functions to continue the cycle. A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all. Procreation is nature's carrot on a stick.

Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal? — Tzeentch

So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.

Nature favors the winners — stoicHoneyBadger

Does it?

The "winners" will die just like everyone else, and their lives spent participating in the rat race for money, fame, power, conquest; pointless. The evils they commit in their foolish pursuit probably end up hurting, rather than benefiting them.

Strapping oneself infront of the cart of one's desires, civilization or 'nature' is a bad recipe for individual happiness.

Therefor people are usually driven by instincts - a pattern of behavior, which formed during billions of years of evolution, to which logic is subservient. — stoicHoneyBadger

And is the misery these people find themselves in and create for others not readily apparent?

When desires and instincts aren't properly understood and controlled, they are a bottomless pit that do not function in favor of the individual's happiness. Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal?

When individuals, or worse, groups of individuals, start following their desires and instincts, we get the situation that you apparently call "winning"; causing suffering to others in an attempt to fill the earlier mentioned bottomless pit. Conquests, war, greed, etc. The pointless, destructive endeavors human history is riddled with.

While the "winners" keep racing their chariot around the endless hippodrome of their desires, men like Socrates sit in the spectator stands, enjoying a day in the sun.

One will not get anywhere within the field of philosophy, without a complete grasp of their own psychology. It is fundamental. If one cannot understand that which is most close to them (their own psyche), then any attempts at making sense of life's deeper questions is futile.

As per Plato's tripartite soul, the emotional and desiring parts of one's psyche, unless understood and controlled, will inhibit one's ability for reason.

For many people, gender labels form the basis of their artificial identity.

Rejecting those labels can be like opening Pandora's box, where the individual is confronted with the fact they have not (yet) developed a real identity.

Inner turmoil and insecurity predictably ensue, and the subsequent obsession with new genders and gender labels is the confused individual trying to claw their way back into the comfort of the land of masks and artificial identities.

To put the genie back into the bottle, the individual must reinstate a new artificial identity; an act of self-deceit for which they require all of society's affirmation (just like the artificial identities of traditional gender labels).

To me, happiness without wisdom and understanding is meaningless. Essentially blissful ignorance. Ideally one gets rid of the ignorant part and maintains the bliss.

However, the road from ignorance to understanding is a perilous one. With the realization that one's prior understanding of one's existence is insufficient, the bliss is the first to go and will only remain there as a distant promise.

Many people strand along the way. Intellectively capable enough to no longer remain ignorant, but lacking the fortitude of mind and soul to reach a form of wisdom and understanding.

Since the person in question is accepting the stress that is put on him, surely they themselves must believe it is good for something.

We could venture a layer deeper and ask ourselves why the subject is accepting the burdens that are put on him.

The easy answer is "everyone needs to eat", but ideals and standards of living imposed by the subject's environment since their birth play a far greater role. After all, even a beggar gets to eat.

Do you rule out a rotting pile of spaghetti in another dimension? — Gregory

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable.

Most of these opinions and beliefs don't even have a practical purpose, other than satisfying the mind with answers however uncertain they may be.

Nietzsche was not a very happy man, so what wisdom did he possess?

I cannot imagine success that is devoid of love and empathy.

What I dislike about advertisement is that the way ads try to influence people is manipulative, almost a form of "mind control". The people making the advertisements know their target audiences better than those audiences know themselves.

Unless one is very conscious of advertisement, their messages find their way into one's subconsciousness whether one wants them there or not.

My one contribution to that thread was asking whether any of the participants had ever visited both Israeli and Palestinian territories. Predictably, there did not seem to be anyone who had.

I don't think it is as much a addiction to conflict that explains the vitriolic nature of such threads, but rather the unconcious realization that a complicated, not yet fully understood issue is being oversimplified. That uncertainty is then translated into loud barking and chestpuffing.