Man is born into a society not a "state of nature". — Fooloso4

What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"?

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. — praxis

Dependency does not detract from his essential freedom. Unless you wish to argue individuals may claim moral authority over others?

Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. — praxis

I don't think that applies to all of mankind, or is inherently true for all individuals.

Right, that's the problem, not enough assuming. — praxis

Perhaps. Maybe there is too much imposing.

I think control is counter-productive to individuals developing into independent adults capable of taking responsibility in the first place.

And yet he is free. In fact, children are more free than most adults.

Assuredly, the one and only reason, no other option you dictate and expect or will look down on or dismiss others if not agreed upon. — Outlander

I think any claims to another's essential freedom is to be looked down upon and dismissed. One of the few claims for which I think that to be the case. Would you object to this?

Far too often men confuse freedom with abandonment of responsibility, — Outlander

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer. — praxis

That’s very true. Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way. — NOS4A2

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed.

Individualism is problematic especially to those who would like to lay claim to the individual and use him for their own purposes.

Surely, the only reason one can object to an individual choosing the path of freedom is because one fears one may lose their hold on him.

"Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbours under the hypocritical cloak of ... the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power. Individual self-reflection, return of the individual to the ground of human nature, to his own deepest being with its individual and social destiny - here is the beginning of a cure for that blindness which reigns at the present hour."
- Carl Jung, Two Essays in Analytical Psychology

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add? — Caleb Mercado

Evil, in my opinion, requires an intention to hurt. The degree to which one produces suffering unintentionally, I call that ignorance.

I don't agree that most people are tilted towards evil, though maybe there is something to be said for most people doing harm as a result of their ignorance.

I'd love to talk about Jung and his ideas. The link is not working for me however. Perhaps you could share a particular idea of Jung you'd like to discuss? Or maybe summarize the conclusion of the video?

Looney is the word I'd use for those who would seek to impose their moral views on others through state coercion.

Trying to do good by doing evil is one of those terrible paradoxes that typify the worst parts of human history.

Fear and death alike will eventually be preventable. — David Pearce

What reason is there to want to prevent death, if not for a fear of it?

Transcending humanity through reverence of its basic drives: fear of death and desire for pleasure.

This should be called hyperhumanism!

In principle, any reasonable person should be able to retrace Einstein's steps, follow his logic, and of course test the predictions derived from his theory. — j0e

Most would probably be able to reach a surface level understanding of his theories. To reach the level of understanding of Einstein though, would likely be beyond most people's intellective capabilities.

Some individuals are able to reach levels of understanding that others cannot, through hard work and dedication, and possibly also genetic disposition.

He doesn't just get to say 'because I say so, because I have a third eye that you do not have.' His mind would be judged uncommon by its fruits, rather than the reverse. — j0e

Sages usually offer some form of teaching (a method that can be tested), and also a reason to be interested in those teachings. Perhaps they seem very happy and wise (the fruits).

I'd agree if these things aren't present, then one has plenty of reason to doubt the genuiness of this sage.

There may be an important difference in the 'exalted' sage. It's not just a matter of knowing our shared reality in more detail but seemingly knowing an otherwise secret reality through an uncommon faculty. — j0e

Can you explain that difference?

At the surface there seems to be one, but on further inspection I'm not so sure. Weren't the bits of reality that Einstein laid bare through his works "secret"? And wasn't his extraordinary mind an uncommon faculty?

It seems to me that many intellectual fields require extensive study of the subject and/or a certain intellectual faculty that not everbody possesses in order to be understood.

Development of understanding is a process, requiring dedication and a sharp mind.

Not everyone can view the world the way Einstein or Jung did (let alone develop such views independently), yet I hope we can agree they had some interesting things to say.

Buddhism DOES want to tell to others (at least to those who ask for it) how to live. — god must be atheist

That is a rather key distinction for me.

Philosophy.

To my mind people make unnecessary distinctions in social-political theory. — Gregory

Agreed. As far as I am concerned, they are all misplaced opinions about how other individuals should live their lives.

I do not support control of a country by a single person — Gregory

I do not support control of a single person by a country.

You seem like a sensible person, but you apply your ideas selectively.

So the groups Marxism posits one belongs to are illusory as well?

The term "social identity" to me suggests an exterior source of self, which I think is contrary to what Buddhism teaches.

Is Buddhism about social identity?

I don't see how having strong opinions about how others should live their lives is in any way complementary to Buddhist ideas. I'd sooner consider it contrary.

Europe, sadly, deals with exactly the same issues.

Fundamental ignorance is the prime reason one should practice caution when forcing conditions on others. As far as I am concerned, that applies anywhere in life, and I see no reason why the choice of having children should be different.

One must either have a child or not; that is the decision one must make if the choice is available, or else let nature take its course. — unenlightened

The choice to have a child is akin to choosing on behalf of that child that it must experience life.

One might say that there is no child yet on whose behalf choices can be made, but one knows it to come about as a direct result of one's actions.

How many more times would you like me to answer that question? — unenlightened

Well, it is a rather odd position.

It implies one should not take into consideration the future conditions one knowingly brings about as a result of their actions.

You seem to argue that I should have refrained from giving life to another from a place of even more ignorance than me. — unenlightened

I am arguing no such thing. I'm here to test my own ideas and there's no reason my comments should be seen as a personal attack on anyone's life choices.

Back on subject:

This fundamental ignorance you speak of, isn't that a serious reason to refrain from making major decisions on behalf of another?

YOU deem it as a good thing, should another be the recipient of your preference, especially if the consequence is a whole lifetime of unknown variations on a theme of possibilities of suffering? — schopenhauer1

I act on my deeming as I suppose you act on yours. — unenlightened

Is what one deems to be good a justification for making major decisions on behalf of another?

If so, why?

I think forcing both of those upon people is clearly wrong.

There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one. — khaled

That will not do.

If one can force negative conditions on others whenever they are of the opinion it does more good than harm, clearly the slippery slope is in full effect.

I don't really worry about those things.

And when Ebola comes to your neighbourhood, you will be imposing quarantine yourselves at gunpoint or at whatever other point you have available. — unenlightened

Or you could just lock your door. Why is violence the default mode of thinking?

I think it is what you are suggesting, but you seem aware that it is quite an untenable position to hold, thus the old semantic smokescreen is deployed.

Aren't you suggesting individuals should be pressured out of exercising their right to bodily integrity?

Those pesky individual rights. If only we could do away with those, the world would surely be a better place.

Normal, healthy people being framed as a threat to safety for exercising their right to bodily integrity is a scary trend.

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong. — khaled

I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust.

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior (thus becoming meaningless).

So, the term you shared "pornification", has to do with how sex pervades in modern culture.

That process has, in my eyes, way more to do with the way sex is used to market products and to get attention, than it has to do with pornography.

I'd assume that our affinity with multiplying has deep roots in our instincts. We're initially programmed to prolong the species. Likewise our dislike of suggestions that there is something inherently wrong with it touch at our basic understanding of our existence.

I'd agree there is likely also a cultural dimension to this.

Whether these things can easily be overrided depends heavily on the individual and their propensity for reason.

There really isn't a way around the fact that people are born involuntarily, and the moment one tries to justify it, one inevitably enters a slippery slope.

It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread.

I don't think porn is the cause of "pornification". I think marketing is.

In western societies, there exists a subgroup of men who are, at least in 'popular culture', considered inferior or even worthless (implicitly, but also explicitly), due to their inability to attain the masculine ideal that is forwarded by that same culture of sex/wealth/success/dominance, etc.

That alone is extremely damaging, and it is further exacerbated by the fact that their grievances are generally met with ostracization and more humilation.

Are people really still scratching their heads at this? It is pretty obvious where the deadly cocktail of suicidality and a grudge against society comes from.