His account of the wiki page was at least more accurate than some.

My point - which is overall irrelevant to the OP - was that the primary difference between care and virtue ethics is that care was set up in stark opposition to virtue ethics focusing on relationships whereas virtue is more about the individual.

And yes I am aware that philosophers have claimed that our relationships are who we are therefore care ethics is about the individual.

I guess I will need to rewrite the OP and start again as there is too much distraction.

Do not try. Just tell me and explain or leave.

I am not here to waste my time or yours so spit it out before I lose patience … then address the OP more directly perhaps rather tell me what I think?

Hypotheticals are meant to be tinkered with imo.

If the cancer problem was framed ‘if you do not kill and steal the cure your wife will certainly die’ then it is similar to the Trolley Problem. The biggest difference being the ‘hands on’ element of committing homicide whereas with the Trolley Problem you are in the situation with no vested interest … but that can easily be altered by saying your wife is on one track and the inventor of the cure for cancer is on the other.

Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught?

Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP?

All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome.

I do not. That point was one of the issues Care Ethics has when it comes to addressing interpersonal relations.

By responsibility I thought it was clear enough? If not … the ‘responsibility’ is shirked when the Ethical doctrine is held up as ‘justification’ for actions after the fact.

‘Benevolence’ is just a vacuous stance that does not intend to do good only to behave as if one is caring and well meaning. No one can truly be ‘well meaning’ and ‘kind’ in the face of problems life throws at you. Virtue Ethics is not merely an isolated part of humanity being raised on some pedestal above all other human attributes and characteristics. Nor is Virtue Ethics an isolation of ‘masculinity’.

Anyway, I guess I will have to explain the problem with Applied Ethics again as well if that was not clear. The problem with Applied Ethics is that it avoids any kind of definition clinging on to relativism. The perpetual response being ‘it depends’ … true enough generally, but useless overall.

Of course I DO NOT think either idea is so dogmatic. Together Applied and Care Ethics do a damn good job of complementing each other. In isolation they are pretty hobbled.

Anyway, to be clear about the debate of how Care Ethics is classified there is no actual clear cut answer.

I will say that the whole development of Care Ethics was someone in opposition to Virtue Ethics which focuses on individual flourishing and it is this precise point where Care Ethics strongly stands in opposition to it.

Gilligan is where the idea originated. Storm compares Care Ethics to Buddhist Virtues. None of this is particularly relevant to the OP and my claims.

Take your patronising tone somewhere else matey.

Bye bye.

Check your own source you referenced. Jason Josephson Storm Is not the originator of Ethics of Care at all.

So I was not wrong. You are making a judgement based on how some individual chose to classify it (based on buddhist views).

When I hear Virtue Ethics I tend to think of Aristotle and the foundation of ‘know thyself’ rather than cleaving to ’benevolence’ as the most important item.

Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it. — L'éléphant

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. The ‘justification’ is @180 Proof where the ‘responsibility’ is shirked as one is ‘justified’ without a need to claim responsibility because ‘The Ethics of Care’ is your back up.

Point being that strict adherence to Applied Ethics or Ethics of Care is a means of ‘justification’ where their use is truly about exploring ‘how we wish to act’ rather than applying ‘justification’ in a social realm before or after the act.

The very idea of some ethical doctrine seems contrary to me.

Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think? I believe Virtue Ethics is more or less about how we wish to be as a person rather than focusing on our degrees of empathy to those familiar and unfamiliar to us?

Correct me if I am wrong. I generally see Ethics of Care as a very narrow scope of the human condition but certainly an important one when dealing with ethical problems.

My point was that both Applied Ethics and Ethics of Care essential avoid responsibility and that the real issue is people’s constant crutch of ‘justification’ above and beyond any actual responsibility.

My answers to such Trolley problems are irrelevant here because I do not believe public statements made about how we would act in such a scenario are anything but social posturing. That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives.

Then why bother? Humans are quite capable of making mistakes and being creative with them. That is basically our best quality is it not?

I am pretty sure this is due the realisation (or rather subconscious arrival of) that traditions and cultural values are separate entities rather than being tied at the hip.

Given modern shifts - as in over the past few centuries - and the seeming acceleration of these shifts due to technological advances and greater integration/clashes, we are jumping from one huge cultural revolution to the next within a generation rather than within several generations … this has destabilised many people’s views of what is or is not ‘true’ because where tradition and cultural values tended to pull each other along back and forth over time (like the skis of someone traversing a flat surface) we are now witnesses each ski going off down its own slope. What seemed like two united parts are now having to be reimagined and we are stuck with two monopole entities and frantically trying to create two new complete poles to compensate for the disorientating effects.

What you might be able to see here is that the item that needs to be addressed is ‘change’. Change is the monopole that shadows both so some kind of paradigm shift needs to be imagined in order to create a better sense of stability.

How can ‘Change’ be two different items? I do not pretend to know. I can say that ‘tradition’ and ‘cultural values’ are certainly pieces of the puzzle. Accepting that they are two completely different things will be the first step.

I honestly do not think any of the three issues in the OP is the biggest problem humanity currently faces.

The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. It is a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do but it can at least be something we can all direct ourselves towards more and more through time and instil in our species as a cultural virtue.

I think there is a real danger of voices being silenced and speech being policed to the point where we are going to have a terribly hard time turning the tide back on itself.

Ironically I think the answers lie in unravelling precisely how and why we communicate in the first place. This will be a major area of work for cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers alike. In political realms we appear to be living in the ‘death of nation’ stage of human civilisation. It is just a question of whether we create something ‘new’ or simply revert to some convoluted semi-religious paradigm that does a reasonable job of mimicking patriotism.

I have heard it said that ‘Art’ is a good predictor of how human culture will develop … given the state of the world of Art appears to have been more or less geared towards corrupting Art into some nonsense that is merely the whim of an individual’s insanity (so-called ‘contemporary art’). We can possibly expect the philosophical, or rather pseudo-philosophical, to start begin to take centre stage in human culture.

Note: I am not convinced that ‘Art’ does a good job of predicting the course of human culture just having a bit of fun there ;)

This would indeed be interesting. I'll wager that accomplishing such a showcase wouldn't be too difficult. — Bret Bernhoft

Would be nice to see each AI argue using a certain philosophers body of work and then adjusting according to what other AI say from their philosophical bodies of work.

It would at least be a way of showing inconsistencies and commonalities between philosophers … I am not convinced they would do a good job though. There is a great deal of complexity in human communication and one small error could throw the whole thing off the track.

What makes this any different from how philosophy is "done" among humans? — Bret Bernhoft

Humans can actively create new phrases that actually have intent behind them. AI cannot. AI would, at best, be a pseudomystic - spouting phrases that others attach meaning to.

It cannot. It basically cherry picks from human thoughts. It does not ‘create’ any new ideas and anything that looks ‘new’ is simply due to the reader’s interpretation.

It would be interesting to see several AI ‘philosophers’ tackle a problem and see how well they are able to use all the philosophical works ever written to counter each others points. Still, it would require human input to set the parameters of each AI bot.

The western body of history is simply greater. I think it can well be argued that the Japanese are strong/er in terms of maintaining a long line of cultural traditions and a familiar symbolic language.

On second thoughts … I would say western because it has a strong line of development. The major problem in the western arena is that ‘mysticism’ is viewed with a lot of cynicism (likely due to the religious heritage). Also, movements like the New Age movement were a huge setback.

I think Jung pointed out the issue well enough by stating that the longing for something ‘unique’/‘alien’ in the western mindset was quickly filled by setting eyes eastwards. Yet in the west there is already a rich and varied repertoire of mythos and symbolism that we could more easily tap into and identify as a ‘tool’ for ‘piercing the veil’ yet the association with the judeo-christian symbolism (which inevitably attached to all western ancient and prehistoric mythos) looks stagnant and repulsive with a fleeting look. The east holds ‘mystery’ and a ‘new view’ yet to the average westerner it is actually harder to trace any relevance due to the language, historical and cultural discrepancies. Perhaps many forget that our everyday lexicon is infused with mythos and fable through idioms and metaphors passed down through the endless ages. We cannot simply unravel and forget our origins anymore than we can supplant this with a foreign body even if we try hard to adopt other cultural attributes from neighbouring states and institutions.

Much like someone who has worked as a fisherman for 30 years cannot simply ‘forget’ what it is to be a fisherman so a ‘westerner’ cannot simply forget to be have bee raised in the ‘western’ world speaking the language they speak (which as I stated is infused with symbols and mythos dating back over millennia).

It is dangerous. Since the beginning of time people have feared and worshipped in the name of ‘knowledge’. Ironically those who oppose technology are able to spread their ignorance by using technologies they oppose.

Leaders of nations would excel if they were educated professional scientists who could weigh the risks against the benefits by understanding what experts were saying and taking any accountability out of their hands. The whole covid situation was badly mismanaged due to appointing ‘experts’ and essentially backing them into a political corner where they will er on the side of caution when it comes to mortality rates.

Other instances are genetically modified foods and livestock … it is utterly ridiculous the ‘safety’ measures that are put in place because they end up causing more damage and creating a food industry based on public opinion over public safety. It is quite shocking how wilfully ignorant some people are.

It seems today people are more inclined to source their information from sci-fi movies/series that basically suffer from poor writing, ideological gibberish and barely resemble art as they are there merely to fill heads with garbage (act as ‘filler’ for commercials and empty opinions).

I do have a feeling the next few generations are actually looking better. Probably because they have seen firsthand mass stupidity and are actively trying to avoid being sucked into the madness created by greedy people and the ideologically possessed.

Depends where you were brought up.

It is irrelevant. We are not living in a simulation. If you insist we are then there is only the simulation therefore the ‘simulation’ is in fact identical to ‘reality’.

The question is a basic error in reasoning.

Other questions that follow this dead end are ‘what is real?’ instead of simply addressing what we mean by ‘real’ and understanding that our understanding is necessarily limited. The limitation of our senses allows us to develop knowledge, as knowledge exists purely as a point of reference not as some irrefutable source all springs from.

I generally think people do not think too much. If there is a ‘modern’ issue it is likely more along the lines of ‘distraction’ that excessive thinking.

A problem I have heard from farmers is people buying up land cheap making it impossible for farmers to start up a business. This also effects the environment as the land can sit there without being maintained, farmers are forced into a corner where they have to specialise (further effecting soil quality and pest control).

I think a lot could be done in terms of allowing people to buy up land in order to start farming and restrictions in place that force crop rotation rather than relying so heavily on fertilisers and such.

Of course this is just one area of the economy. In other areas of industry there does seem to be a common pattern of monopolies currently squeezing out the little fellows.

In this case the efficiency of ‘specialising’ can actually harm the environment even though the yield is better overall. Sometimes producing less is actually more. This is going to be hard to alter without new laws though.

In the broader sense of the OP there is interest for everyone in how roles in society have changed. A lot of this came more readily into focus in the west due to WW2 and women taking on the role of ‘men’ in the workplace. Further events and technologies have certainly shook up different societies to different degrees. There is also the historical narrative of Christianity surrounding the issue of sexual orientation and the ‘family unit’ (being a industrial idea) also playing a part.

Did you know the term ‘gay’ comes from women who were prostitutes in the US? They were called ‘Gay Women’ … then when men got involved in the trade they were called ‘Gay Men’. I find things like that interesting :)

Most of the talk in this area is generally pointless because it is full of political nonsense.

If someone clearly wishes to be treated as a man/boy/woman/girl then that is fine. I do not care about their ‘junk’ nor their sexual orientation.

Exceptions: Sharing prisons with opposite sex and competing against the opposite sex in physically demanding sports.

It really isn’t massively complicated it is just that some loud minority wishes to shout for or against some item the vast majority likely do not care about.

Nah! It is just a very crass generalisation that does nothing to progress any reasonable discussion … that was probably the point of Mr. Smith’s comment (that or plain stupidity/laziness).

I need to think about this whole subject more. Seems like a decade is not enough :D

Perhaps with my current attempts I will refine my thoughts better soon if I remain focused on this subject alone.

I am not entirely convinced there is a ‘why’ of doing so. This may sound bizarre but I just have a niggling sense that whatever function/role a Ritual plays in our lives it is essentially a creative force rather than one made of pure intent. In the sense that producing a piece of artwork is an expression of humanity, yet a Ritual is more like an attempt at being a hierophant (the ‘translator’) and just occupying the space of ‘translations’ rather than actively mediating between ‘self’ and ‘world’ … if that makes sense?

That is hardly equivalent. Humans can be male and female. Humans, as far as I know, have never been big-nosed monkeys.

It is common enough for people to believe they look or sound a certain way when they do not. I have never heard of anyone insisting they were a monkey … because if they did their insistence would prove them wrong (monkeys do not argue).

From that approach, economic activity should be aimed at maintaining or increasing the regenerative capabilities of our environments, making nature flourish, in order to reach actual material growth. — Benkei

Yes. The key terms here being ‘aimed at’ rather than immediately implemented at all costs.

The issue is people have to get out of severe poverty prior to such a ‘caretaker’ role becomes non-detrimental. Meaning using resources passed the point where the environment ‘looses out’ in the short term is likely necessary in order to get people out of poverty - ie. Cheaper energy to allow people to flourish more easily.

It is clearly a double-edged sword though! The environment can, and does recover. The worry is more or less how much damage it can sustain alongside how much damage those in poverty will inflict upon their immediate environment simply to survive another day.

As for eudaimonia my understanding is that it builds upon Socrates “an unexplored life is not worth living” … that is a Philosophical life is really what is meant by ‘eudaimonia. Not merely some ‘pursuit of happiness’ nor some ‘end goal’. The beauty (or kalos) of life is in the struggle rather than in the discovery. This reminds me of how one of our resident antinatalists spoke as if having to ‘work’ and ‘suffer’ were somehow abhorrent. The kalos of life for me is precisely in that that many wish to avoid, and in many cases they have good reason to be fearful of ‘suffering’ for nothing because they will suffer for nothing if they expect some reward or gift. The ‘work’/suffering is where the focus of our attention should probably lie.

Anyway, that is my ramble :D

In short, it is ‘inbuilt’ but that is not to say nurture is thrown out completely.

I say this because we are social beings and our success comes through cooperation and interaction. Without a similar guiding ‘moral disposition’ - we shall call it - among individuals we would struggle to function in social groups.

Such qualities are not unique to humans though yet our level of complexity is something quite different probably due to our ability to hold multiple narratives in our head at once giving us a complex theory of ’minds’, rather than just ‘mind’.

Note: Such a ‘moral disposition’ is fairly nebulous in form. Meaning different cultures will apply different weight to different ‘virtues and vices’ yet overall there is the undeniable common physical feature of empathy.

I am starting to agree. I thought he was talking about our experience of time not some garbled rubbish that is neither physics nor philosophy.

The trouble with Berkely and Kant is that they wanted to eliminate space to get rid of materialism to save religion. — val p miranda

Nonsense.

For remote tribes they do not have a concept of time (well not like us). We have learnt, been nurtured to, segment time and parcel up our day into neat little measured packages. This is not really the same as our subjective experience of time though yet we have been conditioned to view our measurement of time as the origin of our subjective experiences … where in fact if is the other way around.

Given that we have advanced our civilisation due to segmenting time and measuring it it is clear there is a benefit to stretching our temporal appreciation.

Just ask yourself if it is more likely that a teapot is orbiting Mars. This seems at least physically feasible whereas when it comes to psychic powers there is no feasible mechanism known by which to gather evidence.

If such phenomena can be actively observed and recorded enough then a mechanism can be uncovered. Should we be concerned with hypothesising about how a cat paint a picture that is indistinguishable from a work of Salvador Dali? I don’t think so … but you could argue that no cat has claimed they can.

This basically comes down to people believing the impossible. Humans are incredible in that we can sometimes pull of the seemingly impossible.

Time and space can be viewed physically or psychologically.

Psychological time is far more varied and malleable. What feels like a day for one person can feel like a few hours for another. The very lingual articulation of time transforms our experience. Our world becomes a set of appointments and zones; for eating, sleeping, working etc.,.

Space is the same. It is likely that our appreciation of time comes about due to spatial association (psychologically speaking).

Of course different people can be more absorbed in some ritual than others. Take the Sunday Roast. Some may just take it as a meal, whilst another will focus deeply on the experience and actions involved and imbue meaning/purpose on the social gathering.

Need a ritual be social? Absolutely not. I can concoct and perform some ritual personal to me that no one else need ever know about.

When I say rituals are not ‘lenses’ I mean they are not aimed at viewing the environment in some way or another. This is not to say they can or cannot be carried out with other people.

In short I class a ritual as something disassociated from the weltanschauung. A ceremony would be something that had passed over from ritual into the social sphere I image.

I would still maintain that a ‘ritual’ is not about viewing the world. I would also say that it is possible for it to be shared.

I am a bit suspicious of calling every social interaction a ‘ritual’ for the reason I mentioned above (ie. Viewing everything as ‘Art’). I think that is just a lens we can use whereas a ‘ritual’ is not really about viewing the world.

The comeback then would be are all social interactions a ‘lenses’ for viewing the world? Is it a ‘ritual’ when I meet someone? Is shaking hands a ‘ritual’? Is a cultural custom (like hand shaking) the same thing as a ‘ritual’?

I am not convinced ‘customs’ are the same thing as rituals. For instance, the most common signal people give around the world to someone is more or less an instinct - it that common! Just curious if anyone actually knows what it is … it is that common it is probably not something that springs to mind, something we do unconsciously.

Is a Sunday Roast necessarily a ‘ritual’ or a cultural custom? Can a cultural custom be a ritual on some level as well? I see no reason why any act cannot be a “ritual” but not every act is … what is it that makes a “ritual” a “ritual” rather thanjust some episode in time. I would say I am getting closer by looking away from mere ‘lenses’ and ‘perspectives’ referring to lived world. By this I mean a “ritual” must be some item ‘set apart from’ the world in some manner.

Well, this is a topic that has had my attention on an doff for decades. It is (as was pointed out above) a major question in anthropology.

One approach I like to take is to view concepts and ideas as items expressing human nature (as primarily temporal beings). By this garbled language I simply mean I find it interesting to view Instinct, Habit and Ritual on a temporal basis.

Instinct has no ‘temporal’ basis as it is not a conscious item for, nor a key feature of, conscious awareness in our ability to segment time.

Habit is something that is of an idealised nature and sets into motion goals that parallel Instincts and/or veer away from them based on wants and needs.

Ritual … I actually think the term is more or less a group of quite varied items.

As stands I have these five items.

1) Perception : Visualising
2) Thought : Articulating
3) Realisation : Acting Out
4) Reversal : Analysing
5) Development : Inventing

The danger going down this road is starting to refer to literally everything as a “ritual” just like some state that “everything is art!” Or some such nonsense. The difference here being I do not see “rituals” as perspectives one can hold to (like one can view the world through the lens of Art) but as something that absconds from any lens gazing in favour of developing an abstract world.

I am not sure that “rituals” need to have a set purpose either. Maybe it is that some forms of “rituals” are more about exploring purpose and/or imbuing purpose by selecting some segment of time and addressing it by Visualising, Articulating, Acting Out, Analysing or Inventing.

A lot of this does tie into several other areas but I think that is a broad enough outline of my thoughts on “ritual” for now.

I have noticed plenty of people declaring something as a ‘ritual’ yet declaring this does not really pin point what differentiates a ritual from other things. I think it is not merely a superstitious behaviour nor has to possess any hint of superstition to it either.

You are not making a whole lot of sense here. If there is no data presented you are just voicing your opinion.

I do not think for a second that the numbers (by percentage) is growing at all. Such members in western society have been forced into hiding due to various factors including religious dogma and lack of a figurehead through which to relate themselves to the mainstream norms of sexual behaviour and attitudes in society.

I always like to use the example of the Philippines here when it comes to transgenders. It is a normal thing over there and has been for a long time. I practically every fastfood chain there is someone who is transgender working there and it has been like that for a long time.