Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.

Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear.

Sapolsky refers to humans as the confused ape as unlike other ape species the difference between male and female is far less pronounced. The vast number of differences scientifically/statistically documented are more or less only noticable at the extremes or when culminated across large population groups (ie. height or muscles mass, as well as personality traits too a far lesser degree).

As for morality ... I personally don't see any reason to care for it :)

Asking why will eventually lead to foundational justifications. — Astrophel

Because you say so. I don't buy it. I'm not into atomisation. This is literally one of the main contentions Husserl had.

It doesn't matter why, or in what circumstance, or how evil one's intent is--- liking something, adoring it, despising it, and so forth, have in every case an existential counterpart: that which is in the world which is adored, despised and the rest. — Astrophel

I don't believe this via certain experiences I've had. I cannot share those experiences though only state that I cannot fully justify what you are saying or really hold to it with a large degree of seriousness. Nor should you care about my experiences too much just go about your business splitting things in half and you'll find the loop eventually or deny it (or maybe I denied it?).

Just to add, the argument for moral realism I defend is quite involved. This is but an iceberg's tip. — Astrophel

I find immoral to argue for a moral position. I think the term is far too suspect being entwined with social norms, claims of justification, reducing life to formulas and embedded in a medium (this one of words) that exists in a social format rather than one which is orientated about the individual being (Selfhood).

Humans are Legions whether alone or together.

As an exercise of thought anything can be justified and some things more easily than others. Understand it is a game though and not much more - that is probably the heart of what you are asking so there it is ... ethics is a game and it becomes more about what a game is ... you can go round and round, and so you should, until some of the parts and perspectives make more sense. What ever the hodgepodge conclusion you arrive at as sufficient will be nebulous and avoid precise articulation because we're not just words bundled up in a mindball.

What about this obvious point drove you to post it instead of posting about the sky being blue or circles being round?

I guess you just want us to pay attention to it more. Fair enough. I don't really care much for the post and if there is nothing more so be it.

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine, but I'm not sure where you expect this to go or want this to go?

This is a radical, and overarching openness that runs through all things, and is overwhelmingly alien to familiar thinking. — Astrophel

That is the phenomenological approach. There is no statement of what is or isn't only constant reorientation through consciousness.

You said it yoursef: your taste will vary due to mood, etc. I am not a mood. When a mood comes to me, I can deal with it, true, but the mood and its alternatives are givens. You are thrown into a world of givens. Choice intervenes, but choices are only among what is given to choose; and so many are now beyond choice: I can't choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. — Astrophel

Where does the 'mood' come from? France? Make sense or don't speak. What is it you are 'dealing with' and what does this 'dealing with it' entail? Note: I'm not trying to be funny or evasive here nor am I expecting an answer ... that is counter productive to disentangling oneself from 'ethics' as a reasonable quest.

You can choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. Saying you cannot does not make the plasticity of your taste disappear it merely covers it up. You may or may not be predisposed towards x more than y but that doesn't necessarily make x a certain choice over y.

If you say you cannot choose it is because you don't wish that to be the case because it is upsetting on some level of rationality (which includes emotional aspects too as it must ... unless I'm wrong!).

The Self is not ethical.

btw Ethics doesn’t exist. The illusion is believing in a system of laws to the point that it overrules what you actually want/need/wish to do with your life.

The selfless man is spineless, selfish man is spineless. But the man who cares for being neither one nor the other … is the Self.

As psychological example …. Morbid curiosity! I can be ‘attracted’ to something I find ‘repulsive’.

What makes something ‘repulsive’ is the same as what makes it ‘attractive’ … novelty! Fear is part of discovery in some step of the journey. Discovery without some initial comprehension of fear isn’t discovery it is just ‘normal’.

I ask then, what is in an attraction or repulsion? — Astrophel

Are dichotic features real? How are difference defined? What is a the difference between open and closed as opposed to hot and cold? Opposites come in various forms and some are harder to categorise than others. Some can be called gradable in one situation and something else in another.

I can be NOT hot but not necessarily cold. The door be open OR closed NOT somewhere in between.

Attraction and repulsion are just two ways of saying the exact same thing depending on what features you are focusing on.

Still no mute button? :(

Blah blah blah. I don’t respect your opinion because I understand it.

As good a place to start as any. Any starting point needs to be seen as wrong at some point though.

What ethic we/I use is regarded in terms of emotional wellbeing and logical analysis (or rational thought).

The ‘emotional wellbeing’ involves self-deception as much as revelation (or perhaps more so).

The ‘rational’ is tied to the disassociation of authorship over our actions. All too often people ‘rationalise’ their actions (pre/post) in order to protect/confront their emotional states. To look at ourselves and see how monstrous we are (not can be, WE ARE) is not an easy task or a sensible one for that matter, unless we understand the danger … which we cannot. This is basically the Jungian Shadow.

Ethics is shrouded in law making. If I want to kill you that is fine in my opinion … but this is untrue because there are other factors such as empathy at play and the very language I am using to ‘think through’ and distinguish concepts such as ‘kill’ that are social terms not independent personal terms. The ‘essence’ of me is not atomised it is nebula … and not really an ‘essence’ as it is temporally and spatially indefinite.

Ethics is social. The irony is to dig under this is to dispense with the social by believing we can dispense with the social

You do. Your choice is just not blatantly apparent because it readjusts constantly (to some degree). The taste of something will vary due to mood, environment and patterns. An example would be symmetry … it is generally a pleasing feature. There are circumstances where symmetry effects taste. Such experiences refine/readjust initial experiences.

Joy is an attitude not really a ‘feeling’. The ‘feeling’ is attached to an attitude and the attitude to the feeling. They are not the same thing yet exist due to each other. We have gone past the point where they can be viewed as one item because our language has evolved this way due to societal interactions.

The ‘established value’ is established how and by whom/what?

In terms of philosophical investigation we ‘view’ a sound and notice that it requires volume, tone and timbre. We cannot talk about a sound without these things. It is nonsensical to then atomise ‘volume’ endlessly.

We make value judgements based on the instant. This is different to meditating on how these judgements are made. By meditating on how the judgements are made we are necessarily involved in judgements of judgements of judgements … or we can simply pick very different items of judgement and see if anything common shows itself. Either way we’re forcing our will upon the situation so we don’t know if we’ll favour what is or what we want to believe is.

We can still ask what is there in ‘ethics’ that cannot be taken out. That would be up to you … you see the problem therein?

There is no ‘foundation’ for phenomenological investigations. That is basically one of the greatest benefits of phenomenology. It doesn’t adhere to any particular ‘foundation’ although it was created (by Husserl) to provide a better grounding for science (not ethics). It is a ‘science’ of consciousness.

If it was used for ethics it would have to take on other forms. Heidegger and others (the hermeneutical types) probably go there in part with their slither the greater phenomenological body (meaning based principally on interpretations of mere words tangential to experience).

He didn’t say that. Read.

The ethic is based on the individual moral positions of peoples in societies/communities. There is also an underlying/innate predisposition to ‘animate’ objects experienced - empathy is innate.

Ethics is about presupposing a set of rules and means to live by that suit ALL people OR enough people to help the most people in the long run … or even to help humanity in the long run rather than the most people (hence how genocides and war are ‘justified’ by some).

I am against ‘ethics’ in this sense. I am against rules set out by others regardless of there use to me. My view is my view and if I think something is okay then I’m good. Sometimes this upsets others and that is just something I have to live with rather than ‘justify’. I think moral justification is probably the singular most dangerous element of human cultures.

The moral journey is an individual one and all make the necessary mistake of looking for public backing for their views rather than operating and adjusting them as suits experienced living. Thankfully enough people are too sheeplike most of the time so the minority have more clout. In more recent times this has become imbalanced and we’ve seen dozens of examples of this since history began (and likely further back than that?). When I said ‘recent’ I was talking on an evolutionary scale! I do still view the modern era as shedding more light on this problem because of the population explosion, but my view is myopic because I’ve not even been alive for half a century yet and just because I believe I am ‘better’ than most at viewing the human species with a good degree of objective indifference it doesn’t make it so :D

Also, ‘ego’ has different meanings in different contexts. I’m more in favour of Jung’s mapping out of the psyche than Freud’s.

Buddhism also has a similar point. — TerraHalcyon

Who cares?

I used to smoke weed fairly often many years ago. The best thoughts I got from it was when I stopped smoking it after days of abuse. The ‘wakeful’ feeling of stopping after short burst of excessive use were quite profound.

When people talk of cannabis as being ‘inspiring’ are just fooling themselves. It makes you feel like you have a ‘new’ thought but if you’d been sober you can be pretty sure the thought would’ve been FAR better. Maybe there is something to say for ‘opening a door’ to a different perspective? There are better drugs to take. Psychedelics are probably the most beneficial as well as being potentially the most dangerous.

Big Pharma will be dead once CRISPR hits its stride. Anyone will be able to cure anything … and change themselves.

We’re the tail end of the species prior to its leap into godhood. Perhaps some people alive today will be those but I’m probably a few decades too old to see it hit full effect. Big Pharma will try and hold it back but it is inevitable.

Language as shit and toilets as the brains trying to flush the shit away … but the crap just keeps on coming!

That which is corrosive and basically waste is often prized as something immaculate :)

Different from OTHER animals.

It is merely the best way to describe an experience that cannot realistically be captured in mere words. I imagine you can read a poem without screaming at Blake about tigers not actually being on fire?

Another way to translate it would be to say the exact opposite … you become everything. There is nothing like it I have experienced since and nothing I can possibly conceive of that holds more power due to having none. It is an amalgam of contradictions when an attempt to strap words to it is made.

Another way would be to describe it as imagination that knows no bounds. Openness to a level where the idea of ‘end’ seems laughable as much as ‘beginning’ and leaving ‘infinite’ behind as a speck. The word ‘awesome’ (actual AWESOME) suits well.

If all you can hold onto are rigid meanings attached to words then you cannot do much thinking other than dry logical analysis. That has its value though obviously.

Ethics has an intuitive dimension that exceeds the contingencies of theory. — Astrophel

What we believe will nearly always overwhelm what we observe. This is especially the case for pillars upon which we orientate our lives - rightly or wrongly. We need to be delusional and misinformed in order to grasp at understanding as if some ultimate understanding exists … that is basically the core of ‘ethics’.

It is not to be found by looking around at the world, but in deciding what actions one will take. — Banno

Not necessarily true. Often enough, for us pathetic humans, we are passengers to our ‘actions’ then justify them after the effect deferring authorship dependent upon the perceived value of the outcome.

We (the passing judgement) is merely pushing against the wave of what has happened in order to better equip (or try to) for future events. As we’re temporally focused/confused we often do this in a hindsight sense too much and stagnate. Letting go of time is not something we seem to recognise or understand. We live with a repeated pattern (memory) that is constantly rewriting itself and implanting ‘errors’ that suit our wants/needs.

Most, if not all ‘ethical’ views, are done after the matter of fact. This is probably where the nihilism can slip in … but it is still mistaken because it is contrary by its ‘principles’.

Rationality follows these terms rather than dictating them. — Astrophel

Why? I don’t see any solid evidence to suggest that ‘rationality’ is somehow distinct from ethics let alone prior to it? These are just terms we use for convenience and what is convenient in one situation is meaningless in another … I think this is ‘another’.

The underlying principle of any ethical disposition is orientation. Such orientation is based on what we value and how we value it. The ‘ethical’ is built upon speculative ‘moralism’ - opinions and theories that serve us to navigate through wants and needs.

Any idea of ‘ethical nihilism’ is rather stupid because it is like saying I cannot measure the concept of ‘string’ therefore the concept of ‘string’ is of no value whatsoever. We can actually measure the length of a piece of string though and understand various ways to use a piece of string.

I haven’t read any posts here but just noticed you saying the same thing above briefly so I’ll leave it there. It is obvious. What is obvious some people stubbornly struggle with because it doesn’t map onto their current scheme of the world.

‘Reality’ is a concept. Concepts require - as far as we know - a perspective. Therefore ‘Reality’ cannot exist without an observer.

In simple terms if there is no conscious being to conceive of differences then ‘reality’ has no meaning.

But that is not a ‘real’ situation.

Let is say there is a poison and doctors and toxicologists have done thousands of experiments testing the fatality of this poison.

100mg will kill the average person. You take 300mg. I think we can be fairly sure you’ll die (basically enough is known that this amount will kill you for sure). The question is at what point (at what quantity) of said poison do we draw the line that it is True (a fact) that it will kill you? At what point are we dealing with a Fact and at what point does this Fact because merely a 99% certainty?

If your argument is simply that after the fact if the matter of you drinking the poison we’ll know what the fact of the situation is then we can only have the kind of knowledge you’re talking about after the event has happened.

To state that drinking something that will kill you will kill you is not exactly saying anything. Nor is it anything to state that believing that someone is dead doesn’t make them dead. This has nothing to do with what I’ve been trying to say.

The point being is that the True in the JTB is not applicable in reality as an abstract truth because we’re talking about reality.

I am saying there are ‘abstract truth’ that are proven and that there are ‘semantic truths’ that are necessarily open to being wrong. To frame a real life situation based on a presumption of Truth about the reality is overstepping the mark. In a great number of circumstances we can be statistically sure of something being ‘impossible’ (which doesn’t mean that something cannot happen simply due to the universe not existing forever the chance is as good as zero - entropy).

The gravity is strong enough. Advances in hydroponics have come a long way. The issue of water is likely to be resolved one way or another as there is water on Mars (and some on The Moon too).

I expect many colonists/explorers would die. Eventually they would find a way to make it work and I think Elon Musk is certainly overly optimistic in terms of how to make the colony self-sustained ... but given that we get there I see no reason why trail and error will not eventually lead to success. His plan is basically to rotate people on and off of Mars. You can pretty much guarantee some people will stay and some will be born there. The ethical question of allowing a baby to grow up on Mars would likely mean they would have to undergo medical changes if they were to come to Earth ... I think in 50 yrs such procedures will be almost second nature given the potential that CRISPR has to offer.

In comparison to colonising Mars CRISPR is FAR FAR FAR BIGGER, even if it lives up to just a miniscule of what many in the field say is on the way.

But who can judge what is or isn't a Fact? I have asked the same thing repeatedly in many different ways too.

Here's another example:

John will die if:

1) John drinks the potion, and
2) the potion is toxic

Do we interpret this claim as the below?

John will die if:

1) I believe that John drinks the potion, and
2) I believe that the potion is toxic

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My beliefs will not kill John. The actual facts will kill John. The exact same principle applies to:

John knows that it is raining iff:

1) John believes that it is raining,
2) John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3) it is raining — Michael

These are abstractions painted as 'reality'. There is no universal 'poison' the term 'toxic' will vary from situation to situation (for the the same substance due to quantity and other non-explicit factors), John is who (?), and what the hell is 'rain' anyway and why do we believe/know that there is such a phenomenon as 'rain'.

Framing 'real' objects as 'abstract universals' is certainly useful. Where is the line though?

Surely you understand why I am disputing JTB as a good definition/theory of 'knowledge'. There are different kinds of knowledge under different circumstances prescribed by limits and rules (or lack there of).

I do not hold to the JTB and many others dispute it to as nothing other than a rule of thumb not to be taken too seriously.

When the JTB definition of knowledge states that John knows that it is raining iff 1) he believes that it is raining and 2) he is justified in believing that it is raining and 3) it is raining, it is simply stating in specific terms the more general definition that John knows what the weather is like iff it actually is as he justifiably believes it to be. — Michael

I'll try again here.

Number 3 'it is raining' is a Fact by what judgement? Abstract judgement. See it yet? 'raining' is NOT a universally explicit term. JTB is an abstract notion used in 'reality' therefore it is reaching beyond its bounds. It is however useful YET has limitations because the limits of reality are not known to any of us.

I presupposed 'raining' concept the is absolutely defined without doubt is not applicable to reality if we can talk about different 'raining'.

Example: what rain? show me this 'rain'. Unlike what do you mean 'number one'? Which kind of number one are you talking about? The former clearly being a nonsense question are there are not different kinds of 'number one' anymore than there is a different kind of 'of' or 'or'.

This is basic stuff. If there are two apples we don't in reality have two identical apples (that is impossible). We cannot - for the same reason - have 'rain' as some universally applicable term when using abstract logic. It just doesn't hold up unless we are merely using the term as an arbitrary marker rather than S, X, P or whatever else we feel suits.

3) Would require godly intervention to know. We don't know what 'rain' is it is just a term used to refer to a phenomenon that can appear in multiple and constantly different ways - like water.

For a further example if there is water in a space station that is effected by gravity and falling is it 'rain'? If the space station is big enough how big is 'big enough' for there to be 'rain'? Where exactly do we draw the line between there being 'rain' and there not being 'rain'?

We cannot agree on these questions so we cannot then claim to apply the judgement that 'it is a fact that it is raining' other than in a colloquial sense.

The kind of knowledge you are claiming here to be JTB is not JTB because it is impossible to apply a+b=c to reality when we have no full underpinning to state clearly and absolutely what a, b or c are. We do often assume that there is an underlying law/limit to the universe and this bears fruit. That is evidence for the theory of applying abstraction to reality NOT a proof (as stated in the link from Stanford I posted previously).

Back to the apples. An apple and another apple certainly make two apples. But we have no strict line between when an apple is an apple and when an apple isn't an apple. In most day-to-day situations we don't need to ask for such definitions but when we are discussing more nuanced problems the personal and implicit subjective view of said items does not gel so readily in a common language/definition.

JTB is necessarily a limited definition of knowledge because it tries to over apply the abstract into the real without any justification other than piled up evidence that works in 'some' situations enough to warrant a belief in its universal application ... it is kind of ironic really don't you think?

In the UK governments set out a manifesto stating not merely what they'll do but how they'll do it. Some parties do better presentations than others from election to election.

My point was that in the US the whole system is run on sensationalist stories in the media circles and based on the characters of an individual rather than an actual plan.

I think willfully siding with a system that looks towards popularism rather than policies (which is at its heart what you are suggesting) is a wrong turn.

That is all. You don't have to agree.

It is nice to see people’s true colours shine through in matters of religions and politics.

Keep it up please :)

bee … or maybe that should be ant?

@Isaac

This is how I view the issue (from your above statements I think we agree so just letting you know you are not insane):

We don’t know or understand what quantum phenomenon is. We have abstracted knowledge about said phenomenon that can and does bear fruit.

For material objects, like keys and such, we do not have certainty as any term (like a key) that doesn’t possess universal quality (there are a plurality of keys not a singular universal ‘key’), cannot contain certainty and therefore is knowledge based on semantic interpretation.

‘U-Knowldge’ (universal knowledge) operates differently as it is complete within a set limit under set rules. ‘S-Knowledge’ (semantic knowledge) is open to some degree of interpretation. S-Knowledge is reality driven because we do not know everything about reality (U-Knowledge is only abstracted, bounded and operating under strict rules that are known and understood).

What JTB is is a formal set of rules set up in abstraction and then extended to ‘reality’. Such ‘knowledge’ is S-Knowledge only and cannot be confirmed as U-Knowledge.

What is True is used in formal logic (which is a universal abstract) yet when this is extended to human speech and action in the lived world there is U-Knowledge. The working principles of U-Knowledge can clearly be used well in reality (this is why I mentioned quantum phenomenon as a good example to show this) even though we have little or no understanding or knowledge of what is going on. The universal abstract of mathematics can be used to model and predict what we observe with quantum phenomenon to a practical end. The certainty lies in the mathematics not in reality because the rules and limits of the mathematics used are known explicitly.

Knowledge, such as historical knowledge -or experiential knowledge of whether it is raining or not - is ‘knowledge’ bound in lived-experience. All human experience is an artifice of some proposed reality. We can dream about the rain hitting our skin and ‘truly belief’ that it is raining when it is not raining in ‘reality’. This is precisely why I refer to this kind of S-Knowledge as being defined as ‘that which we are attending to’ (in phenomenological terms Intentionality).

It is my JTB that U-Knowledge can be, and is, applied to reality because science bears results. There is no JTB that it can be applied indefinitely (extended infinitely) as we are only able to apply it to limited data sets not all possible data sets - because our scope/capacity as humans is limited.

Just to go back to the ‘rain’ issue … the semantic problem is defining what is meant by ‘rain’. Again we find the same issue as with ‘key’. Rain is not a ‘universal term’ meaning when we say ‘rain’ it is not one explicit ‘rain’ understood by everyone as we can question it: How heavy? When? Where? We cannot question abstract universals and only abstract universals can be used to create definitive answers.

Does that all make sense or am I going insane? :D