So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing.
— Tom Storm

Which begs the question: is this foundation discovered in the mere thinking, or is there something timeless and absolute in the presuppositions of an ethical problem? — Constance

Do good and avoid evil. Wellbeing and harm are, I think, the same thing in other words. I suggest that humans are those that can question their inclinations, motives and actions in this way and it is the ability to ask and consider if something is right action or wrong action is that foundation. This very discussion is the foundation, and the discussion develops with our abilities to act, and knowledge of consequences. If we don't know that burning fossil fuels destabilises the climate, then we think it a great good to warm and power the human world that way. But as we learn about the long term consequences, we come to know better.

The other question that impacts this is "whose harm, and whose wellbeing?" Me, my family, my tribe, my nation, my ethnicity, my species, my planet? The flourishing of the whole of life is a comparatively recent consideration in these debates, and even consideration of the whole of humanity on an equal level is rather recent, to the extent that our traditions and institutions have not fully made the adjustment. And of course the local harm and wellbeing is more apparent, and tends to seem more vital than distant ones in time or space. I cannot see the starving in Africa, or my unborn great great grandchildren so any harm I might be doing them seems less important, and somewhat hypothetical.

Deer overpopulation in Scotland isn’t a natural problem — it’s a human-made one. Humans killed their natural predators (wolves, lynxes and bears), cleared forests, and now even manage land to keep deer numbers high for hunting. Shooting them isn’t “kindness,” it’s perpetuating the harm. Real solutions are restoring ecosystems, rewilding predators, or using non-lethal population control like fertility management. — Truth Seeker

Indeed, but does it reduce suffering? My local population of wild goats is controlled by fertility management. But all the goats still die eventually of old age. Is it preferable to be killed by a bear or a human? But what I want you to see is how we agree about the moral foundations while we dispute the practicalities. Nobody thinks that falsehood is preferable to truth in principle; nobody thinks that suffering ought to be inflicted for its own sake; there are some who think that life itself is not good because it always involves suffering - they would say that we ought not to reproduce at all. But again the argument proceeds from the same roots - that suffering is bad.

Deer overpopulation in Scotland isn’t a natural problem — it’s a human-made one. — Truth Seeker

Of course it is human made, humans are an invasive species and there are no natural controls on the population. That is why we need the 'unnatural' control of morality; one might call it 'self restraint'.

And this is as old as the bible. Humanity has eaten of the tree of knowledge, and fallen out of the Natural world into a world of right and wrong. The natural world does whatever comes naturally, but humans make moral choices. Rewilding is a moral choice to withdraw somewhat. One I agree we should do more of. But that is something we would have to convince our fellow men of on the basis that morality is real, and the world as a whole would really be better. One cannot do it on the basis that it is all just opinion or invention, and anyone can have any opinion and none can be right or wrong.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

This is not entirely true, Truth Seeker. All life must consume something, and all life must at its end be consumed. If it were not so, life would choke itself. The most organic of gardeners rely on this; my own garden has a pond to encourage frogs that eat the slugs that would otherwise eat my vegetables. Vegans also kill, and 'natural controls of pests are by no means devoid of suffering, commonly involving being eaten from within by nematode worms or the larvae of some insect. Not to mention the mice and squirrels and rabbits that have to be kept from the harvest by some means or other.

The deer in Scotland have no natural predators, and left to themselves would breed until their numbers exceed the capacity of the land to feed them and having destroyed their own environment, would die en mass of starvation. It is a kindness for humans to control the population by acting as the top predator and keeping their numbers limited. there is less suffering in being shot than starving to death.

This is not to defend current livestock practices, or the overconsumption of meat. And particularly at the moment, I agree that one ought not to eat meat in general, given the choice. But certainly one cannot condemn those obligate carnivores, because they do a necessary job. And the scavengers also do another job of tidying up the creatures that die, and we all die, vegans and carnivores alike.

But what I see is our agreement as to the terms of the moral argument. We agree that truth is better than falsehood, that suffering is bad, and so on. And this is the same moral foundation that motivates the punishment of heresy. If one believes one has the truth of how to live, one ought to defend it from being lost, and ignored. The whole reason for human law, and especially punishment, is to persuade people who are inclined to do wrong not to do it, by making it disadvantageous. And again, it seems that we agree that this is what the law should do. But life is complicated and it is not so easy to tease out the consequences of our actions, including our law-making.

There are regions of the world that cannot produce enough non animal food for the human population. Perhaps we should leave such places wild. But perhaps we can find a place there as herders of reindeer, or buffalo, or goats, and form a sustainable way of life. If there is more life, there must be more death and more suffering, but life is good.

You don't think it will ever do philosophy on par with Nagels or Rawls or Chalmers? — RogueAI

Not even on a par with Ayn Rand, or Walt Disney.

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. — Baden

Wrong. AI does not know that water is wet. It does not know what wet is, and it does not know what water is. All it knows is what words usually go together.
And that is why it cannot do philosophy, which is the attempt to disentangle the muddles that words create using the world as template. Water is wet because — feel it — this is wetness. There is no logic to this; it is a demonstration. Here, you might need a towel. Oh, sorry, you seem to have blown a fuse and fried your circuits.

How would we work out whose priority matters? — Truth Seeker

Fight!

A truth seeker who begins their search with a quote from fiction might be already on the wrong path.

We may disagree about what makes a good meal, but we can know edible from poisonous fairly reliably.

Some people may think that torture is justifiable under some circumstances, and others think it is never justified. But anyone who complained that there was not enough torture going on in society, as if torture were itself a good thing, would be a lunatic.

There are no falsehood seekers, only truth seekers.

Our disagreements over good and bad tend to be matters of priority - Is it better to let the robber take your stuff or kill them? We agree that best is to not have your stuff taken and not kill anyone, but...

At times, I side with theists and at times with atheists and some agnostics. I find that the idea of 'God' and what it means for such a being to exist to be one of the most extremely perplexing philosophy problems. — Jack Cummins

Who or what is your god? It is not a question much asked now, as we have become obsessed with mere existence. But it used to be psychologically informative. A worshipper of Zeus puts power at the centre of their life. A worshipper of Athene or Sophia puts wisdom at centre. Eirene - peace, Hephaestus - crafts.

So in this sense, to say one has no god is to say one has no purpose or function at the centre; one lives for nothing, stands for nothing and will die for nothing.

But modern atheists are of course not saying this, they give the word 'god' some other meaning, and then deny its reality. There is probably something they stand for, and something they will stand against, but the word 'god' has become an obstacle they cannot pass by. They stand, in fact, against religion, but do not see that as a religious stance.

So if I perhaps say that I stand for nature, for wisdom, and for love, then people will find that acceptable, as long as I do not use capital letters.

Here is a song, that I like that expresses the unimportance of my life to me in relation to the world. What I know, what I do, my life and death are of no significance in themselves, but become significant in relation to everything else. Alas, many will be deceived by the silly clothes and the extravagant setting. They cannot see past that to an expression of the unknown, the unknowable, a vastness that gives meaning to even this feeble, handwaving post. At this level it is not mere factual truth, but the very idea that god died for me - that an unknowable love is what life is about, that gives meaning to all this human nonsense and horror.

I think professional sports of all sorts are prostitution; why single out sex?
— unenlightened
I don't think this reply received the attention it deserves. — Banno

If people can't stomach something, it seems mean to try and ram it down their throats. :nerd:

Sorry, not sorry.

Oh, them smart people trying to make us passive with their theories. I have strong feelings about feelings; respect my feelings!

Alas, you do not seem to recognise your own arguments played back at you. I genuinely do not feel that you are genuine, therefore you are fake.

Your go to response to something you disagree with is personal insult.
— unenlightened

It's not meant as a personal insult. It's genuinely how I feel about the position you're laying out. — Tzeentch

Oh, your sacred feelings! How very woke! How very feminine! How very irrational!

https://www.unh.edu/sharpp/prevention/rape-culture

I suspect you harbor resentment towards the natural structure of society and men/masculinity in general, and that this is just some exercise in projection and the justification of your own prejudices. — Tzeentch

I suspect you are the one projecting onto me here. Your go to response to something you disagree with is personal insult. Rather weak.

Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why we are so obsessed with sex? You know food is as important to survival, but we don't seem to worry too much about what everyone else is eating or not eating.

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?
— Mijin — unenlightened

in America rapists are treated better than trans
— unenlightened

You have a lot of statistical data or anecdotal evidence - or are you just trying to launch a political campaign? — Fire Ologist

I was paraphrasing @Mijin

"Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?"
— Mijin

But here is a gentle introduction to the notion of 'rape culture' in the UK. I only specified the US because it was in the quote I was responding to, but I imagine you can easily find the corresponding statistics for the US if you are interested.

Always happy to help.

So why, do you suppose, in America rapists are treated better than trans?

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better? — Mijin

That's what we woke loonies call 'rape culture'. Specifically, rape and fear of rape is part of the mechanism of control of female sexuality by the patriarchy. That is the horror of trans - that one might find oneself accidentally raping a man! It's rather like finding a serf in a suit of armour - dangerous, and against the natural order.

A human went searching, of course,
For the truth and its absolute source.
He found it, but then,
Instead of zazen,
He shouted until he was hoarse.

Lies, damned lies and...

Abstract. Recent record-hot years have caused a discussion whether global
warming has accelerated, but previous analysis found that acceleration has
not yet reached a 95% confidence level given the natural temperature
variability. Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability
factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted data
show that after 2015, global temperature rose significantly faster than in any
previous 10-year period since 1945.

https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6079807/v1_covered_209e5182-d9a5-4305-a4e0-70204151d2b3.pdf

And here is a nice man to explain it all to you in a slightly condescending sing song voice — at least it's not an AI voice.



I don't fully understand the complexities of the statistical analyses, but the principles are straightforward enough; to find the overall trend in data subject to disruptions by "events", estimate the influence of the various events and subtract them from the data.

_____________________________________________

Meanwhile, in another part of the catastrophe, humans are busy poisoning themselves and the biosphere with bits of plastic, pesticides, endocrine whatnots, etc.



https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/06/chemical-pollution-threat-comparable-climate-change-scientists-warn-novel-entities.

So that's the good news.

Einstein's first theory Special Relativity was an attempt to resolve the contradictions resulting from from The Michelson–Morley experiment.
Basically the idea was to measure the speed of light (or other electromagnetic radiation) in various directions and if speeds were additive, the speed of light would be different measured forwards and backwards and we could measure our direction and speed from that. but it turned out to be constant though we know the Earth is moving.

Judging by the art work at Herculaneum, covered by ash from Mt Vesuvius, AD 79, they were obsessed with sex. — BC

I think this might be our projection. We are obsessed with sex; we have made endless taboos and rules of conduct. I would go so far as to say that it is all the rules and taboos more than any particular act that creates the trauma, and separates sexual acts from all the other intercourse humans engage in.

Pan fucking a goat is just Pan being Pan. We are shocked, but in olden days an inch of stocking was looked on as something shocking, and that is closer to our modernity than the song admits — anything assuredly does not go at all. But I think in even more olden olden days anything, or almost anything, sexually, might well have gone without any outrage at all.

I'd call it a matter of coordination. What's unnatural is that there's no communication.

n is not the same for everyone. So there's no skipping to n possible because we have to all reach every step of the argument together. I'm waiting for my nth day, and you're waiting for yours and we don't know yet if they are the same day or not. If one of us has blue eyes and the other doesn't, our n is different and we find out on the nth day of the person with blue eyes when that one of us leaves, along with all the other blue eyed folk. And the other is no longer waiting because there are no blue eyes left and no more argument to be made and their n was never reached.

See, the catch is this: If an islander sees no blue-eyed person, then all other islanders see exactly one person with blue eyes. So all of the logic here is counterfactual: you don't really have to go see if someone leaves; you know nobody will. — Dawnstorm

That's not the catch, it's the hook on which the whole thing hangs. If the guru says he sees blue eyes but I see no blue eyes then I must be the blue eyed one and I leave that night.

But if I see 1 and only 1 person with blue eyes and they do not leave that night, then they too must see blue eyes and since I only see him, I must be the other that he can see with blue eyes, So the next night we will both know we are blue eyed and leave.

But if I see 2 and only 2 people with blue eyes and they do not leave the 2nd night, again there must be another blue eyed person that is me, and they will be reasoning the same way and so we will all leave together on the 3rd night.

etc.

And so everyone, whatever colour their eyes (because no one knows their own eye colour), is waiting to see if after n nights (where n is the number of blue eyed people they see) the blue eyed people leave, and if they don't, they can conclude they also have blue eyes, and if they do then they conclude they have eyes of some other colour.

This is somewhat a repetition of stuff I have mentioned before, but with more detail and certainty. It is alarming. Hansen maintains, and it is explained in convincing detail that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is too low by 50% It's not 3°C per CO2 doubling, but 4.5°C. We are thus 50% more fucked than mainstream science is officially telling us.

Hansen's Executive summary

Hansen's paper'Seeing the forest for the Trees.'

It depends: sometimes manners are markers of class, and used to identify bounders (social climbers) by exposing their ignorance of the social niceties. The imposition of manners can become cultural bullying. I hope none of you know the Bishop of Norwich?

https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/the-etiquette-of-port/

In truth, what some suspected, only half in jest, turned out to be correct. The text was a practical joke — hypericin

Out what jelly mould or cake tin was this truth turned? It is sometimes difficult for me to say with certainty even on this site and in English whether some controversial complex science laden post is too hard for me to understand, or too incoherent to be worth reading at all. But in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and call nonsense.

For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43909/the-hunting-of-the-snark

Sometimes things ain't not what you mightn't have thought them not to be, and sometimes they're just a pile of words, that are unclear and meaningless. So, why is a mouse when it spins? I await your dissertations with despair.

2. If I see 99 people with blue eyes then I can deduce whether or not I have blue eyes even if no-one says "there is at least one person with blue eyes"

You seem to think that because (1) is true then (2) is false? I don't think that follows at all. — Michael

That's what I think, and I have given a fairly strong argument for it, which you have ignored. I have seen no argument from you to show otherwise, and no reference to such an argument, whereas I have given a reference to a supporting argument and widely accepted solution. But carry on incorrigible.

The practical mechanism by which I have come to know that there is at least one blue does not need to be specified for this conditional to be true. It is true even when left unspecified. — Michael

You are flailing. If you are magic and a mind reader then bla bla blah, anything you like. But in the scenario there is no magic, no one knows their eye colour and yet you think everyone can logically deduce their own eye colour without anyone saying anything. So piss or get off the pot, you can't have it both ways.

(1) doesn't say "nobody has told me anything". — Michael

Then it should say '...and someone has said "I see blue"' because otherwise it is contradictory.

1. If I know that there is at least one blue and if I do not see a blue then I am blue and will leave tonight — Michael

This is an impossible condition, because if you do not see a blue, and no one has told you anything you cannot know that there is at least 1 blue.

Again, this is a valid argument:

1. There are 100 blue
2. Therefore, every blue sees 99 blue
3. Every blue commits to the rule: if the 99 blue I see don't leave on the 99th day then I am blue and will leave on the 100th day, else I am not blue
4. Therefore, every blue will leave on the 100th day, declaring themselves to be blue — Michael

Perfectly valid.

As is this:

There are 100 blue.
I see 99 blue.
Therefore I know I have blue eyes and leave immediately.

Unfortunately, no one within the puzzle knows premise 1.

No one has begun to show it for any numbers, but because from outside the situation we know the complete numbers, we are told in advance. We can reason from that to what we think they all should be able to reason. But they don't know the very thing we start with, how many blues, browns and greens there are. If they all knew that, everyone would leave immediately, assuming logicians can count. — unenlightened

Imagine 3 blues and 5 browns and 1 green. — flannel jesus

Imagine rather, that there are 3 blues, 5 browns, 1 green, and you. You know thus that everyone can see at least 2 blues if they are blue, and at least 4 browns if they are brown and so on.

I think this is the source of a lot of the confusion. In order for you to know your colour you have to know that other people can reason their way to knowing their colour from what they can see. So what is that reasoning? No one has begun to show it for any numbers, but because from outside the situation we know the complete numbers, we are told in advance. We can reason from that to what we think they all should be able to reason. But they don't know the very thing we start with, how many blues, browns and greens there are. If they all knew that, everyone would leave immediately, assuming logicians can count.

But it ought to be obvious, really, that for any person looking at any number of other people with eyes of this that and the other colour, and with no other information, no one can deduce their own eye colour so no one can leave, until someone actually says something.

So in the above situation, the person with green eyes says, "I see black eyes", and that night you leave.
And now the situation is exactly what you proposed above. How does everyone else deduce their eye colour? {Hint: obviously they only know extra, that they don't have black eyes.}

If there was only 1 person with blue eyes, and nothing was said, that person would be unique in the group and could not know their colour. So they would not leave.

If there were two people with blue eyes, and nothing was said, each would know that there was at least one person with blue eyes but would have no idea of their own eye colour. So neither would leave on any day. This is because they would know that the person with blue eyes that they could see could not know their eye colour any more than they knew their own.

If there were 3 people with blue eyes, and nothing was said, each would see 2 people with blue eyes, but they would have no idea what their own eye colour was, even though they knew everyone knew that at least 1 person had blue eyes, but the would still also know that no one had any way to know the colour of their own eyes, and so no one would leave.

If there were 4 people with blue eyes, and nothing was said, each would see 3 people with blue eyes, but they would have no idea what their own eye colour was, even though they knew everyone knew that at least 2 people had blue eyes, but they would still also know that no one had any way to know the colour of their own eyes, and so no one would leave.

If there were 5 people with blue eyes, and nothing was said, each would see 4 people with blue eyes, but they would have no idea what their own eye colour was, even though they knew everyone knew that at least 3 people had blue eyes, but they would still also know that no one had any way to know the colour of their own eyes, and so no one would leave.

Can anyone see a pattern emerging? The non leaving of the counterfactual solitary person entails the non leaving of any number of people, because nothing ever tells anyone their own eye colour

You might think that they shouldn't reason this way, but nonetheless if they do reason this way then they know that either 199 or 200 of them will leave knowing their eye colour. — Michael

Ok, I concede. You are unteachable.

We all know there are multiple blues.
If there was only one blue, that blue would not know there were multiple blues or any blues.
Therefore?

We don't need someone to say something to apply it to our current situation. We all just need to know when we will all start counting, which will be the first possible "synchronisation" point — when everyone first locks eyes. — Michael

Yes you do need someone to say it because the first counterfactual needs someone to say it and every iteration thereafter rests on that necessity; you cannot discharge that assumption along the way.

What you are doing is inserting 'we all know we can all see blue' in to substitute for "x says 'I see blue'"

It doesn't work, precisely because this is the counterfactual situation in which the speaking is absolutely necessary because the hypothetical solitary blue does not see blue and has to be told in order to deduce their eye colour. This produces a contradiction that the hypothetical solitary blue cannot but does see blue, and cannot but does know their own eye colour.

I see 99 blue. These 99 blue see either 98 or 99 blue. The 100 of us are all capable of thinking and knowing that: — Michael

You've gone wrong already.You see 99 blues. The blues that you see, all see 98 or 99 blues. The 200 of you are all thinking that.

The 100 of us do not need to wait for someone to say "I see blue" for us to think and know that (1) is true. — Michael

You can know that too. but you cannot apply it to your situation because no one has said anything.

So you can only get to "if 99 days have passed and no one has left and someone had said I see blue then I would know my eyes are blue."

But no one spoke so you don't know.

In the OP, that green sees blue and that green sees brown is shared knowledge that everyone knows, and that shared knowledge allows all blues and all greens to deduce their eye colour, even without green saying anything. — Michael

It doesn't allow any such deduction. Knowing is not the same as saying, and I think we agree that if someone has a unique colour, they cannot deduce it.

When the deduction begins, it has to begin with: 'if there is only one blue, and someone says "I see blue" then they will know that they have blue eyes', and someone has to say it out loud, because in this case they have no idea that anyone sees blue because they are the only blue. And that is why the argument only runs when it is said out loud, not when everyone just knows from their own experience that in fact everyone can see blue.

If the argument begins with "everyone can see that there are multiple blue and brown but no one says anything." What is the next step?

The point I am making is they that don’t need to wait for green to say anything. They already know that she she’s blue. If it helps they could just imagine her saying “I see blue” and apply the same reasoning. — Michael

You made that point before. but you are wrong. I have already also explained before why you are wrong.

It is bizarre but it is true because the puzzle was set up like that. The act of saying it changes the situation despite giving no new information in its content.

Furthermore, the reasoning cannot work for the brown eyed, because it begins:

—If there was only one brown eyed person,and someone said "I see brown eyes" that person would know they had brown eyes.

But if no one said it, as no one did in this puzzle, then that unique brown eyed person could not have any idea of their eye colour, and therefore the whole chain of reasoning could not get started, and so no brown eyed people leave. Instead, they reason along with the blue eyed except that as they see 100 blue eyes, they will wait an extra day and learn that they do not have blue eyes because all the blue-eyed have gone. But they still won't know if their own eyes are brown, green or pink.

Everyone does in fact correctly deduce their eye colour. — Michael

No they don't because they could have a unique colour and being, unlike you, perfect logicians they know that, and therefore do not make the fallible guess that they do not have a unique eye colour, and so none of your predicted leavings happen and you will conclude that you must have eyes of every colour.

No they cannot because they cannot determine that they do not also have a unique eye colour. You are talking nonsense.