Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. — NOS4A2

You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

Because you're afraid you're in a dream and you wanted to wake yourself up. — frank

That would be a possible reason, but it would be wrong in this case.

We can do better than that. How about because I wanted to prove you wrong? But notice this quickly becomes circular where from one perspective, you (the Thomists) are always right. But from any other perspective, it makes almost no sense??

I'm writing from memory, btw. Take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, your existence as a human is the result of a series of emanations from the One. Imagine a slow motion explosion that eventually turns and implodes back in on itself. That's how Neoplatonists saw God and humans are just bits of the explosion. You are on a journey back to the One, and everything you do (including stabbing yourself with a pencil) is coming from this underlying need you have to be re-integrated with your creator. It's like a wound you're trying to heal. You're part of a stream of living beings all headed toward the same sea, and some of the water swirls around and temporarily goes in the wrong direction, but it's all self-correcting. — frank

I think I finally get it. Thomism is a religion? (my ignorance shows I obviously won't mind you discussing these points from memory, haha) I don't see anything attempting to rationally convince me in that paragraph, but I can see dogma. If when I read that it fit my view of the world, I would like it. Since it doesn't, it just sounds like another religion. Sorry if I have been discussing this from the wrong perspective.

So what's fascinating to me is that we've arrived at a feature of Stoic ethics: that all evil is self-correcting. — frank

The connection is interesting, but the phrase "all evil is self correcting" is too much mumbo jumbo for me...I am not sure I believe in evil other than as a vague descriptor of severely negative behavior. And "self-correcting" seems a dangerous way to label "a concerted effort by a large portion of society to create a better world for most humans and other forms of life". It takes intentional positive effort to spite the natural tendency for negative actions to create negative results.

All good action was in the direction of California. — frank

Sure, but that is very different from "California is good". And "good" being very subjective we can't say "all good" about anything (except some hypothetical heaven or utopia). I just feel like the Thomists are going to jump through a lot of hoops just to prove their circular definition is correct.

Plus per Lincoln, slavery threatened the Vision of the Free Society. When people get used to having someone else do their work for them, they lose sight of what freedom means. IOW, if you're a slob living off somebody else, you are not free and you don't know what freedom is. — frank

Sounds good. But that last sentence suddenly sounds like libertarian (american) propaganda. Surely we are all "living off somebody else" to some extent?

This is close to Schopenhauer's ethics, a totally different beast, but closer to my own perspective. I guess we could ponder what problems Schopenhauer doesn't address that Thomism does. I'd have to think about it. — frank

I am happy to join in the discussion, but my philosophy education is lacking (decent history education, but less on philosophy). Does the poster named Schopenhauer1 have similar views to the actual Schopenhauer? I have read a lot of his writing here, haha. I will happily do some short readings if it helps, but just know you are not talking to an expert (shocking, I know :smile:).

A fun thing: take something like Sauron from the Lord of the Rings or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ask how different ethical frameworks would explain it. What would Aquinas say? Marcus Aurelius? Moses? Jesus? Zoroaster? — frank

Sounds interesting. I get especially interested when noticing the issues where all the answers are the same...we must be on to something :smile:

If you believe in God, there is an objective morality, objectified by God. This is the basis for the "real good". But this brings up Plato's Euthyphro question. Is the good a real good because it's what God wants, or does God want it because it's good? In monotheism this is not a significant issue, but for Plato it was, because the different gods might want different things, resulting in incompatible goods, if "good" is defined by what a particular god wants. So to maintain a truly objective good we must say that God wants it because it's good. This places "the good" as external to God. But if the real good is necessarily external to God, why do we need "God" to objectify morality? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not sure I am getting all this...so I am going to go through it, and you can tell me the parts I am missing:

If you believe in God, there is an objective morality, objectified by God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Makes sense so far.

But this brings up Plato's Euthyphro question. Is the good a real good because it's what God wants, or does God want it because it's good? — Metaphysician Undercover

Still good. I just asked a related question in a far less academic manner in another thread.

So to maintain a truly objective good we must say that God wants it because it's good. This places "the good" as external to God. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what I have always felt...but as someone who does not believe in any gods, that may be more normal.

But if the real good is necessarily external to God, why do we need "God" to objectify morality? — Metaphysician Undercover

Assuming morality is external to god then we would not need god to objectify morality, but how could we ever define morality objectively? I would also think that the Christian/Muslim version of god would be objective in relation to the goal of entering heaven (although why is that goal desired? seems to become subjective). I guess any version where god=nature creates objectivity as god is no longer a subject (sort of)...but those versions of god rarely mandate morality??

I get I am a bit wishy-washy on this, but I think I am generally in agreement with what you are saying.

Maybe I was a bit flippant with my use of "objective"? I agree it is complicated.

We didn't play all sorts of travel sports, go on cruises, or upgrade to the newest model car every year. — Hanover

I know you are exaggerating to make a point...but this is not describing any average person anywhere but Monaco. I live in Southern California and this sounds like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" to me. I am not saying there are no people who live way beyond their means and would fit your description...but I don't know anyone that gets a new car every year?? It feels like you are noticing the increased consumption of the top 1%? The rest of us just added air conditioning and cable tv. Which is nice, but I would give up both of those to go back to when an average single earner could support a family and buy a house with just a high school diploma (I get that was likely due to the perfect storm of conditions that was the American economy after WW2, but it was "better" than today from many perspectives).

Without God, we have no way of knowing why buying a bunch of toys is a lesser goal than building relationships, expanding our knowledge, and experiencing more of the world. — Hanover

This may be for another thread but how do we "know" what is right with a god in the picture? You mean we are told what is right and god's absolute power means accept it or else? Don't many non-religious philosophies suggest that knowledge, relationships, and experience may have more value than material things?

Any time you act, you're trying to benefit yourself in some way. — frank

This MIGHT be true for someone who is unaware of the meaning of what you said above. However, once I am aware of this tendency...I can certainly choose to go against it...right?

I just stabbed myself with a pencil. I can come up with a couple of bat-shit crazy reasons that the action benefited me...but I would rather you do it :razz:

I could reduce this to a challenge that seems easily overcome... I challenge anyone to do anything that does not benefit them...

Unless we change the meaning of language, wouldn't most people think up all sorts of actions that have no personal benefit? Hell, we could do it objectively for a third party...then just follow our own instructions.

A good thing is an effective thing or a beneficial thing. — frank

This sounds like an attempt at objective morality...? If we know what "good" is, then we know how we ought to act...? I think I confused you and the Thomists again. This quote is about the Thomists? Does not seem very nihilistic is the only reason I mention it.

It's close to this: for Aristotle, it's like you're a vector and "good" is a name for the direction you're trying to go in. "Evil" is what you're trying to leave behind. — frank

Unfortunately that is meaningless in English. So during the depression California was "good" and Oklahoma was "evil"? I know, I know. You meant it more on a personal emotional level. Fine, so gaining knowledge is "good" while the ignorance I used to possess is "evil"? So becoming severely obese is "good" while the skinny me I left behind was "evil"? So the serial killer is "good" while the troubled youth of the past is "evil"? This probably made more sense in Greek??

I've never been a fan of any version of virtue ethics I have ever heard...but obviously you should listen to Aristotle over me...so consider me unconvinced more than you are wrong (I doubt that was an issue, haha).

I think the challenge you're presenting is that if we say slavery ultimately imparted the precious gift of wisdom, then we're saying it was ok that a pregnant African woman was bound face down on the dirt in Brazil and whipped. It's ok that a Jamaican woman sat on a beach with the body of her dead infant in her arms, having killed it because she couldn't face having it grow up in the world she lived in. It's ok that somebody's son was tortured as he hung from a tree in Tennesee before being burned alive. It's ok that generations of our brothers sisters were systematically stripped of dignity until they learned to despise themselves for what they were. — frank

Not only, "ok", but definitively "good". And you forgot to mention how slavery transforms the slave owner into an atrocious shadow of their former selves.

No. It's not ok. And if it hasn't become part of our flesh and bones to know it's not ok, then no wisdom was imparted. No good came from it. They all suffered and died in vain. — frank

This is the crux of the issue. Do I really need a holocaust to consider mass killings wrong? History shows we often do not learn and it certainly repeats. We all justify "good" from our own perspective and once it is "known" to be "good" any means are justified to achieve it.

And this logic defines "evil" as a "necessary good". We could not possibly learn this "knowledge" any other way than atrocities?

What's your view? — frank

Probably got lost in one of my walls of text :grimace: ...but I said enough for this conversation (I think) here:

I have enough nihilist tendencies (objectively, I am a moral nihilist as well, but subjectively I choose to believe that most of Hitler's actions should be condemned based on the goal of a well functioning society - I used "well functioning" in an attempt to avoid "good", but it is still a bit vague), along with my general belief that we have a very limited "free will" (if any), so I can get that Hitler was a product of his environment as much as any of us. But regardless of whether I "blame" Hitler I can still condemn him as "sinful" or how we should not act (I did not bring the word "sin" into this...but I am not sure you did either...when I hear "sin", I just think "ways we should not behave"...just to clarify as that word brings a lot of baggage). — ZhouBoTong

I can answer the rest of your post later. — frank

Well I get a bit long winded, haha...so don't feel obliged.

Always great talking with you. — frank

And here I thought I was being my typically annoying self. You may just be a polite human, but I appreciate it anyway :smile:

Aristotle and Aquinas don't accept that a person can sin intentionally. When faced with multiple possible actions, you pick the one that you think will achieve your goal. Even if you know others take a dim view of your actions or goals, you have justified it to yourself. — frank

So there is not even the appearance of free will? As someone who does not wholly believe in free will, I still find this very weird. Why would I not be able to intentionally sin? Define actions that count as sin...I can't choose to do them? What if my goal is to be contradictory? What if I want to be bad? Not to mention that you have defined sin as a good thing so I should be actively seeking ways to intentionally sin.

Aristotle and Aquinas were referring to the majority of people that lived during their time that hardly ever thought about the specific moral consequences of any action (things haven't changed much). That only suggests that most people...who are not thinking about whether or not their actions are "sin"...can not sin intentionally. Any of us that take efforts to define and analyze "sin" could absolutely do it on purpose...why not?

You can be mistaken, though. You're imperfect. When you discover that your actions didn't really get you what you wanted, you have an opportunity to learn and grow. — frank

Or I can be a dick. Who decides everyone else can just burn. Or I can even think I am learning and growing and helping others when I am actually just a self serving ass (I think this is what you are getting for no intentional sin, but this only describes some humans).

Imagine a plant that always gets everything it needs exactly when it needs it. It will grow into a fine example of its species, but it won't have the strength to endure a storm. — frank

If storms are a regular part of life then it sounds like the plant did not get everything it needs. But I am not sold on how genocide leads to a brighter future? Is America better today because it had slavery for a couple hundred years? And we are still feeling the benefits of 80 years of Jim Crow? Learning from a challenge is a lot different from saying "sin makes us better".

Or imagine that you're learning a programming language and your first efforts are bugless. Contrast that to a situation where you're beset by 10 difficult bugs. In the first case, your knowledge of the language will remain somewhat superficial. Having to solve the problems created by your own mistakes will deepen your understanding and thereby draw you closer to the God of Software, which is the direction your nature always silently moved you. — frank

First for the best programmers, you are unquestionably right. However, as someone in education, most humans quit by bug number 2 or 3...so, generally, I would expect more people to learn more in the first scenario. Many people in the second will learn nothing...everyone can get something from the first. You are right in that "zone of proximal development" requires that we be challenged. But it also requires interest. And anything that is too challenging is quickly abandoned.

And the real Hitler was just a guy. He wasn't the icon we've made him into. In another place and time, he would have been fine. It was the human world that had descended into insanity. I'm a moral nihilist, so the idea that it could be unforgivable doesn't make sense to me. — frank

I have enough nihilist tendencies (objectively I am a moral nihilist, but subjectively I choose to believe that most of Hitler's actions should be condemned based on the goal of a well functioning society - I used "well functioning" in an attempt to avoid "good", but it is still rather subjective), along with my general belief that we have a very limited "free will" (if any), that I can get that Hitler was a product of his environment as much as any of us. But regardless of whether I "blame" Hitler I can still condemn him as "sinful" or how we should not act (I did not bring the word "sin" into this...but I am not sure you did either...when I hear "sin", I just think "ways we should not behave"...just to clarify as that word brings a lot of baggage).

If you say it was unforgivable, what do you mean? — frank

Hmmm, where did forgiveness come from? I am not christian and I don't really hold grudges...so I don't think it came from me. Do you mean "if you say it was WRONG, what do you mean?"

What moral framework are you using? — frank

To say that Hitler is bad? It would seem any framework but the Thomists, haha. But as it seems to be the most common non-religious version...how about "do no harm". I feel like you mean something else. You are probably referring to something more specific that I am forgetting?


.

My read on HItler is that he didn't commit suicide out of remorse. He just didn't want to go through the execution. — frank

Don't forget that he is one of the greatest and most important individuals to ever live if you are really sticking to:

all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. So a Thomist doesn't have to explain individual examples. — frank

If "all" sin brings greater good then the more the better...right?

Wouldn't intentionally sinning be working toward a positive good?

I really think some explanation is necessary.

I suppose that it depends on your relationship to philosophy and your relationship to cars. Some people have a good relationship with philosophy and they find some useful application to it while others seem to use it somewhat trivially. The same goes for working on cars. — TheHedoMinimalist

Well, I may have gone too far, haha. It seems safe to say that fixing cars is more practical than philosophy. But thanks for understanding my point that individually, what is "practical" can vary quite a bit.

Similarly, there are some philosophers who think they have nothing left to learn about philosophy because they happen to know some things about it already and they might end up holding dogmatic viewpoints that are even worse than the viewpoints of most non-philosophers. — TheHedoMinimalist

This is an unfortunate problem that we all need to worry about. I am quick to admit that I have a lot to learn, but I still get stuck in certain opinions that can almost become dogmatic. Those who "know it all" will be even more stuck.

I actually know plenty of songwriters who wrote really great songs but they only got around 300 views on YouTube. So, there seems to be lots of great songwriters out there who are simply obscure and their content just gets buried by the YouTube algorithm and it’s impossible to even find their work unless you are already aware of their existence. — TheHedoMinimalist

They (the obscure song writers) just need a pretty person with a relate-able back story to be the front person. Oh and don't forget a few million dollars for promotion.

Youtube creates a new avenue to music stardom, but there is hardly a worn path. I am sure there are more, but I can only name Justin Bieber as a musician who became famous because of youtube....oh and that girl who sang the terrible "It's Friday" song...I still think the only consistent path to music stardom is promotion by a record label...unless you have your own millions.

Anyways, I actually think there could be a TV show called “The Songwriter” where unknown songwriters compete to write the best song. I kinda wonder why no one created such a show already. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think it is because media does not sell dreams of growing up to write music for a celebrity. They sell dreams of singing in front of 50,000 screaming fans. Similarly, people dream of hitting a home run in the world series, not coaching the guy that hit the home run. I am not saying this is the way things should be, but they are. Remember the movie where the whole world forgets the Beatles music? Why doesn't the guy just write songs? He could have been super rich without all the hassles of celebrity status...but that is not what most people want.

I agree. I think the reasons that I had mentioned do not really suggest that the right answer to this question will be the same for everyone but I also tend to think that they might change some minds on both sides of the discussion. I think this sort of pros and cons analysis is most useful for the minority of people who do not hold a strong opinion on the matter and they might have a hard time deciding. — TheHedoMinimalist

Agreed. And I did not mean to say I do not find this sort of exercise valuable. I definitely like to weigh all of my options similar to how you have described...I just don't think I could predict other people's decisions based on my decision process because they have different values...but that seems separate from your point that analyzing the pros and cons is useful, which must be true.

Matrix type simulation is one thing, there are actual humans outside the simulator. But that the whole universe is being simulated in which we only exist virtually — Zelebg

No one seems too worried about this bit. But I have NEVER (before) heard of a simulated universe that is the whole the universe. That doesn't even make sense as it would not be a simulation of anything.

By definition a simulation is an "imitation"...so a simulated universe must exist within some universe (or somehow 'outside' all universes yet aware of their properties...if that is even a reasonable thought) or it is not a simulation.

For me the only worthwhile argument for a simulated universe is the idea that it could be possible to create such a thing. If the simulation will EVER be possible, then what are the odds that we live in the original universe vs one of the infinite simulations that would emerge. However, this same logic can be applied to time travel so I think you are justified in questioning whether it ever will be possible.

Someone had probably said something like this when e.g. Aristarchus proposed that the earth went around the sun or Eratosthenes, by measuring the earth's circumference, demonstrated it's not flat. — 180 Proof

And I don't think most people are capable of figuring out what Aristarchus and Eratosthenes did. They can be told the answer that those guys discovered...and if the rest of society accepts these things as obviously true then they have no reason to doubt. Isn't moral reasoning closer to discovering that the earth orbits the sun than it is to accepting that fact when told?

Sorry for the delayed response...

I always felt like being good at philosophy was more similar to being good at trivia than being good at fixing cars. — TheHedoMinimalist

Hard to argue with that. I view it as useful for forming our political opinions...but those only matter at rare moments (like voting). I think if I was NOT interested in philosophy, then I would have very little desire to study it...so I can understand (and appreciate) your desire to attach practical application.

It doesn’t help that I sometimes get mocked by my family for being bad at practical tasks like working on cars, doing basic home repairs, and cooking complicated meals. My family also knows that I’m like a walking encyclopedia of somewhat useless knowledge. — TheHedoMinimalist

My friends and family have learned that, right or wrong, they better be ready for a long discussion on exactly why I behave the way I do in any situation. Personally, I find philosophy far more useful than automotive repair. Unless I get a job as a mechanic, being skilled at automotive repair might save me a few hundred dollars a year on maintenance...philosophy seems more important than that (even if the only practical purpose is a more informed vote and a bit of self confidence in one's world view).

Unfortunately, I just don’t enjoy learning practical skills. Even as a musician, I don’t like to hone my guitar and piano playing abilities. Instead, I prefer to hone my songwriting abilities instead and record the instruments in my songs with an app like Garage Band. This allows me to compose music with minimal technical ability. — TheHedoMinimalist

This highlights what I may see as a problem for you (not really a problem, just a lack of confidence...maybe you are still young? - like in your 20s - young for this place, haha).

Shows like "The Voice", "American Idol", etc. have PROVED that the real talent in music is song writing. There are hundreds or thousands of talented, good looking musicians out there. However, very few can write an entertaining piece of music. So don't get too caught up in "practical" skills that you ignore a much more significant talent that you may have.

I would disagree that there’s only a few factors to analyze. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yeah, sorry I was a bit quick there. I was just trying to label it as simply personal preference, but I get many factors can go into personal preference.

So, as you can see, there’s definitely a lot of interesting things to analyze regarding this topic. — TheHedoMinimalist

You have described several things that should be considered in the antinatalist discussion. I still think there is a huge overarching "personal preference" that will be the deciding factor for most people. For example, when analyzing the financial costs, someone who really wants kids will justify any cost while those who don't will view all costs as prohibitive. You are that rare (and admirable) person that does not have a nagging personal feeling and is just analyzing the factors involved. I think there is a lot of value in your video series. Both for the other people out there who attempt to make decisions purely based on objective analysis (I really wish there were a lot more people like this...I though I was close, but can certainly see my personal preferences interfering in this case), and just as an objective overview of the argument. It will be particularly useful for those who are new to the antinatalist discussion and may hear some of those factors for the first time (similar to that stanford.plato website).

I think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell? — Ciceronianus the White

hahaha, damn. Not sure how you came up with that, but good stuff.

Prudentially is the element of decision making that I identify with self-interest while morality is the element of decision making concerned with the interests of others. — TheHedoMinimalist

Ok, that makes a lot more sense than some of my guesses :smile:

I think you are onto something in that I think most of the world is more interested in making good decisions for their personal lives. This could bode well for the youtube material. Unfortunately for me, people's personal lives are very uninteresting to me; but I do find most people to be the exact opposite (social media is a testament to this), so I think you will find plenty of interest.

Most people mostly have selfish considerations when deciding whether or not to have children. This is true for both Pronatalists and Antinatalists. — TheHedoMinimalist

Entirely agreed, although Pro-natalist will often not even be aware that there is a choice to be made and anyone who actually calls them self an anti-natalist at least believes they are doing it for societal reasons...I am not exactly sure how this matters, but felt the need to say it anyway:grimace:

A prudential Antinatalist is kinda like a normal “child free” person who simply doesn’t want to have kids because they think it would be harmful to their own life interests. — TheHedoMinimalist

Well that's me, so I fit nicely into one of your categories at least :grin:

A moral Antinatalist is someone who thinks having children is bad mostly because it harms the child or other people in the world. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think most people that actually call themselves an anti-natalist would be in this category.

I’m actually more interested in the selfish/prudential arguments for having children and against having children rather than the moral/selfless arguments(even though I made a thread on moral Antinatalism this time.). — TheHedoMinimalist

I will give you my reason(s) just because I think it will highlight why I am uninterested in the purely personal side of things:

Without children, life is easy and pleasant. I know all sorts of things that I enjoy doing and without kids, I can choose to do any of them, any time I want. I also have social inadequacies, so I struggle to treat humans differently based on who they are. A 7 year gets talked to just like a 47 year old. From that perspective, kids suck. They are dumb and have nothing interesting to say. Finally, IF I did have kids it would be all about molding them into some incredible figure...which seems borderline immoral. Worse than that, when the kid hits age twelve and says "screw you dad, I don't want your life", I can only agree that it is free to live its life any way it sees fit...but I am bored. I love you, I will support you, but leave me alone I am watching TV.

Notice there is basically zero morality in the decision, and very few factors to analyze. I don't want kids BECAUSE I don't want kids (I think deciding whether or not to go to college actually is more complicated). There is an acknowledge that once I have them, I am morally obligated to treat them well...but I can just choose to not have them.

So basically, prudential decision theory is just the more selfish aspects of decision theory while morality is the more selfless aspect. I hope that made sense to you. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, after that paragraph I feel like I get it perfectly :up: Examples and everything :grin: Definitely let me know if my responses suggest I am not getting it, haha.

I used to try to write a script and was over concerned with making minor mistakes. But, I realized that I’m actually about as good talking off the cuff as I am at writing a good script. I’m not the best writer but I tend to have pretty good improvisational public speaking skills. So, I just improvise my talks while occasionally pausing the recording to think. I don’t think it strongly impacts the quality of my videos but it greatly improves my productivity. I also save time by having my videos only include a slide that I made with the program Paint with the title of the video written on it. So, my videos definitely don’t have much production value. Oftentimes, I think the best way to create quality is with quantity. This is because a large number of videos created with minimum effort are often more likely to have a really interesting video in it than a small number of videos that are over-analyzed and over-produced. I suppose I’m more likely to say something stupid though. I had stopped even reviewing all of my own videos. But, I reviewed a couple and was satisfied with them. I also have a love for astronomy videos btw :smile: — TheHedoMinimalist

Sounds good to me. And I get what you are saying about creating quality through quantity. After you have been doing the channel for years, you can go through your masses of content and hone it down into what you think is best. Just writing is often a good way to get ideas out that can then be fine tuned (so just recording a video should work similarly :smile:). Additionally, the parts that you think are most beneficial may be different from what a certain viewer finds beneficial, so just putting a lot of content out can have benefits.

because this particular quid pro quo had violated the public trust — 180 Proof

As someone who is very happy to see this particular president being impeached, I feel like this is a problem. Most of the people who currently support trump (it seems at least 30% of the country) would have said that Obama violated public trust. They don't trust black people so...? Libertarian types would have impeached FDR as they didn't trust his expansion of the size of government?

Violating public trust seems far too subjective.

Impeachment is a political 'checks and balances' proceeding and not a criminal prosecution; in other words, a constitutional officer (e.g. a president) can be impeached for lawful as well as unlawful conduct. — 180 Proof

I get this. And I know that "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not have to mean actual crimes. However, if we say we are impeaching the president purely for a violation of public trust then the half (or nearly) of the country that does trust the president is going to cry witch hunt. (don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching them writhe, but I worry the next group in power can then use similar justification for egregious actions)

What about

I conceive of "virtue" as being developed by judgments or conduct which strive to prevent mitigate or relieve as much foreseeable harm (i.e. personal pain/deprivation or social frustration/conflict) as possible.
— 180 Proof

is so difficult to grasp? — 180 Proof

I think I get that part, but that does not seem to be the entirety of your philosophy. Don't worry too much, I have had troubles in the past due to taking things over literally (I am not saying that is my problem here, but it could be a related problem of mine), for example, I absolutely refuse to believe that I can "imagine myself in someone else's shoes". I get the general sentiment of the statement, but in any philosophical discussion I would say that I have no clue what that means because it is impossible.

Apparently we're both negative consequentalists; I take a further step by proposing that the goal of minimizing harm / conflict consists in the skills learned & habits formed by such judging or conduct.

Just as a healthcare provider learns skills & forms habits for diagnosing & providing care by reflectively doing both and thereby improving / developing by repetition over the course of her career, so too, I think, a moral agent improves / develops over the course of her moral life through moral exercise & experience (i.e. reflection). That's the "virtue" part you referred to previously which I reformulate as "agent-based".

In my understanding, a 'moral system' that doesn't - or is not (reflectively) designed to - improve / develop moral agency (i.e. skills & habits - what function do "virtues" serve if not these?) via moral practices (e.g. preventing, mitigating or relieving (increases in) harm) is inadequate (i.e. susceptible to being akratic), merely arbitrary, & undisciplined. — 180 Proof

Thank you for taking the time to do this. It does help me understand. Now I think our big difference is your faith in all of mankind to reach your level of moral reasoning. Despite my idiocy on display in this thread, I am confident (based on past experience) that I will score in the top 10% of the population on any general knowledge test (yes, as part of the dominant culture - raised as upper middle class white male - I will be a bit "privileged" with the cultural knowledge portions...but that still places my brain as capable of absorbing more information than most). I would also point out that we (everyone on sites like this) are very interested in morals and moralizing. Many people want to be "good" people, but are bored and annoyed by detailed discussions of why anything is "good".

The book I read didn't say whose sperm it was. That'd be a lot of sperm to keep track of. lol If I were to venture a guess, it would be that slender males discharge at least some sperm also, but field biology has probably faced extreme difficulties assessing all of that. As for hereditary and developmental mechanisms, the possibilities are vast, though an explanation might be available somewhere. This book was written in the early 2000's, so more knowledge could certainly have been obtained since then. — Enrique

Well thanks anyway...interesting stuff. I think it must a specific species of cichlid because google offers surprisingly little help...I am sure it will be captured on "Blue Planet 3" or something, these nature shows are getting all sorts of incredible behaviors on camera (in super high frame rate HD no less), so it should be a matter of time :smile:

For example, I would consider sacrificing my life in a relatively painless manner to rescue many people from suffering to be a good decision option but it’s unlikely that I will have the bravery to act on that decision option. I don’t think this should be construed as evidence that I actually don’t think that it’s a good decision option deep inside. I think we might be psychologically unable to act on what we honestly consider good because of incontinence. — TheHedoMinimalist

100% agree. One of my biggest fears is that I will freeze in the one moment I get to truly show moral conviction (I'd even LIKE TO THINK that I would accept a painful death if it saved other people). And beyond freezing or emotional problems, some situations will require a certain level of physical fitness (the more nervous you are, the quicker you feel the cardiovascular effects). I used to do martial arts and play soccer, but it has now been a few years and I wonder if that could be a problem some day.

I actually think that capital punishment is strangely life affirming. To imply that bad people should be killed is to imply that life is valuable and death is harmful. — TheHedoMinimalist

This makes sense. But for christians...judge not lest ye be judged. They are making the penultimate judgement (I was about to say ultimate but I guess that would be the eternal state of their soul - "ultimate" in their physical lives). But ignoring christian dogma, your point seems entirely reasonable.

Ironically enough, having a botched suicide attempt used to be a crime and it was punishable by death! You can’t make this shit up :lol: ! — TheHedoMinimalist

I can only agree with the hilarity :lol:

I’m actually more interested in prudential decision making than moral decision making. — TheHedoMinimalist

I like the sound of this...but then realized I am not exactly sure what that means (likely my fault ). I would think that one could make moral decisions in a prudential manner? Perhaps you are viewing moral decisions as more dogmatic or as a list of rules/maxims....that doesn't seem quite right. I think I will just wait for your explanation as my guesses are likely to do us both a disservice.

I also learned a thing or two about decision making by reading books by Nassim Taleb who I strongly recommend. — TheHedoMinimalist

I thought I had heard of him, but don't know why, so I just googled him. The Black Swan sounds interesting...although the summary seems a little over my head. Do I need to understand finances, markets, trading, etc to a high level before reading him? Most likely I will end up searching around for good summaries...the part I understood certainly sounded promising:

"The book focuses on the extreme impact of rare and unpredictable outlier events — and the human tendency to find simplistic explanations for these events, retrospectively." - wikipedia

I recently started a philosophical YouTube channel called Hedonic Minimalist in which I plan to eventually discuss all of my ideas on prudential theory and other topics. So far, I only have 8 videos made which average about 30 minutes in length but I should be able to release many more since making a 30 minute YouTube video usually only takes me like 50 minutes. — TheHedoMinimalist

Nice. I think it would take me 10 days to even write a script for a 30 minute video. And my neurosis would never allow to make a video without entirely planning every word I was going to say. I will try to check them out, but I am unlikely to vastly improve your "hits" as I generally prefer learning from text...those incredible astronomy shows on the science channel(s) and any of the "Planet Earth" style nature shows are the exception...If you can do philosophy with that sort of production value, I may end up a regular viewer :grin: In any case, it is a worthy endeavor.

You understood my very wordy comments quite well. I kinda have a bad habit of using too much philosophical jargon. — TheHedoMinimalist

haha, you use a good bit. But there are a few people on this site who are even more jargon heavy...I still fail to understand quite a bit...and then somehow come across as a dick when I don't get it (I expect an explanation that I would find boring if I was in their position)...see my current conversation with 180proof in this thread, haha.

I mostly learned this stuff by listening to lectures on YouTube and reading academic philosophical journals on philarchive.org . — TheHedoMinimalist

Well I must need to more of both...I will definitely check out the philarchive.org.

I think Philosophy is more about philosophizing than studying philosophy though. — TheHedoMinimalist

I certainly think so. In fact I am always trying to find the useful bits of "advanced" philosophy. But it seems they can't be explained to the uninitiated...which makes me question their practical value?

I think you have quite a talent for philosophizing though. — TheHedoMinimalist

Wait, I am just here to argue...how did we start trading compliments? :rofl:

Only that I'm not "trying to teach" but rather give my reasons for disapproving of Bob and approving of Mary. — 180 Proof

Well that is entirely fair. My brain gets stuck in a certain perspective sometimes, and stops considering obvious things like this :grimace:

With respect to Mary and Bob, he at minimum, harms his offspring (not by procreating itself but by using his offspring as a means-to-an-end extraneous to his offspring's welfare), harms his parents (he's complicit in their extorting him for a grandchild and thereby facilitating their use of his offspring as a means to being grandparents rather than as an end itself) — 180 Proof

This is the main our real area of contention. Likely due to my own emotional propensities, I don't care if my family or friends actually love me. I care about how I am treated. If I am treated well, then they are good in my book. So, if I am 70, and learn that 2 of my friends have actually hated me the whole time, I would say thank you for the courtesy and good times, and move on with life. Those "wasted" years of kindness harmed them a lot more than me.

Perhaps you are suggesting that someone in Bob's position could never raise the child well?

I fail to see how Bob's proximate end (avoid disinheritance) in any way justifies the means he's chosen (bribe parents give him an inheritance by procreating - we are, if I'm not mistaken, impeaching a president later today for this sort of nakedly basic quid pro quo, aren't we?). — 180 Proof

I would think we are impeaching the pres because his quid pro quo is illegal, I have traded a lot of back scratching with no seeming immoral downside to quid pro quo. I also do not have a moral belief that it is immoral to avoid inheritance (it is not an admirable quality, but not itself problematic - how about the parents manipulating their child by offering an inheritance if he procreates?). IF the means were negative (poor treatment of the child) then even neutral ends are unjustified. However, if the child is treated well, and the grandparent get to love and adore it, then no negative behavior occurs. So I don't need to worry about justifying a neutral end.

I 'marry' virtue to consequentialism in a 'naturalistic agent-based negative utilitarian / consequentialist ethics' which I summarize here (with a few more embedded links). — 180 Proof

This is the where all the "teach me" comes from (not suggesting you should actually try to do it, haha). I don't have any degrees in philosophy and both this sentence and your summarized philosophy would seem to require years (or hundreds of hours - maybe only dozens to be fair) to truly understand. I would need a total (not just a definition) understanding of each of the concepts or schools of thought you mention. Now we are on a philosophy site so there is no reason you should feel the need to dumb things down (I have read enough of your posts to know you do not feel bogged down by this obligation, haha), but I just want to be sure I am not missing something more obvious.

Is this like advanced physics or something where there is no simplifying?...could a teenager embrace your philosophical views or does it require years of deep knowledge to adopt?

when it finally comes time for coitus, the females accompany the slender males into territories, making an introduction collectively, with all three fish gradually spending some more time together until finally mating, a group effort during which the female and large male do the characteristic slow, undulating swim while discharging eggs and sperm, but with the slender male also participating, sandwiched between them. The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison. — Enrique

I can go do a bunch of research, but figured you may have a quick answer. How are more of the slender males born? Can the large male's sperm lead to both large and slender males being born? Or do the slender males occasionally blast some sperm into the mix as coitus is occurring? I have seen other species (cuddlefish come to mind) where the small males use trickery to reproduce. Is that happening in this case? Or are there just three genders that occur due to minor differences during embryo development? (like crocodiles changing sex depending on temperatures)

No. — 180 Proof

So attitude/intention matters more than action? Their actions are identical. Bob has the baby for money. Mary has the baby for biological drive reasons. But their actions are identical. If we did not know their thoughts/circumstances we couldn't tell the difference.

I assume you are tired of trying to teach me, but what am I missing? Is it just the difference between me valuing consequentialism more and you valuing virtue ethics more? (I am probably wrong in naming these ethical stances, but it will show what I am getting at)

But, I don’t see how this an exclusive critique of “License to Sin” Utilitarianism. — TheHedoMinimalist

I agree. When I said "this type" I meant any system that allowed for those sorts of justifications. I am happy to admit that I will never live up to my own ideal morality. Once I identify an ideal, I am not going to lower it just because I am not sure if anyone can live up to the ideal. That is why it is an ideal, not "how we normally act". So I agree that each of the systems you named is similarly flawed.

it’s actually not clear to me if magical books dictate morality to religious people or if religious people dictate their magical books to their morality. I think it’s a bit of both. — TheHedoMinimalist

That's fair. I think I even started typing something about..."if the dictated morals are too repulsive then they would not be accepted", but then I thought it would be more accurate to say..."if the dictated morals are too repulsive, then they will gradually be phased out over a few centuries"...which suggests that culture changed that caused people to view things as repulsive that were previously just accepted (like stoning adulterers). But I will certainly agree with a bit of both.

So, why are people who believe in the sanctity of life more likely to be religious? Well, it’s pretty difficult to defend their views through secular reasoning since it’s not clear why life should be valued for its own sake. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think you kind of answered your own question (which I think is good as it is more support for your theory). Religion definitely assigns value to life. Secular reasoning gives no such simple answers. And very few humans will be critical when they get the exact answer they are looking for.

If 2 decision option are pretty close in goodness then you might as well just flip a coin and not over-analyze the decision. — TheHedoMinimalist

This actually captures a lot of my views on morality. Most of it is either grey area or so insignificant that the "right" decision doesn't matter. I enjoy philosophy and testing my decisions in hypothetical situations with the hope that I will make the "correct" moral decision in the one or two moments of my life where there is a difficult and important moral decision.

But, my specific ideas are more designed for my own life and deciding what decisions I should make. — TheHedoMinimalist

Well, you are obviously at a higher level, but it sounds like we do this philosophy stuff for similar reasons :smile:

On this thread, I defended theories that I don’t fully support like Agent Neutral Utilitarianism and “License to Sin” Utilitarianism because they are close relatives to my complicated theory. So, I need not only promote my specific theory. — TheHedoMinimalist

Feel free to point out (i will just view it as a learning experience) any time I misrepresent or misunderstand established theories. I have almost zero formal philosophy education (shocking, I know). I do take the time to look up definitions, but some of these ideas require a deep understanding before they really make sense.

and thanks to @ZzzoneiroCosm as well for trying to straighten me out...gave me one more opportunity to see I was misreading...but I just doubled down on making an ass of myself :grin:

My friend didn't only regard foundational topics as such but statements like " Gravity causes objects to fall towards earth" to also fall under a priori statement. — Wittgenstein

Oops! I need to learn to read. I missed the "not" in your previous statement (all scientific statement are NOT a priori). Suddenly it all makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain anyway. As I was reading, I was like, "this is exactly my point". Then I read your last sentence and realized I may have misread your original statement...and sure enough I did :grimace:

Thanks again for the patience, and yes, your friend is a bit crazy.

by exploitation: bribing addicts with money for their fix if they submit to being (medically) sterilized — 180 Proof

Fair enough, but I would imagine there are some people out there whose thinking is not much better than an addict's (not much clearer or less tied to their next "fix"). For example, businesses exploit me for my labor because of my need to eat and play playstation. I get these are not identical scenarios, but I would consider there to be some (a lot) overlap (this is related to my question of can we "convince" people far dumber than us or is that just exploitation? - what about people with a natural chemical imbalance in their brain?)

E.g. (a) cannibalising dead people iff starving ... (b) breaking into an empty house to shelter in place from a hurricane or other extreme weather ...  (c) self-defensive violence or killing, etc — 180 Proof

thanks for these. Might there be people who THINK they are in a survival situation? Given the level of emotion on display, it seems some people actually believe that immigrants are an immediate threat to their families and their livelihood.

Not perfect, or "ideologically pure", but good enough so long as she juggles the trade-offs conscientiously. — 180 Proof

So if bob takes good care of the child then he is ok too?

↪ZhouBoTong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori — ZzzoneiroCosm

Thanks. I was just using definitions before. But for me, that page would suggest that I am right and that many scientific statement are based on observation and experience and therefor NOT a priori???

I was responding to:

l had a discussion a few weeks ago, where the other person wouldn't acknowledge that scientific statements are not a priori. — Wittgenstein

Which suggests that statements like, "the tree is taller than the shrub" are not scientific? Because surely that is not an a priori statement?

But @Wittgenstein used this as an example of something that is obviously right...so I feel like I am missing something...possibly it is a joke but my philosophy knowledge is too weak to get it?

No much of a counter because it misses the large social point, namely that no politician or bureaucrat or committee is "clear-headed" enough to decide upon and implement sterilization policies of marginalized a demographic or community especially if they don't belong to the targetted group. Plenty of recent historical evidence bears this out. — 180 Proof

Well in this case it was just a charity that would encourage people to not have kids. Surely their are many organizations in our society (businesses, religions, charities, schools, etc) that attempt to encourage certain behaviors? Why are they fine, but this is not?

So-called "clear-headed" arguments like these are like arguments for adversely classifying members of out-groups worthy of being coerced or deprived of XYZ on the basis of "illiteracy"-based or "low IQ score"-based or "psychiatric history"-based or "non/religious affiliation"-based rationalizations which insinuate, if not explicit, question fitness for XYZ. Fascist bs. — 180 Proof

Doesn't an awareness of this downside largely prevent it from occurring (assuming people actually want to prevent it)? But I admit, it is a MAJOR problem.

And the vast majority of homo insapiens (& hominin cousins) for the last 2.5 million years too and currently still do. So? — 180 Proof

Does this mean that any attempt to convince people not to have kids is wrong? Can I only attempt to convince intellectual equals or else I am being manipulative? (I think your quote above reminded me of these questions...I am not sure that what I wrote here is actually a direct response to your quote).

Mary's decision to fulfill a species need to procreate and a personal desire to parent children wagers on her being able to (as much as possible) protect from harm as well as nurture her child(ren) in order to give them the best of odds of the living — 180 Proof

We never said Bob was not doing this also. His scenario made him LESS LIKELY to do this, but it was not prohibitive.

Means and ends must be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enacted the latter. — 180 Proof

This is what I was getting at when I said that ends justifying means in Bob's case had to do with how he treated the child.

She's not "justifying" her decision to procreate, rather she's trying to precede in a way that doesn't invalidate or undermine either the prospect of parenting or working for the movement. — 180 Proof

She absolutely undermined the child reduction movement. The phrase practice what you preach comes to mind. No one is going to listen to an antinatalist that talks about how much she loves her child. She will just sound like anyone in history that wants the "lesser" people to not reproduce.

That's wrong. Bob doesn't have a species need - biopsych programming - to live any better than his ancestors did during the last great ice age. — 180 Proof

Is there any scenario where a "species need" gives men a pass on their thoughtful action like it is giving women a pass in this scenario? Notice I can't be sitting in front of the judge for assault, and be like "what? it was fight or flight. my hormones took over." I suppose as a white guy in this country, maybe it would work :grimace: ...but rule of law would rightly send me to jail.

Also, this thread is on antinatalism...haven't we left the realm of "species need" far behind:razz:?

After philosophical examination, Mary realized that it’s only immoral if she creates more lives than she prevents. — TheHedoMinimalist

I am not a fan of this type of moralizing. One could define their behavior to be perfectly moral no matter how one behaves. Murder is wrong. Unless the person deserves it.

This mindset could lead to every negative that @180 Proof mentioned. Only the poor, stupid, and weak are denied children while "I" as a valued citizen can reproduce at will.

I tend to think of morality as the element of decision making theory which explores the benefits and harms that a decision option has for someone other than yourself. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this is great...unfortunately most of the world has their morality dictated to them from magical books....but now reading your objection to deontology, maybe you still view those people as choosing their morality?

Of course, there is often ambiguity in the hierarchy if 2 things fall within the same quasi-mathematical categories. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this is the problem that would be seen a lot...however, the more complicated the math equation, the more factors it could include (and therefor the less ambiguity it would have).

This would get us into the discussion of what types of things are intrinsically good or good in a final sense by which they can be used as appropriate quasi-mathematical points for the evaluation of decision option outcomes. — TheHedoMinimalist

While you could find a lot of agreement on these points, it would almost never be unanimous. I do not think this invalidates your ideas, it just suggests a type of limited usefulness (and to be fair nothing has universal usefulness, so that is not necessarily a substantial problem).

Totally. l had a discussion a few weeks ago, where the other person wouldn't acknowledge that scientific statements are not a priori. — Wittgenstein

This brings up a question that I think you may have a good quick answer for (it is off-topic, so I understand being ignored):

How are scientific statements not both? Some are a priori, but not all. Example: The tree is taller than the shrub. Does that NOT count as a scientific statement? I understand that foundational concepts of science are a priori, but wouldn't any scientific statements that stem from using the scientific method be entirely based on observation and experience?

I agree with Greta 100%, but I don't especially like listening to her talk. — Bitter Crank

perfect...I may not have been quite so polite :grin:

What precisely do you find irrational in Greta's plea? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think it is the idea of children "teaching" adults that they found irrational (how many adults do you think have had their opinion swayed by Greta? - Greta thinks not very many, haha).

And what law says that children are not rational agents? — tim wood

Nothing says it unequivocally, but they can't vote, and they generally have fewer rights than adults...this suggests to me that society does not count them as fully rational agents (this could be seen as unfair as most {all?} adults are not fully rational either).

Let me know when they fawn over a teenager and become activists in her name. — NOS4A2

From my perspective, a major problem of Greta is that no one has done a damn thing in her name. They may post her picture on their facebook page (I am not that old, but I really don't know what exactly people do on social media, haha), but actions fighting climate change have not increased since Greta's emergence.

But yes, the fawning is out of control. Conservatives tend to wait until young people are in their 20's before the hype and fawning begins.

What evidence is there that Greta is being used? — ZzzoneiroCosm

She is famous. She is not teaching anybody anything. She is not inspiring anyone toward action (I would actually be rather happy if you could prove me wrong on these assertions...I like what Greta is pushing, but I do not expect the opinions of a child to change much). So while "used" may not be exactly right, adults that agree with her are blasting her message to the world hoping it has an impact...not considering that they would laugh a child climate denier off the stage...so how is this supposed to help?

For the antinatalists in the forum, do you think that the actions of Bob are justified? What about the actions of Mary? For all the non-antinatalists, do you consider donating to Project Prevention as a good action, a neutral action, or a bad action? — TheHedoMinimalist

I think I am in between, personally, I plan to have NO children. But I do not feel an urge to convince others. And intellectually, I can see merits to both sides of the argument.

I think Bob is fine as long as the child is well taken care of.

Mary is going to have some serious cognitive dissonance. What else has she labelled as unquestionably immoral that she still wants to do? But other than her internal contradictions, I don't have a problem with the actions.

I would think donating to this project is equal to many of the other "projects" that people donate to. If someone believes fewer births is a good thing, then this seems a worthy use of funds. I think your point here:

Their counter-argument to this criticism is to point out that if you think that drugs addicts are unable to make clear-headed decisions to get paid to get sterilized then why would you think that they can make a clear headed decision to procreate. — TheHedoMinimalist

Is enough justification that this donation is not harmful. It is just a person using money to push their opinions on the world. Personally I prefer The Philosophy Forum and the occasional face-to-face interaction to push my opinions...but they are equally justified to spread their opinions in whatever way they see fit (should be persuasive not coercive - notice that bribery seems to fall somewhere in between?).

Mathematically speaking, it’s intuitive to suppose that if someone prevents 5 lives from existing and causes only 1 to exist, then they made a better impact on the world than a “passive” antinatalist who simply doesn’t reproduce. — TheHedoMinimalist

I am not sure we can always simplify moral decisions with math...but I have to run and have not thoroughly reviewed your last two posts...so don't take that criticism seriously until I have time to read everything :smile:

For the antinatalists in the forum, do you think that the actions of Bob are justified?
— TheHedoMinimalist

No. Bob procreated in order to use the child to bribe his parent not disinherit him. No end doesn't justifies using the child as the means.

What about the actions of Mary?

I don't see anything wrong with her following that strong, biopsychological programming. And then encouraging others for whom it's not so strong not to procreate. — 180 Proof

This may be what @schopenhauer1 was getting at, but isn't Mary in an ends justifying means situation as well?

For Bob, having a child is the means to the end of his satisfied desire for money (or maintaining his lifestyle, or funding anti-natal propaganda, or whatever that money represents).

For Mary, having a child is the means to the end of her satisfied desire for a child.

Am I wrong in thinking that both would be driven by biopsychological programming... (wouldn't biopsychological include EVERYTHING that goes into our decision making process?)? If men don't have the strong push to have a child (or as strong as suggested for women), then whatever "weaker" biopsychological programming they have will take priority.

And in case my philosophical position matters...I don't believe that the ends always justify the means. However, I certainly consider it to be possible for the ends to justify the means (In Bob's case it would be a matter of how the child is treated).

You are not coming over as snarky - getting to the truth of the matter is what's important. — Devans99

Fantastic. That is always my goal...but I often get so engaged with the argument that I forget I am talking to another human :grimace:.

That may sound quite like Brave New World, but then I did not find that book to be a completely dystopian view of the future. — Devans99

I agree. I often read or watch distopian fiction and actually think it is almost utopian, with one or two easily fixable problems. Most educated people would never accept the genetically engineered classes of Brave New World. It is hard enough to get people to accept genetic engineering. To say that we are going to intentionally create upper and lower classes using genetic engineering is obviously going to be a huge problem. Unless we engineered away any sense of morality, MANY of the smart people at the top would say the system is BS...but with some minor adjustment it could be a wonderful system (the "happy" drugs would be for those who CHOOSE to go through life that way...and then they can be assigned the "lower" jobs in society because they don't care as being happy is more important).

I have not read 'Island', the utopian counterpart of Brave New World — Devans99

Dang, I am not even sure if I have heard of that...I may have to check it out. I wasn't a huge fan of Brave New World, but it was interesting.

I believe the MAC approach would result in a lessor impingement of personal freedom - through the economies of scale applied to child rearing - than the traditional 2 parent family approach, so the better educated in society would be more attracted to it. — Devans99

Seems reasonable to me.

I think however, both the natural and genetic communities would speak the same language and I am only really advocating genetic engineering for increased intelligence, not extra limbs or anything like that. I think it would be an extension of situation we have today, people with IQs ranging from 50 to 250 all live in the same community, it is just there would be a concentration of genetically altered folks at the high end of the spectrum. — Devans99

If you haven't watched "Gattaca", it is right on track with what we are discussing (and compared to reading a book, less time consuming). I think like me, you will think the distopia has a good bit of utopia in it, but it also highlights some likely results (and potential problems) of different genetic classes. I am definitely with you that we should try :smile:

Ironically in philosophy, the simple things are left unnoticed. The most cryptic philosopher is usually the one who is studied the most too cause it is easy to argue about topics that can be misunderstood easily. — Wittgenstein

That is certainly fair. I just don't want the "most cryptic philosophers" being taught in an introductory (or anything at the high school level) philosophy course. They need to know the basics BEFORE getting into the cryptic stuff.

And philosophy would be much trickier to define content for. Is philosophy taught/learned or practiced?

There are theories now that history education can be a mish-mash hodepodge of time periods and events, as long as it is taught using "critical thinking" skills. In other words, the aversion to "grand narrative" history is so great, that the basic eras, periods, and change over time is lost to "thinking exercises" or collaborative projects, or whatever else is considered more important than content itself. — schopenhauer1

Ugh, you are so right here it hurts. I actually have my teaching credentials in history. They haven't driven me from education yet...but I sure have rolled my eyes during a few teacher's meetings.

However, without the basic narrative, there is no way to properly understand it, deconstruct, or do anything else meaningful with it. — schopenhauer1

I wish this was understood by more people (shouldn't it be obvious?)

If you don't understand the Enlightenment, the American Revolution makes little sense. If you don't understand the Reformation, the Enlightenment makes no sense. If you don't understand the Silk Road, you miss out on the globalization that lead to Renaissance, etc. — schopenhauer1

Why learn about the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, or the Silk Road when you can spend weeks learning about the Janissaries or Rasputin :roll:

To take things out of context and to just use historical subjects as a means to some some ludicrous critical thinking goal, that has nothing to do with history itself is to create a real disservice. — schopenhauer1

:cheer:

"We need to teach kids how to think critically!" - a common call.

One result is perhaps the number of threads here that tell us how physics or mathematics has it wrong, while demonstrating a lack of knowledge of either physics or mathematics.

Critical thinking without context is dangerous. — Banno

Great stuff. Unfortunately, education trends are going in the exact opposite direction. We (to be fair, I only know the American system well) are abandoning content to teach "skills" like critical thinking. And very smart people (see the many in this thread) seem blind to the fact that you must have something to think critically about, and without a knowledge base, you might be thinking, but there is nothing critical going on.

And after my first read through the thread, every post that even slightly disagrees provides no example of how to teach critical thinking separate from content...unless I missed it.

I was not aware of this - I stand corrected. — Devans99

Dang...I have never been believed so readily, thanks :smile: And sorry if all of my writing sounds as snarky as that line you quoted (I am sure much of it does :yikes:)

Here is a quick link just for third parties to know I wasn't just making it up...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

However, I think it is probably a transitory evolutionary phase that we are going through and genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction). — Devans99

This seems reasonable, but I think there is one key point...the educated may CHOOSE to not have kids. The uneducated just have kids. There is rarely a decision making process. Uneducated people assume traditions are important. Educated know why they (traditions) are important or they dismiss them as mere tradition (I bring this up as having kids is the ultimate tradition). How many 13 year olds say they will never have kids? It requires a certain level of complex thought (not that that makes it right or anything).

genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction). — Devans99

I like the idea of genetic engineering...but we would have to ban "natural" births to prevent the "negative" genes from being passed on, or, most likely, we would end up with 2 (or more) very different groups of humans (and not like our current idea of tall/short or smart/dumb - the smartest humans would see the dumbest in the way we currently see dolphins or chimps. Sure they are "smart", but not our kind of smart).

Being happy and being struggle-free are not synonymous. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. But most people who identify as happy are unlikely to say their life is full of struggles. For some people completing a math problem is a struggle (whether they are good at it or not). Notice that I would NOT tell @Enrique to buck up and get over it...it was only a little torture. That is a struggle. There is no frame of mind that makes it not a struggle. Similarly, @Wayfarer's example of the holocaust...A positive mindset may help you survive, but there is no mindset that allows the holocaust to become a pleasant situation.

However, if I make 25k a year, and that means that my only affordable living situation is renting a room, and I will never afford a vacation, and will likely not be attracting a life partner, and may die at 62 instead of 82 due to reduced health care,...I can still view that as a largely struggle free life...unless I lament all the things I don't have/can't do.

And I do not mean to suggest that people who complain about their difficult paycheck-to-paycheck lives are not struggling. They are if they say they are. What I am saying is that if they changed their mindset...then they might not have to struggle (or could at least have their struggles reduced).

Ever heard of Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl? It was a big seller in the 1960's, one of my mother's favourites. Frankl was a psychiatrist who had been interned in the Nazi death camps and noticed that some individuals adapted much better than others to these dreadful environments, which he attributed to their ability to find meaning. 'Frankl believed that people are primarily driven by a "striving to find meaning in one's life," and that it is this sense of meaning that enables people to overcome painful experiences. — Wayfarer

Damn. No (at least not more than a quick mention), but it sounds like I need to check it out. Seems like he is trying to answer my question :smile:

After enduring the suffering in these camps, Frankl concluded that even in the most absurd, painful, and dehumanized situation, life has potential meaning and that, therefore, even suffering is meaningful. This conclusion served as a basis for his logotherapy and existential analysis, which Frankl had described before World War II. He said, "What is to give light must endure burning." — Wayfarer

This reminds me of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel. However, within that story it highlighted that this "purpose" you refer to, worked for some of the Jews, but not for others. Would Frankl be suggesting that those who suffered heavily (versus those who adapted "well") did not have a strong faith to begin with? Or that faith is not "purpose"? And if you ask why I bring up "faith" when you are talking "purpose"...to find a "purpose" to the holocaust would require gobs of faith...wouldn't it?

Or is he referring to "purpose" as things like..."I can't wait to see the sun on Tuesday?" or "I look forward to lunch on Monday"?? I understand that much better than some overarching objective purpose for my life. A purpose for this minute, day, week, etc makes more sense (for me) than a purpose for my existence (I guess I am making all sorts of assumption that you and Frankl meant the big life purpose vs the small daily purposes?).

As the person in this thread arguing that more people should be able to find contentment in life...I certainly believe in no objective purpose. So what allows me to shrug off "struggles" that others take seriously? (besides me being an un-caring ass - that is at most half the reason for my care-free demeanor :grimace:) Maybe my subjective purposes are enough? I should probably read the book and stop bugging you, haha.

That was the point I as trying to make, not that mussels are more complex, but that there are areas of more complexity. — Brett

Well I am happy to concede that. I think most of this thread (not just with you), that is the point I have been making (and since that is the point you are making...one (or both) of us maybe misunderstood some aspect of the other). We can only compare very specific aspects that we can then label more or less complex.

I think we were trying to determine if there could be something more complex than humans, then as usual it got bogged down in demands for meaning. — Brett

haha, my bad. I feel like my brain automatically thinks of the one exception in any scenario and then I say, see it can't mean what you say because in this one specific example it doesn't work. sorry...it seems unavoidable...I think sometimes it is useful/productive in the conversation, and other times it just creates an unnecessary tangent when we all knew what was really meant :grimace:

Anyway, like I said I get that it was just an example, I just wanted to be clear that 60% of people living a struggle-free life is very very far from true. Most people live in the places where lots of people live, which are consequentially expensive places, where the kind of incomes that most people make will barely let you scrape by with zero safety net, which is not at all "struggle-free". — Pfhorrest

Yes, I was a bit dismissive in my response. But other than the tone, I stand by it...I will use a line from your previous paragraph as an example:

I lived on $25k/yr in California for a decade and couldn't even afford an apartment to myself. — Pfhorrest

Jees...what are you the queen of England? Needing a whole apartment to yourself? :razz:

I entirely get your point, and I would absolutely vote in line with your thinking. But surely sharing an apartment is not the epitome of struggle? Isn't your desire for your own dwelling creating your suffering?

And this is coming from someone who loves the idea of living alone. Still can't afford it (and I make a decent amount more than 25k, so point conceded on the requirements for a comfortable living), but I would not say my life is full of struggle.

where the kind of incomes that most people make will barely let you scrape by with zero safety net, which is not at all "struggle-free". — Pfhorrest

I was about to argue with this a little, but it is pointless. For all practical purposes, I am with you. In the only way that matters (voting), I am definitely with you. I just want to highlight that some people can choose to be happy in the midst of an awful situation...what allows them to do this? Can it be replicated by the rest of us, or is it just a personality trait?

But I feel there must be a point where you can begin where there is enough evidence to begin with and work up from there and find the place where it’s impossible to compare, use that point as a beginning reference. — Brett

It seems to me a comfortable position to sit back and dismiss the idea that humans might be more complex than bivalves as subjective, or too difficult to even consider. Maybe everyone could try just a little bit harder. — Brett

Ok, fair point...for the sake of a basic conversation. Sure, humans are more complex than ants. But I would hesitate to say that humans are more complex than ants IN EVERY WAY. And consciousness is one of those difficult things to measure. Sure, human consciousness is (almost certainly) more complex than an ant's, and it is also (less certainly) more complex than a dog's, and if I had to bet, I would bet that it is more complex than all other organisms on earth...but if science later told me that killer whales actually had a consciousness that was as complex as our own, I would not be shocked.

What do we gain by just accepting the declaration that humans are the most complex organism?

“Life Cycle of a Freshwater Pearl Mussel. The life cycle of most freshwater mussels is more complex than in most bivalves, involving the parasitism of a fish host.(http://bivalves.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=136). — Brett

I like science writing, haha. Notice they said "the life cycle of freshwater mussels is more complex" not mussels are more complex. "The life cycle" is a specific aspect of the mussel that can much more easily be compared as more or less complex.