It's a cultural issue, and removing the root problem from one's life is challenging in the West. Even if one is determined to remove the processed junk and sugar from their life, they're surrounded by it, and it's what they're used to, and it's addictive.

The problem is a philosophical one. There is no countervailing ideology to consumerism, because there's no philosophical or social framework that recognises anything other than consumption and material goods. — Wayfarer

Wow, I'm not usually one to be outdone in cynicism. What do you mean by this? Surely, consumerism is a large part of Western culture but how can there be no philosophical or social frameworks outside of it? Are you approaching this from an anti-capitalist perspective?

Education would be nice but relative GDP is the dominant indicator of a "successful'' society, so it seems we're in a Moloch-type race to the bottom. — Baden

I'm extremely individualistic, in so far as I oppose collectivist thinking, but individualistic thinking that I disdain is where international, systemic issues are thought of in the individual context. As though, for instance, the obesity epidemic would be solved if people were just less lazy and had more willpower.

That if there was an improvement in the work ethic, wisdom, and capabilities of individuals, such issues would be resolved as people made smarter and better choices.

I think this mentality is actually the predominant one, it is perceived as pragmatic and intuitive, even by very intelligent people. Addiction is just another such issue. Unless the circumstance is one where no action could've been taken by the individual to avoid misfortune, any attempt to place blame on something besides them will be viewed as an unhelpful failure to take responsibility. That the pragmatic thing is to learn from one's mistakes and the mistakes of others.

Perhaps this is why cases like oxycodone are viewed sympathetically, because it's understood that victims can't be blamed, as trusting one's doctor isn't a mistake to be corrected.

This has, intended or not, the effect of putting all of the blame on individuals and not companies, and I think that's how we as a culture view it. To counter this way of thinking seems necessary to bring about meaningful change. I personally, see this cultural perception as the main obstacle to change, rather than misconceptions about economics, but I could be wrong.

Such as, there is no such thing as second-hand alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, fentanyl, etc? Second-hand smoke helped the anti-smoking cause. — BC

Another comparison could be of viewing obesity through the lens of the health cost it incurs on the public. The critical factor is that an individual's right to make choices at the cost of their personal well-being could only be undermined in the instance where their personal choices came at a significant cost to others. For smoking, that one's right to smoke infringes upon another's right to health and safety.

Neoliberal supporters often invoke concepts of personal responsibility, and this is the defence given against the regulation of industries. Since children can't be held to the same standards of personal responsibility, that becomes a critical factor in where regulation might be accepted.

Personal responsibility and the right of consenting adults to make their own choices, for me, fail to capture the nature of how processes such as addiction compromise rational thinking. The predominant narrative ignores the addiction aspect, and instead, focuses on the flaws and failures of the individual.

Though, I also disagree with the indifferent acceptance of brutal consequences for those who make bad decisions.

Regulation is often opposed on the basis of personal liberty and is not actually always that popular. For supporters, these issues are thought of through the lens of consumer choice and individual freedom.

It is not just about "human motivation", it is about characterising human motivation, and that makes it philosophical. How could science provide a definitive answer to whether our motivations were "self-centred" or not? What makes something "self-centred" is subjective, the logic used is subjective, and the verdict reached in each and every case involves making choices about how to interpret, what to interpret, how to characterise and the construction of a highly subjective narrative. There's nothing testable about it, how do you propose any scientific approach could definitively answer such a question?

First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact. — T Clark

It's a characterisation based on interpretation, and so, it is definitely a philosophical statement. Its bearing on philosophy alone would make it a philosophical idea, even if "self-centred" was defined within psychology in a way that was testable, we'd be under no obligation to abide by that definition within the context of philosophy. And within philosophy, it is not testable, it's a matter of interpretation.

If everything we do is selfish, then everything we do is immoral;
If everything we do is immoral, then everything we do is bad; — Italy

While I don't subscribe to the views of psychological egoism, I don't think that selfishness is the same as self-interest, and this conflation might undermine your argument for me. Frequently, it is in one's self-interest to cooperate with others, and that is in fact, part of the argument of psychological egoism. Many moral arguments centre around the idea of how cooperation creates a better living environment for everyone, and I do subscribe to ideas such as this.

What is in the best interests of the many is often in the best interests of ourselves, for example, a desire to live in a free and prosperous society. Where selfishness might be best characterised by prioritising your interests in a way that neglects the interests of others, self-interest might be best served by caring about the interests of others.

This is a significant part of moral thinking for me, it is, in part, motivated by self-interest. Where I disagree with psychological egoism is the characterisation of a multifaceted motivation as mere self-interest. It seems as though the idea construes any possible personal benefit as by default the primary or even only possible motivation, regardless of clear evidence showing the involvement of other factors.

The other issue I have with it is how it construes seemingly any "need" or "desire" as self-interest, even when that need or desire is literally the exact opposite. Take a parent's desire to protect their child, to construe this as "self-interest" is absurd, and reveals a highly reductionist way of thinking.

I'm not sure how Neoliberalism figures into the problem of businesses manipulating customers, except that government conducts oversight over the marketplace with fewer tools, fewer personnel, and greater passivity — BC

Indeed, that is how it factors in.

Getting people to buy stuff they don't really need is fairly hard work requiring a lot of ingenuity and employment of every [not illegal] trick in the book. But... we are all in favor of a vigorous economy (growing GDP) are we not? — BC

Haha...

Since the ideas of neoliberalism and liberalism have been purposefully tied together, and the idea of freedom from government intervention also ties into freedom for consumers, I wanted to look at things from this perspective. Regulating industries would mean directly influencing businesses in what products & services they can provide to consumers and under what conditions. So, the freedom to do with your money, health, and time as you will, is undermined by government intervention, hence terms like "nanny state".

Can we draw a line on where attempts to regulate industries are right to be perceived as an attack on individual freedom? When do people have the right to make their own bed and lie in it so to speak?

Tobacco is a good example of this. Over the last 50 years, tobacco use has been substantially reduced by a combination of price factors, banning indoor smoking, tighter policing of tobacco sales, and public health education. — BC

To what extent did the effects of second-hand smoking influence political will? Would our liberal societies have been less keen on regulations if the harm of smoking only impacted the smoker themselves?

Perhaps instead of asking where regulation is an attack on personal freedom, the individual lens should be critiqued by emphasising the social cost of addiction.

Governments could reduce the potential for addiction by regulating or banning the use of substances or tactics proven to cause addiction. Laws could incentivise the reduction of addictive tactics such as a sugar tax or warning labels. Limiting advertising. Limiting how many stores can sell such products within an area, or laws against establishing casinos in city centres or other hot spots. Reducing serving or cup sizes for unhealthy foods & drinks.

Options are nuanced & varied, but the commonality is government intervention since businesses aren't likely to do anything differently of their own accord.

Though I don't want to discuss the merits of the options, each one is complex and multifaceted. I am
investigating the conditions under consumer health trumps consumer choice, or vice versa.

Everyone knows the dangers of gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating. — RogueAI

That's true, but people's decision-making within the context of addiction could be construed as being compromised, and that the poor decision-making of addicts is a primary cause for concern with addiction. What's your view on this?

What is left out when we dismiss both feminine and masculine traits of a human? — ssu

If a social constructionist view is an impetus for this change, then we risk making potentially harmful changes to mitigate problems under a false assumption. Masculine traits aren't just embers of a patriarchial system, they're sometimes just the result of biological proclivities or, useful or benign cultural norms. I don't agree with organising society & education in a way that denies differences between men and women, but assuming our "dismissal" of the feminine and masculine characterisation of traits didn't do this, then what is the purpose then? Is the concept so fundamentally sexist and immoral that it must go?

The majority of criticism against these ideas has originated from the postmodernist & social constructionist view, and it's tainted the well for me. If you have a more nuanced case where the argument is explicitly not from either of these perspectives, then I could consider it more fairly.

There's a similar feeling with nature, there are so many amazing landscapes a few clicks away, but scrolling through a catalogue of them, they feel like novelties, I feel nothing. To actually be in the moment, and appreciate what I'm seeing, to let my imagination run wild and to experience something, that's what makes art beautiful. Just going from thing to thing, scrolling through dozens of pictures, it's an easy trap to fall into but lacks feeling, one must slow down and pay their respects, to be immersed. Thanks for the reminder.

Lmao, I can see how uninterested you are in power, your response is one big flex, you vastly exceeded my expectations. You're proud of purposefully misrepresenting the people you speak with to "probe" them, I'm sure your methods of identifying racists and sexists are just as absurd. Misrepresenting and misinterpreting people aren't investigative techniques dumbass, you can't just assume anyone saying something you don't like is guilty of some heinous view, isn't that obvious? Oh well, you keep up the crusade SJW, clean the internet of all these horrible sexists/racists, and best of luck.

So why are you harping on about this top 1% or 10% who exist, only due to a nefarious history of the pathetic imposition and abuse, of a no longer important biological advantage, of male physical strength used in an imbalanced competitive manner? — universeness

Why are you so insistent on taking me out of context? The top 1% or 10%? That was in reference to things like fucking card games, board games, computer games and other competitive environments. In what way is your response even remotely appropriate? Why do you refuse to interpret my words in the manner that I meant them, rather than whatever random bullshit makes me look bad?

Patriarchal 'pressure,' and notions of manly men masculine identity, is a strong factor towards why any man who identifies as a woman might consider killing themselves. — universeness

What the hell are you talking about? This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. Typical postmodernist, aren't you? Should I apologise? Should this long chain of logic that somehow connects me to the suicide of trans people have made me realise the error of my ways? A cheap ploy.

Is your use of these 1% or 10% male dominance exemplars, intended as evidence to explain why the imagery invoked by — universeness

I know I said what the evidence was intended to explain, but I can see you don't care about that. You're a bigot, you use moral indignation as a weapon to bully others, and you use your uncharitable interpretation as a justification to judge others without evidence. I'm the furthest thing from a supporter of "historical traditional conservative values". Your moral indignation is so disingenuine, you couldn't care less who it's aimed at, just enjoy the feeling of power, do you? Well, no point trading insults, a worthwhile discussion with you is impossible.

You also keep attempting to cite examples of where you claim men excel over women, when the truth is that women's contribution and women's achievements are often deliberately diluted or are just not mentioned. — universeness

You're deliberately taking me out of context.

I could not think of 4 less important areas! and in each of those area there are women representatives, every bit as good as the men involved, especially in cooking. — universeness

This is all irrelevant. I was not arguing that 100% of men outcompeted all the women, or anything close to that. This is about the top 1% or 10% being male-dominated, not male-exclusive.

Even if you were given your claim that (men are better than women)... at competing — universeness

My claim isn't that men are better at it, just that they're dominant in competition. I could attempt to explain why, but my reasoning would be anecdotal, but it certainly isn't just "men are better" lol.

Do you consider education a competition? — universeness

It's a valid counterargument to bring up education, this is an area where girls are not just 50-50 but just outperforming boys. Why this is happening is a complicated topic, but nonetheless, it shows girls are equally capable in competitive environments under the right circumstances.

are men better than women at cooperation in your opinion? Cooperation produces far better results than competition imo. — universeness

I don't know if men are better than women at cooperation, it's too broad of a scope, very subjective.

Do you think men have proven themselves more intelligent than women? — universeness

No.

Reading your reply, it seems you've entirely taken me out of context. As if, I didn't bring up any of what I said for a particular point, I was just trying to explain why men are superior to women or some shit. The entire problem with this argument of patriarchy is that there's zero effort to look at alternative explanations. If there's an unequal gender outcome, assume sexism caused it, and if anyone objects, address them as sexist, amazing. Though, wasn't your position AGAINST the critique of the West as a patriarchy?

I don't think it's inherently undesirable, we'd need to look at the process of filling those positions, and what our goal was. If we found that the processes looked at were typically impartial and reasonable, and did select the best candidates, then we can't call the process sexist, at least.

I'm generally uninterested in representation, but even if the processes were devoid of sexism, that doesn't mean they accommodate the genders equally. We could stop talking about gender and instead talk about characteristics, such as agreeableness, where men are largely less agreeable, but only on average. I could agree that more should be done to ensure agreeable people have their talents recognised and properly rewarded, even if my motivation had nothing to do with gender.

In terms of patriarchy, and power, the processes in question are mostly of entrepreneurs and politicians. Apologies, but to me, it's completely unsurprising that men dominate the field of entrepreneurship, as men dominate virtually every competitive environment as I've pointed out. I don't see a problem with this.

In terms of political representation, I'm not sure, but I think a strong case can be made against allowing 100% male representation under any circumstances. The traits that succeed in being selected don't even necessarily correlate with how competent one is at their job, which makes me care less about who is selected. To be honest, I don't think I could see 100% representation and believe the social organisation was gender-neutral, but if it was let's say 80%, I'd be okay with it in principle.

Gender just isn't the important way to divide people for me, and so my question might be, can I also mandate that a certain number of introverts hold positions of power? I guess not, right?

I could be convinced that there should be some separation by gender that would ensure some percentage of female representation. I might do some research into it sometime, but currently, I have no strong views on it.

Recognising reality can be inconvenient, but that doesn't constitute an argument against doing so. — Baden

I am certain that you are working under the same principles that I've outlined. There is not a single case of sexism that you agree with, not a single case of racism that you support, not a single case of oppression you'd justify. That's not the result of you being a saint, it's because you're bound by the same circumstances that I am, we define morally charged terms in accordance with our principles of right and wrong. If I present you with a definition of sexism, it is simply unthinkable for you, or anyone, to accept that definition and use that definition to justify sexism.

"Ah, this author defines sexism as treating people differently based on gender, well, I do think people should be able to do that, sexism is fine by me". Others will substitute your use of the term with their understanding of it, and they'll just hear you say sexism is fine, and it'll cause all kinds of problems. The term reflects just a category of immoral acts related to gender, the speaker replaces that vagueness with their interpretation, every person's "sexism" always reflects their views on what should and shouldn't be okay within the overarching context that sexism refers to.

Moral arguments aren't about whether sexism is fine or not, it's already determined that sexism is wrong. Therefore, the entire moral debate is in the definition and interpretation of the term, how you define sexism represents the entirety of your argument. It's the same here, with patriarchy, the entire debate is in the definition. If you give me a definition and use it to argue that "Patriarchy is proven when there's an unequal outcome by gender in positions of power", I'm not going to play the idiot and take the position defending patriarchies.

I've outlined a view against your definition and use, by explaining that there's nothing inherently immoral with a society that creates unequal gender representation in positions of power. A fixation on definitions is pointless, there is no authority that gets to define for me, what patriarchy is, or what sexism or racism is. I've explained what I'm for and against, that should be good enough.

Yes, morality is in theory, a mental affair, your actions do not matter. To be good, in a moral context, requires the desire to be good.

This view of morality that focuses on one's actions amounts to a grouping of different contexts with no thread in between to connect them.

Consider a few things, if one's goodness is judged by their actions, then why would we take one's ability to do good into consideration? Or shouldn't we? If a poor man, with no means to help others, is only compassionate in being kind to others, is he less good than a billionaire who has set up charities and helped thousands of people?

How do things such as self-control fit into this equation? If we take two people, with violent desires, and one acts on them and the other doesn't, why didn't the other act on them? Is it because he fears the consequence of his actions? Does his fear of the consequences and his ability to control his impulses make him a more righteous man?

If one gives advice to their friend because they want to see them succeed and offer what help they can, but their advice brings their friend misery, are they a terrible person? Should we characterise their act purely by their consequences?

Of course not.

Moral acts are defined by intention, and intention is defined by one's thoughts. In the example that @RogueAI gave, having violent thoughts doesn't make a person evil, but why aren't they acting on them does matter. If it's because of their calculation that it wouldn't be in their own best interests to act violently, does that really make them a good person? It's necessary for their reasoning to be rooted in the common good, and using moral logic. To call a person good for what they do, when they do what they do only out of self-interest and cold calculation, wouldn't that be absurd?

That being said, morality is a subjective affair, and in any given situation, any number of narratives can be written. We never really know what goes on in another's mind.

Huh? I was talking about board games and card games and other competitions, and why men dominated them, what you've quoted has no relevance to my view on patriarchy.

I'm not happy to use the definition you've given. I'd remark on the fact that patriarchy is a very negative term to describe a society, and that is true regardless of the definition. I'm not saying that's how it should be, just that's how it is. If we use a definition that allows us to label the West as a patriarchy, then it will be our moral obligation to rectify this so that the West is no longer a patriarchy.

Therefore, if you propose a definition of patriarchy that, depending on how one interprets it, and on you've interpreted it, isn't a problem for me whatsoever, then it would be a mistake for me to accept your definition. I can't argue for patriarchy under any circumstances, so, while I'd normally be happy to let you define a term however you liked, in this case, I can't agree to any definition that a society can qualify for without me condemning it.

If your definition of patriarchy can be established by nature-based differences playing out without any sexist motivation, then I'll reject the definition. To be frank, and I hope you don't think my view on this is silly, but objective definitions for these sorts of things are not possible. I won't accept any definition of patriarchy that omits the intentional design of a society aimed at accomplishing male dominance over women. Entirely because I am not interested in condemning disparities in gender-based outcomes, I'm only interested in condemning sexism.

The difference is in intent, what I'm describing is a natural consequence of the differences between men and women, though, I do appreciate that it isn't entirely the result of nature, and sure, it can be lessened.

Patriarchy isn't any system that produces unequal outcomes in the ability for men and women to acquire positions of power, where results skew towards men. Part of what comprises the understanding of feminists on the patriarchal nature of society is the idea that gender differences are largely the result of social engineering.

I account for the nature-based differences and the practical realities between the sexes, which I explained, that's not a justification for patriarchy. I require the unequal outcomes to be the result of sexist societal and governmental structures or societal attitudes. The competitive environment is not equal for many reasons, but unless those reasons involve our attempt to ensure that men dominate and women are subjugated, then it's not patriarchy.

In virtually every competitive environment, men dominate, whether it's board games, card games, e-sports, cooking, or whatever really. Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? Or is it because men have a proclivity towards engaging more seriously with competitive activities, and have characteristics that produce success in comparison to women? When your benchmark for talking about patriarchy is equal outcomes in competitive environments, you've already completely misunderstood what you're dealing with.

War is the traditional, historical competition that matter most, yes?
Which image do you think we should nurture, for how masculinity should progress? — universeness

It's just a question of equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. I think almost all social groups agree, that if a woman can pass the fitness tests, and displays sufficient competence, just as any man would have to, then she should be considered for a position. If she's the best choice, then she should get the position. Just don't be surprised if these conditions don't produce equal participation in armies by gender.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Is this your basis for saying there's a patriarchy in these "contemporary societies"? I'm not interested in a modern feminist reimagining of what patriarchy is, that defines the term in the most incredibly vague, broad and subjective terms possible. What you seem to be talking about is capitalism, because otherwise, no, I don't agree that "aggressiveness" is privileged and I'd love to see your argument for why you think so.

Characteristics that succeed in a competitive environment will naturally be celebrated within the context of that environment, whether they're masculine or feminine doesn't matter.

Even if masculine traits were overly praised, well, it's unsurprising, considering that for most of human history, women have had less competitive roles in society, and I believe men are just generally more interested in competition regardless. Success in competition might be part of masculinity itself, the desire of having the best things and being the best, fits the ultra-masculine alpha types pretty well to me.

Losing & failure can be emasculating, a man may feel the need to prove himself, to provide, to succeed, to be respected etc. Masculinity can include whatever brings about success, and women who want to succeed in competitive environments will probably need to abandon or redefine their femininity to some extent. It's not some global conspiracy against women, it's just that feminine traits aren't valuable in a competitive environment, at least in terms of producing success.

The problem with modern feminism is that sexism isn't a motivation or a belief, it's an outcome. Just saying feminine characteristics don't produce success in a competitive environment would probably be sufficient to get some of them riled up. Doesn't matter whether it makes any sense for feminine characteristics to be as competitively viable as masculine characteristics, if they aren't, it's just evidence of patriarchy, haha.

Gender differences are trivial compared to the commonalities between men and women, but as we organise our language, culture, customs etc around gender, they're still nonetheless important. There's no merit in fostering an unnecessarily hostile competition between the sexes, maybe in that, we could agree. However, I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy.

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences. — apokrisis

I agree with everything @apokrisis has commented, I was fussing over how to phrase my argument only to find everything I wanted to say has already been said.

At the bare minimum, we would need a context & a goal to say anything useful, such as discussing the role of masculinity in dating and highlighting some specific topics such as chivalry, for example.

I read through it. I wonder how you expect me to react to it, or why you wanted my reaction to it.

You're definitely right that morality and philosophy itself are public affairs, and so of course there are social considerations that influence how people answer moral questions. It's not easy to share things about yourself when you fear judgement, and I think that people are right to fear judgement. Is this part of the coercive element of morality? Definitely.

However, I do think that hypotheticals are not a practical situation to bring out the "darkness" of man. It doesn't allow for any kind of breathing room, because I think humans intuitively perceive, for example, murder, to be immoral. The "darkness" of man is the making of murder moral, not to intentionally act immorally. The complexity of the real world allows for the creativity necessary for justification, the hypothetical doesn't. I don't think people are reminded by others of their own potential for evil. We do genuinely hate murder, but in the cases where we don't, we call it justice, we say the victim deserved it or that it had to be done.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are both good examples of the darkness of people, racism in colonialism might be even better. Western Europeans believed slavery was wrong, but justified it by asserting that it was fine to enslave lesser races, that's what human darkness looks like. The meat industry is a great example of today's evil, most people already realise that farm animals have the intelligence to experience joy, boredom, fear, pain, anxiety, stress and loneliness, I've got little doubt that future generations will think of our justifications of animal sentience as just as foolish as we now view racism.

You paint morality like shackles, holding back the dark and violent nature of man, but I disagree with that. The evil we perceive in the acts of others are in their own eyes, necessary and justified acts, and the "evil" we perpetrate we, in turn, see as just and necessary. We do genuinely distinguish between good and evil, and we do try to do good, it's just what we define as good is often actually pretty shitty.

As for whether the hypotheticals themselves are any good or not, maybe they are, what I said doesn't apply as well to many philosophies of morality, especially ones like utilitarianism or deontology. I don't really know, but I do think the questions are very removed from the moral thinking of the average person. Sorry if I didn't answer in the way that you were looking for, but you didn't make any particular request so I just gave my initial impressions, if you want a different answer, you can just ask.

No offense, but I find this quite naive. — universeness

The upside of talking to me is I won't take offence to anything you say, the downside is I'll likely say something to offend you :P.

Rich elites can have full control over an elected government or they can influence or even 'fix' an election in the way that has been reported, regarding some elections all over the planet. — universeness

You've connected things in a very loose way that's not directly related to capitalism. Putin is a corrupt kleptocrat in a capitalist system, but there are corrupt kleptocrats in any economic system, why is this the fault of capitalism? You say rich elites can have full control of the government, but then also say a leader such as Putin has full control over those rich elites. The same thing occurred in feudalism, socialism, and colonialism and you've even said the exact same thing yourself, right?

It'd make more sense for you to say, "Actually, the economic system doesn't matter because the wealthy and powerful will always abuse the poor and powerless".

But to suggest that capitalists don't also hold government positions or government level power and influence is just plain naive. — universeness

I don't think I said or implied that they didn't... My point was completely unrelated to this.

You're introducing a huge topic and including multiple countries, all of human history, and complex political & economic realities on a national and international level. You're making a lot of claims in each comment without really delving into them deeply. I have a superficial understanding of your position, but I don't like trying to weave a grand narrative that simplifies everything so that we can very easily summarise all of human history. It's easy to say how 2000 years of history have been, and disgustingly difficult to add nuance to counter this argument. To analyse just capitalism is hard enough. Probably all I can say is that I agree with you on some things, but I've got no interest in debating such a broad topic.

Personal profit is the main purpose of capitalism. — universeness

It's a feature of power. The acquisition of ever greater power is assisted by possessing power. This occurs in capitalism, as you've described, but it's not a feature.

Many many times before, and in many different varieties and flavours, and such are merely unconvincing attempts to excuse and dilute how nefarious, monarchy and capitalism are. — universeness

Where little government oversight exists, things naturally play out to create monopolies and billionaires. As it is in the nature of power to go in that direction and there must be intent to prevent that. Many video games show the same process playing out, or just Monopoly is a classic example. When one side wins, the game resets, but what if that didn't happen? Easy enough to say, right?

Hard to discuss the merits or flaws of an economic system, without addressing it's ethical standing. — universeness

The risk is that your view will be dismissed as being unrealistic or impractical, morality is not divorced from convenience and practicality, but tied to it. There is a need to show that economies can succeed without resorting to unethical practices.

Perhaps you can explain to me further why you find my reasoning confusing or incorrect. — universeness

Well, probably the major issue with your argument is that capitalists aren't part of the government. For example, Jack Ma who founded Alibaba is an extremely rich and powerful capitalist, who exploits his workers ruthlessly in pursuit of profit. However, he is still ultimately a private citizen living in a totalitarian dictatorship. If Jack Ma pisses off the wrong people in the government, the laws don't protect him at all, and he can be imprisoned and stripped of his assets.

This highlights the differences between capitalists and the state, they are private citizens who ultimately, aren't priorities for the government. The US government had nothing to do with Mark Zuckerberg founding FB, and they did nothing to stop him from becoming a billionaire or growing larger and acquiring more businesses and power. Their policy is mostly one of inaction, rather than of conspiracy. (Not saying there's zero conspiracy, don't take me out of context).

I can't really see capitalism as a continuation of old systems like you've argued, it is just another system that has failed to control the growth of power. Whether socialism or communism would do a better job, it's possible that an iteration of them could, but so far, they've handled much worse or just as badly.

In terms of the citizen's perspective, capitalism goes against their interests, our productive capacity should produce a much higher standard of living than it does. I wasn't intending for this to be a thread about the ethics of capitalism, but I do think that the moral logic of the system is flawed, I think one part of the logic justifying the system of neoliberal capitalism is its effectiveness, which I am challenging. China, SK, Japan and so on are examples put forward by supporters of capitalism, for why it is necessary and superior to other systems. By challenging this narrative, and exposing its flaws, we can become more open to exploring alternatives.


I think to call a system capitalist, trading doesn't suffice, the key difference is that capitalism involves production and private ownership over the means of production. Buying something from one place and selling it in another doesn't qualify. For the same reason, we can't call a king's ownership of his lands private ownership, since he rules and governs those lands, he is not a private citizen.

The reason why this distinction is important is that capitalism is enriching private citizens, whereas you're comparing it to examples of government-based exploitation. I don't really know what to make of your argument, I kind of agree with many of your conclusions but how you got there confuses me.

I'm not sure I agree with this, e.g. sex roles and racial prejudice. I don't think these are not generally, or at least not always, expressed in a moral framework. I think they have to do more with psychological comfort, the need for standardization, and some sort of feeling for the smooth operation of society. — T Clark

Not exactly sure what you're not agreeing with. Gender roles have always been heavily tied to morality, and have always been expressed in a moral context. For instance, the idea that a woman should serve her husband is a moral argument using the moral framework. It's espousing ideas of right and wrong, and what one must do, and it has universal applicability.

Racism has similarly always been heavily tied to morality. Europeans had already decided slavery was wrong centuries before abolishing it, racism was the workaround.

Many ideas can be tied to morality, for example, if you think aliens will invade Earth in ten years, then morality can become about the necessity for everyone to work together to build up our defences. Sure, there is/can be a "need for standardization" and so on. Morality can focus on how important it is for us to have standardisation, and to see attempts to disrupt the standard way as immoral and reckless. That has happened and does happen, and conservatism is a highly prevalent mindset in morality.

The word "morality", as with many other complex English words, is bloated, filled with concepts that are distinct from each other, but also applicable in the same contexts. I distinguish between three separate concepts labelled as "morality".

The first is the evolutionary basis, that we are concerned about fairness, justice, and rules and think in terms of loyalty, betrayal and revenge. Could throw in the aversion to incest, perhaps some gender norms, it's debatable. The key features here are the emotional and psychological responses.

Secondly, there is a discussion about morality, which deals with the interpretation of what should or can be considered fair, reasonable or just. The evolutionary basis of morality just seems to entail a hatred of unfairness, but how something is interpreted to be fair or not is quite flexible. It could range from stoning someone to death over a minor offence to viewing violent responses as universally unjustified.

Thirdly, there's the morality that I'd call "philosophies of morality", which are not purely based on emotion or psychology and don't have to be at all. They can be completely divorced, and even a critique of the evolutionary basis of morality, such as emphasising logical and unbiased thinking. This might overlap with the second in providing an outline for understanding moral concepts such as fairness and justice. — Judaka

Sure, morality can cover any topic, including manners, nothing special about that. We would ask if it is fair, reasonable, or justified to be ill-mannered, and potentially one could find rudeness immoral.

How can we discuss the morality of various economic systems, or of governments, or of laws, and so many other things under your understanding of morality? I don't get it.

Do you consider basic acts of kindness to be part of morality? I don't...

Morality certainly has a wide variety of meanings, which makes it a very difficult word to use. I expect everyone to have a different idea of what it is, but the word holds power, and it's not always convenient to explain one's interpretation of such a complicated concept.

I don't lump in basic decency, kindness, the social contract, manners and any number of such things into the umbrella of morality. If you do, then we're just been talking past each other. I have outlined my views in the thread, but perhaps if I had agreed to talk about morality based on what you think it is, I wouldn't have said much of what I have, or I would've said it differently.

Isn't all social control coercive and unrealistic in that same sense? Society wants people to behave in a way that promotes the effective operation of society. — T Clark

Hmm, not in the same sense, morality polices thoughts and intentions as well, and it is used as the logic of groups. Any form of social control will be coercive in some sense, but it's mostly just policing actions, it's not quite the same. I also think that they're much less controversial because, unlike many moral views, social ideas such as the social contract, manners and rules of conduct aren't beneficial to any particular group, they're benign. Most people should be able to agree on them, and some moral ideas are like that too, but not always.

I don't it's that they don't care about creating something that may have very negative consequences. It's that there is enough uncertainty to allow them to justify acts they want to do for all the other reasons you listed. And then, if they need to to continue as they want to, they can deny the potential consequences. — T Clark

Well, I used it as an example, AI is a complicated issue that I won't get into here. I'm just saying we can't know whether they care or not because the environment is coercive, and that the incentives to find AI moral or immoral are playing a significant role in the debate.

I guess I didn't get it the first time around. — T Clark

No worries, pretty much all responses have interpreted the OP differently.

If we take an example of a moral system you don't like, an Islamist or ultra-nationalistic perspective, then you'll happily call those same elements coercive, but if it's one you do like, then it's direction, right? I take a birds-eye view, it's not popular, but I think it's correct.

These two things aren't the same, morality overriding other considerations and morality excluding them. I agree with these two points, and they together create the problem of my OP.

Is your only complaint that you'd prefer it if I used glowing and positive language to describe morality? I have a neutral view of morality, neither particularly liking nor disliking it. Whenever I don't use glowing language, I'm reprimanded just as now, and it reinforces my idea that I am completely correct to call it coercion. I suppose it only makes sense that moral zealots see this coercion as a purely positive thing.

In so far as morality can be conceptualised as part of one's "moral compass", or as you're talking about "self-coercion", I wouldn't have called it coercive and I didn't, just as I don't think desire is coercive.

Morality is socially coercive, it involves often heightened emotions and is utilised as the logic of the mob. Compliance can be selected because of duty, honour and empathy, as you say, but it can also be selected out of fear of ostracisation or disapproval.

By unrealistic, I mean that decisions made in the real world include a variety of considerations that aren't applicable in the moral context.

Now, I've made my reason clear for why I brought up these points in the OP and my previous comment, and it wasn't to say we should all be amoral or that I'm sad that people are forcing me to act morally, so please, spare me.

When you join a group you agree with that group's rules and principles of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

This is an implicit agreement, is it not? What groups are in question here? If one is born into a culture, a religion, or a society, don't they have rules and principles of right conduct? If one has to move interstate for work, and they enter into a new community, by your definition, they've agreed to the rules and principles of right conduct of this new place, that's an implicit agreement. Do you disagree with that?

You've told me that if one doesn't agree, then they should just leave the group. You're talking about people choosing between having to leave their hometowns and their families, changing religion, abandoning their culture, or agreeing to a particular set of principles and rules. If that's not a coerced agreement, then what is? They could teach kids the same ideas as yours in North Korea and it would fit just fine.

As for people disagreeing morality is coercive, well, I don't think everyone disagreed, and many who did, well they seem to have just read the title and the first two paragraphs or so. Morality is obviously coercive, but often in a good way, for example, if someone is a racist in public in my country, they'll quickly get shouted down by random people telling them to shut up. Perhaps many racists feel coerced into expressing non-racist ideas rather than their true feelings, but great, that's what we want anyway. There's literally no case to be made against morality being coercive, it makes zero sense. We want there to be repercussions for bad behaviour, that creates a coercive environment, that's it.


I'm not against formal morality, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that morality is coercive and unrealistic. I wanted to talk about some of the repercussions of that, and how to best handle it. I don't think morality is bad because it's coercive and unrealistic. It shouldn't be that controversial to say that morality is coercive and that it's a very specific way of thinking that excludes various categories of ideas.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I do despise the way people view morality, and how romanticised the concept is. If my way of phrasing things pissed some people off who wanted to argue against some of the basic features of morality with me, then I was here for it.

The basic issue described in my OP can be explained in many contexts, but let's take AI as a recent example. Why are people developing AI? Because they can, and for money, fame, because it's useful and perhaps for the betterment of mankind. What about the ethical and moral implications? Do the people developing the AI even give two shits about that? It's hard to say - because morality is coercive and we can assume that they wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of admitting that they don't care.

That's my first point, my second is that their decision to go ahead and develop the AI factored in their personal and financial goals, and the moral implications were probably there too. But within the moral context, personal and financial goals can't be included, and the moral implications were negative. You can't just tell people the truth, so, you need to come up with an argument to defend your actions, and this was my second point. This I think can be destructive for people's thinking as they will take this opportunity to work backwards.

Instead of asking "What is right?", they try to come up with a moral argument to justify their original decision or stance. Moral exploration occurs retrospectively, and so, people do come up with arguments to justify themselves, but why did they do that? It was not an honest investigation, they're biased towards finding themselves justified, and the conclusion is majorly biased. I think by acknowledging the environment is coercive, and that you are just satisfying a need to be convincing, you can avoid creating a nonsensical worldview as you would if you believed your lies.

Anyway, I dunno why I wrote so much when my OP says the same thing as my comment here, but now that I've written it I may as well post, hope it helps.

Here, I disagree that conformity does not require thought. — Alkis Piskas

Is your argument that conformity requires thought because you need to decide to conform? I'm not sure whether you've just decided to react to this comment in isolation or if it's supposed to have a bearing on the overall discussion, but this argument isn't compelling to me. The act of thinking about what to do or whether to do something can be said of virtually anything. Conformity is monkey see, monkey do, it is as thoughtful as obedience, where one can also "choose to or not to obey".

You've said the agreement is implicit, which ironically, also means it requires no thought whatsoever. Also, the groups we're talking about here are likely going to be ones that one was born into, such as one's culture, religion, region and etc. An implicit agreement, established upon birth or just by existing, to follow the rules or else, right?

Whatever difference there can be said to be here between conformity and obedience, or how much thought goes into this process, it's small. That being said, I am going by what you are describing and my imagination, since I don't perceive these issues like you do. If you're imagining in your head, a scenario that maximises the choice factor, while I'm imagining a scenario that doesn't, that could be responsible for this discrepancy. Even if I gave you everything here and admitted I was wrong, I don't see why it would undermine my position, or strengthen yours.

Right. Because you have your own rules adn principles of morality, isn't that so? We all have. But being social beings, we need to make compromises in order to live harmoniously with other people. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

It's not a matter of compromise. It's just that a moral argument is only compelling when it describes circumstances that impact the group. It doesn't work if I tell you how important it is that I'm paid fairly because I like how that would increase my pay. I must instead tell you it's important we're paid fairly because of the principles of fairness and justice, that there's a wrong that must be corrected. Morality must appeal to reasons that others can get behind and be invested in or it's pointless. Even one's personal moral ideas will have this feature to them, it's an essential part of moral thinking.

Therefore, we cannot say that morarily is "coercive" or "unrealistic". Can we? — Alkis Piskas

Having an acceptable moral defence for one's actions or stances is necessary and therefore coerced, and it's an unrealistic setting because one's reasoning is not purely based on the universally applicable concepts available in morality. One must retrospectively defend their position morally, even one that was formed outside of the moral context. Such a convenient defence may not exist, and one might need to get creative to try to make it work, and people do that all the time.

If one is forming a moral position, within the moral framework, then it doesn't matter, the limitations are there for a reason and it's not a problem.

Otherwise, for how long can one stay in group if one is in constant conflict with it? — Alkis Piskas

Permanently, no? But it does depend on the context and the group in question.

I can certainly see that! :smile: But I appreciate a lot your directness and how you proceed to establish your views — Alkis Piskas

Glad to hear it.

I will make the concept/subject of morality more "coercive" than just a "perspective". Morality, in general, means conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

I don't necessarily disagree that you can describe it that way, but only as a characterisation, it's not like morality is literally just conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. If it was conformity, then my OP would be pointless because conformity does not require thought, one simply only has to obey. If morality is obedience mandated upon joining a group, where there is an implicit agreement to obey that group's rules would indeed, I agree, have the impact you describe on my OP. However, there are many rules that describe right conduct that fall outside the purview of morality for me. Such as following manners & customs, law, the social contract, cultural norms and so on, and for some of these, I would agree with you, but not with morality.

My OP is not about the actual following of rules but the discussion that takes place surrounding morality. If it's just a set of rules to be followed, and it's "my way or the highway" then fine, but is that what morality is? Do groups represent a homogenous view on moral issues where no debates or discussions can be had?

But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

No, it's not right. As one is not forced to leave the group when refusing to stick with these moral principles as you call them. The option to not follow them or argue against them mightn't be agreeable to you, but is it there? Yes, and it's a core part of democratic, liberal Western ideals to allow freedom of speech, religion and values.

So, I can't see anything "coercive" or "unrealistic" in all this. Can you? — Alkis Piskas

I just don't agree with your view on morality at all, but if I did, then I can see your point.

First, I need to point out that you have added an arbitrary element to the description of morality: "any views that fall outside of this context are invalid". As I understand it, it is more than a logical implication that follows the description of morality: it's an implied criticism. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think it is a logical implication, it's a core feature of morality, the universal applicability of moral concepts. There must be some logic that dictates what is fairness, justice, and reasonable, that can be used to govern the group. Without this universal applicability and shared view, there is no unifying aspect that characterises morality. Your view of morality as a set of rules that the group must adhere to is an even more extreme version than what I've laid out. You've literally said that if someone's personal circumstances or beliefs or values contradict the rules of the group, then they should just leave. From that, it's hard to see why you would dispute my claim about the exclusion of views that don't matter to the group.

Emotions may just as well mislead us in regards to morality. How many terrible things aren't done out of fear or anger? And why couldn't the ethical thing to do be something that we don't feel particularly strongly about? — Tzeentch

You're right, but I don't have a purely positive view of morality, as many aspects of it are destructive and terrible. I refuse to only call morality that which I agree with, or that which has a positive outcome. You're also right that oppression is vague, and that's an implicit part of morality as well, I don't believe it ever operates using the clear rules people imagine. As I described earlier, we naturally bend the rules to suit our emotions, and it is far from impartial and fair. One could easily despise oppression in one case but then ignore it in another as is convenient.

That isn't so much a justification, but rather a means of rationally understanding the nature of the act. — Tzeentch

I understand your point, you have a broader perspective that includes one's attitudes and characterisations such as the guilt and emotional turmoil, and the sombre reflection you describe. To call that part of morality is definitely fair, and I agree with you. It could be seen manifested in one's desperation to kill in self-defence as only a last resort, and in one's actions afterwards towards the victim & their family and so on.

I don't view morality as a set of principles but as a set of emotional and psychological characteristics that allow humans to perceive fairness, justice, loyalty, revenge, and so on. Within the second type of morality is the logic of fairness and justice. If something is immoral, then it inspires anger and disgust when you see it, you experience an instinctive rejection of it.

If I say "Oppression is wrong", when I see oppression, I am horrified and enraged, I want to destroy it, correct it, and I'm filled with sympathy and deep sadness towards the victims. Morality requires this strong emotional reaction.

Lying isn't inherently moral or immoral, because it's not inherently unfair or unjust, or at least, no one ever really sees it that way.

In the case of killing in self-defence, if it was necessary then most would say it's justified, I assume you feel the same. That would mean no triggering of any of the emotions associated with morality. You wouldn't hesitate to do it, you wouldn't stop someone else from doing it, and you wouldn't dislike that it was done, or any person who did it, so it was allowable and acceptable to you, right? Saying afterwards that it was still "immoral" because killing is wrong, well, that's just a bit hollow to me. It's your feelings that show what you find moral and immoral, not your words, right?

So what does it mean for something to be immoral, if it's permitted or encouraged? Lying is wrong, I'm allowed to do it under various circumstances, but it's "immoral"? Is that an attitudinal thing then, or something else? To me, if something is immoral, then you denounce and condemn it, to say it's immoral and acceptable is a contradiction.


Err, I don't understand what you're responding to, but there is no functional difference between those things. It's probably that you would accept the argument that society would be worse off if people pointlessly and maliciously dirtied each other's property, and you don't accept it'd be worse off if people were allowed to have consensual homosexual sex.

There are those who believe society is worse off for allowing the latter, but you don't share that view. I don't think there's much more to it than that, right? It's just basic social contract stuff.

I agree morality is often overapplied. A completely amoral society would still have the social contract, it would still have laws, there would still be manners, things that were culturally unacceptable, expectations on your behaviour and so on.

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules.

I think this is more a problem with people being fraudulent. — Tzeentch

Well, it's just how language works, you call it being fraudulent because you believe it, and someone who didn't believe that wouldn't agree with you. The same applies to moral terms, language always expresses the opinions and feelings of the speaker. When one puts their objective moral ideas into words and condemns "negative word", that negative word will only be used by a speaker who feels negatively about something.

When someone does this within their own thinking, to say, for example, "I hate idiots", what they really mean is "When people frustrate me, I call them idiots". It's backwards, they don't dislike idiots, they call people idiots when they're displeased with them, and one earns the word by displeasing them.

The exceptions are often sensible, I'm sure we could come up with many examples where lying is acceptable. Such as if it's to preserve something important, or because one is being threatened, or any number of other things. And then if one is allowed to interpret these concepts as they wish, to define "being threatened" as they want, then you've already allowed the subjectivity to explode. It's pretty much unavoidable. I imagine you perhaps feel differently because you alone follow your moral code. If you actually had others following it, you'd see it be perverted by their application, it's inevitable.

I'd say that's a typical example of deceptive language; the way we seperate immoral things that also happen to be very convenient (tax) from immoral things which are not convenient (theft). — Tzeentch

A moral system may state unequivocally that "Theft is immoral! No excuses!". However, not only are there many exceptions but since one has complete control over whether they describe something as theft or something else, the judgement is really subjective and applied very flexibly.

We can condemn oppression, cruelty, racism, bullying and whatever else but it's often a pointless gesture. For example, who would call something they liked and agreed with oppression? We're literally just saying "We oppose what we oppose". Objective moral principles are fraudulent, they are to be applied as one wishes, when one wishes, towards whatever or whomever one wishes. There is no moral system that has ever worked differently.

What do you mean by this? — Tzeentch

In so far as describing the morality being applied by 99% of people, in 99% of cases, that it is deeply concerned with the interpretation of fairness, reasonableness and logic, and does not condemn based on hard principles. It has always been that way.

I'd say concepts such as reasonableness and fairness are everything in morality, and even moral systems that supposedly are strict and rigid only appear so. Lying would be 100% wrong, but then there would be a plethora of exceptions, and then due to the many ways one could interpret and characterise the concepts involved, the result is normally that it's not rigid at all.

We even have different words for things, such as tax not being theft, even though we're literally being forced to give up part of our incomes under threat of imprisonment (thought you'd like that one).

I understand how you'd like things to be, but if we're talking about how things actually are, then you should know you're wrong.