However, Individual-1 is a proven traitor and so it's incumbent on the +81 million of us who weren't brain-dead enough to have voted in 2020 to reelect this malfeasant venal man-baby to make an "unprecedented" example of him. :victory: :mask:

FYI – I'm (we're) waiting on pending indictments to drop in (one at least before the midterm elections in November)
• Federal DoJ investigation of "2020 fake electors conspiracy"
• Federal DoJ investigation of "2020-2021 J6 insurrection conspiracy and obstruction of justice"
• Fulton County, GA DA's investigation of "2020 suborning election fraud & fake electors conspiracy"
• (pending) New York State AG investigation of "2002-2016 tax, insurance, bank, etc fraud ..." for which Individual-1 & co are currently being civilly sued by the NYS AG
• Federal DoJ investigation of "2021-2022 espionage, obstruction of justice, etc ..."
• (so far – stay tuned!)
— 2022-23 Trumpster fire
as well as release (leak) of Putin's Bitch's embarrassing & damning tax returns – also (I hope) before the midterm elections – along with the J6 Select Committee's Preliminary Report. — 180 Proof

True. Absolutely..., but give me an honest description of the alternative and tell me it is any less appalling. As a nation, US is stuck in a rutt, and the stakes are tightening. Fascism and commusism are on the rise, and we will probably end up with one or the other when the dust settles, whenever that may be.

Based on what? I still see Republicans defending him or arguing that prosecuting him could lead to violence, which in bait-speak is saying people should riot if Trump is prosecuted — Benkei

If legal action against ex-presidents becomes a "thing", we are entering a new age of tyranny. Yet, this has been brought on by the negligence of Presidents abusing the power of the office for decades.

I think in this age of social media, people are able to whine louder than ever, yet the complaints about Trump are mostly overblown. There is really no action to take, and no precedent for taking legal action against a former president. We could make similar complaints about any president that has served in our lifetimes. Actually, there are other presidents that have been far worse than Trump and recieved zero punishment (viz. LBJ and Bush).

just being facetious. However, since you ask, I'm personally opposed to warfare because i believe it is the activity of an inferior subhuman anthropoid species.

Is there any real interest to do anything about Trump — baker

Nope. Trump is just a political football for the democrats to whine about. If anything, Trump is merely a symptom of a greater problem.

Why the colossal failure of the US justice system and the American public in general? — baker

Decadence.

But if Trump will in fact face punishment (including jail time), what does that mean for America?
A civil war, for sure. — baker

Civil war...we can only hope. Unfortunately, just like nothing happened to Bush and Cheney for indisputably being outright war criminals, nothing will happen to Trump for all of his vague quasi-criminal offenses (which every president is more or less guilty of).

Sure. Since I've been here, it's pretty much Bartricks insisting the mind is indivisible and ignoring all criticisms of his arguments, all the while insisting that others don't actually read books, etc. It's a sit-com where watching any episode prepares you for all the others. Variations on a theme. — Pie

Lol. Let me take up the mantle and argue on behalf of an indivisible mind.

My contention is quite simple: My mind is distinct from yours but that means there are at least 2 minds which shouldn't be possible if mind is indivisible. — Agent Smith

But how do you know it is not identical? We cannot use spatiotemporal relations to define the demarcations of mind, unless you are willing to reduce mind to physical explanations. Im not.

My contention is quite simple: My mind is distinct from yours but that means there are at least 2 minds which shouldn't be possible if mind is indivisible. — Agent Smith

I missed this, one sec to respond

What exactly do you mean when you say the mind is divisible and also indivisible? I get that in one way it is and in another way it isn't. How exactly? Danke in advance. — Agent Smith

I am only saying that from one point of view it appears indivisible, and from another it appears divisible. I am only saying that this is how it appears from differing perspectives, and I suspect that where they intersect, we may find a better depiction of the truth of it all Perhaps, if we could adquately define a third perspective, we could triangulate the reality of the mind's singularity. Any thoughts, you're very intelligent?

I'm not sure if I follow. Speaking for myself, if the mind is divisible in any way at all, and you claim it is from a "mind perspective", then that's it, the debate comes to an end then and there. — Agent Smith

I think you follow fine. I'm not trying to be clever. If I get you, you are saying that mind trumps sense in all cases. Correct?

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out? — Pie

You seem like a very nice interlocutor, would you be so kind as to recapitulate the debate for us late comers? Pretty please. :pray:

Are the walls talking to you again? — Bartricks

My walls always speak to me, my sister. :kiss:

it is quite simple. From mind perspective it is divisible. From sense perspective it is indivisible. The two perspectives impose upon each other within a singular organism, causing major confusion amongst philosophers on TPF. :chin:

i am @Merkwurdichliebe. Im just saying that if we are going to invoke authority over our own reason, easter bunny is as good as any.

just answer the question. Fuck according to whom. Are we dependent on the authority of authorities? Maybe so, what does the pope say?

Firstly. I admire your fealessness. It is a relief from all the question dodgers that dominate TPF. Keep it up. There is no quicker way to work out your arguments.

The conclusion follows as a matter of logic.

Sorry if the conclusion is inconvenient, but there you go - the truth sometimes is. — Bartricks

I only disagree with your reasoning. Not your conclusion. :cool:

How are you addressing anything I said? Why am I writing posts explaining my argument again and again and again, when you don't seem to be able to address it? — Bartricks

Maybe you are a stoopid poopu dummy head. That is not a reason to stop posting your genius philosophies.

If you really are published on this, then tell us the title of your book or article — Janus

Being published makes nobody an authority in anything. Fuck em. This is TPF, I say: say what you have to say here, there is nothing stopping you other than your own bullshit that will never fly.

ok, go back to terrorizing the externalist non-materialists, more power to you

:lol:

Perhaps we should distinguish between a sense of human entitlement (lords and masters, gifted this garden by god) from the adoption of norms governing claims (we ought to be rational). — Pie

Im claiming that you are overrgeneralizing a popular interpretion of christiantiy, as well as @Janus. Im arguing that there are many christians that interpret the words as "man was left as caretaker, not master". It is evident in the common subordinate attitude of many Christians, which Nietzsche was appalled by.

Conservatives are (in my experience) less likely to care about the treatment of pigs and chickens. That's anecdotal, and I'm willing to adjust my prejudice. I connect this more generally to a conservative reluctance to see the human species as continuous with the rest of the animal kingdom. In practical terms, this might manifest as a resentment of protections of an endangered species, if they interfere with profit. — Pie

I'm not arguing a political position here, so let's not get off course with my next question: but how is the christian positition concerning the issue of prochoice abortion (slaughtering a fetus) any different than the secular notion of cruelty towards animals ( viz: slaughtering pigs for food)? The opponents both master nature.

the largely Christian notion of humanity as masters of nature — Janus

That is not what I see with Christian culture, with all its anti-science shit. If any demographic views itself as master of nature, it would be atheistic-leftist types with all their science shit. Maybe you can elaborate.

I think that from the existential situation it's enough to say that it doesn't matter if its relative or universal -- the choice remains. It's because freedom is forced on us by our very existence that we find these questions. — Moliere

I agree, existentially speaking, universality is irrelevant. The reason I'm bringing up the universal is because I see a lot of opinions on this thread that say morality is about selfishness vs altruism, and I see this as taking the conversation away from existential ethics.

My point is: that which is universal to morality is necessary for existential ethics, whereas, a particular set of ethical principles (or a specific moral code) is not. Things like choice and conscience (meaning: an immanent sense of good and evil, not specific ethical principles) are universal to ethics, and hit directly on existential notions of morality.

I think even here that Nietzsche could say the same -- let the philosophers have their truth in their academies where they commune with the forms. No one is moved by these thoughts anymore -- objective or subjective, humans desire and do things from desire. — Moliere

When philosophers talk about desire, they call it normative. I can understand why no one is moved by these thoughts anymore.

No moral law or form could possibly hold sway, except on a small individual basis or, in the case of communities, with the use of violence.

Morality has it's greatest significance for the individual. There is always a demand on the individual to conform to the good, and in many cases this does not require the individual to judge others by his own moral standard. It is when the individual begins judging the other by his standard that community morality becomes relevant. I could see a genuine ethical system in the dynamic of a nuclear family. But outside of that, community morality begins veering off into the domain of appearances (viz.: what can you get away with, and what can they prove), and violence (whether through brainwashing or coercion). In ethics, the individual is always primary.

Being moral must include not just recognition of the existence of competing needs but a commitment to satisfying the needs of the other as well as oneself. — Banno

Perhaps, that certainly is an optimal view of morality. But what about the cases where being moral necessitates ignoring the existence of competing needs, and neglecting to satisfy the needs of the other as well as oneself?

that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd:

what is this earthspaceship theory?

He's continuing to delete perfectly normal posts of mine. What the heck? — Tate

Typical marxist censorship. You are just asking for a black bag over your head. :death:

The world is unpredictable and the human world is radically unpredictable, and folks can make a case for lying, for torture, for war, and all manner of things that in themselves have objective negative value, but might possibly have positive consequences. — unenlightened

The "dark side" is generally an unsatisfactory position, and it it is unfortunate that it has as much validity as the "sunny side". Whatever the case, each side makes absolute demands, and holds hypocrisy in great contempt. And I can't think of anything that is more necessary or universal to morality.

But I don't see how good and bad can exist independent of the shared personal preferences of a community. — Yohan

That depends. If a person were to live in complete isolation, is it possible for good/bad to exist for him, or would every norm simply be about preference and practicality?

Always with the flattery, You just can't help yourself. :mask:

[....]because God does not exist on high, will also not exist -- so why bother, if you're not immortal, to live with a code for a world that doesn't exist, that will not exist, and is even counter to the type of being you are? — Moliere

If it matters for any reason, it is because: to stand firm on one's moral principles will prevent one from being a hypocrite, a pathetic wretch of a creature, worthy of neither love nor respect. Those people know who they are, regardless if it can ever be known or proven to another. Of course, this only begs the question: is this merely a relativistic opinion, or a universal truth?

As it is, baseless subjectivity is the defect being explored. Dedication to principles for a kingdom of ends that will eventually be is one way human beings carry on, ethically -- they even convince themselves that if they repeat certain patterns to themselves that they have contact with Forms or Eternal Good or something. We're an odd, irrational species. — Moliere

But it's not a satisfying one, from what I can see. Who even understands it but a handful of nerds who like to read? — Moliere

We certainly are odd. Its also why nerdy philosophers invent shit that nobody else understands nor cares about. And I also agree, that its not an edifying view of ethics. To be honest, i'm being lazy here. Compared to arguing for an absolute universal morality (in the Platonic sense), I have been taking the path of least resistance by settling on a more phenomenological perspective of morality (as you indicated).

Moral reason generally has no middle ground and makes no exceptions outside the case of an ethical dilemma. — Merkwurdichliebe

That means if an individual reasons that selflessness is an ethical good, he must always choose selflessness. That doesn't mean that selflessness is an ethical good for every individual.

Morality is not universal in its particular demands (such as selflessness), unless, of course, we can show the existence of absolute morality. Until then, moral reason can only be universal in its demand for absolute compliance. Moral reason generally has no middle ground and makes no exceptions outside the case of an ethical dilemma.

Now, do you think that moral reasons are grounded in self-interest or not? — Bartricks

No. Moral reasoning is not grounded in self interest nor altruism. It is the reverse, self interest and altruism (as well as every other norm) become grounded in moral reasoning when they have been assigned an ethical value (e.g. good/evil, right/wrong). If there is no ethical value applied to a norm, it is likely an example of instrumental reasoning. Then, norms such as self interest and altruism become a nonmoral practical matter (e.g. correct/incorrect, like/dislike).

I dunno how courts calculates damages that have to be paid to the wronged party. — Agent Smith


For the sake of amusement — Ennui Elucidator

It's the same algorithm Netflix uses to make recommendations of what you'll like.

one of the marks of a moral reason is that it is grounded in interests other than one's own. — Bartricks

I have shown why I disagree. I'll continue to reinforce my position in this issue as long as this thread has life.

If i have reason to do something due to it serving some of my ends, then we describe that reason as an instrumental or practical reason, not a moral reason. — Moliere

That is indeed a case of instrumental (not moral) reason. But if we assign it an ethical value (such as the right/wrong, good/evil, &c. of serving one's interests) it is no longer instrumental, but moral reason.

The point is just that when the ground of the reason for action is some consideration that is not to do with one's self - not to do with promoting one's own interests - it can qualify as a moral reason. — Moliere

That is accepable to me because it is a possibility (that altruism can be counted as something moral in the proper context), but it is by no means a necessity. The problem you and @Moliere are not recognizing in this exchange is that you are reducing morality to selfishness/altruism. But these are only particular perspectives based on moral reasoning. And until we can demonstrate the existence of an universal and absolute moral code, morality as a matter of selfishness/altrusism has ground in nothing but baseless subjectivity.

If you'd taken the trouble to read what I said on the subject, then you'd know that I do not know what an 'existential ethics' is.

But anyway, my point - whether you're interested in it or not - is that one of the marks of a moral reason is that it is grounded in interests other than one's own.

Make of that what you will. — Bartricks

Firstly, you are a fine interlocutor. I hope we can have a passionate and edifying discourse.

I want to thank you for providing that summary. Let'ssee where this thought experiment takes us. "Standby while I reply.": (Trademark: @Merkwurdichliebe)

now you owe me some incorrigiblility :blush:

"Flatter" me, Merkwurdichliebe, and show me where this conception goes wrong — 180 Proof

I'll flatter you good like :kiss: .

When an agent seeks to help her own welfare by helping, harming or ignoring the welfare of another, the agent does so by instrumental reasoning.

That is probable, but not necessary. As I have previously said, the instrumental and moral are discrete categories. You are assigning no ethical value in this case, so it is a case of instrumental reason. If you are intending to assign ethical value, I only ask that you clarify.

When an agent seeks to help the welfare of another whether or not her own welfare is helped, the agent does so by moral reasoning.

I'll flatter you some more. This is an example of moral reasoning (as opposed to instrumental reasoning). You are not assessing the situation in terms of how its satisfies self interest, but in terms of how it conforms to your (hypothetically speaking) conception of good and evil. If I am off, I only ask that you clarify.

These are completely different ways of thinking, which everybody does all the time, every day.

Why did you say 'exactly'? I was correcting you. You think moral reasons 'are' instrumental reasons. They're not. — Bartricks

Did I say that somewhere? If so, I was most likely being extemporaneous, an meant it rhetorically... If so, I retract the insinuation of any literal intent.

I was really wondering why you randomly brought up instrumental reason when the subject is on existential ethics. Weird. :chin: I suspect it was mere sophistry on your part, trying to prove that morality can be reduced to selfishness and altruism.