I admit there are situations such as the one which you here describe. But the examples I have provided to Landru, and he has provided to me, were not of this type.

You wax lyrical about giving-up one's interest for the moral good, but are unwilling to commit to it when it actually comes to living. Provided the dictator can do what they want (i.e. no-one is presenting them), you proclaim how it's perfectly fine, despite everyone knowing the pursuit of this self-interest is morally terrible. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well I agree that the dictator in question SHOULD give up their self-interest in this case. But they may not. And if they don't, it's a decision of their will. They know it's wrong, and yet still do it. They are lovers of evil.

Your moral analysis is not the courageous victory of truth over human naivety. It the mindless worship of power. You only stand against self-interest when it threatens the power you hold ought to govern society. Any evil your preferred govern commits you a perfectly fine with. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why do you say so? I have already admitted that the dictator in question ought to give up his self-interest, but he may not do so. The fact that he doesn't do so - though he knows full well that he is doing evil - only shows a choice that they have made; namely that they are lovers of evil rather than lovers of good.

So no - I am not fine with his evil, and will do what I can to stop it.

Because a person who is content with what they have and does not desire certain things is far better off and happier than a person who is stuck in rat race of desire. — darthbarracuda

Bingo! There we have it. For you, being happy is the most important thing. However, for many people, simply being happy isn't. They want to live a certain kind of life, and this desire is prior to the desire of being happy. The desire of being happy comes only after. So while for you the desire of being happy is primal, for them, it is a different desire that is primal. What is to be done with such people, who, from my experience, form the majority (notice they may state that the thing they want most is to be happy, but if you probe a little deeper, you'll realise that actually they only want to be happy in a certain way)?

I agree. Read the other thread with Landru (about happiness) where I state exactly this, contra Landru.

However the dictator may agree that it were better that (s)he didn't exist. And yet, despite identifying that (s)he is immoral in pursuing that interest, (s)he may pursue it for the reasons I have given above. In other words, presupposing that one will do what one should (the good) is wrong. Someone may actively know that what they do is bad and yet still do it. "I do not do the good I know that I should do, but the evil I should not do" paraphrased after St. Paul

Hard to see how this claim would survive even cursory scrutiny, and the examples already given seem to do that. But in any case it is yours to defend. You certainly haven't convinced me that this vague claim provides any useful moral guidance or doesn't lead to absurdities. — Landru Guide Us

Is morality anything more than being good, with being good defined in a manner which doesn't necessarily include self-interest?

To me, morality and goodness are intrinsically linked. What is good, in a general sense, is moral. What is good for me, may or may not be moral :)

Then it is the case that the person should re-evaluate their picture on life and temper some of these desires. — darthbarracuda

Why?

A simple analogy will show this: a dictator may want, above anything else, to be in power and authority. But is this goal realistic and how much is he going to suffer (alongside other people) in his quest for a goal? Is this dictator ignorant of his capabilities and the repercussions it will have for him and the rest of the world? — darthbarracuda

To my mind, this example merely proves my point. A dictator would rather die than cease to be a dictator; which means that (s)he isn't willing to be happy unless they can be happy in the kind of life they want to live (which in this case is ruling over other people). Is the goal realistic (I suppose you mean by this achievable)? Maybe. Even if it isn't, (s)he isn't interested in pursuing any other goal. So what options does (s)he have? (S)he may be perfectly conscious that (s)he is not capable to fulfil his/her goal, and yet still pursue it, because the pursuit of his/her desire is the only thing of value (s)he has.

It is my sincere belief that this misguided desire to live a certain way is one of the fundamental reasons why the world is the way it is (that is, broken and unfortunate). — darthbarracuda

Possibly. But that isn't to mean that people don't have it. And why do they have it? Because living a certain way is more important than happiness for them.

doing what's in one's best interest, which, arguably, means that you should tell the robber where your sister is. — Sapientia

I disagree that goodness has to be in my self-interest to be goodness. I identify many things which aren't in my self interest, which are in fact damaging to my self-interest, as good. So your theory seems to me to be, prima facie, false.

Wouldn't it be better in that case, at least from a consequentialist viewpoint, to take actions contrary to those moral values? — Sapientia

It would be better to identify what the correct moral values are if that is the case.

To moralize that, particularly from a false claim that the judge of morality is stronger than those weak people, is not only obscene, but probably immoral in itself. It's blaming the victims. — Landru Guide Us

The judge of morality doesn't have to be stronger than those weak people. He can be just as weak as them, and yet identify that it would be better if he was stronger.

It's not a weakness. It's who we are. — Landru Guide Us

I say it is a weakness, in-so-far as it would be better if we were different. Would you disagree with the statement "it would be better for someone to act morally under the threat of death/torture"?

But they aren't more moral since the alternative isn't immoral. — Landru Guide Us

What do you think about the Auschwitz situation I presented? Personally I feel very strongly that one of those people is morally superior to the other - one was willing to sacrifice himself to protect others, while the other was willing to sacrifice others to protect himself.

Read the ending of 1984. It illuminates the limits of morality in the face of power. — Landru Guide Us

Why do you think this necessarily is the ending? I believe that man can end it differently in the face of power. It is indeed exceedingly difficult, and few are the ones who can, but why would you think it is impossible? By most accounts, Jesus on the cross said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they're doing!" - showing that in terrible pain and suffering, he was more concerned about the fate of his killers than about himself - something truly glorious about man, that he can harbour such goodness in him. And historically, if you read for example, Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, you'll see that there were prisoners in Auschwitz who did give their last remaining portion to save a fellow prisoner. There were prisoners who risked their lives to save loved ones. There were prisoners who sacrificed themselves for the good of the others. Why do you think this is impossible? In my mind, this is the most admirable thing in man, and no action can be greater than this. The people who have it in them to maintain their goodness in the face of the greatest terrors, they are the only real people, the only ones worthy to be called human beings. All the rest of us, we are merely animals and worms, who deserve to perish as we do. People who are in many regards moral cowards, like myself with many things, do not deserve the contemplation of any sort of eternal life or heaven. Putting such people in Heaven would make Heaven itself miserable. Earth is sufficient for us. Let Heaven be for those who truly deserve it.

Better to be miserable being who we are, than happy being who we're not :)

These sort of absurd contradictions is sufficient evidence that your moral claims have no force. — Landru Guide Us

Very well - that doesn't matter. Because I agreed to what was essential in your point, namely that I wouldn't act that way in some situations. But I asked you a question, which has to do with your position more than with mine.

Why do you think that in the face of great suffering people cannot act morally? You think someone who, in self-sacrificing fashion, gives up his food so that a starving child may have it in a place like Auschwitz, you think that person is morally equivalent to one who kills a child so that he may take his food and survive? — Agustino

Don't avoid answering the important part :) I didn't special plead to avoid your point, I actually tackled it by means of another example, which I would agree with.

Nope, you're just confusing two separate things: that life is worth living and knowledge or awareness that life is worth living. You therefore fail to account for those cases in which life is worth living despite lacking that knowledge or awareness. — Sapientia

I agree with this remark. However, it must be added that someone who lives a good life without examining their life can only live a life worth living accidentally, as opposed to by choice.

So if a robber holds a gun to your head and you give him the money, you're committing the immoral act of abetting a robbery? Oh the absurdity of imposing morality on people in extremis. — Landru Guide Us

I don't find that to be an instance of abetting a robbery. Nor do I find giving a thief my own money to be something morally wrong. Let me give a better example:

Let's say a robber breaks into my house, and puts a gun to my head demanding I tell him where my sister is hiding because he wants to kill her. He tells me that if I tell him, he will spare me. If I don't, he will kill me, as well as look for my sister. Supposing that I cannot lie and must necessarily tell the truth, or refuse to say anything, what should I do? I should refuse to say, even if this means I will die. However, in real life, I most probably will not refuse to say, and will tell the robber where my sister is. Why? Because I am too weak to uphold my moral values. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't uphold them.

Like Ben Carson you would have rushed the Wehrmach and let them torture you to death before you would do anything immoral in a concentration camp. Right. — Landru Guide Us

No, probably I wouldn't have sufficient courage. But that is said to my shame, not as a way to justify that the action is somehow not immoral just because I do it, and because I was forced to do it.

My principle: There is no moral way to act when you are beaten, tortured, threatened with death. There are no moral choices in that situation. Just suffering. Now some courageous people act courageously even in extreme situations. We should acknowledge that. But that has nothing to do with morality. — Landru Guide Us

Why do you think that in the face of great suffering people cannot act morally? You think someone who, in self-sacrificing fashion, gives up his food so that a starving child may have it in a place like Auschwitz, you think that person is morally equivalent to one who kills a child so that he may take his food and survive?

The argument is is directed at theists, and more specifically, as darthbarracuda rightly points to, at the modern western theists one is likely to encounter either on the internet on in north america. — Reformed Nihilist

So you think your argument can convince a theist to become an atheist? Why do you think an argument can facilitate this conversion, as opposed to life experiences, etc.?

I just sought to make the point that most atheists are atheists due to emotional motives, so they don't really need an "emotional argument", which is what you seek to provide :)

I am such an atheist Reformed Nihilist. But I despise atheists generally, because intellectually they are very shallow, just like S. Harris, R. Dawkins, etc.

Given those points, I'd like to offer a fairly simple logic based but emotive argument, similar to Pascal's wager — Reformed Nihilist

No need to do this. Most atheists already disbelieve God for emotional reasons, which are merely masked under elaborative arguments, which, however, ultimately lack rigour.

So we have two people who, for whatever reasons, in good faith (no pun intended), see the same things and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. — Reformed Nihilist

Nope, most of them already had the conclusions prior to seeing the things; that's the sad and unfortunate aspect of it.

If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. — Reformed Nihilist

No - you will, if you are like most atheists, have believed something because you didn't want God to exist, not because you had ample evidence that he didn't.

Oh, one other thing: Happy New Year. — Bitter Crank

Thanks, Happy New Year to you too! :)

There is also something wrong with a moral system that is rigidly black and white, and makes no exceptions. — Bitter Crank

I think you are confusing an attitude with a system, and attempting to systematise an attitude, which is something that is impossible. I will explain later on in this post.

a moral system worth it's salt will provide for failure. Nobody is perfect, everybody is quite flawed. Failure to live up to the law giver's high standards will be epidemic and endemic. The wise law giver recognizes this, and provides for forgiveness and reconciliation. — Bitter Crank

A law cannot provide for an abnegation of the law. That has to do with an attitude of the law-giver and law-enforcer.

I assume your atheism resembles the psychological state of your pre-atheistic period of belief-- it must have been pretty grim — Bitter Crank

Quite the contrary. I was raised an Orthodox Christian, and the religion, if you have read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov for example, emphasizes forgiveness and love much more than God's wrath. In fact, in Orthodox Christianity, both sinners and saints go to the same place after death: the only difference is in the manner in which they percieve it, so the torment of the sinners is self-inflicted and not imposed by God. The sinner will merely percieve God's love as a scorching fire; but he can always stop, even after death, and become closer to God.

Ever since I was young, I was always against this system though - it gives a license to sin to people. It basically says "Look, it doesn't matter if you sin in the end, because we all sin; so don't fret about it, focus on God's love, and everything will be fine". So my attitude has never been religious. Morality is prior to religion, and is required for the proper functioning of society. My moral views came prior to my religion.

I think that the fact that you think my religious views were quite grim, and hence my post-religious views are grim implies only the fact that you think people can only emphasise the value of a rigid morality if they are to begin with religious. You think morality, in the traditional sense, requires religion. That one is motivated by religion to believe so. I don't think that at all. Quite the contrary, I disagreed with priests and everyone: God could not have given people a license to sin; that he did give them such a license is to my ears an abomination.

Since you, yourself, are going to fail at achieving perfection, you might as well install a system of forgiveness and mercy for yourself, and those who deal with. People will d-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t you, I swear to Wotan. Get ready. — Bitter Crank

No system of forgiveness and mercy can exist without becoming a license to sin. Forgiveness and mercy are practical attitudes that a law-giver and law-enforcer have to adopt in order to avoid unnecessary sacrifices of valuable people. But you cannot put these in the law. This was, in truth, Jesus's point. A wise ruler will forgive, but he will uphold the law as it is: unforgiving - "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it"

If I sell my sister into slavery, this should not be forgiven. Whether she decides to forgive me later on or not, doesn't change this fact. Depending on the circumstance she may decide to forgive me - but this is grace - not that I deserve to be forgiven, because I don't (and the fact that I don't is really important). People nowadays behave immorally so often because they think they have a license to do so - they expect to be forgiven. This is nonsense. A society simply cannot be structured on no principles like this. So forgiveness must never be introduced into the law. People should never expect forgiveness. Forgiveness should be the result of someone's grace and mercy, not anyone's right.

So no - I shouldn't install a system for forgiveness and mercy for myself. If I fail, I fail, and deserve the punishment that the law demands. In fact, I want to be punished in that case. If I'm not, I'll be exceedingly glad and thankful to the person who has forgiven me. But I won't expect them to. This not expecting to implies admission that I have done wrong, and repentance for my actions, which means that in the future I will change my ways and not do the same wrong again (that is also how I re-interpret the biblical teaching - I should at one point talk about the role I think religion plays and ought to play in society - one forgives because the person in question has internally changed so as not to commit the wrong again - not forgives for forgiveness sake).

And yes - some people will disappoint, others won't. I've met both kinds. Depends among whom you keep company. Typically those who expect to be forgiven are the most likely to do wrong from what I've noticed. Those who never expect to be forgiven, the least likely, and the most likely to change their ways if they do.

Yeah, well, there we have it. If your moral system can't tell the difference between a Nazi and a Jewish victim struggling to survive the horrors of Nazism, it really isn't worth much. This is what happens once you go down the road of rightwing thinking — Landru Guide Us

One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course.

Happy New Year everyone!! :)

You have no idea what you would do when your life is threatened by somebody with power over you. It's intellectual absurd to claim otherwise. You will do what you do based on where you are in life as you face a horrible situation not of your own making. I would call somebody who sold his wife into slavery at pain of death cowardly or less heroic than somebody who didn't (I think it's curious that this is exactly what Abraham did, whether you are aware of that or not). But not immoral. That's especially true if you lived to do something about it, rather than just got yourself killed and have your wife sold into slavery anyway. That's stupid (but also not immoral). I would save the charge of immorality for the person forcing the choice on you. He's the immoral one. — Landru Guide Us

There is no difference Landru. It's still a failure to live up to my moral standards. I know I won't be able to in those circumstances, but that's because Im a coward, and I admit to it... How can there be a difference? Does being forced to make a decision make it different? Does my life being threatened make it different? What is it that makes it different?

You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick — Landru Guide Us

No I am given to moral introspection. But look Landru. If I sell my wife in slavery in order to save my life, I have still done something immoral. The reason why I sold my wife doesn't change that. The fact that I can't stop myself from selling my wife in that case has to do with my own personal weakness, and can in no way justify the action as moral. So a priori both me and you will agree that the action is most certainly not moral. However, we disagree if it's immoral. Notice that there is no disagreement in regards to its morality, we both agree that for certain it's not moral. But there is certainly disagreement in regards to its immorality. Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, extreme situations, such as being forced in a labor camp, are the only situations which show who is truly moral and who isn't. Most of us fake being moral. At least if we fake it, let us not defend the fakery, and admit to the truth. At least that much we can do. Why shall we deceive even ourselves? What is the point of that nonsense? I am immoral. Okay. Not a problem. But let me at least be aware of it, and keep it keenly in mind. It's despicable how so many people pretend to morality, while in truth they are venomous snakes. The world would be a much better place if we didn't RATIONALISE our failings, but admitted them to be exactly that: failures. We've built a culture which only rationalises our failures and nothing else.

But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation. I can judge them as cowards or as unempathetic or or as dangerous to others. But not immoral. Nobody should morally judge others who find themselves in extremis for reasons not of their own making. — Landru Guide Us

You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong.

That's... in a pile, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I didn't know a beach is a pile. It's sand grains together. So the property of a single sand grain is hardness. The property of a group of sand grains is softness. Natural tendency is a property of the group of human beings, not of any individual human being.

Your position is that you can understand individuals through "man in general" (i.e. property of "man in general" is of individuals, such that universal of the "man in general" describe something about the individual). — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this simply isn't my position. More straw-manning.

The problem is sort of the reverse you suggest: you claim individuals belong to the universal, that individuals are of "man in general," when that is what individuals never are (as the are specific states). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Lol - no I don't. If you're under that impression, let me clarify the 100th time that I don't claim that.

It runs deeper than that. What it suggests is that individuals only make sense if the are a certain way (of the "natural tendency" ). It is not a question of thinking what someone ought to be, but rather what it make sense for them to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - it's not this either. But had it been this, it would still not be a naturalistic fallacy.

What you are concern about is having an understanding of the world which hold that humans, necessarily MUST be and ARE, something in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No not at all. Natural tendency of humans in general doesn't mean that an individual human must be anything in particular...

What you hate about modern philosophy and culture is it holds there is no universal, there is no "general" which gives the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a separate question. What I dislike about it is the fact that it attempts to universalise that there is no universal... a most radical self-contradiction, if there ever was one. Also what I dislike about it is that it fails to see that there are generalities and universals with regard to many things.

The "natural tendency" which you are so enamoured with is an attempt to get beyond this unsatisfying state of "freedom." — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not a state of freedom, it's a state of radical incoherency and self-contradiction. Also your statements about some "unsatisfying freedom" are the most crass delusion I've read in awhile.

It is to say: "Well, this is natural/unnatural, so it matters." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope. Just because something is natural does not mean it matters more or less than something unnatural. You're again imagining things.

The universal,"man in general," is used to fill the perceived meaningless of the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Absolutely no relation between this "meaninglessness of the individual" and the universal "man in general". Meaning is always context specific, so a universal (ie, a context-less statement) cannot provide meaning. Furthermore, a natural tendency is a universal, but it is situated in the context of that which gives rise to it: evolution and the biological constraints placed on man and woman - thus it isn't a pure universal - it does have some context. If evolution were different, or the biological constraints placed on reproduction were different, the natural tendency would be different, but it would still be just as universal in terms of its applicability to humanity.

But the problem is you've made exactly the error you are trying to avoid. The "universal" only needs to come along to say how existence matters because you've believed the shallow argument in the first instance. In the face of "freedom," you've accepted that it tells the truth about the individual. You've failed to grasp how it is a junk argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - again, another one of your imaginations - the universal comes because it is rationally needed. Such explanations exist, and they do account for what happens in the world, just like gas laws account for the random distribution of gas molecules in a closed container.

Instead pointing out that, contrary to what the "freedom" argument claims, individuals are always have some particular meaning, you've accepted the shallow modern argument gets us right, such that we need some extra "universal" to define how ourselves and world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, contrary to your nonsensical hypothesis, I actually do accept that individuals always have particular meanings (meaning is context-mediated). You fail to understand the purpose of the natural tendency, which is purely explanatory, and does not exist to create meaning.

No "universal" is required to rescue how the world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - universals however have nothing to do with the world mattering. Aristotle and Plato didn't sit in their chairs one day being like "Oh this meaningless world... man must somehow be rescued from this terrible freedom, therefore we have to invent this concept of "universal" to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless world". No, that's not how it happened at all. I really do suggest you read the Physics and Metaphysics at least...

You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow. — Landru Guide Us

Unfortunately, to my shame, I've only read a little of Aristotle and quite a bit about him. One of the few great philosophers who still has quite a few works I haven't read and whose insights I've started to appreciate lately, even though I didn't like him much at first :)

To the specific question of whether those in poverty are more depressed than those not in poverty in the US, the answer is clearly that they are, with a rate double those not in poverty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx — Hanover

There's potential problems. The poor of the US are rich in other parts of the world. They may be more depressed because they come in contact with people who have a lot more than them, thus making them feel inferior, etc. It still doesn't follow that they are poor by absolute standards.

and note that the article I cited performed the same DALY analysis as WHO and achieved very different results — Hanover

Yes which is my point. Those studies are biased, many of them. Pretty much all of social sciences are biased because 90% of social scientists are liberal-left-wingers, and most of the studies are undertaken by people coming from developed countries. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-are-so-many-social-scientists-left-liberal-1.2082755

Let's take a frequently done study. The effect of the frequency of sexual activity on happiness in a population of unmarried females. Most of these studies reveal increases of happiness which match increases in sexual activity. However - they are done amongst population where sex before marriage is considered acceptable and encouraged. Instead of realising that their conclusion (frequent sex leads to more happiness) applies amongst only a certain population group (where sex before marriage is valued and encouraged), they say it applies across all of humanity. But this is not true - sex before marriage in a religious community is often a frequent cause of sadness, thus illustrating that these relationships are necessarily culturally mediated, with no one culture being superior to the other - and therefore no such generalisations can be drawn.

Why don't you want to prove your point? — Hanover

Because data is necessarily biased, and "proving" a point is pretty much impossible. Offering alternatives is what is possible. I have reasons to believe what I wrote, which I could outline, but no way to prove that I am right beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think so my friend. There's a lot of misinformation around. I trust the WHO statistics that I provided, rather than Hanover's university studies :)

I do admit that Hanover brought up some information which does put in question some of my claims. Is that bad? Not really, no. I don't want to prove my point on this matter - there's no proving as there's too much uncertainties involved - but merely offering you different perspectives :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression#cite_note-17 - regarding depression Hanover :)

US - number 1 in the world!

,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos) — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. There is no reference to what they are meant to be. You introduce a lot of asinine concepts that I do not agree with and that do not form any part of my worldview. You're persistently arguing with a strawman that only you see.

The ones not in a pile are not soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ever touched the sand on a beach?

Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category — TheWillowOfDarkness

No a natural tendency cannot be used to understand the significance and reaction of an individual. Not at all. Again - a strawman.

You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general.

This is the "naturalistic fallacy" I was talking about. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Justify how that is a naturalistic fallacy according to the definitions I have provided before. And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind.

Would you not agree that, in practice, non-global villages are generally formed, in large majority, by people sharing the same cultures and values?

This is just as true within states as it is between states. Eliminating borders doesn't require eliminating differences (as I noted above when clarifying what cosmopolitans actually claim). — Postmodern Beatnik

Sure - no logical necessity exists. But don't you think that in practice this is what will happen? If not, then why not?

This all assumes access to the necessities of life in the first place, and not a life and death competition for resources, as capitalism tends to promote. When people are trying to survive all morality goes out the window, and it's understandable that it does. — Landru Guide Us

Eastern European peasants are some of the most moral (and happy!) people I have ever met. A struggle for food, within reasonable limits, is good. The problem for Western, developed societies is that life is too easy - hence people show their real, immoral nature. That's why the US's divorce/marriage ratio is 53%. That's why US is the most depressed country in the world. That's why suicide rates are at 15 per 100,000 population. Because life is so darn easy. People can only do immoral things when life is easy. I am not religious, but the people who wrote the Bible were right: "blessed are the meek".

Nature made life to be hard and difficult. Man cannot adjust to an easy life. Man was made to toil and work hard. This "when people are trying to survive all morality goes out the window" and of course it's capitalism's fault, is nonsense. All through history most people were just trying to survive, and most people were quite moral, by the standards of their day. So clearly the struggle for survival alone cannot be the cause of immorality.

Comfort is the cause of immorality. When people are comfortable, with all their needs met, they dream the most treacherous of things - the most vain and selfish desires - they desire lots of alcohol, lots of drugs, lots of new highs. They can never get enough - and this you probably call moral - because it doesn't harm anyone (except of course the do-er of the deed). But of course, at the end of the day, the peasant laughs - he doesn't understand any of this - and he spends all his day working - but he's happy.

It is as clear as the sun to plenty of us and as real as our hands and legs — Πετροκότσυφας

Thus spoke the oppressor ...

I find the idea of cosmopolitanism very appealing. But is it realistic? Can it be done? See below. — darthbarracuda

No, it is something that isn't even desirable. Why should we want to be a global village? I don't. The idea of being all one is nonsensical and stupid. There are different peoples, different cultures and different values on the face of the Earth. These differences are valuable - they in truth make up each one of our individual identities. This Western bullshit regarding cosmopolitanism is just that - imperialist bullshit aimed at imposing the same way of life over the whole Earth. It's nothing more than a petty justification for totalitarianism.

That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my eyes) is its own discrete instance, which we have no access to prior to the presence of our understanding. No process of understanding occurs. If we learn the ethical significance of something, we do it not through "deriving" (i.e. now I understand this state and by seeing it I know it's bad), but through the brute appearance that something is (im)moral in our experience. There are no "steps." We either know about meaning, in which case we understand it, or we do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

False. Deriving requires access to say two objects, and involves extracting an understanding from the two of them of their relation, which is a process of the understanding. Whether it has steps or not is a different question all together.

Absolutely not. Only plies of sand are soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Indeed, piles of sand are all sand grains. I used all sand grains with two different meanings, I think you failed to catch it.

Only plies of sand are soft. It is an expression only given when there are man sand grain together. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together :)

A contradiction. That which is only a property of a group cannot be the property of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly.

No doubt "natural" and "natural deviation ( "unnatural" )" are thought to be group properties. That's there entire point: all non-gay people (a group), supposedly, make sense with respect to the telos of humans, while all gay people (another group) do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, human beings, both gay and non-gay form the same group. Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white.

So said the believer of every falsehood ever, Agustino. The limits of my vision here are logical coherence. To admit you "vision" is to commit a logical error. I'm not letting you get away with peddling logically incoherent arguments just because you happen to like the idea of telos. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you have failed to illustrate any logical coherence even of your own position. Time and time again I have proved you wrong, and you have just moved the goal-posts behind. First, you argued it is a naturalistic fallacy. I have shown how according to the definitions historically used, it cannot be a naturalistic fallacy, and instead you are committing one. Then you have argued that what explains homosexuality are genes, and I agreed, and I told you that this is not a problem cause then my argument shifts to saying that non-gay genes are a natural tendency of human beings. Now you are arguing that something isn't a process of the understanding merely because one doesn't consciously go through a list of steps. You're also trying to argue something you don't even begin to understand regarding group and individual properties and are continuously mistaking what they entail - you don't even read what I wrote correctly. You fail to see two different meanings of all grains in use. And so on...

You are making the "But I believe it so it must be true" argument here, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme — Landru Guide Us

It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see it :)

Ethical significance is not seen with one's eyes. It's a feature of an object which is understood. It's not understood in the act of looking at an object. Like many other instance of logical significance, like any part of an objects identity, it is a question of understanding some meaning of the object. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Good. Thus it requires the processing of an understanding.

Incoherent. All humans are individuals. If all humans had a quality it would, by definition, by present on all individuals. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft.

The softness of a pile of sand isn't a property of any individual grain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being :)

It's a property expressed in the particular instance where there are many grains together. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Exactly! A natural tendency is a property that is expressed in the particular instance where there are many human beings together! Finally you're seeing some light! How refreshing WoD :)

It is a notion of telos, that there is some force directing each the existence of state to a purpose, a "why" that the world supposedly needs to make sense. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world :)

I do see a point emerging here though. Insofar as an action is illegal, the facilitation of the illegal activity and concealment of said activity ought to be illegal (i.e., it's illegal to cover-up a crime). — Soylent

Indeed.

Presumably not if I don't know about it. Would you say you have harmed me? I wouldn't even know where to begin to quantify a harm that I am unaware of. I don't know what would be the point of a contract you can break without my knowledge. — Soylent

So if we agree that I shall deliver you beef meat, and instead I deliver you horse meat, claiming that it is beef, and you take it, assuming it to be beef, I have done you no harm? If I have done you no harm, how can finding the truth harm you? Finding the truth in and by itself can certainly cause you no harm, can it?

If as a doctor I tell you that I'll give you a general anesthetic, and instead I give you a poison that will not only put you to sleep, but will keep you there permanently, have I not harmed you? Afterall, you'll never know!

It is the harm done to the trust of the participants in a closed marriage that have agreed to remain faithful. — Soylent

If we have a contract together and I break it, without you knowing it, have I harmed you?

For consistency, if the harm is to the vows themselves, the openness of the relationship shouldn't have any affect on the harms. — Soylent

Yes it should. In open marriages people agree not to request the other to be faithful. In closed marriages, people make vows of faithfulness to each other. In open marriages there is no vow to be broken. In closed marriages there is. Hence the difference.