What gives you any right to deny anyones personhood or deny the definitions generations of philosophers before you have CLEARLY DEFINED?

Ive made every effort to explain to you how the discussion is framed within acadamia. You're not getting it, you're trusting some pet interpretation you have of the Person, personal identity and personhood. If you think people aught not to morally consider certain thing's thats one thing, but the reality is people morally consider non-human beings so they therefore meet the definition within philosophy of personhood. If you want to argue from a new interpretation of those words then I'll have no part of it as I know the history of where these old ideas lead and it isnt pretty.

Also, if you were familiar with the history of philosophy, you'd know that psychology used to be a branch of philosophy. If you'd been in any ethics classes you'd know that the definition of personhood always mentions the phrases Moral community and moral considerstion.

So why are you confusing personal identity and personhood as one and the same? They aren't.

No personhood is not metaphysical it is purely a moralistic determination of value. I'm done talking about this with you. You arent understanding what I'm saying and you clearly lack the background knowledge of the material on this matter that I have.

it’s not my idea. This is how personhood is delivered in a philosophy class. As someone part of the moral community worthy of moral consideration. Not my idea at all. While personal Identity has its place in the discussion, it isn’t the same concept or definition as personhood.

Now, if people want to discuss the different levels of personhood I’m all ears. I would never agree that Harry Potter has the same level of personhood as a dog, nor a dog a human. Some philosophers even argue it is possible for a human to lose their personhood by committing extreme violating acts against another person.

Personhood is in itself subjective, however since we can only ever operate from a human universe of discourse and normative relativism doesn’t tell us anything about how we act and think as individuals, the best argument is the pragmatically ethical approach. So, we need to think about the modality of ethics and how we can find an objective truth that works within the human universe of discourse. Morality outside of us has no empirical basis, morality for us does and it’s evidence lies within our bodies and in the world around us through scientific inquiry. If we philosophers ignore new facts and data coming from fields like neuroscience, endocrinology and psychology then we are simply denying the world around us as we are capable of knowing it.

Parents feel grief whether it is an unborn child or a child that has been born. You cannot grieve for something you pay no moral consideration to, without moral consideration we cannot fit the minimum criteria for personhood. If parents give moral consideration to the unborn then the unborn is meeting the minimum criteria for personhood. However, if the mothers personhood is being violated by the baby, due to being unwanted and the father mirrors this lack of consideration, then the unborn child doesn’t have personhood. Even if the father still wants it, he can’t violate the mother by forcing her to carry to term. Now, In this instance it should be noted that the mother is still violating the wishes of the father, which would justify him to terminate the relationship with this woman if he feels he cannot forgive her or doesn’t feel it can work after this for whatever reason, but certainly not justification to violate her body by forcing her to term.

Maybe the way we should be discussing Personhood and Personal identity shouldn’t be based around figuring out when we have it, as figuring out when it starts to form and when it is fully formed and what are the phases of the formation?

We all are aware that our personal identity changes every day and as we age we get varying degrees of moral consideration which means our personhood itself can change.

It remains, that nomatter the level of personhood a being has, it is still a person.

“To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. It is often thought that because only humans can recognize moral claims, it is only humans who are morally considerable. However, when we ask why we think humans are the only types of beings that can be morally wronged, we begin to see that the class of beings able to recognize moral claims and the class of beings who can suffer moral wrongs are not co-extensive.”

I’m sorry but this here is nonsensical. If someone isn’t part of our moral community then they are a person. In philosophy personal identity “persona” and your “personhood” are not the same. One is metaphysical, the other is a purely moral term.

If something that isn’t on the time-space continuum can’t be valuable then why would philosophers ever think thought experiments, fictional literature, movies, TV and art ever be worth discussing through any form of value theory? Ethics is largely the study of value.

You need to understand one thing in particular, the idea that foetus’s don’t have personhood is the very idea that leads to people causing harm to the grieving parents of miscarried children through denying their grief as real or equal to that of losing a child. Does a foetus have a persona or a personal identity as it where? No, is it part of our moral community? Yes. Are it’s parents? Yes. Can we see an allegory to real life racism within the world of Harry Potter? Yes? Does Harry Potter try to prescribe us ways of overcoming prejudice through virtues? Absolutely. So, if Harry Potter is a part of our moral community, by the way philosophy as a field defines it, Harry Potter has Personhood and so does my 10week miscarried child.

A few questions I have for you; Why do you think personhood can only be granted to intrinsically valuable entities and what argument do you employ to justify that which is intrinsically valuable must physically exist in the present?

It is not my theory at all. The post-enlightenment definition of personhood is "an entity who recieves moral consideration." So, if a couple decide they dont want their child then they arent morally considering it. If they do then they are. Therefore their choice to morally consider is what gives it personhood. I mean, even Harry potter has personhood as we give moral consideration to fictional worlds too.

The classical "Persona" is simply not fit for purpose anymore when it comes to defining personhood.

Furthermore, I mentioned the grief a parent in either case from a psychological perspective because that is the empirical basis. Studies after studies into trauma all say the same thing, the grief is the same. All the same stress chemicals released in the same amounts. Your culture dictates your reaction to it though. You can tell youself it isnt the same and consciously feel like it isnt the same, but neurology and endocrinology dont lie.

So, why cant I call my now lost child a person? Why should I listen or believe in the classical interpretation of personhood when it renders my lost child inferior to born ones? It had just as much promise and potential as any newborn and it meant just as much.

What is pragmatically true for our species, is holding future generations dear to us now is the best thing for our species. The potential for any newborn can be intrinsically valuable to humanity in and of itself as is the very idea of offspring.

I'm sorry we dont agree. Pragmatic ethics is all about using non-religious or non-moralistic arguments. Quite frankly if sciences is telling us that nuerologically the grief in either case is the same when the child is wanted, then whenever the child is wanted it is a person.

In an ideal world where all children were wanted and where childcare works the way it should then I'd encourage less people to get abortions simply because they are now persons in my perspective.

You might think this sounds strange or "That's not the way it works" but I ask, how could you possibly know if it works this way or not? It can work either way.

I really appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

“What you describe above is a description of an unborn child being considered a person because of their extrinsic value. I agree that this value exists and that it is important and makes the child matter morally. However, it does not make it a person. It is a potential person, but not yet fully there.”

I agree with the sentiment that extrinsic value alone cannot grant personhood. However, in the case of whether or not the grief of a lost child is the same as the grief of a lost pregnancy; If we say that the parents have intrinsic value and hold extrinsic value to the unborn child, then can’t we say the unborn child has an anchor of intrinsic value through its parents?

As far as psychology is concerned, the trauma of losing a pregnancy and of losing a child have the same impact on the parents, the difference lies in how we seek support for this. Typically because they know others hold no extrinsic value for their unborn child they keep quiet as miscarriage has an air of taboo in our society. Whereas the grief is generally better understood and supported externally when it was a born child. Yet there is no difference psychologically?

I’m for abortion in the instances of rape, underage, far greater threat to life of the mother than is generally acceptable.

When parents identify with really wanting the child however, I think it might in fact already be a person by this argument.

Would you say animals are persons?

“This however doesn’t mean they don’t have the intrinsic rights accorded to individuals.” Here we have run into where classical person and the modern personhood differ. Personhood has also been defined as “An individual worthy of moral consideration.”. However not many like this definition as it leads to potentially defining non-human individuals as persons for we give moral consideration to both fictional characters and animals. Parents start considering their moral obligations to future offspring quite early, sometimes even before conception. Although they don’t fully consider it until pregnancy has been confirmed.

So, in the case of the Greek persona; We need to be cognisant that one can predict some of the aspects of a persona before the bearer of it arrives. Some of it will be predictable by knowing the parents, family history and even by the culture they are born in. For example, it is quite easy for me to be accurate when I say, all children born in Mecca are Muslim, because only Muslims are allowed in Mecca. So any children born in Mecca will identify their persona having Islam in it in some way whether this is lifelong faith or a later life rejection of the faith.

I think this ties into what T Clark was saying earlier
“I've said this many times - babies come out of their mothers already the people they are and will be. So much of temperament and personality is there from the very beginning. Probably before the beginning.
Which brings us to the problem of abortion. I support women's right to choose whether or not to have a child. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that personhood develops sometime between conception and birth. Something important is lost when a pregnancy is ended. Abortion is a bad method of birth control.”

So, if we are defining personhood as someone who is due moral consideration, or as someone who is getting moral consideration regardless of whether it is right that they do so; Does this change the outlook at all?

Side bar: Thank you for all your messages of support and advice. I find this community to be immensely fruitful and helpful when it comes to philosophical questions making an appearance in our personal lives.

I’m against anti-natalism for one reason, impractical and impossible. While I can see the logic in the anti-Natalist view, there is simply no way for a society to enforce this as a prescriptive methodology without overstepping peoples human rights and it would be near impossible to police. Case and point; Apartheid Africa, where despite being illegal at the time, many mixed race children were still born, for example Trevor Noah.

Then we have the issue of downs, there is a professor with Down’s syndrome who spoke about abortion in the instance of downs being detected. I forget his name but it’s probably an easy search away which I’ll do later to satisfy my curiousity then I’ll put a link here to what he says. However the point of what he said, was that people with Down’s syndrome live very happy and meaningful lives despite their shortcomings. Low IQ is only really a good measure of learning rate and they can learn, adapt and overcome some of their shortcomings just like anyone else.

So for me, I agree with the idea that a person is someone who is given moral consideration, even if their identity only exists in the abstract to the parents up until it becomes a physical object where personhood resides.

I know, it was awful. Sue me.

You probably are witty sometimes. Not this occasion though as I'm hard to impress when it comes to comedy. There is nothing funny about sitting down behind a laptop and trying to make jokes at other peoples expense... That's why it's called Stand up comedy! Bahdumtssss...

How about you just share your source or reasoning behind why the Lib Dems would get in and lets not resort to childish remarks about the past. These are supposed to be impersonal conversations. If you have nothing to offer but buzz phrases entirely absent of wit or substance then you might as well just shut up and get over how useless you are being to this conversation.

Now do you have something important to say that isn't immature?

Lib Dem Majority? I don’t even feel like I know enough to even decide whether or not this would be a good or bad thing. The coalition with the conservatives before still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

since it was him that won the race, I think there is a high probability that independence in Scotland might happen within the next decade. However, since BoJo will last less than a year, a labour government winning the next general election still has time to happen in order to reduce the urgency of an independence cry and if the SNP don’t act quickly the momentum could die out long before referendum day. I mean, the people of Scotland may even under a new labour government decide that it just isn’t worth the long term risk of union undermining interests getting into power again and sending us backwards again for us it to ride the wave all the way to independence however far away the referendum may be and however long it takes to remove ourselves from the union after that.

I don’t feel Jeremy Corbyn is the man for the job of PM. While I think he’d be better served writing legislation I think he’s been in the negative spotlight of the BBC for too long to have a realistic hope of winning a majority for labour.

If Scotland do leave the union, it may have a domino effect and we may see an independent wales, a unified Ireland and there are even some regions of England that may break off too, Cornwall particularly.

The polls among the English indicate that they care more about Brexit being carried out than they do about maintaining the union and I don’t think labour can win against the tide of ignorance surrounding the Brexit issue right now. I’m open to a compelling argument that might be more optimistic toward the possibility the union is maintained. Unless Brexit is derailed though, I think it will be the end of the United Kingdom. The hurdles and benefits for Scotland in such a case are many of both.

Why should anyone take you seriously when you selectively pick and choose who you answer. Are my questions to you not valid? What about Martyrdom?!

You don’t like me fine, but sometimes we have to debate the people we don’t like and everyone can see that you don’t answer certain questions which means you aren’t prepared to acknowledge flaws in your own logic. You don’t understand ethics. Seems pretty obvious.

"I think I get what you’re saying. We can talk about ethics as relative, but if we’re planning to make use of the study of ethics, we need to discuss ethics in relation to a particular value position. So we tend to define the function of ethics in relation to our current definition of ‘the greatest good’ - which is still subjective, but in the broadest way we can cope with and still sleep at night."

Yes, exactly. That's a really concise way of putting it. You can observe that whether you like it or not, by the very nature of our own subjective interpretations of reality a form of relativism will always be the dominating form ethics takes. However, the composition of that relativism has a transient nature as it supervenes on individuals and the societies they form. So, through awareness, connection and collaboration it can be stabilized if it is treated as an ecosystem itself. What were WWI and II about if not weeding out maladaptive ideologies out of our ethical ecosystem? What do weeds inevitably tend to do? Grow back.

"Ok. What if we define the function of ethics as to increase awareness, connection and collaboration? How does this shed light on what we as individuals should be doing with ourselves?"

Your questions have raised an especially intriguing point! So there is a difference between yours and my choice in function. My "Collectively keep Humanity Safe for as Long as possible" and your "Awareness, Connection and Collaboration." Have a raised the question: Which is more valuable? The Ideas or the people who create those ideas? When I was first reading this, my immediate thoughts were that both functions are symbiotic. If the function is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration then that would keep humanity safe for as long as possible. If the function is to keep humanity safe for as long as possible, then we NEED to be aware, connect and collaborate. However, I know from experience that when perceiving the function to be my option, you can make yourself an island and not see that you need to share awareness, connect and collaborate.

But then, if nothing is true and everything is permitted then I'd say that means there is no rule anywhere stating "Ethics may only have one function" nay? If it is a case of primary focus on 1 function over others then I'd say yours is the better option. I genuinely love the principles of ACC in AP. We need to message each other at some point when I'm near publishing (won't be for awhile, big project) so we can determine the most appropriate way to cite yourself.

Now that I think on it though, an intriguing idea springs to mind. I'll message you the details for your thoughts.

“True. There are lots of reasons to believe in god. But they are not good reasons. Not even one of them.” What would be the necessary criteria a reason would have to fulfil for it to be a good reason for the belief in one of the many interpretations of god?

“Yes, you're right. I do deny that there is pure, unadulterated altruism out there happening. By that I mean that there is no altruism happening in which the giver does not enjoy benefits of his or her own altruism. This I maintain.” How does one benefit from Martyrdom?

“It's interesting to ponder what drives some people to be so aggressive about an issue they don't really know much about.” I actually know quite a bit about it, I also know about some of the innovative solutions posited toward the problem.

I don’t know what drives others to anger about the issue, speaking personally though to my own I’m generally angry when I’m on this thread, the amount of knowledge I have on it is making me panic, I’m panicking because I’m a parent, lack of awareness of said solutions aggravates me and I have a bias toward defeatism. However I am employing humes ethics of emotion in this as I’m following cohens observation that language isn’t just the written word as academics and bookish people tend to fall prey to thinking. It is our body language, intonation and sometimes our emotions. There is a interesting story that goes along with this: A brash arrogant philosophy student who is enamoured with a feeling of pride for an extremely complex, long and creative essay. He goes to read it to his professor, five minutes in and the professor is asleep. The student is annoyed but carries on. He finishes and makes to leave just as the professor wakes up. The student says “I’m sorry I didn’t get to hear your criticisms” to which the professor replies “Is falling asleep not a criticism?”.

Venting my anger on here is constructive to me though and I can reread my own comments when I’m calmer as part of some self reflection.

Will be good to have you in the global warming discussion though. Will be posting it before the end of the week.

"How do you justify ‘objectively valuable’ while restricting discussion to a ‘human universe of discourse’? Does this mean that ethics is not relevant to our interactions with anything that operates outside of this ‘human universe of discourse’? How does this impact on environmental ethics and the value of certain ecosystems?"

A Great question! No, for the universe itself is inside the human universe of discourse and our planet is the part of the universe within our immediate interests. Let me explain how Adaptive Pragmatism comes at the grounding problem in ethics. "There is no ‘objective’ value, no uniform treatment of what is considered eternally valuable in the world. This doesn’t render ethics useless as such, but it does require us to look at structuring ethics in a similar way to how physics is working to structure time: as an additional dimension to reality that is relative to one’s experiential position in the universe." Firstly, it accepts this statement you have made to be the one that is really objectively true.

When I say "within a certain universe of discourse" I am employing one of the tools we use to talk about fiction. "Harry Potter is a wizard" and "Harry Potter is a cat" in reality are both equally untrue. However within it's universe of discourse wherein we temporarily acknowledge JKs imagined reality as a subsisting one we can discuss, the former statement is true, "Harry Potter is a wizard".

Back to your statement about Relativism; Before us, there was no ethics, good, evil, grey, value and meaning. We created those concepts. Now, in order for us to structure ethics we first need to think about it's modality. What is its function, how functional is it currently, how functional it can be and how functional it cannot be? If we say "it's function is to collectively keep humanity safe for as long as possible" then we have to reject any utility in relativism. (I know, crazy right? To reject Relativism because it is true. It isn't pragmatic though.) Now, in pragmatic ethics it's not really individuals who are to be considered moral or immoral it is the society they create that is being judged. The application of Normative ethical relativism to the lay person tends to go something like this. "You can't say x about culture y, that is just how they do things, you can't tell them they are wrong." So; A) there are no universal norms and B) ideas of moral right or wrong are relative to the society in which people are raised and in which they live. Doesn't B sound a lot like a universal norm? Descriptive ethical relativism is fair game as it's utility lies in describing the ethics of ours and others cultures in a more wholesome manner. There is really no compelling argument to make use of relativism as a prescriptive ethical methodology because it sheds no light on what we as individuals should be doing with ourselves.

So the ethics of adaptive pragmatism are grounded in a function of ethics. I define the function is to collectively keep humanity safe for as long as possible, so I start to look toward science. Does Science say not to fuck up the ecosystem if you want to live? Then don't do that or try to unfuck it. Does science say inflicting abusive traumas on people may make them crazy, unpredictable and dangerous potentially to you or people you care about? Then don't do that. Does Science say we need to properly manage our environmental, economic and moral ecosystems in order to thrive and survive? Then manage that shit! Can pragmatic ethics be defined by theory alone? No, but plenty of moral agents out there are acting out experiments in morality unknowingly and knowingly and they can be observed in order to learn more.

Then we have the "What it could be?" question. Imagine if you will that dogs and cats are starting to evolve similar cognitive abilities to us and starting to engage in meaningful language, maybe they even develop functioning thumbs. It is my personal belief that I cannot know everything there is to know and some things I am predisposed to never know because of who I am, so a bigger and more diverse collective can know more and our science benefits from having more knowledge. So because it is Adaptive pragmatism in this imagined scenario the focus would shift from the human perspective toward an earthling perspective (That is sentient being from earth) and how it would adapt at meeting an alien race would be dependent upon their temperament and reaction toward us.

So to summarise my answer to your question; Objectively valuable is whatever has the best means for carrying out the objective of moralities function.

This doesn't mean we throw out anything that isn't currently useful to us either, as philosophy is useful to us even when it moves outside of the human universe of discourse and starts to look at pure truth again, not human truth. We are human though so we have to acknowledge there is a complex difference between Pure Truth and Human Truth.

The methodology behind AP is what initially led me to believe that my intolerance of the ableists who discriminate against myself or others, as an emotional tool which would make them understand the folly of their ways. It also enabled me to listen to you when you supplied a better perspective which enabled me to see more value in temperance again.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3564/why-support-only-one-school-of-philosophy

In regards to your discussion here and what you have described: You May find this helpful as AP is similar to what you describe. An all encompassing view of philosophy with the perspective that it is a toolbox.

“Mother's methods are so hard.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red

Mother has no favorites.” This is poignant as fuck, yours or someone else’s? I’d search but I like to get information the old fashioned way, by asking someone who knows. Not all the time but if I have the opportunity. I accept that what you have laid out seems like one of the outcomes with the highest probability of being what actually happens.

I’m going to start a new thread tomorrow on climate change and I’d very much like you to contribute. However, it will also be a documentary discussion of two I have in mind. I’d be very interested to see how they might alter your outlook somewhat.

I think one of the best ways to go about futurology (For that is what we will also be entering into and what you have just done with your prediction.) is to determine a number of logically probable potential outcomes in order to cover as many bases as possible and to determine how much Hope there may or may not be depending on where you are. I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think if we can really get to the meat of the matter, we can at least figure out the courses of action individuals should take when they become more cognisant of the threat and the panic starts to set in. We could maybe both write essays and cite each other in the very least.

Would any of this be of interest to you?

"If you are really going to guard your borders so that NO ONE gets in or out, you have to do it the way the Soviets did it in parts of Europe: double fences, no-man zones in between, mines, guard towers, armed guards, spot lights, (and more up-to-date), drones, robots, etc. Very expensive." You've forgotten about planes again and people who overstay on legal visas. We have gotten to the point where our society is moving closer towards a form of globalism and every country relies on immigration to varying levels, even illegal immigrants. Do you know how many farms in the USA are struggling because of the increased targeting of illegal immigrants? MOST OF THEM! So the bread basket may very well run dry long before climate change has the chance to destroy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wk6rswxQro No type of increased barrier will work to stop immigration. If parents have to make a choice between their child definitely dying in their home country between maybe being caught crossing a border illegally then I'd say those parents are making the right choice in regards to the interests of their child. A caught illegal immigrant can be turned away without abusing them or their children and their children are still blameless.

Besides we aren't arguing about the pros and cons of immigration policies we are talking about this current administrations policies which are clear human rights violations and when things like that are going in it is neither the time nor place to talk about whether or not an anti-immigration stance is right.

"Global warming is an unmitigated tragedy. The "survival of the fittest" won't be based on genetics, it will be based on geography. Various places on earth will be more severely affected and some places less so, and that includes the first world." So whomever has the best cards geographically/financially is going to get to decide the fate of the rest of humanity? Do you believe they are under no obligation to provide safe haven for our species during what is to come? Would the war trying to keep the rest of the world out of these potential safe zones when they get desperate and when their children are burning/starving on their doorstep bring about the absolute destruction of the human race? Trying to keep everyone out might be a very demanding and altogether unethical task if it will require the mass slaughter of all who try to gain entry. Survival of the fittest won't be based on geography either if this stance is taken, it will revert back to who can take it by force and I know I personally will not be on the side that is going to make the mistake of saying "no" to everyone else when people start to panic.

Sorry, I didn't mean to snap at you. The reality of climate change is something eats away at me as it seems to me like a slow eugenics movement wherein the individuals who benefit the most from ignoring man driven climate change also have the resources to survive it and it's a sick joke to me which I'm sure you can understand makes my blood boil. "a lot of people are going to lose the competition for survival." While this might be true, I still believe the best course of action for a true humanist to take is to serve as big a collective as it is possible to change. After all, if all but the most unethical at the top of society are to serve, what has been the point of all moral debates? If we resign ourselves to defeatism and give up all hope then we are signing our own death warrants and those of our children. This is not an acceptable set of affairs for any parent.

So we might have to give up growth and switch to alternative clean energy? So we are asking the scientific community for Terraforming countermeasures. These things are possible, with the universe out there, the solutions do exist.

That's fair to say, I apologise. The way I see it, some forms of depression make a person see the world in a brutally honest and critical way. However, what they prescribe themselves to do in reaction to what they perceive about the world is where things get irrational. My mother can be quite insightful at times in her depression however her reasoning behind how to react to it is very flawed. To be honest, if I hadn't observed for myself how much her diagnosis has become a part of her identity to her own detriment, I might not have stopped identifying with mine.

"I understand there is risk. It’s risky to engage in anything. It’s risky to value freedom of speech. If your aim is to avoid racism, then your intolerance for racists may achieve this in your limited perspective, but it achieves little in reducing hatred and intolerance, in eradicating racism. It only helps you to feel more in control of your ‘safe’ little world. Combating intolerance with intolerance is small thinking."

Apologies for not replying to this sooner. I think you are absolutely right, I was being narrow minded. Was taking a few days to think about it fully. However knowing how to effectively combat the issue is something I am still unsure of. On an individual level. When asking the deeply personal question "Where will I contribute the most?" I can honestly say I do not think I'm suited toward direct debate with the intolerant and while I can make a point of understand and empathising from afar, I do not have the temperance required (Yet) to do that in a direct way, it would just become a circular shouting match at some point I'm sure.

"In my view it isn’t power or influence that topples institutions or changes the status quo: it’s awareness, connection and collaboration - capable of transcending borders and infiltrating the hierarchies that work to protect those in power."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Awareness, Connection and Collaboration. As for internal change agents: I feel the one ring allegory is pertinent. I personally have experienced a sense of perhaps arrogant duty toward attempting to gain political office. Yet some of the very institutions one would have to enter have been made inherently corrupting. Now, you might say this shows lack of strength of conviction but in reality it's a desire to toe the line between being just, righteous and being self righteous. Since you mentioned collaboration I feel the point can be made that no one is an Island and where one person may not have the strength to stick to their convictions alone many can support and hold each other up. I observe that the most monumental beneficial changes in society come from the alignment of goals of social, political and economic interests. I think that it can be said that within capitalism our social and political interests supervene our economic interests. So in order to motivate change in a collectively beneficial way, we will have to re-evaluate our economic model and change that. Business ethics or how businesses go about ethics needs to change in so many ways.

Then again, Political principles also need some major adjustments. I am unsure of how these things can be changed. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this and am very open to suggestions of analytic prescriptive ideas. What do you think I or others here should do other than have these collaborative discussions with each other?

"The rejection is on the grounds of him (a) apparently not even understanding what morality is, (b) having no understanding of emotional reactions about interpersonal behavior being as "core" to our brain function as reactions about pain outside of interpersonal behavior, (c) having ridiculous notions of behavior that one objects to being rooted in people wanting to rebel, and so on." I agree, I believe point (b) was inferred in what I said however you'll forgive me if I try to take a different route to get some of your points across (best to just focus on one at a time for those with an entry level understanding, break the problem up into parts. Do as Descartes Do.)

"That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions."
"I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”

These are similar arguments to be honest. The point is our brains would need to be significantly different. I also believe that Apathy is in the end a coping mechanism people escape into.

"My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral problems."

I know you understand you are employing a genetic fallacy here, however your reasoning is mostly correct. Part of the process to dealing with getting out of a black and white view of morality is to jump to the grayest gray. At those points you can't see the rainbow for the clouds. However I feel if you are correct about either the Aspie thing or depression thing then our reaction to the apathy should be one of empathy. Apathy has it's place in our moral ecology but not to the extreme the OP thinks.

I myself was diagnosed with Aspergers at 23. It's a trauma of its own kind, similar to how studying philosophy itself can be existentially traumatic. I don't really buy my diagnosis anymore tbh I think i was just being raised in a dysfunctional family which is no longer the case and these diagnoses were never meant to be much more than a concept tool to provide a framework for where you need to grow and develop or what environment you require to thrive or be safe.

If Terrapin station has a point about the psychiatric label thing then read carefully this. "The Rule of the animal kingdom is kill or be killed; The rule for the kingdom of man is Define or be Defined" - Thomas Szasz. Don't get stuck in the rabbit hole of believing you are your diagnosis. Think of it as a framework for how you need to improve yourself. If you have social anxiety, force yourself to be social, if you are depressed, stand up and look straight up and put on the biggest smile you possibly can and stay like that for one minute with your arms outstretched. I dare you to feel depressed while doing this.

in fact that probably wouldn’t be satisfactory to Socrates, as it would imply knowing something.

“Offspring are of you but other than you. Self knowledge is of you but not other than you.”

But offspring are part of you or part of you makes up the some of them. Speaking from personal experience I learned far more of myself taking care of my own kid than going through my own childhood. It’s an altogether humbling and illuminating experience. However this should not be interpreted as me not recognising the individuality of my own child. I do.

However, within your criteria, maybe the answer could be Acceptance... in fact, wouldn’t knowledge be the offspring of wisdom and ignorance? Through wisdom we gain knowledge of ignorance?

“You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed.” I don’t think he’s misunderstanding you, I think he’s just rejecting your conclusion entirely on the grounds that it simply wouldn’t work because it relies on the existence of an ideal world where everyone is rational and well educated. The biological fact of nuerodiversity precludes is from having a universal moral code such as this. How is a psychopath supposed to care about morality if he was born without an amygdala or one of a reduced size? How is our not caring about what he does ever going to deter him from striking out at peoples lives?

You realise that some sociopaths are the way they are because too many people were apathetic to the wrongs being inflicted on them during their formative years in childhood?

If we cared about nothing, why would we even keep ourselves alive?

I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”

“so that child-attackers don't give a fuck about attacking children in return” This is where we run into problems, this implies people will universally share in your view, which they won’t. Not giving a fuck might be less stressful but in the end it is just Apathy. I saw this Ted Talk too and you need to understand that the person who gave that Ted talk is kind of fucked up and is an escapist of reality due to abuse.

A morality grounded in “You shouldn’t give a fuck” is only going to be taken by those without a moral compass as permission to commit any immoral acts they want.

There is a moral ecology to the world so while your view has its place, it would be destructive if it were universally in place by most reasonable people. Moral Apathy is never okay as a universal application.

“I think what you're ambling toward is the recognition that "good" is relative.” Well outside the human universe of discourse it is all relative, even meaning and reasons are human concepts which are relative to us but absent in the universe without us.

However within a human universe of discourse there are some things which are objectively valuable to all of us and when you are serving the collective you are serving yourself too.

I wonder how this guy responds to martyrdom? “Oh so self serving!”

So if you were to see a child being attacked on the street, would you be apathetic to it and let it happen or would you intervene? If yours is the second answer then you give a fuck and moral apathy is ridiculous. If we tell ourselves we can ignore and not give a fuck about one act then what is to stop us from giving a fuck about them all? How long with this view would it take for things like legal slavery to make a come back if everyone subscribed to Moral Apathy?

Oh and one more thing, Immigration has been at record lows over the past few years. Borders might be there fro reasons but this governments attitude towards it is dangerous and counter intuitive. I mean, they want to build a wall to keep it immigrants when it is just going to increase immigration if it is built seeing as they will be cutting off circular flow and that most immigrants come legally through air travel and just overstay their visas. PLANES CAN FLY OVER WALLS!

"We can do a better job of caring for people, especially children, who are detained at the border. Doing a better job doesn't mean just waiving and waving them through the border and on to where ever they want to go. The borders between countries are there for a reason.

The parents of these children are also responsible." I never said we should be waving them through, also a lot of these people are legal asylum seekers who are being refused a legal right to asylum to escape prejudice. The parents may be causally responsible for coming here but they are not morally responsible for what happens to their children and the mere suggestion that these parents want their children to be assaulted, raped, starved or killed is disgusting. If you think these parents are morally responsible then do you also think that the parents of jews in Germany were responsible for what happened to them?

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement and it is the same argument the trump administration is using to justify their mistreatment of these people. Laws are being fucking broken, human rights arent being respected. It isnt the parents doing it, they are just trying to bring their children to a better life away from extreme hardship. Also the Mother is still in the USA so evidently her being detained in a detention centre wasn't needed even to the people that took her and her child there in the first place.

If I hear one more pathetic "Oh the parents are to blame" argument instead of actually identifying those morally responsible (TRUMP, ICE and this SHITTY ALT RIGHT GOVERNMENT) I'm gonna lose my shit. How dare you ever make this argument. Do not reply to me if you are going to keep this up because it is absolutely a disgusting argument to make and you should frankly be ashamed of yourself for having made it. They are children for gods sake, who's parents are trying to do the extremely difficult right thing for them to give them a better future. Seriously if this is how you feel on the matter then you are using your own apathy as a form of prejudice. Which ethical view do you subscribe to? Clearly you are caught up in the new wave of moral apathy. That's okay, you'll just be part of the entire generation of philosophers that future philosophers will judge as the single most lazy and cowardly generation of philosophers. How does it feel to know that right now you are exactly like all the people in Germany who sat around and did nothing while Jews were burned?

Just heard about 19 month old Mariee Juarez who died of a lung infection days after leaving an ICE detention centre.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-cry-mother-migrant-baby-death-mariee-yazmin-juarez-trump-border-ice-a9000161.html

When will this nightmare end? CHILDREN being put through inhumane and life threatening treatment?! Made to sleep on floors, eat spoiled food, have been assaulted, isolated and rumours of sexual abuse! These concentration Camps need to fucking stop! 2020 can't fucking come soon enough!

Very well said! I'd also add there blatant disregard for the disabled demographics contributions and of childrens futures with their animosity toward all things science that arent specifically used for war!

“what is the offspring of ignorance and wisdom?” I love this question! Really well put.

I would say the ideal offspring would be self knowledge. For only through wisdom, can we see how ignorant we are. I’d like to think that Socrates would agree. Maybe not. Who knows? It’s a nice golden mean though. Is self knowledge the virtue found between wisdom and ignorance?

I’m an espouser of pragmatic ethics so I see some justification for aspects of both views. There is a distinct difference however between disagreeing with those views and condemning ethics in its entirety and that is exactly what God must be atheist is doing. For no other reason than he is mad that he was corrected for his false claims on multiple threads and can’t take honest appraisal and he flips out when he is called out for telling lies.

It would be so easy for us all to just say “that which we do not understand has no value.” But it doesn’t make it true. I don’t understand how Medical Drs do everything that they do but that doesn’t mean I’m going to say “I therefore have the ideological right to deny any value in the work of people who work in medicine because their findings can't be anything but useless”.

“What's the precept of ethics? What is it, in its most basic?” - Value theory! Jesus Christ, this is starting to get old. If you have no care for ethics then why are you commenting? You don’t accept deontology or teleology so how can you yourself ever claim to be ethical and why should we not judge you as unethical for being so arrogant as to think it doesn’t apply to you?

“I therefore have the ideological right to deny any value in the work of people who work in ethics because their findings can't be anything but useless.

I especially detest those who boast of their ethical know-how gained through education or practice.

Ethics is nothing but a highfolutin ideology for hiding the self behind a complex set of ideas for the sole purpose of being completely selfish.”
Hahaha! Without ethics none of us would be safe enough to even talk about these things. Also, Saul Kripke was self educated when he published his earliest works.

“There is nothing so profound and original that it hasn’t been said by a philosopher before.” - Descartes

That humans use ethics is a fact about our society, that you benefit from this use is also a fact. So complain all you want but even your approximation that ethics isn’t valuable is an ethical statement in and of itself as you’re talking about value.

If you really think ethics is so useless then you won’t be able to complain if you feel someone has wronged you.

Did it ever occur to you that you aren’t getting published because your methodology is full of bias and assumptions and that your idea isn’t workable? But sure, let’s all just blindly believe your idea you’re too frightened to share. It’s from you, so it must be right!