I'd wager less than 10k civilians killed. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course you would ... just like any other deluded holocaust denier.

open supporters of terrorist groups — BitconnectCarlos

like you, BitC, et al (re: Netanyahu's 'mass murdering + mass starvation strategy for settlers lebensraum' regime).

FOX Noise and other right wing propaganda media are disinforming you, BitC. :mask:

Non sequitur nonsense.

You're an atheistic materialist. No? The universe has no real meaning/value save what we choose to impose? — BitconnectCarlos

:roll: C'mon, dude, for fuck's sake. Atheism =/= nihilism. Materialism =/= nihilism. Anti-zionism (i.e. anti-greater israel fascism) =/= nihilism. Anti-oppressors =/= nihilism. Anti-Netanyahu's regime =/= nihilism.

Opposing systematic military slaughter of an apartheid-corraled, ethnically cleansed civilian population without any Bronze Age religious cult's "promise of eternal reward" (or "promised land"-grab!) exemplifies historically-situated moral goodness (and courage) in contrast to theo-fascist apologia like post-1967 zionism-über-alles. After all, "faith" has always been a blanket rationalization for moral cretinism – in effect, nihilism. :shade:

I am a moral realist[naturalist] who disagrees with both theses — Leontiskos

:up:

Thesis 1 and thesis 2 represent two categorical claims:

All human acts are moral acts
All interpersonal acts are justice acts

I don't think these statements make sense or are useful (re: if "all" x = y, then ~x = y).

What is the breadth of the moral sphere?

In the metaethical framework of moral naturalism, I think "the moral sphere" consists of natural creatures (i.e. any sentient species) which can suffer from – fears of – arbitrary harm (or injustice), especially, though not exclusively, moral agents who are also moral patients.

Anyway, my objections:

Some human acts are not moral acts

In the normative framework of negative utilitarianism, I think only judgments/conduct which (actively or passively) (a) prevents or reduces harm or (b) inflicts or increases harm are moral; however, those activities which are neither (a) nor (b) are non-moral (e.g. phatic, instrumental, involuntary) so that most "human acts", in fact, are non-moral.

Some interpersonal acts are not justice acts

In the applied framework of negative consequentialism, I do not think "interpersonal acts are justice acts" because "justice" pertains to impacts on individuals by institutional or group practices (i.e. policies) and not "interpersonal" – what happens between individuals.

What are your thoughts on self-sacrifice in this instance? — BitconnectCarlos

:roll: This ...

I do not see how "the afterlife" is a primary motivating factor. — 180 Proof

Do you understand the scenario? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Do you? Apparently you don't understand this dispute.

No. Read my exchange with bert1 again.

Nevermind.

:smirk: :up:

"Consciousness is the capacity" =

structure and function — bert1

"to feel" ... so you're contradicting yourself :confused:

Consciousness is not structure and function. — bert1

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?

So, if I've understood your question properly, consciousness abstracted from any functioning system is indeed impersonal, in that sense. — bert1

Ergo the implication is that subjects are not conscious (or impersonal)?

All true. But what of self-sacrifice in an instance where, according to the social reality, it would seem completely futile? [ ... ] Do we still self-sacrifice here? — BitconnectCarlos

This depends on the particular persons engaged that "futile" situation. I do not see how "the afterlife" is a primary motivating factor

:up:

:up: :up:

I can't subscribe to a philosophy that doesn't know what knowledge is; it would be contrary to my daily experience. — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

[W]hat is the point of doing philosophy? — Angelo Cannata

Well, to begin with it seems, "the point" is to interpret questions we (still) do not know how to (definitively) answer and thereby reason towards more probative questions. Or, in other words, "the point of doing philosophy" is learning how to overcome (or, at least, mitgate) the ignorance of one's own ignorance.

Throughout history and across cultures many many nonbelievers have sacrificed their lives in order to protect their families / communities and/or to oppose various tyrannies. "Belief" in some "afterlife" – or any fact-free, faith-based story – in order to gain a "reward" (or punishment) isn't a necessary motivator and, IMO, more often than not, is only useful for deluding weak minds into throwing away their lives "in the name of (the cause)". Ethically, as a rule, martyrdom isn't an argument (& ends don't justify means – especially those means which undermine or negate their ends). Just my 2 shekels. :victory:

Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont

Humans will probably never know.

If so, is that due to our limitations or time constraint?

Both.

Are there things beyond our range of perception, ...

Yes: planck and relativistic phenomena ...

beyond our ... imagination or

I can't imagine it.

our ... ability to devise instruments?

Certainly (re: technical impossibilities).

Or are there things we are not meant to discover ...

How about a "God" that hides from us?

or not able to comprehend?

Well, 'narrow AI systems' like AlphaGo neural nets play the strategic game Go in ways which are incomprehensible – black boxes – to the best human players and students of the game. I suspect in the coming decade or so we'll encounter many more 'black box solutions' – rendering our species cognitively obsolete – in disciplines automated (colonized) by AGI such as finance, engineering, computation, molecular biology, nanotech, neuroscience, chemistry, fundamental physics, ... public administration, etc.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/896858

16April24 – $22.84 per share

It seems like you are anchoring your ethics in reducing harm, and not progressing towards flourishing. — Bob Ross

On the contrary, I propose that moral agents flourish to the degree effectively 'preventing and reducing harm and/or injustice' become habits. This form of moral naturalism I call aretaic disutilitarianism (i.e. agency-cultivating active opposition to both (agency-disabling) harms and injustices).

:up:

I don't think that the negatively, intrinsically valuable (such as 'harm' that you refer to) is more valuable ... — Bob Ross

I neither claim nor imply this. How do you get that from my 'preventing or reducing disvalue'?

15April24, Las Vegas, NV:

All across the country ... These are
Trump abortion bans. — Kamala Harris, VPOTUS

Do you remember the "red tsumani" that didn't happen in 2022? :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573

Biden "Boom" Market (since 2021)

NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:

26March24 – $57.99 per share :gasp:

15April24 – $26.61 per share :down:

heroism and martyrdom — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and thereby devaluing this life by making a "leap" into some mirage of "afterlife" (e.g. "72 virgins"). :eyes:

Nice try. :smirk:

Do you have any thoughts? — Bob Ross

At this point only a few of my own ... from a 2023 thread Is "good" indefineable? ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/778879

and also from one our previous discussions:

some varied (modern) readings:

• On the Genealogy of Morals, F. Nietzsche
• Human Nature and Conduct, J. Dewey
• The Sovereignty of Good, I. Murdoch
• Reasons and Persons, D. Parfit
• Natural Goodness, P. Foot
• Creating Capabilities, M. Nussbaum — 180 Proof

I can't make sense of what you're saying. Maybe @bert1 will more cogently answer the question I put to him.

Appeal to ignorance. :roll:

:up:

I have to imagine that some fraction of WWJD evangelical Christians will be asking themselves sooner or later by this Fall:

According to the depiction of Jesus in the NT Gospels, who would it be more reasonable to expect Christ to vote for in the 2024 presidential election: Don Poorleone or Sleepy Joe Biden??

Hint: Who do you think he voted for in 2020? :mask:

What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire:

As usual you say it better, Vera, than I did more abstractly in a recent thread Why be moral?

[T]he (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) either

• helps more than harns,
• harms more than helps,
• harms and helps more or less equally
or
• (mostly it seems) neither harms nor helps

by which habits of judgment (i.e. virtues, vices) are reflectively cultivated. — 180 Proof

:up: Interesting. I've also made a couple of (less detailed) attempts at a "syllabus":

From a 2022 thread Ethics course in high school?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/662888

And more generally from a 2021 thread Best introductory philosophy book?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/567313

Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96

Both – in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty – lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) – greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.

I think there is a persistent confusion between self and consciousness which messes up a lot of the discourse. — bert1

So then "consciousness" is impersonal? For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? :chin:

:smirk: :up:

How does God prove that he is God? — Moses

i guess "He" ain't so "Omni" after all ...

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin ... There are a lot of ways to sin. — javi2541997

Well, "if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God" (OP), and if "God" is (at most) a Bronze Age fictional character (myth), then "sin" is just as meaningless, or impossible, as acting "contrary to the will of" Bilbo Baggins. QED. Again, javi, for emphasis I paraphrase Camus: stupidity is the only sin without god.

What is the true nature of the self?

The self is an illusion generated by the brain. This illusion vanishes when the brain dies. — Truth Seeker

You might find (the implications of) this discussion interesting ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894606

Thusly, the most (positively) intrinisically valuable state is universalized states of eudamonia (i.e., universal flourishing and deep happiness); and this is ‘The Good’. — Bob Ross

Given this statement, what is your question?

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.

QED.
Agree — Art48

Yes.