The fact that there are competing moral standpoints raises the question of how you choose between them. — Andrew4Handel

Why not select the least problematic elements from each of the major ethical schools and consistently reassemble them into an adaptive moral practice?

I think you should read some actual works of moral philosophy (there's 2,500 years worth), even some contemporary moral psychology, and then compare what you learn with your so-called "moral intuitions" in order to better inform your views on these topics. Just my two bits.

What does the term moral add to a description of normal altruistic and cooperative behaviour? — Andrew4Handel

Semantics without substance. Non sequitur, Andrew. Don't be evasive.

We do not tend to refer to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral ...

Well, since I haven't referred "to all cooperative and altruistic acts as moral", this statement is another non sequitur. Apparently you cannot directly answer my questions.

I believe that the outcome of a thorough moral calculation ... Are we assuming a moral calculation ... — Andrew4Handel

Okay, we're talking past each other. I understand ethics as a form of reflective thinking of which moral behaviors are normative / habitual enactments and not "calculations" (i.e. instrumental problem solving) as you apparently believe.

Antinatalism is a logical conclusion of a harm based morality and other extreme [absurd] utilitarian calculations ... — Andrew4Handel

Maybe ad absurdum (e.g. "destroying the village in order to save the village" :roll:) but it's not an ethical conclusion because moral utility only applies to either 'how to minimize the suffering' or 'how to maximize the happiness' of actual persons and not how to avoid – eliminate – 'the problem' of moral utility itself.

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin:

NB: To clarify my questions above, substitute sharing the commons for ethics and non-zerosum for moral (or public health for ethics and hygenic-sanitary for moral).

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering. — Benj96

I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).

Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actual already-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).

minimising harm — Benj96

:up:

"Cooperation" itself (e.g. Nazis' "die Endlösung") is only a means which doesn't entail an ethical end (i.e. flourishing / well-being). To wit:

Means and ends must [can] be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

Also ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777275

How anti-modern – retrograde – of you to say so.

:100:

The idea of looking within, is not looking into the fine structure of matter, but paying close attention to the nature of lived experience. You can zoom in as far as you like on the micro-circuitry of your television set, but you'll never find a story there. — Wayfarer

:victory: :smirk:

Reality ultimately must be as the symbol of the circle not the line. So the ceiling and the floor are the same. — TheMadMan

:fire:

Can we please focus on the good? — Athena

My apologies for the defect in my character whereby my brand of historical nostalgia fails to be myopic and pollyanna enough for your liking. Enjoy your Mother's Day, madame. :victory:

:100:

Okay. We're now just talking past each other. Thanks for the exchange.

Well, as I've pointed out previously, I prefer 'economic democracy fortified by universally enfranchised representative democracy' rather than our status quo laissez-faire, plutonomic, "representative democracy" (i.e. constitutional republicanism) inspired by classical Athens-Rome and established in 1789. The insidious "group think" (which was reinforced in the 20th century by public relations, mass media/consumerism & John Wayne's Hollywood) of "the people" – who have only ever ratified the various exploitation-agendas of plutocrats with their "morally-informed" votes – was baked into the US system some one hundred and eighty years before the "1958 National Defense Education Act ". :roll:

Great. Thanks for linking this video.

I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire:

I've always appreciated Bohmian ontological holism (à la Spinoza?) as a climb up from (and tossing away the ladder) above monism aka "reductionism" which I suspect has contributed during Bohm's lifetime to the unpopularity of his (ontological) interpretation of quantum theory.

Assuming that the observable universe is the interior of a black hole, this dynamic structure – Spinoza-Einstein's natura naturans – expands an unbounded, positive, Everettian volume which spans from the Planck scale to the Hubble-Schwarzschild scale. Perhaps one day a testable theory of quantum gravity (QG) will fill out the significant, devilish details of such a speculative, holistic picture. However, I fail to see how (your) suggested 'ontological transcendence' follows or makes any more sense than the concept of 'south of the South Pole'.

Do people value truth? — Andrew4Handel

Do cripples value crutches? :chin:

Morality has failed ... — Andrew4Handel

I suppose history and math have failed too ... When does it ever make sense, Andrew, to blame a tool because fools neglect or misuse it? :roll:

Ah yes, the myth of 'discernment by committee' ... :smirk:

This digression might interest you, Benj:

The DNA molecule (and DNA-RNA system) is a self-replicating autopoiesis process 'recently' modeled by Chiara Marletto in a constructor theory of life (as a specialization of David Deutch's general constructor theory.)

Would you say that religions qualify as theories? — Hallucinogen

If by "theories" you mean explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work, then I don't think "religions qualify as theories".

Would you say theories among scientific theories or theories among historical theories are incompatible with each other?

They are about as "incompatible" as observational evidence and circumstantial evidence, respectively.

If your answers to these two questions aren't both "yes", what is the substantive difference between religion and theories (historical/scientific)?

Religions proselytize with fact-free myths and folk tales which do not explain any publicly accessible facts of the matter whereas, at best, "scientific and historical theories" are rigorously critical, abductive, attempts to do so.

The point I am always trying to make is we can not have rule by reason without transmitting a culture that manifests that. — Athena

Ah yes, "ruled by reason" such as that of misogynistic slave cultures like Classical Greece and Rome upon which our ethnic cleansing settlers' "constitutional republic" had been founded and had legalized chattel slavery and then systemic apartheid until about a half century ago. :brow:

My second point is education for technology prepares us to be ruled not to have rule by reason. The 1958 change in education changed our culture and the clip Proof gave us is a pretty good explanation of that. In the clip, Scott represents all of us who remember when things were different, and f**k the damn computer that has replaced a human receptionist.

My post prior to the one with that clip ends with an emphatic Live Long and Prosper (not Make America Great Again).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807297

I agree 80s Trek was a dumbed down, paint-by-numbers version of the 60s Trek, but as an example of the latter's originality inspite of crass commerce considerations in contrast to the former's derivative formulaic commercialism and not an example of your "change of education in 1958" (whatever that means – Sputnik-scare? :roll: ) Both 60s & 80s audiences, for the most part, had lacked the 'classical education' of most of the creators, writers & actors of the original show so it's not surprising that the less challenging and visionary show has always been more popular, especially with under-40somethings.

As for Scotty's gruff irritation on display in that clip, it's not with the computer per se but with his situation – being stranded out of time (75 years in the future) by accident and realizing that he was obsolete. You'd have to watch the episode titled "Relics", Athena, in order to fully appreciate the context of Scotty's forlorn mood.

Both are true as I further elaborate in this subsequent post ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807274

In the context of the discussion, I try to keep the forest and the trees – Titannic and the deck chairs – distinct. History isn't a logical argument or mathematical proof, as you know; it's full of incommensurate micro facts and macro trends.

Does it even make sense to quantify knowledge? — Moliere

No less sense than it makes to quantify ignorance.

How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1

For me "view from everywhere" refers to objectivity / perspective-invariance (immanence), whereas "view from being there" refers to subjectivity / perspective (bias) and "view from nowhere" corresponds to a God's-eye view (transcendence).

The logistical 'problems' mentioned in the OP are features of a representative form of government not flaws [ ... ] the US government has been erring on the side of the few for around 50 or 60 years. That's the result of the corruption, not the form of government. — creativesoul

:up: :up:

How would a view from everywhere look different from either in your understanding? — schopenhauer1

"From either" what?

Does anything stand out to you about the difference, such as the captains' relationships with their crews and with headquarters? — Athena

Well, in comparison to ST TOS's aircraft carrier-like Enterprise, the ST TNG's Enterprise-D is a "Love Boat"-like cruise ship. :smirk:

Just for the record, the art of mass manipulation was brought to modern form by Edward Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".

[ ... ]

Walter Lippman was Bernays' unacknowledged American mentor and Lippman's work The Phantom Public greatly influenced the ideas expressed in Propaganda a year later. — BC

:100: :fire:

If you were to watch old TV shows you might notice cultural differences between the 1950's and the present. The original Star Trek TV shows contrasted with the Next Generation Star Trek TV shows is an excellent example of what the change in education did to our culture. Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the "Group Think" generation. — Athena

:clap: :sweat: As an original Trekkie myself, I can't argue with you there, Athena. LLAP (n o t MAGA :mask:)

Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it. — T Clark

:up: Mostly, yeah, especially since the 1980s.

And this is made possible by adopting the German model of bureaucracy. Before Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to give us Big Government, the US government was relatively weak. — Athena

To my mind, 'the administrative state' beginning in the 1930s had postponed for almost cenrury this US collapse we're currently living through. During the last 80-odd years, women and minorities have been substantively enfranchised, business cycles have been extended and flattened due to effective regulations the public-private synergy of which has produced both unprecedented national prosperity and fewer boom & bust crises than before the 1929 Crash, far more and effective social welfare policies have been enacted, etc etc. The problem was not, IMO, the "German model of bureaucracy" itself but rather the postwar (i.e. "Cold War military industrial complex") use of "the German model" to perpetuate the American (internally contradictory) model of political democracy and economic anti-democracy – a laissez-faire settlers' slave republic – that had been established by anti-monarchal plutocrats in 1789.

Are you saying it is not values that lead to shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair, and entropy?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it's not the merely symptomatic 'degradation of values' in our lifetimes but instead it's the congenital defect of the decadent values of the Founding generation – patriarchal plutocratic slavers – of the late-18th century America who'd been the architects of 'this house' which have contributed more than any other factor to the current, status quo collapse (and populist reactions to it).

I remember the older people who all about honesty and human dignity.

Well, I'm not nearly as nostalgiac as you seem to be, Athena, for a past 'Golden Era' which history ubiquitously demonstrates never was and, I suspect as long as civilization is scarcity-driven, never will be.

:100:

:ok:

I just wanted feedback on my objection to mysterianism. — RogueAI

In a sentence or two, what's your objection?

You've lost me ...

[W]e are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena

Regarding the US, our political democracy without economic democracy is a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) which, from periodic national crisis to crisis, has been dismantling itself brick by brick since 1789 by disproportionately serving Capital at the expense of Labor and Nature (both of which are in revolt: reactionary populisms and global warming, respectively). A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate.

So traditional "verities" have become hypocrites' punchlines; commerce über alles has fragmented communities into barrios, barracks & bunkers inhabited by increasingly alienated, hedonic treadmill junkies (zombies); and 'the American system' freezes out most of the people and with every passing generation more and more people desire to burn it all down in order to warm their freezing children in its 'purifying bonfires'. It's just so much easier for most people to imagine The Apocalypse :pray: than to struggle for a viable, radical alternative to this acutely alienating, neoliberal status quo. Maybe it is already too late to postpone "American Carnage" ... :eyes:

I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell. — T Clark

:100:

NB: I have thoroughly read Meillassoux & Brassier but immediately lose interest whenever I start reading Harman.

1) Can objects be understood without reference to human subjectivity? — schopenhauer1

Clarify what you mean by "understood".

2) Is it even wise to try to overlook the human aspect to all knowledge?

"The human aspect" can be deflated (e.g. mathematics, natural sciences).

Is this not only a fool's errand but somehow anti-human or is this just trying to take out a pernicious anthropomorphism that might lead to a more open field of exploration?

Speculative Realists seem to be attempting a more complete and consistent application of the Mediocrity Principle (i.e. anthropo-decentricity) – neither a 'view from being there' nor a 'view from nowhere', but a view from everywhere – in ontology.

:up:

The NYS civil trial begins October 2nd; it's a black & white "documents case" that should last no more than two months with a verdict just in time for Xmas or sooner. Loser-1 will not offer a defense just like in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit and the Trump Organization was convicted of 17 felonies last fall which are also at the heart of the state's civil case. It's wishful thinking at best on your part, Mikie, to believe this lawsuit won't reach a verdict against Loser-1 by the end of this year.

Rubert Murdoch has already abandoned him. I suspect other far less well-known to the public mega-donors already have as well (which is why Loser-1 has veen grifting so hard since his failed coup attempt).

Senators Mo Brooks & Mitt Romney released separate statements today declaring Loser-1 is unfit to be president. More to come, Mikie. Let the avalanche begin ...

Keep in mind, the voters only matter – get a say – once 'the establishment' (mega-donors, party leaders, politicians & pundits) has signed-off on the candidates. Loser-1, while still the front runner today, is hemorraging the establishment support he needs so that his MAGA maniacs can get a chance to vote for him in the primaries. Yeah, I get it, they don't care about his past or pending civil, criminal & financial troubles but, all indications are, the GOP establishment cares about winning / regaining power in Washington DC and Loser-1 looks more and more to them like an obstacle to power. MAGA morons be damned, there aren't enough of them –'without Never Trumpers, suburban GOP women, under 35 years olds and most Independents – for Loser-1 to win a general election. This has been obvious and confirmed since 2018 and confirmed again in 2020 & 2022 (remember the Trumpy "red ripple"?) :smirk:

Lastly, Desantis is sabotaging himself even as he throws red meat at MAGAts. Also, between getting punk'd by Mickey Mouse and being Loser-1's first and easiest rival to attack, Desantis has offered himself up as a tag-team practice dummy.

Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too? — Mikie

Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: :up:

If Sexual Predator-1 is on the ballot in the fall of 2024 he will be running as an Independent / Third Party candidate and not as the GOP nominee. Why?

(1) by the end of 2023, the jury in NYS civil lawsuit will find him responsible for over a decade of state tax fraud, putting him and his children on the hook for damages $500million – $1billion and effectively shutting down the Trump Organization, etc by preventing the family from doing business in NYS – SP-1 will be so broke that campaign mega-donors will completely abandon him (as his buddy Rupert Murdoch already has) as well as Russian Oligarchs & the Saudis ...

(2) by the end of 2023, SP-1 will be indicted for dozens of RICO felonies in Fulton County, Georgia, with a trial set to begin in the summer/fall of 2024 – Senate Minoriry Leader "Moscow Mitch", in order to protect the GOP's slim chances of winning back the US Senate in 2024, will lead GOP senators to begin to openly withdraw their support during the GOP primaries and even openly criticize SP-1 as a serial electoral "LOSER" just as former GOP governor Chris Christie is already doing ...

(3) lastly, also by the end of 2023, a Federal Grand Jury and the DoJ will indict SP-1 for Seditious Conspiracy & Insurrection, among several other charges, and this will trigger legal challenges in State & Federal courts to remove SP-1 from ballots for president (or any federal office) pursuant to the prohibitions specified in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution – without GOP big money or his own financing, without the support of GOP senators and live wall-to-wall 24/7 media chatter about legal challenges to officially disqualify Seditionist-1 from any federal office including the presidency, the GOP will abandon him next spring (or sooner) in order to begin saving itself as a viable party for the 2026 midterms abd 2028 general election.

Out of spite and malignant narcissistic dementia, Seditionist-1 will run as a third party spoiler to punish the GOP for abandoning him siphoning off enough voters to guarantee a Democrat wins the presidency (not Biden) as well as violence by MAGA terrorists leading up to and around the election next fall. And all this in the political context of the collapse of FOX Noise (re: Smartmatic & shareholders' lawsuits plus Tucker Carlson's retaliation) and demise of the right-wing SCOTUS (re: Thomas & wife, et al) as well.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781991

So I'll be happy to take your money, Mikie. :wink: :up:

In fact, I think idealism is the obvious solution. — RogueAI

Any idea how "idealism" can be used to solve "the hard problem"? Do share, Rogue.

:100: :up:

What is nihilism? It is variously expressed as the idea that nothing is real, or that nothing has any real meaning. — Wayfarer

By 'nihilism' I understand the belief that nothing human (i.e. mortal, finite, caused, contingent, imperfect) is meaningful or significant or real. Thus, I interpret 'supernatural religions' (e.g. Abrahamic, Vedic, pantheonic, shamanic, animist, ancestral, divine rightist, paranormal, ... cults) as manifest 'nihilisms' which, as Freddy points out, devalue this worldly life by projecing – idealizing (i.e. idolizing, disembodying) – 'infinite meaning, significance & reality' as originating with and/or only belonging to some purported 'eternal otherworldly life'. :sparkle: :eyes: :roll:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805551

:up:

Does theism as a philosophical position, act as a valid support for religious doctrine? — universeness

Sure, at best, but not sound.

Criminal Defendant-1 has a new title as of today: Sexual Predator-1. :clap: :vomit: