A car and a heart have a function that can be proven when they stop functioning. I don't think biological functions are mind dependent at all.

The body functions successfully and performs vital tasks to keep a live.

There is a limit to how much the mind can control the body and your cells will continue to function whether you like it or not.

In this sense you can give people health advice based on the likely outcome of a behavior. There are physical consequences. If a person is stabbed in the heart or drives a car the wrong way down a road. However when it comes to the consequence for immoral behavior they usually have to be applied by other humans such as fines and imprisonment.

I don't agree with your characterization of morality. I think you can give different definitions of what morality is or does.

You can't "prove" that something is moral or immoral because the idea of that doesn't even make sense. — Terrapin Station

I think it does.

If someone has a car there is a right way to drive a car.

There could be a right way for a human to behave just like their is a proper functioning of a heart. The thing said to undermine this is evolution and the idea that there is no longer teleology in nature.

I am a moral nihilist at the moment. I think inventing moral ideas for personal gain is the reverse of morality.

I think it is a poor quality existence if it is just a constant struggle for the supremacy of ones values.

Indeed, and sometimes that is a good thing ---if, for instance, human beings are understood as property or if homosexuality is considered evil — macrosoft

Homosexuality is a good example here because even at the height of the persecution and criminilization of homosexuality people still had gay relationships and sex.

Obviously it is good if you can override unjust laws but less good when you can just ignore any moral claim.

I am personally not looking for the Ten Commandments or any kind of shallow basic moral dogma but rather for the ability to justify my moral sentiments and enact them confidently.

I feel quite frustrated at many peoples complacency about morality where they either blindly accept moral dogmas or don't care about moral problems and have a kind of apathy or unjustified confidence.

This realization goes back at least to the Greeks. On the other hand, individuals aren't that powerful away from groups. Any force sufficient to triumph on a large scale is therefore to be expected from a group. — macrosoft

The problem then with the power of the group or the power of the majority is that it appears to trump reason. What ever rational arguments lie behind a position if becomes imposed by brute force.

I feel that action should be guided by reason mainly and a constant process of reason and reevaluation. I think people become complacent with norms.

The first thing I find curious is that you're apparently thinking of morality as something that it shouldn't be possible to act against, either literally or practically. Or at least if one can act against it, you therefore see morality as pointless. — Terrapin Station

I think society can have moral standards that are enforced by the police and justice system.

What concerns me is when people ignore morality and resolve a moral dispute by acting. This where people have a moral disagreement and only force resolves the dispute being moral argumentation failed.

A counter example might be a danger sign "Do not touch, live wire" If someone disobeys this command they might be electrocuted.

In some cases you can illustrate the harm caused by an action or watch a harm unfold but there are a lot of ambiguous cases where harm and responsibility is disputed.
In my own case it was being forced to go to church several days a week throughout my entire childhood where my parents will dispute that it was harmful or wrong.

And it seems proving something is harmful still does not resolve a moral dispute when some forms of harm are deemed acceptable.

And then you're wondering how we can enforce morality. Wouldn't laws work? We think it's immoral to kill someone premeditatively, where the killer initiated the action, so we make that illegal, and then we can arrest and incarcerate the perpetrator. That's enforcement, isn't it? — Terrapin Station

It is possible to enforce some moral claims although I think breaking the law is not an issue of morality. I don't think that when the courts convict someone of an offense that proves its immorality. But I agree that some crimes are dealt with adequately and an element of morality is enforced.

The problem is like with genocide or unsolved murders when someone gets away with an offense. That is where you may have the benefit of an afterlife enforcement of justice or karma.

The other problem and the one that inspired this thread is when a moral argument is "resolved" by action. I was reading about two families with 6 children and wondering why they felt it a good idea to have lots of children and why they felt entitled. They were talking about the joys of large families.

It is not illegal to have lots of children and when people feel self satisfied they feel vindicated and if you disagree with them you have lost the argument anyway because they have acted.
The only thing that might happen is that society might eventually disapprove of large families and history condemn this and it's contribution to overpopulation and environmental damage.

My judgement here might be wrong but how would I know?

Morality changes, but moral guidance continues. — Bitter Crank

But you have not attained moral truth.

There is a difference between knowing what a moral action is and having an intuition. I am not convinced intuition is knowledge.

I think we could make a moral analysis of any action but we are selective about which actions or beliefs we target.

It is, for example, fairly easy to know that beating someone causes harm and might be wrong based on some principle that causing suffering is wrong or simply harmful. Taking the homosexuality example, it was hard for me to accept homosexuality was wrong because of the lack of harm it caused and seeing no rational argument against it.

But beyond things that are either clearly harmful or seemingly benign then we have the complicated territory of looking it no ethical subtleties such as the future impact of current behavior, the appropriate action to minimize harm, meta ethics, the scope of ethical concern and so on.
So for example what should I do for charity? How much should I give? How ethical is my lifestyle? Who should I vote for? Should I eat meat? This can even make morality seem like a burden.

There are lots of different ways to take away peoples power. I think that if the government takes away power from you it does not excuse you taking away someone else's power.

I had no power as a child and my parents were able to have total authority an control over me and even use physical threat and violence (hitting).

Someone can gain power in many different forms including simply mental freedom. Freedom from anxiety. Every day freedom from coercion, stress and threat. And little bits of freedom can lead to more personal empowerment and self direction.

Society is said to control people but society is people. If it is controlling people then it is one group of society controlling another. Like most people I could go probably out on a killing spree tomorrow but I restrain myself from antisocial acts. We cooperate to some extent with society but there has to be an incentive. The presence of some good and campaigning in society is one incentive not to become completely antisocial

(I am in the UK btw)

I don't find "power" all that helpful a feature to analyze; most of us have a modicum of personal power to run our lives, go to work, raise a family, etc., but very little power beyond that. We can get more power by uniting with other people to accomplish something. — Bitter Crank

I think this is a false fatalism and apathy.

I am not referring to power as a spectrum from small to great and I am not advocating people do anything revolutionary. I am referring to every power interaction involved in living. I think apathy is one of the most demoralizing things and also a power tactic. Apathy can amount to discouraging action or encouraging inaction.

I might have to go into a long analysis to highlight what I mean. Firstly though I don't think having children or raising a family is inevitable. Having children has a wide impact and the child parent power relation is of massive importance. Society is created by creating children and I see this as a political act in itself. In some situations and societies people have children with specifically political or religious aims.

So by not having children even if you cannot escape your own oppression you can prevent it happening to someone else so I think this is a false apathy. People can and do walk out of jobs and their are trade unions and other bodies protesting on behalf of workers. One thing that creates work related oppression is peoples insatiable consumerism, apathy about the exploitation of resources and people elsewhere. As with the Jordan Peterson example. Society reflect the culmination of the desires large numbers of people.

'm not fond of "power relation" talk — Terrapin Station

You do put Foucault as one of your favorite philosophers though. I don't think power relation analysis needs to be ill-defined or entail banal analysis.

I think it is inevitable, that relationships between individuals and between individuals and society etc will involve a balance of power and ways of maintaining power, giving up some power or gaining power. This includes things like the feminist and gay rights movements.

I believe people are uncomfortable about exposing power interactions and analyzing relationships. For example 50+ years ago in Britain someone was attacked for insulting the Queen but that attitude has died away. But there are always stages when challenging norms gets a negative reaction.

It is not necessarily in someones interest to expose to themselves the power dynamics they are involved in.

Personally I would like more power but without having to trample over people to get it.

I think happiness is hard to describe. It seems to be just a personal feeling of positivity and lightness or maybe elation.

But it does not seem to be evidence of value nor have a relationship with fact. Happiness does not prove that what your doing is good or that it has intrinsic value.

You could pursue happiness for its pure sensation but I don't know if you will find happiness by exploring reality or the truth.

It may be that you have to attain happiness independently of what is happening around you. I am not convinced that the facts of reality justify happiness. But it is a problem to say what emotions are justified in response to what if any.

It is possible that happiness may arise when you have achieved values and goals you have. Personally I don't think I can be happy unless I am in a situation of truth and authenticity. Overall I think it is quite elusive

So: why do you think we should "aim towards reason"? — Pattern-chaser

My main point is that people should acknowledge power dynamics because I value the truth and I don't agree with letting dynamics go unexamined.

i don't think a tendency for some irrationality is an excuse for aiming for no rationality and If you were to advocate I would see that as a power move for some personal reason you may have.

There are obvious reasons for aiming towards reason any way just for basic survival.

But another concern I have is unfairness. Power tactics are often unfair and therefore abusive.

So for example in my first example of the quiet argument I think it is wrong to let someone win an argument based on presentation and emotion rather than content.

Reading about Patty Hearst gave me a thought.

How many people are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome where they end up misidentifying with an oppressive system (including the parent child one).

I try and be as reasonable as possible. I would be happy for you to highlight something I do you think is beyond reason.

Empirical evidence may show that people behave irrationally but that is not the same as saying they can't be rational and are intrinsically rational.

I think you are engaging in power relations with me here in this argument to cast aspersions on how rational people can be to resign yourself to a position. I am a fan of The Freudian subconscious and I believe that people have ulterior disguised but discoverable motives for behavior. To me becoming more rational is to expose this.

Unfortunately it might mean exposing dark irrational forces and destructive desires. But there is not reason to succumb to them. But based on my own experience I think it is quite possible to live in a sate of reason, questioning and skepticism. I think the more reasoning or reasonable you become the more frightening everything else becomes and the more irrational it seems. It is like ignorance is bliss.

Feigning insanity is another power move.

Maybe I am paranoid but i can see power play in so many interactions. I do think we can aim towards reason. But ignorance and unreason can be good tactical moves.

I think we can become more reasonable by assessing or exposing power relations. To some extent this happens in therapy.

"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

Society is. Many are more powerful than one. The moral imperative, because this is so, is for society only to over-rule individuals when it must.. — Pattern-chaser

I think the power of society is a collective power of individuals combining their wills. Should this ever be the case or should societies be run on reason alone?

I am not advocating an elitist run society but a society where some form of reason dominates debate and policy. Obviously sometime or lots of times politicians foster or pander to irrationality.

But consider medicine. Most people will allow a heart surgeon to be an expert and to control the patients treatment because they recognize his or her expertise and would not claim their own expertise here unless they were a crank. Outside of medicine and the natural science their is evidence in the social sciences that could inform social policy but it is undermined by political bias.

Maybe it is just a continuous natural struggle but I hope there is more to life than that.

I think one problem is that people adapt too easily to things that are immoral and wrong in the society. — ssu

I suppose my suggestion would be then, that people are adapting to things by asserting power in some way.
By power I don't mean dominance though.

But rather that by using some powers they possess to go in a certain direction rather than being helplessly sucked along. But I think it is almost subconscious and they are in denial of what is happening. I suppose by power here I mean influence or withholding influence.

What also interests me is concerning what is power in this sense? How does one get power? Who is in control. Is anyone control?

I liked the horror film The cube where a mechanical torture apparatus terrorizes people but they couldn't trace any one person responsible because it was bureaucracy our of control. In a sense bureaucracy can be away of relinquishing power. Also you might say that there is good power and bad power.

I am not saying real powerlessness doesn't exist however.

One classic dichotomy is whether society or the individual is the more powerful force. Jordan Peterson has argued that the individuals immorality is what accumulates to make society immoral and hence it is not just the immorality of a few corrupt leaders making a corrupt or toxic society.

I think that society can negatively affect and influence the individual but I think this is only the case for a minority of society affected by the conduct of the majority. I find it hard to believe that a majority of society could not cause political change. even if the majority doesn't support a position I think a substantial number of people have to support it for it to gain traction.

Another case of false powerlessness I believe comes from parents. I think having a child is partially endorsing the society and world you are bringing them into. I think parenting is a position where you can create a good environment for the child before creating her. Or you can refrain from having children if you cannot improve circumstances.

Incompatible beliefs maybe acceptable in trivial or personal matters but this is not the case when people are targeting hate at other people.

If someone tries to persecute or oppress me with non trivial hypocrisy I see that as egregious and cause for concerted action.

Personally I have no difficulty in assessing whether my beliefs are irrational or contradictory. Why is it so hard? For example I am a moral nihilist as I accept I cannot defend moral claims.

I do not accept that people can be allowed to abuse and religiously indoctrinate their children like I was and it be seen as trivial cognitive dissonance. I do not think ignorance is an excuse for abusive parenting or logic failure. I think a problem has been a failure to challenge religious irrationality partly due to the previous popularity and status of religion.

It is embarrassing that the rest of the animal kingdom does not fall for this irrationality.

She doesn't rely on God to solve medical or financial problems. — Bitter Crank

That is the hypocrisy of these people. Fiercely rational in some areas. Fingers in the ears in others.

I like this philosophy! I need to try and apply it.

Here as an example of a problem. The following video documents lots of contradictory statements in the bible.

But when you are having a random conversation you can't call upon this and even if you do have it to hand the other person will give convoluted reasons or evasions how it isn't correct.

So how do you get the point across succinctly that you have really good evidence that point X is incorrect without getting bogged down?

Some people are so invested in their beliefs that it is like a battle to get them to the stage of reasoning honestly about them.

I am talking about a circumstance where someone won't even engage in proper debate. If they do talk with you they won't respond at all or properly to your points.

But overall I am wondering how philosophically we should approach and cope with irrationality.

In a way we probably need to use brute force ourselves to put some semblance of reason on the agenda. I am not using reason in a biased or intellectual way here but just reason as basic logic.

I don't think facts equal reason because facts and statistics can be misused but rather logic and consistency.

I think some of the differences can't be verbalized they are just apparent on observing humans and animals.

Partly to do with intelligence and communication skills.

How do we know which things are exclusive to humans and which things are not? — creativesoul

I can think of lots of things that exclusive to humans although some of these involve artifacts.

I would say words, writing and drawing are exclusive to humans and probably language

(Language ,because I would class animal interactions as communication as opposed to a fully fledged language with concepts, sophisticated representations, grammar and thousands of words)

Playing musical instruments. Doing Philosophy. Schadenfreude. Storytelling. Concepts. serious technology and invention. Economics. Fantasy. Religion.

Driving a vehicle. Space exploration. Culture. Laughter. Crime.

Documenting History. Science. Symbolism (To the great extent it is found in humans) Reflection on death.

People treat pets like family which is understandable. But they don't have the same expectations of them. They pander to them and don't make them earn a living.

The problem is when you try and give all animals the same status and rights as pets or humans it becomes an impossible utilitarian calculation and burden.

So utilitarianism has been seen as more problematic when you apply it to other entities because it ends up diluting the type of average pleasure you are trying to attain. Can a pig appreciate Socrates?

I suppose it depends on how you view subjectivity. Subjectivity is quite solipsistic and centered on the individual but it doesn't mean that the individual perspective is invalid.

It seems a truly objective perspective would entail that even an omnipresent God would have to inhabit every possible perspective.

I think that subjective knowledge is valid if we just add to gather every available or hypothetical perspective to get a multi-perspectival knowledge.

i think inherent meaning is possible but it might require teleology or a creator/designer.
Objective morality seems impossible because even if God created its own morality it would still be subjective.
It is hard to see where binding moral facts could come from and how they could be Bestowed without being subjective or arbitrary or coming from a subjective law maker.

Overall I think nihilism is important to explore and society is made inauthentic by not challenging the roots of it's assumptions. I think there is something nihilistic about living on false or inadequate beliefs. Like living with a convenient fancy and ignoring available truths or challenges to your beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

The Wikipedia entry is good. Apparently anthropomorphism is considered an innate tendency starting from childhood.
I don't feel I have ever been one for anthropomorphizing though. I also find it difficult to guess what other people might be thinking and I try to be cautious about making assumptions.

Everyone's mental states might be very different. It is actually hard to compare any mental states because of their private nature. I think that similar behavior may or may not entail similar mental states but I would not rush to conclusions.

I have often wondered what makes us believe a person or creature is conscious. We believe other entities than us have conscious states without a causal theory and we seem to judge something to be conscious on subtle clues. I have used the example in the past of a woman flicking her hair. That kind of little gesture seems to imply consciousness whereas a sophisticated response by a computer doesn't'.

The problem with machine human analogies is is that machines do things differently than humans even if the same or better results are produced. But some "trivial" behaviors seem implausible without consciousness.

This is amusing satire.

I think human exceptionalism — BrianW

There is lots of evidence of human exceptionalism especially in language, technology and culture.

Anthropomorphism is the attempt to attribute these exceptional attributes too widely and inappropriately.

It is not a case of degrading other entities but rather of of spreading attributes falsely. If something shares a property truly with humans we need proper evidence of this rather than insinuation.

People are selective about what they attribute to what I think for ideological reasons. I am open for anythings to share attributes with good evidence and with a causal account but not through insinuation.

Particular grim examples is calling chimps people and calling brain damaged people vegetables.

I think anthropomorphism is a two way process.

For example making a close comparison between humans and chimps can end up devaluing human attributes by spreading them to thinly and exaggerating human animal similarities (i.e. mischaracterizing human attributes).

Some people give animals or machines human attributes in order to try and demystify or deflate them in humans. Or to see where an attribute might have arisen in a simpler form.

So the problem could be said to be mistaken or politicized or ideological comparison.

I think they must be causally efficacious to the mind.

But maybe these philosophers only have a model of physical causality in an old fashioned sense?

I think thoughts or perceptions do not immediately entail action like physical interactions seem to but I think they can motivate action.

For example if I perceive a hill I can decide whether or not to climb it. Or if I have a theory in my head I can keep it there indefinitely whilst deciding whether to act on it or not. Such as my partner looks angry shall I go over and try and comfort him.

The mind-body dualism comes apart when dealing with depression.

So, mind-body are same. — Posty McPostface

If the mind and body are the same that could mean everything is the mind. I think the causality issue is unresolved. But dualism is also available were the mind and body are different entities but can somehow interact.

I think all our experiences are mental including ones that make us believe in the physical such as the sensation of a hard rock. But there is still a difference between our perception of the mental and physical where inner states are more abstract.

I haven't resolved how much of my depression is based on physicality or mentality/reason. I think you can use models of the physical and mental together though to try and combat mental illness.

It seems to me that normal is a powerful force because people are motivated to be normal or they see the normal as acceptable because it is prolific.

How many things are acceptable because they are normal (or prolific) or due to rigorous reason and argumentation etc.

Life is an astonishing temporary phenomenon. — Michael Ossipoff

But there appear to be infinities involved.

I remember thinking about infinity as a child. I imagined going far into space and then coming to a large brick wall but realising there must be something beyond that wall.

I also thought that if God created the earth at what time in an infinite past did he decide to create it?

I don't have any philosophical insight into the depression accept that it makes me fatigued.

It feels like a dead end I suppose. Although depression is a mental condition it feels bodily for me.

I don't know if reason has led me to depression or something purely bodily is causing it.

There is the issue of how reason or judgement effects the emotions and how the mind or emotions effect the body. Can a Negative thought cause bodily infirmity. What is happening in a mind-body interaction? I made a thread once about whether pain was a warning that something was unhealthy in society as well as one's self.

One of the main things that puzzles me is peoples reactions to life. I don't know what the appropriate reaction to being alive ought to be, but a lot of the reactions I see are banal or non existent.

I think you could, be shocked, puzzled, perplexed, frightened or awed by being alive. But not complacent and conformist or apathetic.

To me it is not a case of just saying words, like "extraordinary", "breathtaking" and "vast". It is a case of responding viscerally and reacting.

If people realised they were in the middle of an apparently infinite reality/universe with inexplicable consciousness and a body consisting of billions of tiny intricate machines you would think it would cause in the them surprise, fear, questioning, puzzlement, inspiration and so on. Yet a lot of peoples lives or aspirations seem really mundane or repetitive even demeaning. In the midst of this vast universal spectacle there is an absurdity and bleakness in some of life's mundanities.

If God is a conspirator, he conspires with someone. — Ciceronianus the White

It could be the Gods and Goddesses like in Greek mythology.

I am trying to think of synonyms for the word I want. Maybe trickery? Illusion? Contrivance. Deception. Artifice. Game. Scenario. Plato's cave.

Depression, Anxiety, Aspergers ,family, family religion, uncertainty and so on.