So aside from outcomes and intentions, what kind of action also seems to matter. — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed. I suppose whether or not the act actually has the potential to cause harm is the determining factor when evaluating intentions? Using a voodoo doll hasn’t been shown to have the potential to cause harm, whereas being shot obviously has.

The football example is actually an interesting one, because in football (and I'm talking about soccer here) they have very clear rules about what kind of tackles are allowed and which are not. Intentions usually are not considered in determining whether the player has made a fault. Either way such a tackle usually isn't considered morally wrong, even if it was a fault. But if you were to tackle someone outside of a football-field then it would be considered morally wrong. Intention to harm is assumed because why would you be tackling someone otherwise. So here we have basically the same actions that are judged completely differently because context matters. — ChatteringMonkey

I was referring to American football, but either one illustrates the point, I think. The context being that all parties involved in the game have consented to play it with the full knowledge that certain physical contact is allowed and could cause injury (I’m referring to legal tackles here, which could still lead to injury).

However, I wonder if there have been any cases, in any sport, where legal charges were filed due to excessive or malicious use of force (think fights in hockey where actual weapons (hockey sticks) have been used)? I know in American football, some illegal hits carry the additional burden of being judged as immoral as well. These are hits that are obviously done to intentionally injure a player.

One example:

Nevertheless, I would say that there is a fundamental difference of intention between communicating with oneself and communicating with others, implying a difference in meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the difference? The purpose of both is to pass on information, correct?

If we do not act on our intentions, are they intentions? — Kenosha Kid

I always thought so, but maybe we’re thinking of the term differently. I think of intentions as whatever it is you want to do, regardless of whether or not you have the means to do them, or are capable of doing them, etc.

I thought he meant that we judge something on what the intended or desired outcome was, not on the actual outcome. And while that seems to be the case for the most part, it isn't that cut and dry. In certain cases we do think intent to harm isn't necessary for something to be immoral, like say in case of doing harm because of drunk driving or negligence. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree that both have to be considered, but neither are good/bad on their own. You can’t solely look at outcomes or intentions and derive a moral judgment based only on that. For example, is it wrong for me to shove pins in a Trump voodoo doll because I’m intending to do him harm? I don’t think it is since no harm is actually caused. It’s the same thing with outcomes. Is it wrong if a football player tackles another player and unintentionally injures him? Again, I would answer no.

This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions. — Kenosha Kid

I find this interesting...

One reason why could be that intentions themselves have no effect on others. I can intend to do harm all day, but no one will actually be harmed until I act, and even then only if I am successful. If no one is harmed, then what is there to justify any moral judgments made on intentions? Also, our intentions are, at least sometimes, caused by whatever outcomes we desire, or don’t desire. So I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say we don’t act on outcomes. If I had no desired outcome, I don’t think I would act at all. Why would I?

I think @Kenosha Kid’s response sums things up pretty well, but I would add the idea that some religions advocate for the spreading of their message. This, as well as other things, can lead some followers to aggressively pursue converting nonbelievers to their religion. From their perspective they are doing God’s work, and even acting as a sort of savior for the nonbelievers, since if they continued in their nonbelief they would suffer the consequences of an eternity in hell. However, from the nonbeliever’s perspective this often comes across as hostile, and indeed sometimes it is. I think this situation can be especially difficult for devoutly religious people who have people they deeply care about that are nonbelievers. They likely do not want to think that the person they love will go to hell when they die, so they try their best to “save” them, but, sadly, I don’t think that usually ends so well for their relationship.

:lol:

In my view it all comes down to if your suffering will be worse than the animals'. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The problem with this is that it’s hard to quantify qualities such as suffering, even among ourselves, much less other animals. How can you be sure that factory farmed animals are indeed suffering at all?

There is a rich history of people making markings to serve as memory aids. This is very distinct from using language for communication. — Metaphysician Undercover

Just curious, but do things like talking to yourself or using memory aides not count as communication? Especially in the case of memory aides, it seems that one subject does in fact obtains information, albeit perhaps simply information that has been forgotten, but information is being transferred nonetheless.

I think there is a danger of certain basic needs just being seen as attachments rather than as essential needs. — Jack Cummins

But all basic needs are also attachments, right? Supposing it’s possible to discard attachment altogether, these basic needs would still remain, but without any attachment you would never act on trying to fill those needs. Why would you? By eliminating attachment, you’ve also eliminated your will. You’ll get hungry for sure, but you have no reason to eat other than being attached to sustaining your life.

No it means you're attached to having enough liquids to live. A reasonable expectation in the moden age. — khaled

Ok, and this is a clear example of why eliminating all attachment would lead to death, right? Or do you think I could desire to drink, even if I’m not attached to being hydrated, etc.?

My point is that you can keep asking someone "Why do you want X" and they can keep giving answers. Are you saying the last answer in that sequence is the "attachment" and the others are the "desire"? — khaled

Yes, but the answers in between could overlap, just like some effects are also causes. I think it would be unlikely, or inaccurate, to say that someone is attached to their new car, or really any physical object or person. Attachment has more to do with the feelings that objects/people give you (joy, power, pleasure, etc.). So that might be a better way of distinguishing between them. The issue is that people often confuse the two, and will equate object X with feeling Y, when in reality there are many X’s that correspond with feeling Y. Whereas if the attachment to feeling Y were somehow eliminated, the value of all the X’s that corresponded to that feeling would greatly diminish. So the value of the various means through which one can achieve orgasm is very different for a 20 year old and an 80 year old, because one’s attachment to sex decreases, or so I’m told.

How big of a problem it is not to have the thing. Which I find to often be different from how much you want the thing. Sometimes you want things that you would not be distressed at not having, such as a new car or a particular christmas present (Desire without Attachment). Other times, it seems like a huge problem to not have something even though you don't really want that thing, like with smoking and gambling (Attachment without Desire). — khaled

Doesn’t seem any less vague than my definition. How big enough of a problem does it take to qualify as attachment? Or what about how big a problem it is when you get something you don’t want? I was disappointed my burger had onions on it, does that mean I’m attached to onion-free burgers? On the other hand, I’m never disappointed if I get Coke, even though I prefer Pepsi; but if I’m dying of thirst, not having either is a very big problem. Does that mean I’m only attached to Coke/Pepsi sometimes, but not others?

Don’t understand the question. — Wayfarer

If believing our day to day lives are permanent is a groundless belief, then how can a sage be said to be perfect unless he is able to continuously (permanently) demonstrate his perfection? IOW’s believing someone’s state of perfection is permanent would be just as groundless a belief as the previously mentioned one. And if you try claiming that their state of perfection isn’t permanent, then I would argue they aren’t actually perfect.

I think the Buddhist answer is that it’s our faith in the security and permanency of our day to day lives which is groundless. — Wayfarer

Wouldn’t permanency be a part of human perfection? If someone is only perfect for a moment, are they truly perfect?

The way you defined it I don't see a hard line between what counts as a "desire" and what counts as an "attachment", they both just seem to be talking abou the same thing to me. — khaled

It’s as hard as the line between cause and effect. Attachment causes desires.

"Why are you participating in the tournament?" "Because I want to win" is that attachment or desire? — khaled

Well, it depends on two things; whether or not wanting to win caused you to participate in the tournament, and how general/specific an answer the questioner accepts. If the questioner is looking for a sort of “first cause” the questioning would continue with “why do you want to win?” But this issue arises when determining cause and effect as well. If someone shoots me, what is my cause of death? The bullet entering my brain? The person who pulled the trigger? Me for pissing off the person that pulled the trigger? It can go on and on, but an effect is always preceded by a cause.

The way I use the term "attachment" is radically different from what you just outlined. — khaled

So how do you define it?

I find the first much more likely considering how many people seem to find sense in what he says. — khaled

This is just an aside for me, but there are still plenty of other options. Translation issues, the meaning of the term could have changed in 2000 years, perhaps he didn’t fully understand what he meant. Perhaps people find sense in what he said because it is vague enough to allow people to project or insert their own concepts into it? I don’t know, and I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but your conviction looks a bit more like faith than fact to me. Almost as if you consider ancient secondhand accounts of the Buddha’s teachings to be infallible or divinely inspired.

You guys seem to be equating attachment with desire. They are very different things. As you say, if the Buddha hadn't desired anything, he wouldn't have got out of bed to eat. But he did. So that suggests that they're not the same thing. — khaled

I see attachment as something that lies underneath desire, that causes desire. Desire is more specific, or narrowly focused on specific things (money, sex, objects, etc.), whereas attachment is more abstract (life, pleasure, etc.). So we desire whatever it is we desire because it fulfills/sustains (temporarily, of course) an attachment. Starting with the most general, our attachment to life causes our attachment to pleasure, which causes our desire for things that give us pleasure. Pleasure acts as a sort of rule-of-thumb for whatever is beneficial for life, but due to the slow speed of evolution, it isn’t perfect. It operates under the premise that our ancestral environment hasn’t changed.

Regarding the second part of your quote, it could suggest many things; that the Buddha didn’t literally mean what he said, that he was imperfect, that he lied, etc.

If only it was that simple. — Jack Cummins

Lol, yes. Good luck!

So, the question is how do we prioritise? — Jack Cummins

To me, this is the basic question of morality. My answer is that our priorities should reflect our needs. I don’t think everyone can be happy living an ascetic lifestyle, obviously some can. So not everyone should prioritize the renunciation of material possessions, but others should. Discovering which type of person you are requires some self-awareness and self-reflection, but I’d posit that one’s general emotional state is a good indicator as to whether or not a change needs to be made. Mental illness is an obvious exception to this, however. We can’t know for sure how things will go in the end, and suffering is inevitable, but if something/someone causes you more suffering than happiness it’s usually best to move on. And yes, there is often suffering involved in fighting addiction or ending a relationship, but (hopefully) it is relatively short-term.

With literally no attachment to anything, I doubt you would live very long. Our attachment to pleasure is what spurs us to eat when we’re hungry, or drink when we’re thirsty, etc. If I’m indifferent to life itself, what could ever cause me to act in any way whatsoever? Why would I do anything? But of course, as Geddy Lee would say, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” So my inaction would ultimately lead to my demise sooner or later. I think the issue with attachment is it’s propensity to cause things like addiction, confuse our priorities, and let the end (whatever it is we’re attached to) justify the means. So the trick is to only be attached to things that are good.

From Metal Gear Solid...

This makes me think of a hypothesis I've been mulling over lately: are all mental disorders just distortions or exaggerations of aspects of normal mental functioning? — Pfhorrest

I think some sexual disorders/paraphilias may not qualify.

Great cover, imo.

Are you saying you don’t think reason evolved?

I think there’s other possibilities. My lack of empathy could very well be the product of desensitization, mental illness, or something else entirely. Also, I’m not saying I have zero empathy, it just doesn’t seem as prominent as most other people.

I would like to know peoples' opinions about how to approach reason itself. What kind of a faculty is it? Is it mainly good? Is it mainly reliable? What are we to make of it? Thanks — Gregory

I like to look at reason through an evolutionary lens. Reason evolved, just like our intellect and other physical traits, because it is useful for survival and reproduction. Accordingly, it’s usefulness can really only extend to what we can sense. What I mean is, we lived for thousands of years only being able to interact with our immediate environment, because we had not yet developed scientific apparatuses to enhance our abilities. So reason necessarily evolved as a way to understand and predict our natural environment. As a result, there are likely aspects of nature that contradict reason, because they are aspects that we never truly encountered in our past (think quantum physics). However, I would posit that had we been able to experience the quantum world on a regular basis, reason would have evolved to look vastly different than it does now.

:up:

Cognitive empathy. — Brett

Yes! Thanks for this term. I’ve been trying to think of a way to explain it...

Maybe you’re right, but I just always viewed altruism as helping others while gaining nothing (I.e. helping others strictly for their sake). An example of this being jumping in front of a train to save someone’s life, while sacrificing your own (although even in this case there is the argument that being viewed as a hero, and that the posthumous recognition/praise for the act is the determining motivation; thereby not altruistic either).

Selfishness may be altruism’s opposite (as white is to black), but that doesn’t make self-interestedness it’s equal (just as red is not black, but also not white).

Well, I don’t really see how life is analogous to your spaceship scenario, but after thinking about it if you’re only being altruistic because it benefits you, it probably doesn’t actually qualify as altruism.

That is, I think, a very good principle in itself, and the moral analogue of critical rationalism, which I think is the correct epistemology. Both in deciding what to believe and in deciding what to intend, the focus is best put on avoiding the most wrong options, rather than on identifying one specific uniquely right option. — Pfhorrest

Appreciate your input in all of this. I just wanted to also say that I personally seem to lack much empathy. So, my principles are somewhat of a tangible line I don’t want to allow myself to cross, because it’s likely that my emotional response wouldn’t be strong enough by itself to prevent me from doing bad things. So for me personally, I probably need to develop some principles that guide me towards positive actions as well. Otherwise, I come across as being self-absorbed and inconsiderate, which I suppose I probably am. But that’s probably just a “me” thing.

So, let's make ourselves happy. — TheMadFool

Just want to point out that the knowledge required to do this for any sustained length of time almost certainly must include knowing the interconnectedness of us all. So, in order for me to be happy, at the very least those I deeply care about must also be relatively happy. Ensuring that likely means that I will need to put forth some effort into their happiness as well, which may require sacrifice on my part. So, ironically, in order to be egotistical, I must also at times be altruistic. I suppose the out is to simply not care about others, but then you have to deal with loneliness and having virtually no support system. I think the idea of self-actualization is basically just an expansion of this model from one’s inner circle, to one’s community, country, world, universe, or even all life itself.

But since you say that in practice you ignore all those things that you say you think, it still looks like you don’t actually think them, but just say you do. So I’d recommend instead saying that you think the things that you act like you think, and finding the right label for that instead. — Pfhorrest

I get what you’re saying, but it’s just difficult for me to say I believe something that I know is irrational. IOW, all of my moral actions are irrational in my view. As such, I really see no need in trying to justify them since it can’t be accomplished. That said, in practice I have general principles that I try not to violate for emotional/pragmatic reasons (guilt, punishment, undesirable outcomes, etc.). And my principles are heavily weighted towards what I shouldn’t do, as opposed to what I should do. Otherwise, that’s about it, unless you think it’s necessary to get into what my principles actually are.

That’s not what’s going on here. I’ve thought out my moral positions, but of course I’d value input into any obvious contradictions in my thinking. This is more about finding a way to answer someone who asks what morality I ascribe to. It would be a lot easier if there was a term that fit me that I could just say, and the other person would understand the gist of my position, rather than having to explain all the various aspects of it.

It's only that there's no single method we use to determine a course of action in moral dilemmas, we use different approaches as the context changes. — Isaac

I won’t argue against that, but I would venture to say that the method (faculty?) that actually does the deciding is the one that appeals to us emotionally. Very often there are competing “reasons” for performing a certain action, or not; but the reason that is most appealing is the one that wins.

And I’m using the term emotion very broadly to include things like feelings, desires, intuitions, etc.

If it could make a difference, then they wouldn't be nihilist, because something - i.e. what you said - would matter. — Wayfarer

Meaning (mattering) isn’t tied to truth, reason, or really anything else for that matter. Superstitious beliefs/actions demonstrate this rather easily.

If your interested, you should read “Six Names of Beauty” by Crispin Sartwell. It’s an easy read, but I found it interesting. It covers six names for beauty in different languages/cultures and compares/contrasts them.

Problem is that's going to be a miniscule portion anyways. — khaled

Maybe, but I’m not really sure. First, the question of whether or not to have children really only matters to people who feel strongly one way or the other. If you’re indifferent, then you don’t care enough either way to make the issue a moral one. It isn’t like everyone that procreates carefully deliberated one whether or not to use birth control. So I toss out the people who don’t seem to care one way or the other (which I presume to be the majority of people since most people don’t seem to put much thought into it). So I would assume we’re dealing with a minority to begin with; antinatalist’s and those who feel having children is a major purpose in life. I don’t think it’s clear that the former outnumbers the latter.