@Frank Apisa

In my opinion, science has determined facts about the universe. This isn’t to say we know everything about the universe, but some things we can be certain of. Of these facts, all are physical in nature. If asserting that at least one God exists violates any of these facts, it is very unlikely to be true, because experience has shown us that these facts have never been violated. To say that the existence of at least one God is just as plausible or likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is to deny the effectiveness of science. IOWs, asking me to accept that the existence of at least one God is just as likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is also asking me to discard all that is known about the universe. And you’re asking me to do this without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it seems to me that it is more likely that our scientific facts are in fact factual, and that the God hypothesis is highly unlikely to be true.

Even if Eve caused eternal damage by eating a apple, I don't think any christian would say that Eve is spending an eternity in hell. — Wheatley

From my memory of Genesis, it doesn’t mention Eve repenting, or not repenting, so no one could know her afterlife one way or the other. However, I would be more willing to agree that you can probably find a Christian that will agree with just about anything. :razz:

Maybe, if you’re a Christian. God already “destroyed” the world once with the flood. Yet, here we are.

Therefore, no bad deed (sin) should require eternal punishment (because no sin can cause eternal damage). — Wheatley

Doesn’t the idea of “original sin” contradict this? Eve’s sin eternally damaged the world.

Indeed, but the heart of the issue is women want to look good in a way that hints of a probably subconscious desire to become objects of mens' desire. — TheMadFool

Probably, but not only objects of desire. I think the main issue is men deriving only sexual value from women.

Just a thought, but wouldn’t comparing statistics from countries other that America provide some perspective in all of this? If the issue in America is systemic, then it’s statistics regarding black people and issues like poverty, crime rate, police killings, etc. would be statistically significantly different, right?

BTW, I haven’t been able to keep up with every post in this thread, so if this has already been posted, direct me to it.

You're right that in practice police are enforcing laws, but ideally (ideologically, constitutionally) the laws they enforce service the constitution, which services the people. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, so the issue then is that we are very far removed from ideal at this point?

The protests we're seeing right now are happening almost precisely because police jealously place their own safety above all else (and they are predictably making it worse by doubling down on brutality). — VagabondSpectre

The only problem I have is considering someone valuing their own safety over others jealousy. I think it’s necessary to do that in order to be able to assist in any way. You don’t want to foolishly approach someone pointing a loaded gun at you. You need to ensure your safety first, and then assess how you can resolve the situation in the safest way possible for all involved parties.

If the nature of current laws and police institutions lead to an outcome where thug-like enforcers freely instigate potentially life threatening altercations with innocent civilians. If broad cultural, legal, and institutional reform is required for us to have a situation where police don't need to wear jackboots, then that's what we must do — VagabondSpectre

Yep. I’m just not completely sold on the “if.” Is that truly the case now? Of course it happens, but we are dealing with humans. There should be an expected level of errors, mistakes, etc. So the question for me is how often does this occur? I saw a statistic that showed roughly 1000 people are killed by police each year. How many of those are justifiable is unknown. But if you don’t consider this number to be acceptable, what number would be? Also, the unknown statistic of how many times police were able to successfully de-escalate a potentially life threatening situation needs to be considered in any evaluation of their effectiveness. Just to speculate, let’s say that 80% of the time the shootings were clearly justified self-defense sort of situations. Then, 10% are gray area cases, where there is some disagreement on whether or not they were justified. That leaves 10% that are clearly unjustified. Would this number be acceptable? Personally, I’m ok with this sort of breakdown, but nothing higher. And this comes with the expectation that all of the unjustifiable cases are prosecuted appropriately. Obviously, if the unjustifiable cases are predominantly black victims, there is a problem, probably systemically.

De-funding those police departments which fuel the entire industry with fresh meat and blood seems like an excellent starting place to prepare for change. — VagabondSpectre

I’m simply not ready to agree with this yet. I would first like to see change in the prosecuting system. Although, I’m not entirely clear on what defunding the police departments would mean or result in. Fewer cops? Less gear? Some sort of alternative to police? Different funding source?

I agree with you that police shouldn't be less safe, but if we live in a world where we can only have very safe police at the expense of risk to civilians, then we should be limiting police-work to only the most essential functions. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, that seems reasonable.

The point at which increased police safety disproportionately reduces safety for civilians seems well passed, and that's something we must change. — VagabondSpectre

But, like I said, I’m not certain that this is accurate. I would need statistics, which admittedly I haven’t bothered to look up, to convince me, not just the occasional highly publicized incident. And actually, I’m inclined to think that since I only hear about these incidents occasionally, that they only occur occasionally. These cases are always publicized, so if they were occurring more frequently, there would be more reports of this occurring. There’s definitely cases that aren’t publicized, and I obviously can’t know how many, but would be surprised if it was a large number.

I agree. For relatively low pay for the amount of stress being dealt with, I would imagine that the people who thrive the most as police officers are those who get a kick out of it (what kind of kick is the rub; do they want to be heroes or do they just want to have power?) Those police bringing in large numbers of bad-guys are probably well favored in their internal hierarchy as well. This is a pretty big problem if we want to have a police force we can be proud of.

And the racism... It's almost as if power-tripping police know that black people are less likely to have a real lawyer (not the 5 minute McAttorney™ their constitutional right pays for), or that because black people have genuine cause for alarm when approached by police, they may be more likely to make any kind of force-justifying action or statement. It's also as if many of them seem to think that there will be no consequences for their behavior; that broader society just won't care enough to hold them accountable (the outwardly racist America of yesterday is still too close for comfort in too many precincts, but evidently the times are a changin'). Some police and politicians worry about criminals slipping through the cracks in their machine, but what about the innocent lives that fall into it? In some geographies, these cracks have become chasms.

Inaction seems to now be a non-option. There's no camera-free rug left under which America's (and beyond) remaining bull-shit can be swept. I think that police brutality and crime in general are symptoms of wider economic and social realities that unaddressed will generate unrest to the point of revolution. We either start here or eventually we're in for a bit of a fall. — VagabondSpectre

I feel like I need to add some context to my response to this. I live in a very rural area of an already rural state (WV). The area I live in is also very white. So, I have no first hand experience of predominantly black neighborhoods and the specific issues that arise there. However, my mom has worked for our local police department my entire life, and my stepdad is a retired police officer of 40+ years. So I grew up around police officers, and became comfortable with them, and knew some personally. I’ve also had bad encounters with police. Nothing physical, but just them having condescending attitudes and being smart mouthed. Anyway, I say this because I think there is an enormous difference between these rural police departments and those in metropolitan areas. For example, I wouldn’t really characterize being a rural police officer as extremely stressful. I’m sure it has it’s moments, but it’s much closer to The Andy Griffith Show than CSI/NCIS. The local department has issues with cops sleeping on the job, not use of excessive force.

As for racism, it’s quite prevalent here, depending on how you define it. But, aside from a fight or two in high school, I can’t say that it’s ever resulted in violence. It’s much more passive, and only evident in speech, as opposed to action.

Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ). — Pop

Very well put. I agree.

If the nihilist is emotionally comfortable in their mentality, then the mental state is resolved. — Pop

I think this is what category I would fall under. My belief that there is no inherent meaning does not seem to effect how I feel about life and living.

However, if the nihilist is emotionally uncomfortable in their mental predicament, then some sort of resolution is required. — Pop

I assume you would agree that this is basically what an existential crisis is. And a resolution would consist of something akin to the Joker, or a rejection of nihilism. Would you consider it possible for the emotional state to disappear completely as a result of believing in nihilism? This type of state is what I was referring to earlier when I said that practicing nihilism is virtually impossible, because if you remove all meaning (mentally and emotionally) you remove all impetus for action.

In response, I would say that purpose at its core involves meaning, — Mickey

I agree.

and meaning in general presupposes beliefs and assumptions. — Mickey

This may be backwards. Don’t beliefs and assumptions presuppose meaning?

Assumptions and beliefs are in essence delimiting. They describe the boundaries of some limit, which is always based on a set of axioms which can never be proven but are typically apparent in some manner or another. — Mickey

Can you give me an example of this? I’m having a hard time following what you mean. I’m not understanding how believing something limits freedom. I believe I exist. How does this belief have any impact on my ability to do what I want (freedom)? To establish that you would need to show that because I believe I exist it limits my ability to act in some way. Even if you use a different belief, let’s say that lying is wrong. That doesn’t limit my ability to lie. It happens quite often that people’s actions contradict their stated beliefs. Besides that, we always have the freedom to change our beliefs.

So, meaning and purpose are limiting in essence and based on something apparent which seems to conflict freedom, which is not limited by the boundaries inherent in meaning. — Mickey

Freedom itself contains meaning, right? So actually without meaning there could be no freedom.

I’ve thought about this as well. There’s always the possibility that someone has the potential to be great is some respect, but simply doesn’t have the opportunity to demonstrate their potential. This can be due to all kinds of factors outside of their control; time and place of birth, economic status, race, etc.. However, I’m not sure what there is to say about this fact philosophically. I think people use this as an excuse for their failures, and sometimes it may not be an excuse. I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure what someone’s potential is, except by judging their achievements. But predicting how successful someone will turn out to be seems rather difficult.

I agree, it's a broad failure of many parts within the system. Police are supposedly trained on how to escalate and de-escalate, but we're seeing the quality of that training in the news of late. Patience and compassion seem to be entirely lacking; whether they're not paid well enough for patience, or are just too jaded to have compassion, I can't say... — VagabondSpectre

I agree as well, but wanted to add that often police officers are ex-military. I’m guessing military training is light on compassion and patience, so even if police training incorporated this into its training the act of unlearning the military training is difficult. Also, I think both military and law enforcement professions attract a certain type of personality; those who want authority and/or control. This type of personality seems incompatible with compassion and patience in general.

Police safety for utility is the traditional argument used, but it defeats the main purpose of police in the first place, which is to protect civilians from criminals. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree that that is their purpose, strictly speaking. Their purpose is to enforce the law, regardless of whether or not those laws are just. A wild example would be if it was the law that police had to beat up civilians.

There are limits to how much safety is reasonable to expect in a given occupation. Undertaking certain actions or professions can, legally speaking, amount to an automatic liability waver (unless negligence of the employer can be shown). That said, this is why some jobs pay more than others. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, there’s risk involved in every profession. But what you seem to be proposing is for the safety requirements to be scaled back, so that the job is less safe. I’ve never seen this done, and I’m not sure how that type of action could be justified. Especially if the employer has previously shown that the previous safety requirements were effective.

Now we're entering catch-22 levels of positive-feedback-loop territory:

>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety
>Police violence against civilians inspires attacks on the safety of police
>Police become more violent in order to protect their own safety — VagabondSpectre

I think you’re generalizing or misunderstanding what I mean. I’m not saying police should be more violent, just that they shouldn’t be less safe, or have less safety.

In this case, because their responsibility to the public is controverted by the actions they take to protect their safety (brutality), they negate it as a possible justification for said violence. — VagabondSpectre

Again, I’m not justifying brutality, I’m justifying safety. I would argue that police brutality doesn’t make police officers more safe, it makes them less safe.

I think that it is important to recognize, as the nihilist does, that there is a conflict between freedom and purpose. — Mickey

What if your purpose is to be free? Is that an oxymoron?

On another note, I do believe it is possible to live without purpose and not maintain a nihilist position. — Mickey

The opposite is also true. It is possible to live with purpose and maintain a nihilist position.

Ideologies tend to limit the scope of our perception and action, and they are the driving force being purpose/meaning. — Mickey

Perhaps ironically, nihilism is an ideology.

Our ability to fashion an ideology is, in some sense, our ability to create meaning in our life. So it is not that meaning does not exist. It is rather that it limits our freedom. — Mickey

The ability to create meaning, and having inherent meaning are two different things. Existentialism presupposes nihilism. So you can be a nihilist and say that life has no inherent meaning, and also be an existentialist and say that therefore you choose to create your own meaning in life. Also, if you’re free to create meaning, then meaning doesn’t limit freedom, because you’re always free to create different meaning, or to not create meaning. The choice is always yours to make. Nothing forces you.

The point of life is just to live and to cultivate your awareness of it. — Mickey

I don’t think this can be logically proven. It’s just a baseless assertion. Life is pointless.

The minute a purpose is defined there will naturally be actions and behaviours that negate , supress or hinder it which you must overcome and similarly those which will perpetuate encourage and amplify it. Limits are useful for concentration of effort but as you said...provide a means to restrict. — Benj96

I think it’s important to note that all limitations are self-imposed, aside from physical/biological limitations of course. I always have the absolute freedom to choose, regardless if that act is good/bad, rational/irrational, purposeful/purposeless. So if you choose to have a purpose(s), you aren’t necessarily choosing to limit your freedom. Contradicting your purpose is always an option.

I don’t seem to quite get the mechanics of a nihilist. — Josh Lee

If you mean how a nihilist acts or behaves, then I would say the nihilist acts in spite of his belief. A true nihilist sincerely believes that all action is meaningless, but he acts anyway. Practically speaking, he feels his actions are meaningful, and therefore feels his life has meaning. He willingly deceives himself, in that his actions betray his beliefs.

Yet, after all, what is your own version (explanation)? — Number2018

Of what happened?

Why did the media label the murder as an act of racism? — Number2018

Because they thought the story would be more shocking, which would mean more views/revenue.

The critical event on May 25 was captured on video by bystanders and was posted on social media. The community in which the event occurred reacted swiftly with an impromptu march and demonstration, labeling the death of George Floyd as a racist murder by the police. The media I follow picked up on the demonstrations and the rhetoric used. — Bitter Crank

Ahh, well then that presents a different set of circumstances.... Perhaps the media then should have made it clear that this set of people considered the death as a racist murder, and that they were just reporting their opinion, not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it? Maybe it’s too much to ask in a business where the immediacy of the reporting of the event is so important to the bottom line to be able to make moral judgements in such a short amount of time?

Most likely, you would not ask the New York Stock Exchange broker to make decisions according
to some moral or religious system of values. — Number2018

To some extent I would. I would expect him to be honest, fair, law abiding, etc. Also if his actions had the potential to cause serious harm to others, I would expect him to make a different choice.

They have to be effective and make money. — Number2018

But this doesn’t exempt them from upholding a reasonable manner of ethics. They are free to make as much money as possible as long as they abide by certain rules or ethics.

I’m not familiar with nihilism, from my view, if everything is meaningless, both options seems equally possible as both won’t have an impact in any way. This is an area I’m trying to grasp about Nihilism, I’m unable to understand how a nihilist make decisions (or maybe they don’t). Anyone who can help enlighten me on this point is greatly appreciated! — Josh Lee

I would agree that both, or all, options are possible, in that they are available to choose. They do still have an impact, it’s just that the nihilist doesn’t care about the impact. Which to me means why would he care to make a choice at all? If there is no motivation/meaning, and nothing is forcing him to choose (like biological needs or involuntary actions), then how could he choose? Normally we either make rational choices because we believe they will achieve a desired end, or irrational choices based on emotion. A nihilist does not desire any particular end or outcome, so rational choices seem unavailable. Irrational choices may be a possibility, but I think it would be very difficult to determine where to draw the line between them. I find it hard to find a choice that is completely devoid of feeling. So determining whether or not a choice was caused by emotion or reasoning seems difficult. It depends on how strong the emotion is, I suppose. But like I said, I don’t really think nihilism has any practical application in everyday life.

I don’t quite understand what you mean by is-ought gap. Are you referring to moral obligations and purpose? — Josh Lee

Yeah. You can have a fact about the world (what is), but that fact by itself can’t inform you about what to do (ought). That I am hungry may be a fact. It may also be a fact that if I do not eat I will die. However these facts do not mean that I should eat. The only reason I would eat is if I found my life to have meaning and value, but it doesn’t (nihilism). The fact that I feel my life has meaning and value is irrational because it is solely based on emotion. There is no justification for this belief. And even this fact does not logically justify eating. Even if nihilism was false, and we could prove that life was inherently meaningful, we still couldn’t justify acting.

Why is the safety of the police more important than the safety of the people they're paid to uphold? — VagabondSpectre

Some possible responses:

1. Because if police officers were not well protected, then their job would be more risky. This would have the effect of more cops being wounded or killed in action, which would lead to there being fewer cops. Fewer cops means fewer people to protect the citizens, which results in more crime.

2. Labor laws require employers to provide the safest environment possible for their employees or risk being sued for unsafe work conditions.

3. If cops were being harmed or killed on a regular basis, no one would even want to be a cop. Which leads to the same issues in 1.

4. Because their responsibility to the public they serve is greater than the responsibility of the average citizen. Therefore they are more important to society.

What are the legitimate options or steps that the U.S could take to initiate wide-spread police reform? — VagabondSpectre

I think your suggestion makes sense. I would add to the list more psychological testing, counseling, etc. Not just when a specific incident occurs, like when an officer shoots someone, but as part of their normal training. Of course some actual mental health requirements would be needed as well. Also fair prosecution for those officers that are corrupt, racist, etc. Victims deserve to feel that justice has been served. If not, it undermines their respect and trust for authority, and they may very well feel forced to seek justice on their own terms, vigilante style. Which would only increase crime, and reinforce negative stereotypes.

3) “Labeling the murder as an act of racism, with no evidence” – the critical point! Note that without this ‘labeling,’ there would not be “the breaking news,” so that 1) and 2) would become pointless. — Number2018

I think I disagree here. Why would video evidence of a cop blatantly killing a person unprovoked not qualify as breaking news? The addition of racism into the equation adds drama and sensationalism, but isn’t needed to further the media’s agenda.

We may think, that steps 1) and 2) at list provide an evidence of existence of a group of responsible humans. Unfortunately, this stereotyped narrative – about racist evil white cop (Step 5) had already existed and in-formed steps 1) and 2). — Number2018

But people are not powerless or forced to repeat the stereotype. The people involved in the first two steps could have chosen otherwise. Therefore they are still responsible for doing so.

If this story is true, I genuinely sympathize with you, but regardless your personal experience is largely irrelevant. You can’t take your experience of interactions with a handful of people of one race and generalize that onto all people of that race, or characterize the viewpoint or perspective of those particular individuals as the same viewpoint or perspective of all black people. You should instead just consider yourself unfortunate to have had these encounters, but refuse to allow yourself to let these encounters define all black people. Every race is diverse. It’s just by chance that you found yourself among some of the worst representatives.

I never thought of Nihilism in this manner, maybe is the portrayal of Joker (idk he is awesome) that got me to perceive a Nihilist as one who just do things as random, when questioned, he usually has no justification for it as his acts has no ulterior motives of greater purpose. — Josh Lee

We share an affinity for the Joker. He does purport to act randomly or irrationally, but it’s obvious he takes delight in the consequences of his actions, and dislikes everything Batman represents. To me that’s evidence of him having motivations for his actions, and deriving meaning in them.

However a nihilist doesn’t consider the outcomes, — Josh Lee

I just think that lack of all meaning, intellectually, is different from lack of all meaning emotionally. I will still feel hunger no matter what I believe. I can acknowledge that this feeling is intellectually meaningless (irrational), but I will still be hungry and have to decide to eat or not eat. Both options are meaningless, but one of them still fulfills a need, and therefore is preferable to the other. So maybe choices could be made strictly by consulting your desires or feelings, and not necessarily the outcomes? I’m not sure, I’m basically just thinking out loud, so to speak.

Just to add on, this seems more of absurdism than nihilism. I’m not completely sure about this, just a though. It just resonates with the story The Stranger by Albert Camus, and the the concepts of it. — Josh Lee

You’re more familiar with this than I am. I’ve actually read very few philosophical books, and just have a half-assed Wikipedia understanding of some of it. That said, is it possible to be both? To me absurdism is a reaction to the fact of nihilism.

Nihilism- Everything is meaningless.

Absurdism- Therefore the situation of life is absurd, and we should act in such and such a way.

Nihilism itself doesn’t seem to provide a reason to support any particular stance or course of action, because it still can’t bridge the is-ought gap.

Yet, I think that we cannot change the media. — Number2018

Why not? I wasn’t around to witness first hand the “Walter Kronkite” style of reporting, but from what I understand media has changed since that time period. So why couldn’t it change again?

When you write: “the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs,” you probably underestimate the role of the media in the construction of our social reality. — Number2018

Yeah, I was being conservative.

It continuously exercises the excess of dominating creative power, and performs in a machinic, automotive mode, without personal human intentions. — Number2018

Aren’t humans completely in control of what gets covered/reported, and how? If so, then their intentions are reflected in what we are consuming. People choose the topics discussed and the specific wording used, and they do so for their own personal motivations.

Therefore, the media is always entirely to blame for the state of affairs. Practically, we could try to understand how the media functions and to regulate our own degree of involvement and engagement. — Number2018

Well, maybe, but I at least like to think we should have some personal accountability for our actions too. Maybe that’s what your last sentence is getting at, but I agree that the public should be educated, somehow, on precisely the media’s intentions, accuracy of reporting, etc. But also having media outlets clearly labeled as opinion programming would help. There is a certain air of authority and accuracy that goes along with the term “news” that has now become misleading. Objectivity cannot seem to be found, and this results in the public being burdened with the need to seek out varying opinions and draw their own conclusions. But the problem with this is that the vast majority of the public are not capable of doing this and escaping their echo chambers. So we have a nation divided against itself. I suppose we’ll see if it can stand for much longer.

What freedom is seems to be the crux of the issue at hand. If by freedom you mean the ability to do whatever you want, then I think lack of purpose would equate to lack of freedom. Without meaning/purpose, there is nothing you will want to do, therefore you will do nothing. You virtually lose all ability to act. Whatever current state you find yourself in when you lose all purpose/meaning is the state you would remain in until you died. I suppose involuntary actions would still be performed, and at some point I would say that your biological needs or processes would override your “will” to do nothing. For example, if everything is meaningless, then your life is meaningless. And, assuming that action requires meaning, any action is undesirable. So, you will immediately find yourself in the position of deciding whether or not to breathe. Breathing has no meaning, so there’s no reason for you to breathe, but it’s physically impossible to not breathe (hold your breathe) until you die. Your body will force you to exhale. So part of this discussion revolves around the limitations of “will.” At what point will your actions be considered willful, and at what point involuntary? If you’re starving to death and eat something, was that choice willful, or did your body force you to do so?

Now, aside from this, I basically consider myself to be a nihilist. But to me nihilism is strictly an intellectual pursuit. My freedom isn’t constrained or expanded due to this belief. I simply accept that all my actions, feelings, and things I find meaningful are irrational or illusory. But since everything is meaningless, I also have no obligation to act or think rationally. So practically speaking I do whatever I want, same as always.

Right. So do you think the media should at least be held partly responsible for what’s now occurring? Should the media’s methods change?

This tends to be my view as well. It’s strange. You would think that outright murder by the very people charged with protecting us would warrant a public outcry in itself, but it seems the outcry is much greater if the murder is considered to be racially motivated. As if racism is worse than murder. Don’t get me wrong, racism is appalling, but there’s no coming back from death. I just think things would have played out much differently if this incident wasn’t construed as racially motivated. I think the hypersensitivity towards race actually contributes to the problem. It’s difficult for a nation to overcome racism when we are constantly being reminded of its existence, sometimes unnecessarily. When every negative interaction between people of different races is considered racism it only acts to embolden actual racists and enrage the oppressed. The blacks get a distorted view of the world where every white man is out to get them, which naturally makes them fearful and angry. Racists see the prevalence of racism, which is also a distorted perception, as normalizing their beliefs and actions, which naturally makes them express their beliefs through acts of racism. To me the media’s role in this is more fuel for the fire.

The media has its agenda: it always tries to engage the most significant possible audience for as long as possible. To achieve this goal, the media utilities various techniques and strategies: first, they select the so-called ‘brute’ fact to report. Then, the media frame this fact to be enveloped in the recognizable plot and to invoke the familiar narrative. Even if they do not label the chosen fact directly, they can easily integrate it into a favorable context. Further, the news should appear as the novel and extraordinal ‘breaking news’. A collective of professionals supports the current breaking news on-air and is ready to drop it at any time to start the next one. Often, a media platform promotes a clear partisan perspective. Yet, it is even much more effective in imposing a particular cluster of opinions and preferences when it looks like reporting the neutral, unbiased news. — Number2018

This is my view as well, but essentially I’m asking about the consequences of operating in this way, specifically considering all that has transpired with this incident. Thoughts?

He probably should not have been on the force. — prothero

Yeah, I’d say so. Don’t most jobs have a “3 strikes rule,” or something comparable? 18 complaints would be laughable under other circumstances. This is definitely more evidence of the officer’s bad character, but still not that he’s racist, unless those complaints are from predominantly black people. And yes, the other officers need to be held accountable for their inaction, or negligence, which resulted in death! I’m a mandatory reporter for any suspected instances of abuse or neglect for the client’s I serve, and as such face potential criminal charges for not performing this duty, should not doing so result in harm. Pardon my language, but how the fuck does this not apply to law enforcement?

It is completely unacceptable. I agree :100:

And both in news and commentary I prefer honesty and truth (I actually think they are necessary). — tim wood

Regardless of the consequences? Not necessarily arguing, just wondering.

As to your "evidence seems to be lacking," are you kidding? — tim wood

The only evidence I’m aware of is that a white person needlessly killed a black person. I’m not willing to assume that every time an incident like this occurs it is racially motivated. Perhaps I’m naive, but I think that the type of person that would be motivated to kill someone strictly because of the color of their skin would have other signs that would point to the fact that they are racist; frequenting racist social networks, a history of making racist statements, a history of making discriminatory behaviors, a white hood in his closet, etc. But as I understand things, this is an isolated incident for this person. If there is evidence to the contrary, I’d be more than willing to change my mind.

You mean like this?

Black people need to arm themselves with the most powerful weapons legally available and when they see a cop trying to murder one of their community, make a citizen's execution arrest. — Baden

Seems like the status quo to me. Unless you don’t think black people arm themselves. Have you not seen videos of black people pointing guns at cops? Usually doesn’t end well.

Apparently, it's a crazy idea the way I phrased it. — Baden

So you’re idea is to maintain the status quo? You think that minorities having the right to arm themselves has worked to help prevent police brutality, discrimination, etc.?

The only "controversial" thing I've said is that the black community should have a right to defend itself with every legal means possible where and while it's under threat. — Baden

Don’t they have the right to do this now?

For law enforcement it’s important to know who you’re looking for; a man or a woman. Also, perhaps gender discrimination would be more difficult to identify without gender distinction. For example, a business owner can choose to not hire people with female characteristics, but without the term “female” it would be hard to identify a specific group that he is discriminating against.

But the fact is that you still decided not to pull the lever in the end. Your final choice was inaction. Even if you were about to choose action (pull the lever), you still decided not to (inaction) — Marin

What’s stopping us from assigning moral judgements to certain mental states (intentions, choices, decisions, etc.)? Perhaps the better place to put blame or praise is these states? This also goes along with my question about what an action is. Why can’t mental states be actions? It seems like you’ve chosen to only consider observable actions as actions, and haven’t explained why. You also seem to think, again without explanation, that only observable actions are capable/worthy of moral judgement. In doing so, you are praising/condemning only the effect (the outcome of flipping a switch or not), but not the cause (the mental states involved in the act). This is like blaming the bullet for the damage it causes, but not the pulling the pulling of the trigger.

I’ve been hearing some local rumors of deaths that are not due to COVID-19 being reported as such. One such instance was a death from a car wreck. Another example is that anyone who dies with any similar symptoms, such as pneumonia, being reported as COVID-19 deaths. I *feel* that these are baseless rumors, or even the result of right-wing propaganda, but can anyone confirm, or disconfirm these rumors?

But I am having a heck of a time finding any writing that addressed how we should live our mental lives as a hard determinist. — Brook Norton

I’m not sure any ethical system requires that we always act in correlation with our beliefs. I actually started a somewhat similar thread, but it seems to have gone nowhere.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8353/on-the-relationship-between-belief-and-action

If you’re interested.

A couple things...

What does “doing nothing/not doing anything” actually mean? It seems obvious that actions such as breathing should be included in “nothing,” but anything else? Is it only actions that have an effect on the outcome that should be considered?

Also, I think intentions are relevant to the discussion. If I have the urge to act, but suppress it, that is different than not having an urge at all. Maybe I intend to cause harm, so I flip the switch so that I can feel the gratification of knowing that I’m directly responsible for one death. Conversely, maybe I intend to derive pleasure from witnessing 5 deaths, so I do not flip the switch.

Lastly, can’t the same situation be phrased either as action or non-action, or even both? Let’s say I don’t flip the switch. Phrased this way, it is a non-act. But if I say I refrained from flipping the switch, isn’t “refraining” an action? Or I can combine both phrasings so that it appears that I did both (I didn’t flip the switch. I wanted to, but chose to refrain from doing so.).

So the answer to 1 and 3 is sometimes? 2 is more about whether or not we can be certain about what we believe, and if so, how. Is it reasonable for me to evaluate my behavior and deduce my beliefs from that analysis? Vice versa? IOW’s when there is an apparent contradiction between what I think I believe and how I act, does that mean I’m wrong about what I think I believe, or did I just act irrationally? If the latter, then what would be the cause of my action? Perhaps a different, and contradictory, belief? An emotion/feeling? Some sort of limitation on my ability to act in accordance with my belief?

Consider this example:

1) I think I believe A.
2) Belief A entails act X.
3) I do act Y.
4) Act Y implies I believe B, which contradicts belief A.

Does this mean 1 is wrong? Is it possible to hold contradictory beliefs? Was 3 caused by something other than a belief?

This is somewhat of a personal question. I do not believe in free will, yet I act as if people are responsible for their actions. I’m a moral nihilist, but act as if good and bad exist. I suppose a follow up question would be should I try to change either my beliefs or actions so that they are consistent?