you are designing this ideally fair and just country where everyone is equal and has the same resources readily available, knowing you will be living there and whatever you chose will govern the rest of your life. which principle or principles would you choose from the 5 provided? — Jasmine

Doesn't this already include options 2, 4, and 5? Rather, what is the difference between 2 and 5, and does it not render 4 null? I see number 2 as being a more restrictive version of 5, is that correct? 2 says available to them (presumably from the government?), so that is not saying persons must have identical wealth/resources by government mandate, yes? Or does it? 5 being just like stimulus checks basically, no strings attached, everyone gets (slightly less) than 'basic needs met' thus differentiating itself from 3?

Sounds difficult to answer as presented in an absolute and resolute manner. Not only is each option lacking important circumstantial information (background factors, restrictions, what "counts" and what "doesn't", etc.) they well, yeah essentially seem open to interpretation ie. everyone can have their own definition/understanding of what each option entails with no one being more or less correct or incorrect than the other.

Awaiting your response.. However if the part I've placed in bold is definitive of what my answer will be, it's pretty much set with little wiggle room. Everyone is equal, and they have the same resources readily available. Provided 'resources readily available' is a floor not a ceiling ie. someone can still end up stupidly wealthy (ideally through hard work) and be much better off than someone who isn't (ideally due to personal sloth/laziness), there's little to change in most countries. There's welfare for those who may have fallen behind or otherwise need it for reasons other than laziness, disability to those who are disabled/not able-bodied (which is an amazing modern day accomplishment), and various grants for those who exhibit admirable drive or skill in their endeavors so that they may further propel not only themselves but their nations forward.

Assuming I spawn in this RPG experiment as a very low-skilled, inconceivably lazy person with low education and nearly no money, intelligence, or drive, it would seem the obvious choice would be 3. Maybe. Assuming jobs are readily available where I can do something menial and simple that pays enough to sustain myself, perhaps I'd realize somewhere down the road I don't want my beloved hypothetical nation to become flooded with persons who couldn't care less (or perhaps even wish) whether we're wiped off the map or not provided they get the free stuff. Like I said, very complicated, many factors poorly defined.

One brings an idea of human nature. — unenlightened

It brings itself quite well unfortunately. I'm not saying my sentiments are reflective of society as a whole or even the majority of persons, simply that 99.9% of persons in a hypothetical quarantine can be healthy or otherwise non-infectious, but if you don't plan- and carefully- for that single person who may be, you could easily end up with a nationwide outbreak on your hands.

Sweet, now I can roll out my social media platform start-up that's been cluttering my hard drive for years.

i wonder what effect this will have on the other big tech companies. Everyone uses YouTube, Android holds about 87% of the global market. Heads up, Google!

I wonder how one would go about- rather if there would be any reason in- making another social networking site. Everything you need or can even think of has already been made and works great, above all simplistically. Would it be sued by Facebook for copyright infringement? Surely they don't own the concept of a website you can sign up, meet friends, and share posts. But they made simplicity their brand image and so it would be challenging to come up with another site that isn't essentially/legally a copy/clone imo.

I imagine what these companies would do, assuming they don't just assign someone distant enough yet friendly or become friendly (money may talk, but big money shouts) with whoever may be in charge, is put all their resources behind a new and upcoming starter service of the same type (ie. similar to Instagram, or even just beef up their Facebook Messenger to replace Whatsapp).

"In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services." — Ian Conner

Hm. Kind of a "you can try to kill me if you want, but I'm not gonna let you use my own gun to do it" kind of attitude, in a way. Or is that a logical fallacy? It can be argued they want to protect their consumers and brand image by not allowing "just anything from any random social network" to be shared. The smaller and newer it is the likelier it is to have vulnerabilities or exploits yet to be discovered. The ads are interesting. How would you feel if your family owned a hardware store and I came in dressed head to toe in gear advertising a new one that just opened up downtown. If you Google "best search engines"- no ads- but if you search "best laptops", more ads than results lol. Not saying whether it's right or wrong it just seems to be an established practice throughout.

Nah. Androids are just fine. Lol. Ask around, you might be surprised on what the consensus is.

From the article:

"X's are assertive. X's don’t procrastinate. X's tend to focus on the positive. X's don’t take things personally; they don’t beat themselves up if things go wrong, even if they’re to blame. And they’re pretty cool under pressure."

Is it just me or can you replace X with 'mentally stable person'. Just saying. I'm just calling into question the merit or implied knowledge/wisdom of the article, not hinting that true clinical psychopathy is normal. Lack of empathy stems, in my opinion, from an ingrained often veiled sense of self worthlessness. After all, you're the first and foremost human being/life you have to work with/deal with/experience. If you're not worth the time of day, why would another be? The good news is, even a psychopath has a sense of self preservation, which encourages obedience to the law. Whatever it may be.

I'd imagine they miss out on the joy others feel during non-sexual moments of familiar bonding. Things like a holiday gathering, the birth of a child, the babbling of a brook or the sound of a summer's breeze. Which is why they often attempt to compensate by relentless pursuit of material gain and animalistic pleasure.

I am drawn to 6 too as I see problems with each of the five other options. — Jasmine

That's essentially my reasoning for choosing said option as well.

But I have no idea what the ideal just and fair society where everyone had resources distributed evenly would look like! Would love to hear your thoughts! — Jasmine

The premise you speak of seems, at least to myself, to involve some sort of 'global reset' to actualize. A just and fair society is where one's efforts, within the confines of agreed upon terms and codes of universal morality, turn into one's gains. There has been much hardship, cruelty, and unjust gains throughout the course of human history sure, but there have also been many of the opposite. I don't think we'd choose to ignore or otherwise toss aside the innovation and accomplishment that came about from unjust seizing of territory, genocide, etc. Would we? To what point would we ideally revert to? It just becomes infinitely complex.

Take China, for example. It is now 92% Han Chinese significantly after the Warring States period. Is it just? Should the Qin, Chu, and other near-nonexistent minorities be allowed to flourish to former power and numbers? Do we just sweep all this under the rug and attempt to base our morality atop of grave immorality and hope for the best? What of slavery? Islamization of East Europe and Africa? Conquest of the Americas? Do we, again, ignore injustice that isn't quite yet ancient history and just move forward from there? Perhaps. Only, there are significant numbers of others who may disagree.

Assuming we collectively decide to ignore all that and let bygones be bygones, and everyone (or I suppose a large enough majority of those impacted [who can actually resist- as if that were just]) agree. Where do we go from there? Hypothetically, as a thought experiment, which could only happen with a single world government anyhow.. every single human being on Earth is kept exactly where they are, as they are. All their wealth, including deeds to any land beyond where they currently reside (which is still impossible seeing as some wealthy individuals live in mansions that could house entire villages), are taken (or in the mansion scenario converted into something of a dormitory where the current owner is the landlord [maybe?]), and each person is given say... some currently non-existent form of currency that would then be recognized as the one and only currency. What of education? Some first world areas have the greatest academics and their citizenry reflect that. In some third world countries it's the opposite. It's just not a feasible, reasonable discussion to have, really. Even if we're only talking within the confines of small, localized areas or individual nation states. Though, that would make it at least realistic. If not in the confines of what is accepted as moral and what isn't as dictated by said society/nation.

IMO, it just wouldn't happen. Every country wants to be the "beacon of the world" for opportunity or just to be the best place to do business ie. grow wealth. If one starts to do something like I described, unless they literally hold their citizens hostage, those who actually have something to lose vs. gain (ie. the wealthy, which often include the innovators, hard workers, geniuses, etc.) would just want to go there instead. And shoot, why would that country want to change that. They'd be foolish to do so. It all just sounds like a pipe dream to be honest, for a time at least.

You have to come up with a principle of distributive justice that your client will be able to satisfactorily live under. — Jasmine

Easy.

You will have to think about how you will justify your choice to your client when you find out who he or she is. — Jasmine

That doesn't mean satisfactorily convince them (ie. get them to "like it") does it? If so, not easy. No, right?

which of the principles would you choose for your client, and why would you choose it? — Jasmine

Definitely 6. I suppose I'll come up with one if you wish. In the meantime, ere's what's wrong with 1 - 5, as I see it.

1.) People need regulation, period. Without it everything- no matter how well planned and provided for- will undoubtedly degenerate into a race to the bottom ie. who can cut the most corners without there being nothing left. Never fails.

2.) Sounds like The Sims: Hell Edition. Imagine getting up and doing anything, let alone honing a skill or talent, if you won't ever get anything from it. Eh I guess you'd gain influence and respect, which is cool, but what's to stop you from charging people/accepting gifts for your hard work? The government would come and arrest you and anyone who gave you anything? Scratch that, worse than Hell.

3.) Yeah then everyone will try to join and flatly nod yes to whatever citizenship pledge is required to get the free stuff. Easiest, quickest way to turn a proud society of thinkers and doers into a menagerie for the lazy or inept.

4.) This one is curious. You say "better off than they would be under any other arrangement", some problems you can't just throw money at to solve. If you don't instill knowledge, craft, and work ethic they are most certainly not "better off" just because you provide a few bucks to not starve and a transient portal of 'opportunity' to succeed based on the terms of others that clearly did not work for them.

5.) See number 2.

--

On a side note, I thought the OP sounded peculiar/interestingly formatted. No worries OP, it's a common sight here. Are you by chance from Australia, OP?

They made a mistake. International business works that way. If you don't try to make a reliable product for as little as possible, as quickly and efficiently as possible, somebody else will, and they will run you out of business and possibly into a soup kitchen. If not taking over the world stage/market entirely by means of modern day conquest aka conquest-by-industry. From that point, things could easily snowball into a shifting of global power where 'consumer health' would not only have been impacted in a far greater way, but would simply become back burner to mere survival.

The morality of your premise, using your only slightly relevant example (nobody knew that was going to happen) has already been answered. If we're going to talk about the incident it remains to be answered if the CEO/decision makers/chain of command is criminally liable or not. Boeing is a government contractor producing all kinds of tech and aircraft for not only the military but basically the entire civilian air transport industry. Even the smallest Silicon Valley start up would/should have elements of what can be called a "culture of concealment", at least an NDA.

When the first cars hit the road they were basically 2-ton rolling death traps and fatalities were through the roof. Then through time, improvements were made. It's just how innovation works. Even today. Just for comparison, 37,000 Americans were killed in automobile crashes in 2017 alone. That's a lot of people.

Sure, if I was impacted by what I'm told was a major corporation's negligence, I'd be upset. First at whatever government regulating agency allowed that product to reach me, and the remaining blame would fall where it may.

To summarize, absent of extenuating factors, not only is it not moral, 9 times out of 10 it's simply illegal (not to mention bad for business and public image). That said, a mistake, even several alongside poor internal communication does not automatically constitute 'purposefully placing profit over consumer health'. It could be however. And that's what an investigation seeks to uncover.

I don't know where else there is to go but up (or back) from here lol.

At the same time the artist and his message does interest me. He seems to be trying to prove a point, one I'm not sure he himself even understands fully but nonetheless it does capture the mind and touch on philosophy.

Beyond the statistical answer reached by listing all living human beings sorted by net worth in descending order and filtering out the random percentile of 99% who sure wish to hold on to what they have- and yes perhaps even make long term plans to ensure they keep what they have and yeah maybe earn more- like every other human being on Earth does, the answer is simple: imaginary boogeymen.

No human being alive here on Earth today really did much more than crawl out of their mother. Sure, some did so as billionaires, some average, some dirt poor. There's really nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about it.

Or... maybe there is. Perhaps they sold their soul to the devil or are aliens/inter-dimensional beings in disguise or something. *whistles X-files theme*

I suppose. Kind of like asking how does light illuminate a dark room, really. He answered his own question. Inventiveness. Doing something not known before that solves some sort of problem or produces some sort of benefit. If I put Cherry Coke into a diesel engine, wow that's never been done before. That's creative, I suppose. But it doesn't do anything. But. Now if I put vegetable oil into the engine, it works. Neat! If I decide to drink some and vomit onto a blank canvas, that's creative. It might just be a near-uniform blob that does little to the observer. Maybe it happens to be projectile and manages to capture a unique shape and form on the canvas that is interesting/captivating to the mind/interesting to look at. Creativity absent of tangible benefit seems to be subjective in nature.

what aren't the purposes of creativity? — TiredThinker

Asking questions that imply everything has to have some robotic animalistic purpose, for one.

How does creatively help us survive? — TiredThinker

How doesn't it. The world wasn't formed from a cloud of space debris fully furnished with Tesla cars and reclining sofas now was it? We didn't emerge from the murky primordial ooze with iPhones and Apple Smartwatches in hand now did we?

Do you think that if the optimism/pessimism dichotomy presupposes the left/right that the politics of the left/right can affect the optimism/pessimism? Or do you think it isn't transitive? — ToothyMaw

Honestly I struggle to understand the 'substance' of either party. I get the talking points and alleged 'essence' from the nomenclature ie. 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'.

One is more about the value of human life in gestation vs. the right to have more freedom over your body. One is 'allegedly' more about the focus on God and the traditional family unit vs. the right to worship (or not worship) freely and raise a family as you please. One seems to be more open to immigration vs. making sure everyone here is on par first. One seems to believe stricter gun control will save American lives vs. lack of strictness is the only reason we still have a country, etc., etc.

I'm sure you can detect in my comparisons I have a slight conservative bias but I was raised around decent conservatives. People who actually gave a crap about others and not the 'hard' or 'extreme' deviation. Those who don't want to just take a machine gun to everyone else ie. not the "God bless America, and the hell with everyone else" creed. God, guns, and the family. That's how it always was and what got us this far, isn't it?

My last post was proposing that if someone is a 'pessimist' they don't have faith/belief in 'the system' and may be disinclined to actually vote/participate in the civil process. Could be wrong.

I guess it depends what kind of optimist/pessimist you are. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the two, at least what I'm going to use for this example is 'faith, confidence, or lack thereof in either human life, society, or oneself.' I do believe it can span all concepts or just a select few. Example, someone who thinks "I'm just fine, everyone else is crazy" can be either optimist or pessimist. They're optimistic in their own self, their actions, choices, and beliefs, they just happen to believe they're right all the time, though by discounting humanity as a whole there is a shade of pessimism that bleeds through. Or it could be the opposite, you may have low self worth, confidence, and think everything you do is worthless, but believe that humanity as a whole has amazing potential evidenced by the innovations and breakthroughs achieved in both science and society. Basically, I wouldn't say being an optimist or pessimist dictates you have to hold a single, static attitude toward literally every single aspect of life and existence. Does it?

Politics, like religion unfortunately, offer an incredibly vast, opaque, and above all inconspicuous covering to mask one's various mental illnesses. If not just from themselves. You shouldn't blame either.

I am wondering if there are any new ideas which have not been advocated by thinkers already. — Jack Cummins

Key word being advocated. Probably. Though the base 'ideas' or 'concepts', essentially everything that has or can be observed, experienced, or pondered have no doubt been established and so any potential 'new idea' is likely to be cast as a simple derivative or "springboard"/"piggyback" . Remember for thousands of years people were just sitting around without TV or electronics. Sure, books, a few games, alcohol, tobacco, etc. Still, they had a lot of free time on their minds, even in labor.

Truth, morality, reality, absolute vs. subjective, value, emotion, wisdom- all these things have been laid out long ago. More than likely, if you look hard enough, there's some variant of anything somewhere back up the line.

An interesting question would be how inclined is someone to participate (or what would the differences/turnout be) in an event where confidence or belief in the idea that what one says or does matters as a fundamental basis (political election) if they're an optimist/pessimist?

The former. Point being not every life brought into this world is a thoughtful, purposeful, let alone political action. I'll reply more to the OP in a bit I'm sure I just had to point that out. "Gotcha" post I suppose. As is.

the very act of bringing someone into existence is a political act — schopenhauer1

Oh forreal? My mate had a few drinks and the last thing he remembered was not being a father. Needless to say, when he came to he was cheerfully informed.

I don't think most 11 year olds today even really understand what money is yet, other than if they're good they get a few extra things. They won't know or care what 'cancer' is unless they're feeling the physical effects and obviously feel burdened enough by it.

Also, most states require older kids being put up for adoption to consent (talk about an awkward question- not anymore than Isaac and Abraham but still), usually at adolescence but it can be as young as the age you're referencing.

Obviously it depends on the society. Back in the day kids got married in their teens and earlier often because the times required maturity or more directly people of all ages were exposed to the horrors of life at earlier ages. If you didn't work, and hard, you died. It was a time of constant war, and whether due to that or simple disease folks didn't end up living too long anyhow. It takes a bit of imagination to really understand but most people were "adults" as we define by age 12 or so. These days, you can live and die at an old age, going through the entirety of life with the mindset of a "child" as we define it. The blessing (or curse) of modern society and the stability that comes with it. Some don't forget. And so, are advantaged over those who do.

Story of Eden. It's not the science it's.. oh never mind. Take joy in the fact we're banned from interstellar travel until further notice and any destruction will be contained. Hopefully.

Ironic thing is certain forms of the most simple, mundane images of art have (allegedly) incredible philosophical value depending on the observer. Example.

A pile of excrement on a city sidewalk. You could call it a savage commentary of the uncaring nature of modern day life and how far we've come, or how far we've fallen. It reminds us not only of social ills but of innovation and progress, the sidewalk, social services, etc.

A blurry selfie photo. A quiet commentary on the bustling nature of modern day society, how "rushed" we've become in a hurry to get to the next place or do the next thing we can't even live in the moment anymore. A tragedy or a blessing. Truly up to the beholder.

An unkempt bed sheet with ejaculate on it. A jarring commentary on the loss of cadence in- and formerly sacred nature of- love and romance. How values have fallen with such myopia toward pleasure chasing and away from matters of the heart, home, and family.

--

Who knows maybe we could all become one of the best, most respected artists of our day by just being lazy and disgusting with no artistic skill whatsoever. Who'd have thunk it.

Just imagine. The fact I'm not wrong. I could get up one morning, get drunk, take a dump outside at the corner, take a bad selfie, defile my bed, take pictures of it all, and end up a multi-millionaire world famous artist in no time at all. The fact that this process as I described is actually possible is quite disturbing. I look at it like urban music. Trying to maintain and restore values and virtue gets you ignored, in debt, and perhaps a slap or much worse. Helping to aid the degradation and destruction of the very values that brought us to where we are today, gets you fame and fortune. That's what the arts and media have become. Curious, to say the least.

I don't know where else there's left to go other than to say back to it's roots in beauty one could hope.

You literally got a video of some girl making herself throw up on a constant loop. Things like an empty white room with the lights being turned on and off. And of course, what started it all, DuChamp's urinal.

I imagine before it becomes so ridiculous that even the outside observer with no interest in art can look at it and be like.. no, this isn't anything. We'll have scenes of literal excrement (which has basically already been done, see "Artist's Shit", though you can't blame the artist for turning 90 cans of something you normally pay people to get rid of into $300,000+ EACH, can you?) on a sidewalk, something as mundane and lacking substance as a blurred selfie photo (that's going to be my idea, nobody steal it.), etc.

Pretty sure I posted this here but for anyone who hasn't seen it and is interested in art it's definitely worth the watch.

eggs falling on stones and vice versa — unenlightened

Something about fragility and longevity I'm sure. Whatever it is it has to pretty wise.

cosmic egg — unenlightened

All stars including our own are basically giant nuclear reactors that one day in the distant future will run out of fuel. One by one each will implode into themselves, collapsing under the weight of their own gravity and depending on it's individual size and class will leave behind and or create one or more of the following: a smaller version of itself, a nova, a supernova, a pulsar, a black hole, or even a quasar. A supernova is kind of like a galactic, exploding Santa Claus, delivering billions and billions of tonnes of precious metals, rare elements, and other building blocks for galaxies light years in all directions across the entire universe. Whereas black holes and quasars are something of galactic trash men, cleaning up the remains of dead and dying stars and galaxies to make room for the next generation. Perhaps even recycling them as opposed to sending them to oblivion if you subscribe to white hole theory. In fact, after a black hole has absorbed all the matter it can, it shoots out remaining (recycled, refined subatomic matter) from it's center sending the remains of dying stars and galaxies on "one last trip" around the universe, perhaps to become part of yet a new star or galaxy. Imagine. In one way or another, we're all stardust. Who knows from how far we truly came.

A fascinating universe indeed.

You're drinking again aren't you.

*Something wise about omelettes and eggs.* — unenlightened

Two eggs cooked can save a life, for a short while, while the same two eggs left intact can hatch enough to sustain a village 'til time's end.

Ironically, the point is the same.

mathematics — jgill

Mathematics was the creation of the destruction of the earliest forms of "guestimated bargaining", which was made possible due to the destruction of a previously unstable, constantly-warring society by the creation of more permanent civilizations which some argue was only due to the destruction of supernatural folklore as laws that govern reality due to the creation of science resulting in the creation of powerful, history shaping innovation.

Which also led to the destruction of having to know how to do anything useful (including math) due to the creation of technology and smartphones, including to repair and maintain them. Circle of life I suppose.

Seems to me nearly anything we'd experience here can be grouped into two or three categories.

Forward action (negentropy?): mixing vinegar and baking soda, a volcanic eruption, water turning into steam, a generator slowly reaching peak production, working out, etc.

Stagnation (plateau, static positioning [which I've heard doesn't truly exist absolutely. it can appear as so for thousands of years or more, like a mountain, but in some tiny way it's either getting bigger/gaining energy or losing it]: like the concept of a still image or fossil frozen in subzero temperatures.

Backward action (entropy): steam turning back into water, losing muscle mass, an active turbine slowing down after being turned off, etc.

Any thoughts on this? Technically one can argue both entropy and negentropy are both actions just in opposite directions whereas true stagnation is obviously the only true non-action, which again some say doesn't truly exist. Basically, to define something, you have to define what it's opposite is first, or at least be aware of it when validating your own, ie. what is and what isn't.

Can't be conscious without a brain. That's why someone in a vegetative state is often declared 'clinically brain dead', as in there is no evidence of substantial brain activity detectable. Their body is alive, but they're not "there" so to speak. Yet there are cases of folks recovering from such a state. I don't seem to recall if they "remember" anything or not and even so it could be simply from the process of losing brain activity/regaining it and your "mind", "consciousness", "spirit" or whatever meshing back with the stimuli your brain and body experienced/"recorded" while you were "gone". That's just a theory of course I'm sure there's more information available, but probably not a whole lot.

Edit: apparently being in a coma/similar state of abnormality is not being 'clinically brain dead', the former just means you can't respond to stimuli or communicate and that there is nominal brain activity. The latter is true brain death (no detectable activity whatsoever) at which point the person is considered legally dead. No one has ever "came back" or recovered after true brain death they say.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

All I know is their crap smells the same as ours and are ultimately subject to the same laws governing life and death. They can just do whatever they want at any time, or can they? I imagine it'd be something like a lifelong jail sentence. You can't go (just) anywhere or do anything and you'll never really know how other people are. Everyone you try to meet or run into on the street or anywhere will either have their best face on because of what you have/can do or their worst because of what they don't/cannot. Sure you'll be able to do and experience things here most never will ie. private island parties, yachts, exotic cars, homes that are like castles, weekend vacations that cost more than the average person makes in 2 years, but you'll never have a normal family life or be able to let your kids grow up normal. You'll walk around your whole life with a target on your back. I wouldn't care for it. Reminds me of the saying "A nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."

As one points out, it's worth mentioning there's a difference between being an introvert and being anti-social. I'd say, the introvert prefers or rather sees heavy, constant social interaction as just a thing to do every now and then to change things up, not as a necessity. I've read many introverts view heavy, prolonged social interaction as "draining" whereas extroverts need it to feel alive. I've considered myself as an introvert these days yet when I was younger being around folks was my favorite thing. I wonder if it has anything to do with one's upbringing? I was raised for the most part in a single child household, myself obviously being that child. I imagine you tend to become accustomed/accepting/feel "at home" based on your upbringing. They say the first 5 years of life are the most important and ultimately dictate the kind of person you'll be in life.

fae — TheMadFool

How would you like if i made an interesting post and just included an inrefertial (nonsensical and made up) word in it for no ryhme of reason. English language forum. Thanks.

I am in favor of a corruption less system, while others may value a speedy system. Arguments can be made for either system — The New Publius

One argument supersedes any of the opposing arguments for either and that argument is that the former is simply not possible. Though I think you mean what should be given priority in reduction (corruption/miscarriages of justice vs. extremely long wait times) as opposed to what should be reached absolutely. Am I correct?

Instead of arguing about a Moral Law let us try to discern what the absolute Moral Law is. — The New Publius

This should be fun lol. What is absolute? Something that doesn't change regardless of circumstance or viewpoint ie. something incorruptible and not subject to relativity. Morality meaning virtues or ideals widely accepted as positive and conducive to an enjoyable and pleasant society. Law meaning established rules and codes, typically with punitive measures that are enacted upon an individual deemed guilty of breaking one or more.

However, the idea of an "absolute Moral Law" is curious, to myself at least. It attempts to cast something often argued as subjective (Morality) as something that can be absolute, and so codified as Law. Which I think is not only possible but has been done with at least the majority of relevant persons being in agreement. The Golden Rule, as it were. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. We, emotionally, mentally, and biologically don't want to be killed, injured, or stolen from. So this is one potential example for your consideration. Of course, some take this even further. No one wants to be horrendously and brutally insulted or degraded in an extremely loud, rude and savage manner. So, someone doing so can be charged with "disturbing the peace". Though people do argue this is a violation of the concept of free speech, the individual pursuit of happiness (as defined by the individual), and perhaps even the concept of Freedom itself, specifically a free and open society. There's room for argument in either direction I suppose.

Is there anything more then competition in disguise in the world? — Benj96

I always enjoy your posts. They're thought-provoking enough to spur great debates, yet relatable and concise enough to be understood by a novice in philosophy.

I'd say there's plenty more than competition. Perhaps? The love. togetherness and "comfort", feeling "home" with members of your family. Thrill seeking hobbies and other entertainment such as skydiving or going to the movies. No one is "competing" during these times, they're just enjoying.

What does it mean to refuse to compete with everyone else? Is it even truly possible while still living or is it only the act of death in which one stops the race? — Benj96

I'd imagine a balanced view of "refusing to compete" doesn't mean rejecting literally every instance of competition no matter how small, ie. a friendly game of cards. Rather someone who would hold that position probably just doesn't want to turn every single interaction with his fellow man into a virtual "fight to the death" for every little thing. He's content with what he has and doesn't mind being second place. He has nothing to prove to anyone but himself, and potentially his idea of a higher power. He doesn't need approval from a world teetering on the brink of insanity, be it in the form of fame, glory, power, or unnecessary riches. He simply is content with the knowledge that at the end of the day when he rests his head for sleep, he was the best person he could be.

Life is about the person you are today competing with the person you were yesterday. Other people just help out by reminding you, he's catching up.

Ok. And faith moves mountains. — Miguel Hernández

If one is capable of doing something, do you think they would have a better chance of doing it quicker/easier with faith in their ability and action or without?

But for the car, better if you put gasoline. — Miguel Hernández

Again, no argument there.

In order to be powerful, one must enjoy dominating others. — Pinprick

Not necessarily. Perhaps it is because of the fact you wish to see others free and not under subjugation you (by some off chance, hypothetically) convince a large enough majority of the same viewpoint and manage to gain a footing in the "power structure" as it were. You understand, to make an enlightened omelette of freedom a few misguided, woefully shortsighted eggs need to be cracked. For their benefit, of course. You understand the orders you give to others are not only easily rationalized but proven to be more for the benefit of those taking them as well as others subject (led/empowered by) yourself than for yourself. You intimately know the pain, confusion, and suffering those who follow you would face without your leadership, suffering that would be incomparable to the minor instance of humility exhibited of/when following a respected (and usually proven) leader.

In order to enjoy dominating others, one must be at least slightly sadistic. — Pinprick

No argument there.

Maybe try writing something a little more coherent? — ToothyMaw

I'll try but don't get your hopes up. If there's one thing philosophy teaches us it's that anything not immediately understood is a dead end.

Anyway, open governments where law and order can be not only applied but openly scrutinized by all reduces human suffering.

Pain is all in the mind. Can be overcome/rationalized. Though I've never been physically tortured to an extreme degree (been through a few painful mishaps no doubt but still a far cry from the psychological contexts of situations you describe).

In the last example I was talking more of hypothetical torture situations for a foreign combatant/intelligence agent (ie. someone who has something "worth knowing") as opposed to a citizen being tortured for merely criticizing his government. Though there can be parallels. My point (or attempt to remind others of good news) was that governments don't usually just "horrifically torture" random citizens who just happen to be a bit dissatisfied, want more results than they're currently getting and who wish to take things into their own hands. Then again, some do.

Just curious, what is the point or message of your OP exactly? Pain can bring trauma? That federalism, shared powers, and an open enough society that allows these things (CIA waterboarding) to actually see the light of day as opposed to crimes and persons never being heard of/from again is good? If so, you did a bang up job.

Every government or power structure is full of (not the majority [hopefully]) s**t people, evil people, psychopaths, etc. Those are the most inclined to seek/reach/maintain power in the first place. It's how open the society is that allows these things to come to light in the first place so it can be corrected, as you've so perfectly illustrated. If not unintentionally. You don't kill the entire octopus just because one of it's arms happens to be cancerous. You amputate it. Then it'll grow back nice, new, and healthy. In time.

Can you explain what you mean by this? — ToothyMaw

Do you think I can?

Oh you don't need an authoritarian regime for torture or trauma, life and unrestricted human nature will do that plenty well on it's own. Same with depression and hopelessness. Besides, stupid is as stupid does. You don't blame the animal when it acts as it is and shows to all who may observe it truly knows no better. The worst victims are those made or raised to be so malleable by the fears and the worst of life they view themselves as part of it or that it's "right" or "necessary", and need tell themselves nothing.

See religion and atheism have one thing in common. Both groups seek to prove to one another something that cannot be proven is fact.

Other than that, they say pain is all in the mind. I wouldn't think that happens too often these days. Anyone entrusted with anything useful would be trained to handle it properly. Usually, by illustrated and proven example that the long term value, goal, or objective of whatever reason or cause the hypothetical torture victim was involved in (that captured said persons interest in the first place) overwhelming dwarfs the value of any other pleasure, joy, or accomplishment (and so cost of pain, anguish, or failure) the person could have ever hoped to achieve (or avoid) in life. Otherwise, why would the person have joined to do whatever they were involved in in the first place?

Well you have now. — Daemon

Well let's be fair now. I'm going to assume, considering your contentedness and use of the internet, you're from a first world country. So, you are wealthy, recognized, popular, and influential simply by matter of affiliation. You could have little to nothing in savings, be virtually unknown in your community and anything you ever say could constantly fall on deaf ears or otherwise be ignored. As an individual. Yet, you are not only subject to but endowed by the same rights and freedoms and resulting use/effect of wealth, influence, etc as the richest most popular persons in your nation. And so. The difference is a matter of personal ability to satisfy excess wants and desires on a whim and little more.

I thought ~ was a symbol for approximation/estimate/or "around". I have ~5 dollars, meaning I have more or less somewhere around five dollars.

When it comes to these kinds of paradoxes I'd say it's more than likely one or the other is factually incorrect/untrue/incoherent.