Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.
— baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that? — Chet Hawkins

I meant usefulness in a meta sense.

"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]"

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.

What determines the right way? Is it how most speakers of the language use the word? If the vast majority of Arabic speakers use the word "أخلاقي" to describe acts which are condoned by the Quran, and if the meaning of a word is determined by the things most speakers of the language use it to describe, then it would seem to follow that being condoned by the Quran is part of the meaning of the word "أخلاقي". — Michael

Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.

But in culture at large, in day-to-day dealings with people, "The other person is wrong/inferior" is probably the most common explanation for differences in how people understand morality. Even at a forum like this, "You're wrong/inferior" tends to at least lurk behind so many posters' arguments.

It's not clear what determines the right way to understand morality, but it seems to be central to a person's sense of morality to take for granted that they know, in an axiomatic manner, what is moral and what isn't.

Part of why theistic systems are muddled. — Banno

As if non-theistic aren't.

I would not call NDT a conservative
— Lionino
I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy. — Joshs

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe. — Michael

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly.

Your view reminds me of Madhyamaka Buddhism, but I doubt many scientists would take up a Buddhist philosophy to such a strong extent. — Leontiskos

Why do you think that is?
If they go so far as to venture into Buddhist philosophy at all, then why not do it properly? One would expect as much given their academic credentials.

Still, what are your thoughts on using idealism as a rhetorical ploy, along the lines of Stephen Law's "Going Nuclear"? — wonderer1

This wouldn't be an isolated case, as there is a whole school of Buddhist thought whose basic approach is reductio ad absurdum:

The Prāsaṅgika view holds reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method of demonstrating emptiness of inherent existence, and that conventional things do not have a naturally occurring conventional identity.[1] Further, the Prāsaṅgika argue that when initially attempting to find the correct object of understanding - which is a mere absence or mere negation of impossible modes of existence - one should not use positivist statements about the nature of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_according_to_Tsongkhapa

Someone like Law would probably accuse the Prasangikas of "going nuclear", failing to see that there's no "ploy", rhetorical or otherwise.

I think it's sad that someone came up with the idea of accusing idealism as being a "rhetorical ploy". Such an accusation is a complete denial of lived experience.

Both Prasangikas and (some) idealists have one thing in common: they both hold that lived experience matters.

Isn't that the very nature of ethics? How we ought treat others? — Banno

Not necessarily. In theistic systems, morality/ethics is primarily about the relationship between God and man, and it's only about how we ought to treat others in the sense that this reflects on our relationship to God.

That's why I said if there's no Arabic word that means the same thing as 'moral' then they might not have a conception of good. — Michael

Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation?

Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt? — Chet Hawkins

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.
— baker

What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? — Christoffer

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language.

Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.

The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen. — Wayfarer

Whence that fear?

Come on, as a Buddhist, you should do better.

If I'm so foolish, and if it's so obvious that's the case, why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

Well, if a person makes claims of extraordinary achievement, what usually happens is that they get ridiculed or ignored. Sometimes, crucified. Drawn and quartered. Sometimes, people follow them with great devotion.

Such is the situation with those making claims of extraordinary achievement.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet. — RogueAI

Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

Who raised these young people?

*sigh*

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it. — RogueAI

Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.

And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.

"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us,
— Lionino

Ok, I’ll bite. How much do you think has been caused by us? — Joshs

How exactly is this line of inquiry helpful? Can you explain?
(Leaving aside how such a calculation should even be possible.)

When would humans be off the hook? If only 10% of global heating is their fault? Where do you draw the line? And why there?

We are fighting fire with fire and instead we should put out this fire of hatred in all of us by showing love,kindness and understanding and soon others will follow. — Ege

What on earth makes you think they'll follow??

Seriously. Can you explain why you think that "showing love, kindness, and understanding" can somehow overpower hatred and contempt? Where is there any evidence of "showing love, kindness, and understanding" having that kind of power?

You should know better.

Instead, you're the one with the smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.

If you really care about global heating and the future of humanity, then how come you're willing to invest so little into finding ways to effect change in people?

The mechanics of what might be successful strategies to counteract global heating are not rocket science. Cutting down on fossil fuels etc. That's not the issue.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.

I agree with the poster above:

With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making — Lionino

As long as you can blame global heating on people being stupid, ignorant, and such, that's it for you, you have finished your job.

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI

Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing.

Just ignore the deniers. — Mikie

There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase. — Christoffer

Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.

Not 'psychological'. Fear, period. Although as I’ve said, I don’t believe it.

It occurs to me, speaking of psychology, that Trump’s thinking is entirely and completely subjective. — Wayfarer

The phenomenon Trump is relevant because it challenges many people's notions about the world, truth, reality. Notions they hold sacred.

What does the fact that Trump and people like him can do well in this world say about the world?

If one fears that such people can do well in this world, what does this say about oneself?

How is it that despite all of one's presumed objectivity and moral and cognitive superiority, one still has such fears as above?

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. — praxis

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself".
Anyway, this probably deserves a discussion of its own.

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans.
— baker

Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them? — Tom Storm

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance).

Seeing Buddhist Trumpistas and being overwhelmed by the phenomenon is actually a big reason why I distanced myself from Buddhism and why I took some interest in politics.

I am the Ubermensch — Brendan Golledge

Being able to type an Ü is, of course, an uberpower.

Dear lord ... Perhaps he can be disqualified on medical grounds?

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans. It's a peculiar combination of being fluent in an arcane religion devoted to the complete cessation of suffering, and to do so in an obscure ancient language, and yet be steeped in such populism as Trump's. I can't quite make sense of it.

More important than which interpretation is right is which reading is more promising from a psychological and ethical point of view. — Joshs

Surely whether some reading is promising or not is relative to the psychological, social, ethical, economical context of each particular reading, no? So we're stuck in relativity. Or do you propose a way around it or out of it?

Enactivist writers such as Evan Thompson and Francisco Varela emphasize the beneficial ethical implications of the decentering of the Cartesian subject. They assert that a thoroughgoing understanding of the groundlessness of personhood reveals the mutual co-determination of subject and world. This realization can in turn lead, through the use of contemplative practice of mindfulness, to the awareness of universal empathy, compassion and benevolence.

‘In Buddhism, we have a case study showing that when groundlessness is embraced and followed through to its ultimate conclusions,

the outcome is an unconditional sense of intrinsic goodness that manifests itself in the world as spontaneous compassion.” — Joshs

In other words, the notion of "Buddha nature". The notion of "Buddha nature" is not universally Buddhist, though. Early Buddhism and Theravada reject it.

This is why the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down. If you assume that the mind is basically bad, you won't feel capable of following the path, and will tend to look for outside help to do the work for you. If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent. This stands in the way of the heedfulness needed to get you on the path, and to keep you there when the path creates states of relative peace and ease that seem so trustworthy and real. If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

They assert that a thoroughgoing understanding of the groundlessness of personhood reveals the mutual co-determination of subject and world. This realization can in turn lead, through the use of contemplative practice of mindfulness, to the awareness of universal empathy, compassion and benevolence.

It's not at all difficult to understand the co-determination of subject and world, the interconnectedness, the mutuality. But it doesn't have the rosy implications Varela and so many Western Buddhists think it has. It's not only the pleasant, warm "interbeing" of Thich Nhat Hanh. It's also the ugly inter-eating that goes on at all times and all levels. Presuming to have empathy, compassion, or benevolence for those one eats is perverse.

For those who benefit from the hidden dependencies of modern life, a corollary need is a sense of reassurance that interconnectedness is reliable and benign — or, if not yet benign, that feasible reforms can make it that way. They want to hear that they can safely place their trust in the principle of interconnectedness without fear that it will turn on them or let them down. When Buddhist Romanticism speaks to these needs, it opens the gate to areas of Dharma that can help many people find the solace they're looking for. In doing so, it augments the work of psychotherapy, which may explain why so many psychotherapists have embraced Dharma practice for their own needs and for their patients, and why some have become Dharma teachers themselves.

However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the Dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional Dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned. In response, the Romantic argument brands these teachings as dualistic: either inessential to the religious experience or inadequate expressions of it. Thus, it concludes, they can safely be ignored. In this way, the gate closes off radical areas of the Dharma designed to address levels of suffering remaining even when a sense of wholeness has been mastered.

The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rootsofbuddhistromanticism.html

We don't experience ourselves as being inside a mind, but as being inside a body which is inside the world. We don't experience our minds as being radically free or absolute but as being constrained and contingent upon our bodies — Janus

This is indeed a very common belief about how we exist, especially in Western cultures. It's how we are often taught to think of ourselves and to take such thinking for granted.

If you look at the general history of human culture it is fairly clear that humanity has been labouring under the "aegis of tutelage", fixated by the idea that there must be some absolute authority or lawgiver. The horrific crimes against humanity which such absolutism has given rise to are hardly questionable. although of course it is possible to bury one's head in the sand in denial.

As if your're not fixated by this same idea that there must be some absolute authority or lawgiver; it's just that your particular idea of this absolute authority or lawgiver is different than some other people's.
Not having such an idea would probably make one insane.

You are quite forward about being unable to define good and bad, and so I am focusing on those. Usually someone who cannot define good or bad does not go on to depend on those words in their philosophical or moral theories. — Leontiskos

I think the moral realist's point is to treat good and bad in axiomatic terms, to take them for granted, to take one's understanding of them for granted.
Because any kind of defining them or acknowledging subjective definitions or beliefs would be a type of relativism, thus diminishing the axiomatic nature of said good and bad.

Once one starts to define good and bad, one is on thin ice, a slippery slope. Which is precisely what we don't want when talking about good and bad.

And don't get me wrong. I am a moral realist and have no difficulty talking metaphysics. I think an act is right or wrong, not subject to my subjective definitions or beliefs. — Hanover

But how do you know, _without_ your subjective definitions or beliefs, which act is right and which one is wrong?

How can you know anything _without_ your subjective definitions or beliefs?

I don’t know about any rules that I could apply to anyone else but me — AmadeusD

Or do you mean that you don't have an authoritarian personality trait (strong enough) to be willing to impose your rules on other people?

That seems ass-backwards to me, baker. "A mind" presupposes existence whether a "declaration" is made or not. — 180 Proof

Thats's because you _take for granted_ that

"Everything we know points to mind (as an activity) being dependent on non-mind, on material existence/ existents."

You work with _axioms_, but ignore/deny doing so.

the self-destructive individual acts out inferiority — kudos

(Leaving aside the very specific case of Buddhist monasticism.)

It's hard to make generalizations by now, because on the one hand, we have societies where self-destruction is basically encouraged at a certain point (ie. in countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal), and on the other hand, societies where it is not.

In countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, the people are basically told, "If you can't live up to a certain psychological, physiological, social, and economical standard, then it's better that you die, and society will help you to die". In those countries, it is actually a viable social goal that the inferior self-destruct (with the help of the state).

Mind is thus treated no differently than organism , which has no true ‘inside’ given they it is nothing but a system of interactions with an environment it defines on the basis of its normative way of functioning. — Joshs

What do you mean here by "normative"?

Everything we know points to mind (as an activity) being dependent on non-mind, on material existence/ existents. — Janus

This is a very common axiomatic claim.

So you know things exist and you don't need a mind for knowing that?
— baker

The point is this: being a mind that is 'aware of being-a-mind-among-other-minds' (ergo finitude) presupposes 'mind-independent nonmind'. In other words, to say that 'existence is mind-dependent' entails 'the nonexistence of mind' (via infinite regress: mind dependent on mind dependent on mind dependent on ...) which is self-refuting. — 180 Proof

Wayfarer said:

Basically, I'm simply arguing that whatever exists, always exists for some mind. The sense in which it exists without reference to a mind is simply unintelligible and incoherent. That is the mistake that creeps in for mistaking the assumption of mind-independence, which is all very well within the context of science, for a metaphysical principle, which it is not. — Wayfarer

You're ignoring the bolded part.

Simply put, in order for there to be knowledge that something exists, a mind is needed. Knowledge of existence is a mental thing.

Existence just is the case — 180 Proof

And a mind is needed to make such a declaration.

Wayfarer is a property-owning householder with material possessions and family responsibilities. So I probably don't fit into your stereotyped image of what 'an idealist' must be, whatever that is. — Wayfarer

It has nothing to do with "stereotypes", but with considering the (practical) implications of an idealist stance.
It seems your stance would be more correctly described as psychological and ethical normativism, rather than an idealism.



From some two years ago:

https://pathpress.org/appearance-and-existence/

Thanks, very interesting page and site. I will take some time to try and absorb that. — Wayfarer

Have you looked into it?

For a puthujjana the world exists.

But was there such a behavior though? Weren't there enough good hearted people who cared for all people and wanted to help, just to get a shotgun to the face and screamed to get off their property? That there were enough people who tried to make things better for all, especially low-income low-educated people?

Isn't it the false promises of neoliberal capitalists on the right side of politics who promised these people the garden of eden; only to flush it with factory chemicals, doubt, fear and rage?

And then they turn their backs on- and want to fight those who actually stood on their side, making them suffer and in the end just utter back to them: "ok, then rot in your filth you morons".

We can blame culture, but part of the great irony is that the people in power around Trump, as well as himself, does not care for these people other than to feed their narcissistic blood flow, cash flow and voter booths.

After all this time, how much longer should the people who actually care for these Trump supporters as human beings have to wait for these Trump supporters to realize which side actually fundamentally supports them? Because they get so much hate and so much shit all the time while trying to reach out that at some point... enough is enough.

I'm talking about fence-sitters.
— baker

Anyone who's on the fence towards such a side does not seem to have the capacity to understand reason. So it doesn't matter what you do, they are attracted to the childish bullshit that Trump spews out. It is clear by these recent years that it's a cult behavior; reason doesn't work, facts doesn't work. The only thing that works is if they realize the suffering they stand for, if they see it head on, if it produces a cognitive dissonance; in the same way as cult members realize what state of mind they're in. Listen to cult survivors and how they reason, what made them realize their faulty ways. Someone waking up from the Trump cult will echo the same reasoning.

It's easier on your ego to think that ..
— baker

No, it is true. They follow cult behavior to the letter. Treating anything a leader says as truth, as something to applaud without any attempt to rationally understand what it all meant is part of a cult mentality. Why do all these QAnon and conspiracy people intersect so well into the Maga culture? They follow the same cult mentality; the same psychology.

I don't care about my "ego", I care about making honest observations of what is going on.

Such is democracy.
— baker

Yeah, a sloppy version of it. Democracy needs care and systems to protect it. Because the result of a sloppy democracy is civil war. If someone gets voted in to dismantle a democracy, crowning themselves king; then the other half who didn't want that, will show that they did not want that. So protecting democracy and protecting it from such destructive forces as well as keeping the peace require better care for that democracy.

Democratic tolerance can only function until the intolerant becomes tolerated. After that you don't have any democracy anymore.

The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that.
— baker

You're talking about demagogues, not democratic people. They don't understand democracy, they understand the abuse of democracy by acting as demagogues, that's what a dog-eat-dog concept entails. By any means; fool the people, take the power. And if that power leads to anti-democratic actions, then what democracy really exists in their minds other than autocratic power?

What's even more scary is how sloppy people treat democracy. It's the same as how sloppy they treat freedom of speech. The constant appeal to them in broad, vague and simplified terms as some defense against actions aimed to supersede their actual purpose. And the so called educated just fumble their words trying to point it out to these people, it's absurd.

No, democracy is what it is and that kind of mentality is not democracy at all. That only proves that they do not understand democracy or they do not care and just use the public's low education of what it means in order to take power. — Christoffer

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.

How anyone thinks that the guy behind this outrage is a fit and proper person for the candidacy beggars belief. — Wayfarer

Not at all. It's plebeian mentality.

I'll pick the side that is *not* cheering on a mendacious narcissist wannabe dictator. — Wayfarer

There should be more of a difference between on the one hand, Trump and co., and on the other hand, their critics.

I recently finished reading "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and am moved to propose that the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve. Which is what (in my opinion) a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings are ultimately directing the readership to do, grow. — Bret Bernhoft

But why should this be the purpose of Nietzsche's writings? Out of compassion, or political initiative? This doesn't make sense, given that N. saw compassion as a weakness and didn't believe in politics.