So you believe in objective/absolute morality?

As the quote suggests, one doesn't have to be a slip smacking sociopath to do evil - in some cases just follow the directions of your local preacher... — Tom Storm

But there has to be something in a person that makes them follow those directions. Because not everyone follows those directions, only some do.

Noble lie - Wikipedia — Apollodorus

The Wiki article does not mention a similar concept in Mahayana Buddhism -- upaya, "skillful means".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

And your plan takes too long for the issue at hand. — Benkei

Most good plans are like that. People at large have allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of safety, and this is not something that can be remedied easily.

And it's true for both sides in a way. Assuming pro-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing anti-vaxxers? Assuming anti-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing pro-vaxxers?

I think that at this point, it's too late for convincing, too late for talking, too late for discussion. At this point, the only effective course of action seems to be to make vaccination and other sanitary measures mandatory, perhaps even enforce martial law.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational.

This is a lot to expect even from academics, what to speak of ordinary people!

A question could be, what makes a good heuristic decision making process and why? Maybe that can take the conversation further, I don't know.

That conversation would take time, space, a period of peace with no crises, medical or otherwise.

People generally aren't used to function well under pressure; and even when they are, it's with the aim to get from under that pressure into a relaxed, "normal" way of being.
Perhaps, like the US Navy SEALs, we should all train under the motto "The only easy day was yesterday".

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. — Wayfarer

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.

They also illustrate the vital point that one must be heedful at all times, esp. at the time of death.

appamāda
Heedfulness; diligence; zeal. The cornerstone of all skillful mental states, and one of such fundamental import that the Buddha's stressed it in his parting words to his disciples: "All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful!" (appamādena sampādetha).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#a

For existential feelings that threaten to overwhelm, I would choose the largo movement from Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony. Or maybe the adagio from Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony. — Tom Storm

I don't find them particularly moving. But that's probably because I'm actually such an optimistic person!

Simon Rattle conducting.

Oh dear, Sir Rattle got so old since I last saw him!! How time flies!

I'm talking about decisions that are made solely or primarily on trust. In this case, it matters not (or very little) what the evidence about the matter at hand is, but whether the person who needs to make a decision and take a particular action trusts the person asking them to make said decision. In this case, whether the citizen trusts the government. To note that normally, this trust takes a long time to build and is virtually impossible to establish it deliberately.

There are citizens who act the way they act with little or no regard as to what the government does or tells them to do. Ie. for those citizens, trust in the government plays a minor role or none at all.

But then there is also a percentage of citizens (possibly a considerable one) for whom trust is the deciding factor. These are people who "in their heart of hearts" must feel that the government means well for them. Once such people come to distrust the government, this is a generalized distrust. If the government were to say 2 + 2 = 4, these people's first impulse would be not to believe it.

Sure, we can say that these people are irrational, that they are jumping to conclusions, and so on. That they rely on the government too much, that they are even childish and "can't think for themselves". But right now, this is irrelevant. For these people, trust is the primary heuristic, and that's how they function. Attempting to educate these people about vaccines is not going to make a difference, but it can make things even worse, it can strengthen their distrust of the government.
I think what could make a difference are long-term citizenship programs where people are taught to be professional citizens, which includes having a significantly less emotional attitude toward the government, feeling less like a subject or less like a child toward the government. But this, of course, takes time and effort.

The thought of this amuses me as it's a fairly lightweight composition. — Tom Storm

Be that as it may, some people did go mad about it.

Some people also think Das Wohltemperierte Clavier is "deep".

Which brings us back to the theme of listening to classical music for hedonic purposes.

Where you and the Christians differ is in the qualitative evaluation of some past events.
— baker

I don't think so. That the books were not transcribed, were thrown in the rubbish, and were burned is not a question of opinion. Again, 90% of the literature of the classical world disappeared over a few hundred years, at the instigation of Bishops, christianised emperors and their acolytes. We have the commands they gave. We have descriptions of their deed in their own words. And we have the hole in our literary heritage. — Banno

When you burn a pile of trash, do you feel sorry for doing so? Do you think you've done something bad? If someone asks you about it, will you indulge in their questions? No on all counts.
That's how the Christians feel about the matter of destroying other cultures.

But you've got an interesting clash of cultures here: You're sure of your position, and the Christians are sure of their position. And neither of you will budge.

What is at issue is not inherited guilt. It is an inherited denial of historical fact. It is an attitude that permits the churches to entrench the disenfranchising of women and to hide paedophilic predation. Should the destruction of indigenous lives and culture by Canadian residential schools also be whitewashed as saving souls? — Banno

Would you speak openly, truthfully, in detail if you were questioned by someone whose authority you do not acknowledge? You probably wouldn't. Same with Christians. They consider it beneath their dignity to discuss themselves and their church with outsiders.

Look, I'm not defending Christians or Christianity here. If the posters here had a competition as to who was most wronged by Christians, I'd probably be among the winners.

I can't quite tell whether you're just a stubborn authoritarian, or a romantic idealist, so I don't know how to tailor my responses to you.

Insisting that people use language the same in all contexts is amusing, but misguided. — Ennui Elucidator

Oh, the irony of using language for saying this.

True but what made "some (religious folk) recognize them (atrocities) and realize how unjust these atrocities were"? Can't be religion itself - scriptures have remained exactly as they were for nearly 20000 years. Ergo, this moral growth has to be the work of secular/atheistic forces. — TheMadFool

Or those people weren't particularly religious to begin with. Religions have cracks, and some people who were boon into religions, fall through those cracks.

kept in check only by our ability to concieve of right and wrong — Michael Zwingli

Your theory would be fine, if only people wouldn't have such vastly differing ideas about what constitutes right and wrong.

I think the downfall of Western civilization will be due to its craving for drama, for emotionalism, for hedonic pursuits. Islam lite is a stepping stone in this process.

I wouldn’t overdramatise the principle, though. Chance is a factor, that is all. — Wayfarer

You underestimate the gravity of the issue.

When a guy tells a woman she's beautiful and she either says that she knows or gives an unmoved expression that indicates that the sentiment isn't worth much is this just straight up hubris? — TiredThinker

Sounds more like an ironic snub in reply to an uninvited/unwelcome compliment.

No, that's just a heuristic approach that you confuse with making a rational decision. — Benkei

?
Most people call their decision making "rational". In popular parlance, "rational" has a very different meaning than in academic philosophy.

I spoke of "causes for action" precisely to avoid this confusion.

That's why it is highly desirable for people to -- at least occasionally -- attend live performances. The live performance does not have to be up to Carnegie Hall standards, but it should be reasonably competent. I've attended amateur / semi-professional performances that were very satisfactory concerts -- and yes, sometimes noticeably imperfect. That's fine. The thing is, hear music that is performed live, before a live audience. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps just to get a sense for it, yes.

But for most people, such a live performance of pieces they are not yet familiar with is probably going to be intolerably boring, and, depending on where their seats are, of relatively low sound quality (in comparison to a mastered recording).

One of the aims of classical music is for a person to feel all human emotions, and transcend them. Not to indulge in them.

A good cautionary tale to this theme is the historical reception of Rachmaninoff's Third piano concerto. "Rach. 3" as it is notoriously called in some cricles can induce in some people deep existential feelings and attitudes that they are not able to cope with.

With Pfizer's technology they can make a new vaccine in a couple of weeks.

Unfortunately it has to be super frozen, so it's not ideal for protecting war torn regions, for instance. — frank

Not just war torn regions. There was a scandal in Sweden where they vaccinated 6,000 people with stale Pfizer. It's not clear what came of that.

One of the reasons why I chose the Janssen vaccine was precisely this: since it can be stored at room temperature, there's less chance with something going wrong with it in this regard.

I think government action in respect of Covid has been pretty shit in general. — Benkei

Based on what do governments think that people should trust them?

There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence. — Benkei

Indeed, it isn't evidence, but it is cause for action, or in the case of those who don't get vaccinated, inaction.

Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?

It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".

It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective
— baker

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. — frank

I think that in order to effectively handle a crisis, be it a medical one or a socio-economic one, or an ecological one, people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question.

When, instead, they're just focusing on retaining the status quo, they'll sooner or later end up in the same or worse trouble.

As long as the discussion is limited to philosophy forums, there should be no problem.
— baker

There's no 'problem' per se in voicing opposition to whatever policy but I believe that in times of crisis, 1) one should give some slack to political leaders, their job is hard nowadays and you and I wouldn't be able to do any better; and 2) consider the need for a little social cohesion, for a bit more attention to the public good, i.e. more civic sense and responsibility to the collective is required in times of crisis than otherwise I think. — Olivier5

I said: As long as the discussion is limited to philosophy forums, there should be no problem.
I'm not talking about watercooler or family dinner conversations, nor about public appearances in mass media.

What we're seeing in this pandemic is that criticial thinking is being pushed out of all venues. Even at a philosophy forum, the one place in the world that should allow for some nuance and detail, we're now supposed to be all politically correct and superficial.

Some Croatian social scientists say that the reason why many people don't get vaccinated is because they don't trust the government.
— baker

So a guy spoke on TV, huh?

It was a she. I think she made a good point. So much of what people do, or don't do, depends on whether they trust the government. She pointed out that typically, countries with high vaccination rates are those where people trust the government.

My question has always been specifically as to whether chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana. You implied that it was. This point you have not clarified.

This issue is of vital importance insofar the efficacy of the Noble Eightfold Path depends on deliberate action. If it depends on chance, the whole project of the complete cessation of suffering becomes hopeless.

Here's the thing: Why don't the vocal pro-vaccers (who claim to be taken hostage by the unvaccinated) put their money where their mouth is and limit health care (and other things) for the unvaccinated?

If the vocal pro-vaccers believe they are so right, so superior to the unvaccinated, then what on earth is stopping them from passing laws in accordance with that?
— baker

"Doctor do no harm", "doctor help the sick", all that? Empathy/decency towards the ignorant/fearful/ungrateful? Ethics? I'm thinking there are a few reasons anyway. — jorndoe

If that were so, then why do they complain about it?
Why do the vocal pro-vaccers complain about having empathy or compassion for the unvaccinated?
Why do they complain about having to go to some lengths to help them, medically?

That's a strange thing, to feel sorry for acting ethically.

Good that you brought that issue -epistemic autonomy - up; it (epistemic autonomy) is, to me, basically the idea that one must reserve one's belief only for those claims/theories that has oneself studied and thought through. Buddha was a staunch advocate. — TheMadFool

Then it should be easy for you to provide at least two canonical references that support the above. TY.

It's an unwinnable and interminable argument; a poison arrow argument. — Wayfarer

So you're using a teaching by the Buddha to defend a teaching for which you can provide no evidence that the Buddha taught it, and for which there is some evidence that he didn't? You should do better than that.

You can easily win and terminate this by providing a sutta that says words to the effect that chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana; or one that says that there's a hole in paṭiccasamuppāda; or some such.


But I can't just let you get away with an egregous suggestion that the attainment of nibbana depends on chance (and that as such, it is quite beyond a person's control).

Perpetrator of a bad pun.

The text you quoted from me was a response to the work culture views you had linked to. My disagreement with the utility of the division is not based upon my theory of the stupid. My disagreement was a rejection of the idea that people operate strictly on one basis or another. The world of actual work shows that these elements are all mushed together in real and very short time. That, in any case, has been my experience. — Valentinus

Agreed, they can shift very quickly, as if such shifting would be the whole point. I brought up the distinction because I hoped it would help me to clarify something else, namely, how to distinguish between stupidity and confidence. To me, even freezing/panicking can be acts of confidence.

You seem to be suggesting it is something we pin the tail upon like the donkey in the parlor game.

?

What's a soul? — Tom Storm

It's a turn of phrase, T...

Go to another party.

Not at all. What is apparent is that they deny what is before us all; the fact of the destruction of classical literature by Christian zealots. — Banno

But to them that's like burning a pile of trash. Ie., not a bad thing, not at all, but something useful.

Where you and the Christians differ is in the qualitative evaluation of some past events.

Indeed, in this regard, Judaism is a modern religion -- ineffective.

And as for the elephant in the room:

The more efficient method is to let them die in their front yards gasping for breath? Or what? — frank

Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?

It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".

It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective.

Although, the investment in this vaccine technology will ultimately save lives in the future because it will speed up response to the next asshole virus. — frank

Will it?

With the new Sanofi vaccine, there are also concerns that it will simply not be profitable for pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines against a family of rapidly mutating viruses, such as the coronaviruses.

but it's the Jessie Norman 1983 Kurt Masur version that really transports me. — Tom Storm

Transports you -- from whence to where?

And there is the problem of resources. Every outfit has managers competing for the best people in an organization to work for them. What is that like? These culture models are weak beer in addressing the problem. — Valentinus

It's still not clear why you call it a matter of "stupidity". Perhaps it's the most convenient to do so.

I used to be amazed how someone can walk down the road, step into a hole in the pavement, and injure themselves. And then sue the city. And win. But in time I've come to understand it as a matter of confidence: the person is confident that the pavement should be in good order, and that it is the city's reponsibility to ensure that it is so, and not an individual's responsibility to watch their step. Confidence ... does wonders.

Because our core nature, the equivalent of Freud's "Id", our emotionally driven instinctive selves, is not the sum total of our nature. There is also the "Superego", the rational and idealistic aspect of our minds, with which the Id does constant battle, to varying degrees of success among differing people, to form the Ego, the objective personality. This Superego is the result of the continued evolution of our brains. Lions do not possess a Superego, and so they cannot view as immoral that a new pride Alpha will immediately engage in an orgy of infanticide to eliminate the previous Alpha's Gene's from the group, and more quickly bring the lionesses to estrus. Humans, though, do have the car to see immorality in this.

Whatever else can be said of the man, and he had his theoretical faults and inconsistencies, Freud's model of the mind, along with Jung's concept of psychological archetypes, appears to myself absolutely key in understanding why we humans behave as we do. We must encourage people to allow their rational and idealistic selves to hold sway over the primal, emotional aspect of their minds. — Michael Zwingli

Provided, of course, that we take for granted, based on no evidence, that this trichotomy is true (and not merely a theoretical construct bolstered by an ideology), and that the division of labor between the three is indeed as proposed.

You talk about the new alpha lion killing the previous one's offspring, and stating this as evidence that the lion has no superego. Okay, so a lion doesn't have a superego. But there are other animals who adopt the offspring of other animals, including the offspring of other species. Should we say that those animals have a superego?

No, it requires more than that. Belief in the historicity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. One has to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, or else the whole project of salvation becomes moot.
— baker

Are you citing to some particular Protestant dogma that prescribes the particularities of the faith required for salvation, or are you just telling me your basic understanding or what you think ought be the case? — Hanover

Read the whole sentence.

Or do you think it makes sense to have a doctrine of salvation and eternal damnation, but without considering Jesus a real historic person?

Sure, there are even those who consider themselves "atheist Christians", but, to the best of my knowledge, they have no doctrine of salvation.

All along, I've been talking about factuality and efficacy of religious practice. This is my theme.

The "old-school" versions of religions (not just of Christianity) work with the model "Do x, y, z, and you will be saved". IOW, they promise something, they have a goal, and they propose a path of practice toward said goal. A person is supposed to do something, and then they will attain something. Ie. the religious path is considered to be something that is effective, that has potency, and a lasting result.

Contrast this with the modern politically correct variations of religions (who like to see ancient teachings as metaphorical, "non-factual"): They promise very little, if anything at all, they have no goal, no path of practice toward a goal, and the most they can offer is some hope that with them you might be better able to "make it through the day". They know no hell, but also no heaven, and no salvation. They tend to operate out of a one-lifetime perspective. Thus, they are impotent, ineffective.

The point in religion is that particular moral tenets have to be believed for the right reasons. Ie., e.g. you have to believe that stealing is bad not because your mommy told you so or because you don't like being stolen from, but because God said that stealing was wrong.
— baker
Now you're just making things up. It is not a universal tenant of religion that intent matters regardless of impact, and it is not universally considered sinful to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

And you're on board with that, epistemically and ethically?

It sounds like I'm just hearing a recitation of your recollections from Sunday school at this point and you're presenting it as if they are universal axioms.

FYI, I didn't go to Sunday school.

The story was originally in Greek I suppose, but do enlighten me how they read the fox and grapes story in continental Europe?

We read it as didactic literature, not as art.
It's the mark of a plebeian mind to read everything as if it were a didactic text.

Religions don't compete. People do, so it's hard to blame the idea over the person. But in any event, ideological differences lead to conflict, whether that be religious, political, or just general worldviews.

Except that religion bolsters those conflicts with metaphysical underpinnings, thus giving the conflicts a dimension that is hard to master.

Why close our eyes to the obvious? Why not consider the possibility that religion is the way it is precisely because it is intended to be that way?
— baker

Intended by whom? — Hanover

By religious people.

I also don't know what you mean by "religion is the way it is." How is religion?

I am sure that I wrote a meaningful English sentence.
I was commenting to this post of yours:
"My view here is just to accept there have been and currently are truly fucked up stewards of our religious traditions."
You're talking about "truly fucked up stewards of our religious traditions". I'm saying that maybe they aren't "fucked up", but that what you call "fucked up" is precisely how religion is supposed to be, and as such, isn't "fucked up".

I suppose you mean the caricature religion where they yell at you about going to hell and then take all your money?

Why should we think that this isn't what religion is supposed to be like? Why assume some kumbaya?
What if religion is supposed to be about the proverbial killing, raping, and pillaging? Jesus brought the sword, remember.

If you don't like the church you're going to, go to a different one. If you don't want to go to church at all, that's fine too, but I don't see where you have this great insight and knowledge into where I go and can make comments on it. All this talk about facts, yet here you're just factually incorrect.

Huh?