Maybe there is something that survivor's can't even find words for, perhaps because it's not conceptual. It's amazing and even disturbing what people can get used to (being 600 lbs, being paraplegic, cockroach-infested homes, working on the cutting line in a chicken processing plant, etc.) But all of these forms of inconvenience and discomfort aren't necessarily as bad as festering resentment. — T H E

Yes, the resentment festers.

Yet there's something obscene about noble platitudes in the face of others' suffering, and that's why I suggest a more 'materialistic' approach. If things aren't quite bad enough so that you have to move, a gradual resignation to the shittiness of the situation seems like the only option.

There is a point of no return. When one ventures on the path of resignating oneself to a shitty situation, there comes a point from whence on one cannot return to the human race anymore. A point from whence on one will never be accepted as an at least potentially worthy human being anymore. A point from whence on one cannot even conceive of oneself as an at least potentially worthy human being.
Resentment, bad as it is, at least keeps one away from that path, or at least keeps one away from reaching that point of no return. That resentment is the last thing that binds one such person to humanity.

I guess that's moral realism for the underdog.

I guess I know that you already know this, and I wish had something better for you now and for me when things get bad in my life at some point, as they surely will, us being so damned fragile and stuck together down here. Hopefully it's a little comforting to have your suffering recognized. I guess that's a strategy I use, universalizing my trauma, squeezing what juice I can from it.

Thanks.

What could be more important than winning??
— baker
Being right. — Harry Hindu

But who decides what being right is?

Just look at humans vs neanderthals. Who is now extinct?
Everyone has to die at some point. This is not a consolation.
— baker
Then your point is that no one ever actually wins?

No, just that since everyone is subject to death anyway, death is nothing special, not a sign of failure.

Becoming extinct is a failure in terms of a species. But dying, as an individual, is not failure, because everyone dies anyway.

Looking at the topic matter from the perspective of the species is too general, given that we're talking about intraspecies competition, ie. person vs. person.

I would suggest we don't look at ethical theories based on human collectivity and immediately seek to atomize it, asking how this can benefit me, irrespective of how it impacts others. — Maw

Human wellbeing and human suffering necessarily take place at the level of the individual, for the individual.

It is self-evident that one person's happiness can result in another person's misery. Any theory of morality needs to account for this.

The upshot is that the good is not definable, and hence that your enterprise is bound to fail. — Banno

Then why the tomes of theories and discussions about the good and the bad?
For millennia, have all those moral philosophers been laboring with an erroneous understanding of good and bad?
And if yes, whence that error?

A few things you might want to read around: "ressentiment" in Nietzsche from the blowhards can use this to punch down angle. "bourgeoise morality" is a Marxoid concept for the blowhards to punch up with. The idea of a "justification narrative" is useful in that regard too. — fdrake

Okay, thanks, I looked up those. Not yet sure how they compute in all this.

Also, a word of unsolicited advice, don't think you're above and untouched by these things just because you can recognise them for what they are. You're implicated, like I am. No values escape rhetorical context.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Obviously, life lives off of life, life consumes life. Big fish eat the little fish. There isn't necessarily an evil motive in all this consumption, it's just beings trying to survive. And, of course, when a bigger being with bigger and more complex appetites tries to survive, the damage they do to others is much more than when smaller beings are just trying to survive. Such is the nature of life, such is the nature of consumption.

This is what I sometimes think when I look out the window, and it gives me a small measure of peace.

Thanks. Yes, thought about that. Unfortunately, the situation is such that the unmanaged storm water would cause damage to our house as well by risking a landslide. I'm actually in the process of reworking the whole drainage issue primarily to protect our house.

Could be. So circumstance dictates your reality. And if something were to work in your favor or ever begin to support the premise, you'd jump ideological ships yet again. Yeah.. that's typically how it goes here. Perhaps, as the song goes, we're all just dust in the wind. A man should be firmly grounded in something, even as the tides rise and fall. But to each their own. — Outlander

I haven't jumped ideological ships quite yet, but I do radically question what I have believed so far.
It's that firm grounding that I'm looking for, something that will hold come rain or high water. I haven't found that yet.

- - -

I think might just makes 'I can get away with this for now.' After all, if you really thought might = right, you'd have to acknowledge the virtue of your neighbor --whereas I think you'd like to beat his virtue out of him (I would in your shoes, and that's what would scare me, the fear that I'd snap and end up in prison.) — T H E

I don't actually believe that might makes right -- but I fear it does. Because if you look at how the world usually works: the powerful do get to call the shots.

I make a point of reading stories about survivors, to see if some useful insights can be gained on how to cope with adversity.
In most stories I've seen so far, the person depended on religion. Religion isn't an option for me.
Most others are really just about doing practical things, almost as if the hardship one is experiencing has nothing to do with the metaphysics of the workings of the universe. I find this peculiar and I suspect those personal accounts are holding back vital information, things that the survivor realized when coping with the hardship, but which they conspicuously refuse to share with others.

We have several cats who are used to the luxuries of having a considerable garden. Moving/renting would mean that we'd have to move to a much smaller place, having to find new homes for the cats, or killing them. And all this for the sake of pleasing the Christian capitalist. He is free to live as he pleases, while others are not.

Here's the thing: What do situations like this tell us about the workings of the universe? My only conclusion so far is that might makes right.

Yes. Non-religious "theories" that come to mind: Hellenic Cynicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism ... Chinese Dàojiā ... Indian (non-Vedic) Śramaṇa tradition of e.g. Jainism, Buddhism, Charvaka ... — 180 Proof

The latter are religions, and the former still require metaphysical hinge commitments that one cannot take up at will.

(Or is philosophy, like history, written by victors?)
The mainstream tradition of Western Philosophy (Plato-Aristotle-Aquinas + Descartes-Kant-Hegel) is "written by the victors" but there's always been counter-traditional writings by e.g. Hellenes, Nominalists, Immanentists (i.e. radical secularists), Freethinkers, Libertarians, Pragmat(ic)ists, Absurdists, etc ...

Thanks, I'll have to look into those (I'm not yet familiar with all of them).

- - -

It makes right if it benefits you. Conquest, besting or outwitting another, or otherwise doing something you would not wish to be done to yourself, etc. If not, it's wrong. Criminal activity, terrorism, cheating, etc. Hypocrisy is a pledge one takes and a lifestyle one embraces, one that can be sustained with adequate numbers and resources, but if ever placed under impartial and non-biased scrutiny won't stand for much. — Outlander

There is no world court, no impartial and non-biased scrutiny.

A man without a conscious is no man at all, just another beast of the Earth. They will busy themselves with worldly pleasures, material pursuits, and other vain pastimes until they expire, at which point another will surely take their place. Going through the motions of life absent of a conscious or empathy for one's fellow man, what do you have? A purposeless, transient being who knows only to steal, kill, and destroy. One who will never truly know the finer things in life that do not come with a price tag or physical value, for he will be too busy defending that which does, with mind, body, and soul. A life with little more compassion outside of that which serves the self.

Or maybe that's an idle fantasy the losers tell themselves. Perhaps homo homini lupus is simply as good as it gets, and that's it.
Sorry, I'd like to believe you; I used to think that way as well, until recent events made me radically reconsider my stance.

Your neighbors sound like assholes. If it is at all possible, even if it's a pain in the ass, you might want to move. — T H E

We can't insure or sell the house, it's been rendered worthless.
Us moving would be just the final jewel in the crown of his victory.

See, this is power: to be able to fuck someone up like that, legally. And still be a good Christian, a good person. Morally superior.

Since everybody is bringing Christianity into this discussion as the salvation for the powerless, — Joshs

Yes, Christianity tends to be portrayed that way, although I don't see why. Christians have pretty much always been in the position of power anyway.

Christian piety arose as will to power becoming sickly and turning against itself, as a strategy of those who were oppressed to gain revenge against those who dominated them by elevating self-denial ( the ascetic ideal) to a primary principle.

But how are Christians "denying themselves"? By not killing everyone they feel like killing?

I suggest the terms of the OP’s query, in construing power as an opposition between those who are powerful and those who are powerless, already pre-suppose the ascetic ideal.

I don't understand what you mean.

How does, for example, pointing out that your boss has more power over you than you do over your boss, pre-suppose the ascetic ideal?

- - -

What do you mean by "right"? Winning something does not make one right. It simply makes one a winner. — Harry Hindu

What could be more important than winning??

Just look at humans vs neanderthals. Who is now extinct?

Everyone has to die at some point. This is not a consolation.

I need to learn to respond to people like him in the succinct way you do, instead of wasting my time on long-winded clarifications that fall on willfully deaf ears. — Pfhorrest

Wonderful example of bad faith.

Oh, the irony: You're the one preaching concern for everyone, but you yourself don't live up to your own ideal, but instead eagerly jump to the conclusion that someone is acting in bad faith.

Then what does it mean?

No point wasting time on someone responding in bad faith to a post made 3 years ago — Maw

*sigh*

In order to avoid starting new threads on an already existing topic, I looked up existing ones.

You said:

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified. — Maw

This can go at least two ways: It can be an utopian, idealistic concern for everyone, or it can be a form of narcissism. Hence a request for clarification.

I'm pointing out that your views on morality are completely unrealistic. You seem to think that a theory of morality is an anything goes kind of project where one can give free reigns to one's imagination; an indulging in a pipe dream.

You're developing a theory of morality for which there can be no hope of it ever being implemented by humans.

I've found that the Bungled and the Botched are also happy and live worthwhile, meaningful lives. — Banno

The question is, how do they do it?

I mean, without resorting to religion, because a religion is not something that one could take up at will.

SO I take it that the premise of this thread is fucked.

How?

Can you provide an example of the kind of winner and situation you mean? — Tom Storm

For example, my neighbor, who cut into the slope our house is on, destabilized the terrain, so that our house is in danger of collapsing. As if that wasn't enough, he built the chimney and the AC exhaust right under our living room and bedroom windows. And he laughs!
Lawsuits are so expensive that it's not worth taking him to court.
He's the winner in this.

- - -

This doesn't follow at all. People routinely do things they think will make them happy and end up doing themselves more harm than good. — Pantagruel

Some do that, sure.

I doubt very much that the majority people who live by the might makes right credo qualify as happy. Are bullies usually happy people?

Of course. Look at their self-confidence, their smugness!

/.../ Systematising ethics (right/wrong) like that can have a very "this drunk came up to me on the street and told me the way to find God" feel to it! That seems quite vindicated to me, as any such system is an attempt to reconfigure how values are seen and norms are related to, a lot like our drunken messiah's aspirations. — fdrake

Which is what he's doing: Just yet another authoritarian know-it-all with an utopian bent ...

Baker's question seemed to be "why do you care not to give false answers to things?", not "why are you talking about that topic?" There are lots of good practical reasons not to care to pay attention to particular things, but given that you're paying attention to something already, it's kind of shocking

to see someone so explicitly act like it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong about it. — Pfhorrest

This is what you get from my words???!

I was asking you about your motivations for wanting to know the truth about some particular matters, in this case, "God". That was the cue for you to look within and be clear about your motivations. Perhaps also share them with others. Unless you're into rehashing the same old theism-atheism arguments that have been around for millennia, without ever getting resolved. I figured that if you have a formal education in philosophy and aren't a teenager, it would be safe to assume you know better than to go down that road.

Cool, so if a majority of people like baseball should people be force recruited to play the game? — schopenhauer1

Like it or not, this is exactly what is happening.

I'm in a philosophy forum, where people make arguments about things like morality.

Yes, and all too often, they wander off into lalaland.

Actually, all of life is a big argument and whether you know it or not, people's arguments are affecting/effecting your life.

And I've got my neighbor's chimney and AC exhaust into my living room and bedroom windows to prove it.

Okay.. slavery not just being the natural course of things also seemed alien for many generations, mainly before the Enlightenment and even then it took until the mid-1800s for it to really start being considered legitimate moral sentiments.

It's not comparable. People arguing against slavery were arguing against just one aspect of the until then unquestioned socio-economic project called "life as it is usually lived". You're questioning the whole project.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral.
— baker
Really? Why?

Who has the problem here: you, or the pronatalists?

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds.
— baker
Well, let's take two outcomes from the different computations.

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers.

So? It's still your problem.


Face it: You're miserable. That's all there is to this.

Again, this doesn't have much to do with anything, since I already said that moral fictionalism is not only a rational position to hold but also a comfortable position to hold. Like how you can play a game while understanding it's not actually reality. — darthbarracuda

The question is, how does one come to hold the position of moral fictionalism if one doesn't already hold it?

On topic!

I am very dubious about 'the trolley problem' because of its artificiality. I suppose as a classroom exercise it's useful for focussing the mind on the issues involved. But in real life, again, we're not generally going to face anything like that choice.
— Wayfarer

I imagine situations of that kind crop up during war. Do we bomb the munitions factory even though civilians are working there? Should we sacrifice a few to save more? — Michael

And in traffic. I once witnessed the following situation on a highway where traffic is at 110 km/h: Road workers have just driven onto the highway, stopped and began to set up the signs that traffic must slow down and the outer right lane on a two-lane road was to be closed (this is in a country where traffic takes place on the right lane). The workers were already walking on the entry lane and the outer right lane. A car came onto the road just right after the workers. The driver of that car had to decide whether to risk forcing themselves into the traffic on the left lane, or run over some workers. They chose to risk forcing themselves into the left lane. Fortunately, nobody got hurt, but many drivers blew their horns.

free will as effective moral judgement[/quote]
In short: Moral egoism; moral narcissism.

Jesus was not 'convinced of his divine powers'. When asked, he demurred - 'It is not I that is good'. And when he suffered on the Cross, he cried out 'why have you forsaken me?' — Wayfarer

John 16:28
I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 14:31
but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

John 5:19
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 14:28
You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John 8:49
Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Jesus-Christ,-Relation-To-Father

Anyway, that's my 'Easter thought', I'm not going to pursue this as a philosophical debate. — Wayfarer

That's a shame.

It being Easter, there was a famous underdog, born into lowly circumstances, died a horrible death, betrayed by one of his supposed friends. (Forgive me, I’m hazy on the detail.....) — Wayfarer

And his way of coping with his underdog status was to be convinced he is of divine origin with special powers and special rights.

Hardly a heuristic that one could apply to oneself ... and still be able to function in the real world.

Oh I see, you’re confusing is and ought — Pfhorrest

Oh, you're still living in lalaland.

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified. — Maw

Which means what? Something like, "Whatever enhances my wellbeing and diminishes my suffering is moral (morally good, morally right, just, righteous), even if in the process of this, other people or their property get hurt or damaged" ?

I would like to see Hegel's language and that of Heideggers from comparison with High Middle German. This might reveal their ideas better, if only that they may be critiuedt — Gregory

Eh?!

Why MHD, arguably, the least comprehensible stage of German??

All hail moral realism!

What can be expected of people who were born and lived in a kingdom called the "Holy Roman Empire", Römisch-Deutsches Reich ...

If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives — schopenhauer1

It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating.

One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case. — schopenhauer1

The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument.

It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference.

Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.

You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life.

You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it.

And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral.

I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds.

We were born to die. — javi2541997

No, we were born to pay bills, and die.

I've started Kierkegaard's 'Concept of Anxiety', but can't shake the feeling that anxiety/angst/dread is simply what the Buddha terms dukkha. — Wayfarer

/.../ Saṁvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It’s a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range—at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of dismay, terror, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it’s normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complicity, complacency, and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Affirming the Truths of the Heart. The Buddhist Teachings on Saṁvega & Pasāda
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/NobleStrategy/Section0004.html

But does Kierkegaard offer anything that would resemble pasada?

I've often pondered that this may be the case. There is a strong overlap - dukkha - suffering, pain, stress, unease. Is there a text that articulates dukkha/discomfort with more of a psychological perspective? — Tom Storm

What do you mean by this?
Are you not familiar with the Buddhist suttas that talk about dukkha? If anything, the concept of dukkha can be classified as what is nowadays termed "psychological" (the second arrow).

Pretty sure there was something great by Alan Watts on this but can't remember where I read it.

Watts wasn't a Buddhist, mind you.

Throw out Heidegger and you throw out Zen — Gregory

Oy vey!

This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society. — BitconnectCarlos

But maybe it is as good as society can get.

Yes, but I don't accept your proposal that they mean whatever you want to make them mean. They are well understood by very ordinary folks. — unenlightened

Who have far from a uniformed understanding of them. One person's truth is another's lie, and so on.

The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?
Why on earth would one entertain something, in this case, hold an ideal, unless it serves a purpose???

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

Gee, I wouldn't know -- who is the authority on what those values mean?

I have acquired an edition of Anxiety now and will proceed with it. — Wayfarer

Given your Buddhist background, I'm eager to read your impressions of it!

This is what started this:

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.
— baker

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Followed by:

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for? — unenlightened

So your stance is something like:
Truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for person (which can mean anything to anyone) are higher ideals than the profit motive. The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes?