Hi ! Mohamed - Morocco

[mohamedtaqi]

Hi,

My name is Mohamed, 30 years old, from Morocco, a full-time programmer. I subscribed to this forum because philosophy is one of my interests : what is existence? why does stuff exist? what is consciousness and how it is generated in the brain? what establishes values and ethics?...etc. These are some of the many questions that I enjoy pondering whenever I have time to think.

As for some philosophical positions I agree with :

Metaphysics :
Realism: I think there is some unknown substance that exists outside the mind, which is interpreted to what we call the Universe.
Parmenidean more than Heraclitean : I think that ultimate reality is most likely non-changing, but somehow our perception of reality looks like there is change.
Monism : I think there is one type of substance that constitutes existence, and it is matter (not to be confused with matter in physics, matter here is everything that is subject to physical laws : energy, matter, space-time, forces..etc.)

Epistemology :

Skepticism: I think absolute knowledge is impossible.
Agnosticism: I do not know whether deities exists or not.
Empiricism: I believe that in the most cases, experience is the only source of knowledge (if there is knowledge), and rationalism is sometimes useful.

Philosophy of Value :

Deontological Ethics : I think good is intrinsically good ... there are things that we ought to do under some situations, regardless of their consequences
Stoicism : I consider myself a stoic, and I do my best to act as one (it is difficult)
Nihilism : I think ultimate reality has no meaning or purpose.
Existentialism : I think purpose and meaning emerges from our brain, right after our birth (or during pregnancy we are the purpose and meaning of our parents)

Economy : Capitalism ... Although I like the ethics of communism and socialism, I think capitalism is more successful.

Philosophy of Religion :
Atheism : I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in God or no-God.

Philosophy of Mind :
Materialism (physicalism) : I think that consciousness is produced by the physical brain.
/And if materialism is false, my second option would be Neutral Monism . ( I think idealism and dualism are probably false).

Philosophy of Law
Legal Realism : I think that laws are not based on morality or social facts, but instead laws are established based on random circumstances (history, rulers, people...etc).

I think that's enough to know something about me

[-1-]

Hi, Mohamed! I agree with almost everything you quickly summarized. I only differ in two areas among the many others with which I fully agree.

1. Law. I think law is an extension of societal coercion on the individuals' behaviour, and thus it will teach the same things to individuals in a given society as social ethics and social customs of that particular society do. I agree that law may have come about perhaps in some stages of its development as a trial-and-error thing; but in both planned and in experientially developed law there will be a high positive correlation to the goals of other social pressures in a given society.

2. Stoicism. I believe in hedonism, and although I fail miserably with it, that is, I fail at having thousands of concubines and lying with them in nights of white satin, etc., I still see no reason to give up passions and goals in life that pursue spur-of-the-moment or quickly developed tastes. In other words, I am a child of the nineteen-seventies' "If it feels good, do it" generation. I also believe in supporting liked people, and in trying to destroy or neutralize my enemies. I also fail at these. But to stoically accept whatever fate throws at me is too... I don't know, too pussy-footed for me.

[mohamedtaqi]

One, thank you ! ..

Law: I do not claim to be very well immersed in the philosophy of law though. But here is the thing, I am from a developing country, so maybe this influences the way I see our legal constitution ( I couldn't reflect on other countires' legislation ) ..

Hedonism : Well, I cannot be a hedonist (practically speaking) , I am kind of nice guy if you can see what I mean.

Nice to meet you One -1- , thank you !

[HexHammer]

You are very versed in philosophy, unfortunately I think it's VERY outdated and rigid, not really fitting well into modern society.

Instead you should read some modern usable philosophy like the refined 'Sun Tzu - Business Philosophy', it has actual relevance in all aspects of life no matter what you do!
Classical philosophy is just mental mastubation on par with a dog chasing it's own tail.

[mohamedtaqi]

'Sun Tzu - Business Philosophy

Thank you so much for the reference, I have read Sun Tzu's Art of War (forgive my ignorance, that's the only Sun Tzu I know).

Classical philosophy is just mental masturbation on par with a dog chasing it's own tail.

In a sense, yes it is .. but I think its genuine questions will haunt humans for thousands if not millions of years to come. Philosophy is outdated yes, but people learning it are not, new humans in the next generation will go back to this outdated philosophy to explore these ideas and questions. Ever listened to an old music and found out later that it is outdated ?

Either that, or postmodernism, which I think is non-philosophical and devoid of any sense. But I will look into Sun Tzu. Thanks again.

[-1-]

One, thank you ! ..

Law: I do not claim to be very well immersed in the philosophy of law though. But here is the thing, I am from a developing country, so maybe this influences the way I see our legal constitution ( I couldn't reflect on other countires' legislation ) ..

Hedonism : Well, I cannot be a hedonist (practically speaking) , I am kind of nice guy if you can see what I mean.

Nice to meet you One -1- , thank you !

I appreciate your reply.
1. Law. The law reflects the way the ruler wants the society to develop. Not every ruler wants the best for all his subjects. So the law will reflect different things in a developing country lead by a tyrant from a capitalist democratic socialist country. But in both countries the ruler makes the rules, and the ruler (either a tyrant, or the population that directs the law by voting for representatives who promise those kinds of laws to introduce that the people want) sets both the law and the morals.

2. Hedonism. You don't need to be an awful rotten cabbage to enjoy life as a hedonist. And many ascetics had been cruel megalomaniac torturers of people. I actually resent the insinuation that hedonism is despicable. As long as I don't harm others, why can't I have joy, love, and happiness?

In other words, you can be a nice guy, if you can see what I mean, and be a hedonist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[PTH]

You've set out your positions very clearly and systematically, which are obviously the product of much study and deliberation.

You've obviously a lot of learning to contribute to discussions here.

[mohamedtaqi]

1. Law. The law reflects the way the ruler wants the society to develop. Not every ruler wants the best for all his subjects. So the law will reflect different things in a developing country lead by a tyrant from a capitalist democratic socialist country. But in both countries the ruler makes the rules, and the ruler (either a tyrant, or the population that directs the law by voting for representatives who promise those kinds of laws to introduce that the people want) sets both the law and the morals.

I will give sometime to learn something about the philosophy of law , because I am still confused as to whether these legal philosophies ponder the way law is established (with regards to ethics and moral truths) or the way the laws ought to be established.

2. Hedonism. You don't need to be an awful rotten cabbage to enjoy life as a hedonist. And many ascetics had been cruel megalomaniac torturers of people. I actually resent the insinuation that hedonism is despicable. As long as I don't harm others, why can't I have joy, love, and happiness?

Oh, I do not mean that hedonism is despicable, in fact : being a nice guy (with high functioning autism and with no sense of adventure) makes it very fuzzy to define 'enjoyable'.

- I don't feel social settings and parties enjoyable , BUT I want to feel like they are enjoyable, but I cannot feel that. And being a nice guy makes it very hard to adapt. So, instead, I do not concern myself that much with what feels enjoyable (other than my work and studies), I only usually concern myself with what is beneficial ...

- Moreover, in principle (even if I could be hedonist), I do not agree with this philosophy in that sometimes we ought to do what is not enjoyable to bring about what is more enjoyable in the future. Sometimes we have to ignore the fact watching a movie is enjoyable, so that we can study and succeed our exams, to get a decent job, buy a house and a big TV on which you can watch that same movie under better circumstances (a comfortable couch, a beautiful wife by your side, a large 3D TV ...etc) ...


It would be interesting to see if hedonism is a self-refuting philosophy, I do not know ...

[mohamedtaqi]

You've obviously a lot of learning to contribute to discussions here.

Thank you, I am still learning .. that's why I subscribed ... Wish you the Best !

[-1-]

- Moreover, in principle (even if I could be hedonist), I do not agree with this philosophy in that sometimes we ought to do what is not enjoyable to bring about what is more enjoyable in the future. Sometimes we have to ignore the fact watching a movie is enjoyable, so that we can study and succeed our exams, to get a decent job, buy a house and a big TV on which you can watch that same movie under better circumstances (a comfortable couch, a beautiful wife by your side, a large 3D TV ...etc) ...

I'll go along with what you wrote. Hedonism does not have to be a full-time hoarding of pleasures. It needs its own sacrifices to be made by the individual hedonist, as you pointed it out. I agree with what you wrote, and I find it not being in contradiction with being a hedonist.

[-1-]

because I am still confused as to whether these legal philosophies ponder the way law is established (with regards to ethics and moral truths) or the way the laws ought to be established.

Interesting... I never even considered the "ought to" of the development of law. I just looked at it and saw how it happened.

Your seeing moral differences between law and morality is an interesting one, too. I see public (ie. social, society-generated) morals as nothing but a yoke put on people and make them behave so that society and its individuals can thrive. I don't see or sense that there is an ideal morality or ethics that society ought to approach or reach. Public morals are in the service of society's good and its ruler's good, and that's where the buck stops for me. Your feeling, that there is an ultimate moral code that is incongruous with law, I am sorry, that idea is a bit foreign to me.

[mohamedtaqi]

. Your feeling, that there is an ultimate moral code that is incongruous with law, I am sorry, that idea is a bit foreign to me.

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Let's consider a case study :

Suppose we have two legislators in two well-developed countries L1 and L2 :

Let's say that we have an Ultimate moral code , a Deontological (Kantian ethics) set of do's and don'ts, (remember, I think that ethics are deontological).

L1 and L2 (from different very developed countries, the best countries of their kind in terms of their legal constitution) :

Let's consider a set circumstances C, and a property or value V .. so that :

According to L1 : A thief that steals goods of value V under a set of circumstances C is to serve from 6 months to 1 year in prison.

According to L2 : A thief that steals goods of value V under a set of circumstances C is to serve from 1 year to 1 year and a half in prison.


Suppose that the ultimate moral code (deontologically ethical code) dictates that it is not right to deprive a person from their freedom AND dictates that it is right to punish a thief who steals goods of value V under circumstances C by depriving him/her from freedom no more than 1 year.

Now, would you say that L2 is committing an act that is morally false ?

If the Deontological theory of ethics is right, then there is a specific set of do's and don'ts under such conditions, and since L1 and L2 have different decisions made regarding their laws, it follows that likely one of them is committing an immoral act.

So, unless all legislations in the world agree on one legal code, it is very difficult to hold an absolutist view of morality (or deontological view of morality), and think that all of the legal systems and constitutions in the world (I mean well developed legal institutions) are morally justified .

I do not say that it is impossible, I am just saying that it is very difficult :

Even if we do not know what ultimate morality dictates as to what the maximum moral punishment ought to be in this case, we still know that either L2 commits an immoral act, or L1 did not do a good job to serve the victims who lost their goods (which is also immoral).

So, law (in general) is not based on a strict set of moral truths.

But there should be strict moral truths because we somehow know the limits where justice ends, and where oppression starts. That is : I know that if the thief is punished by serving 10 years in prison for stealing a chicken is oppression, and I know that serving 3 hours does injustice to that family which are deprived of their meal. So, the exact just punishment must be somewhere in between ... I do not know how much time he should serve, and I doubt any legislator knows for sure, that's why laws are not based on any ethical theory.

How should a law be devised then? a consequentialist theory that measures how much money (or value) is lost in the incident?

No, because it would still be unfair to punish two killers A and B by serving the same term , knowing that A killed by accident, and B killed intentionally.

It is difficult to decide, I know something or two about philosophy of ethics, but I have no good background in Philosophy of Law

[mohamedtaqi]

I'll go along with what you wrote. Hedonism does not have to be a full-time hoarding of pleasures. It needs its own sacrifices to be made by the individual hedonist, as you pointed it out. I agree with what you wrote, and I find it not being in contradiction with being a hedonist.

Then I must be misunderstanding this term, thank you so much for the clarification, I will go back and read about it, Best !

[mohamedtaqi]

By the way, for the problems raised regarding law and morality, one of the outlets I can think of is legal interpretivism : that is, to consider that whatever a law dictates must be morally true.

Although it has its problems too (probably, some problems are more serious than what natural law theory may encounter).

[-1-]

By the way, for the problems raised regarding law and morality, one of the outlets I can think of is legal interpretivism : that is, to consider that whatever a law dictates must be morally true.

Although it has its problems too (probably, some problems are more serious than what natural law theory may encounter).

This is the easiest solution. It's a law? then it's moral. -- nobody can argue against that.

I am afraid that your world view and philosophy is incredibly strongly connected to some scriptures. Particularly these considerations:
- all authority derives from god (therefore law, which is created by authority, is moral, since god is infinitely moral).
- hedonism is bad, because it includes gluttony and fornication, both decreed against by monotheistic gods in their respective scriptures
- absolute morality exists -- this is so because god's morality is absolute

My advice to you is to divorce yourself from these incredibly strong influences by religious considerations. Until such time that you succeed at the divorce, your statements will be strongly criticized (but not abused, just criticized).