what is the underlying problem here?

[Peter Kropotkin]

no longer will "ad hoc" solutions be able to solve our problems
because "ad hoc" solutions don't address the entire problem
which is the entire society/state problems... to wit..

You have consistently characterized thousands of years of ethics as "ad hoc".

Now suddenly ethics isn't going to be "ad hoc"???

that become the value of a socialism or communistic system...

Socialist and communist societies are just as unfair, unjust, corrupt as capitalist societies. (If not more so, depending on the exact time and place.)

K: you do know that most of Europe has a socialistic system and not
a direct capitalistic system....but once again, we have to be clear
and understand the difference between economic systems
and political/legal systems...we can have one sort of economic
system, say capitalism and have a different legal/political system..
say dictatorship..... we must be clear as to what is what...
Now I am referring to socialism as an economic system,
not as a political/legal system...

the failure of soviet communism lies in its turning its
economic system into a political system...the two must
be kept separate... at least for now... However I can see
the day when the two become one... and we will all
be the better for it....

so, how is injustice handle differently in Europe vs
the US? and why? I would suggest that it lies in this concept
of Justice being applied to all instead of being applied to
the poor or minorities of America...and not to the wealthy,
or powerful... and I could just as easily be wrong....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so injustice is the unequal application of the laws/rules...
if some are treated differently by the law, as the gays/transpeople
are being treated differently based on their sexual orientation,
that is the unequal application of the law and thus is not being just....

laws banning trans people or their medical needs, is the classic
definition of being unjust... if we treat trans people differently
base on their sexual orientation, then we are not practice justice..
we are engaged in being unjust... if we apply laws to just the Jews,
as the Nazi's did, we are being unjust... if we apply the laws to
gays differently than heterosexuals, then we are being unjust...
justice is not being practice in our society/state then.....
justice is not being practiced if we treat different groups differently
based on some false understanding.....

and how does the practice of being unjust, allow us to be or have
a better society/state? I don't see it either.....
either we are just to all, being equal to all, or we are not
being a just, equal society/state...

it is an all or nothing situation... either we treat everyone the same,
legally and politically and socially or we are not and if we are not,
we are not a just, equal society/state...
So, what will it be?

Justic for all or justice for none?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and part of the solution to the creation of a "better" person
or ''better'' state/society lies in the equal application of justice...
by said state/society...

a society/state can only be as good as it citizens... if we create
"bad" citizens by an unequal application of the laws/rules,
then acts like stealing or shoplifting are not about the individual
actions but about all of us.... to have "good" citizens as well
as a "good" state/society requires all of us to be ''good"
citizens... individual bad actions do not make for a better society/state...
private vices do not make for a better society/state.....

and a return to god or religion or the "good old days"
doesn't make for a better society/state.... only good citizens
can make for a better state/society... good actions create a good
society/state... so what actions are you engaged with?

are you practicing creating a better society/state or
are you engaged with your private vices? choose and
thus help create the society/state you live in...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

You still need objectivity to have "good","bad", "better" and "vice" which goes beyond one individual opinion.

That's not going away.

[phyllo]

so injustice is the unequal application of the laws/rules...

If ethics is subjective, then so is justice and injustice.

[Agent Smith]

World Population: 7.888 billion (2021)

Peter Kropotkin, me two sikkas worth.

Note ta myself: Thread seeded.

[Peter Kropotkin]

let us continue on about private vices and public good....

let us think about a private vice.. drinking alcohol...
and let us imagine that our drinking in private, stays private..
it doesn't enter the public sphere... I don't drink and drive
for example...there is no harm within the public as far
as my drinking and any driving I might do...there is no
public danger in this case.. now, I agree that drinking might
cause one some private harm, causing me to miss work,
causing family issues, being an addict to something is
still being an addict... with all the ensuing issues of being
an addict...( and this from someone who came from an addictive
family and did my fair share of drinking over these years) and
here is the deal.. I never missed a single day of work due to drinking...
I didn't allow any impact from drinking in my various jobs.. but
I grant you that for many, this is not true... a private vice such
as drinking booze can create a public problem... if it impacts
the public a la driving or becoming aggressive enough to start fights
and the like...my private vice can have an impact publicly...
but not always... so how do we know which "vices" are creating
issues and which are not? their impact on the public affairs...
drinking and driving is a public issue once I go on the road...
in my house, quietly drinking myself into oblivion, not so
much a public issue...and we can draw a line here....
private issues that create public problems, that is something
that we can legislate... if need be....

so one possibility for us to understand private vices vs public good,
is how does the private vices impact the public good? for example,
how my private vice creates public issues..
let us follow through on a private vice impacting the public...

the GDP theory of public good is that any increase in the GDP
is, by definition, good... the creation of jobs is, again by definition,
good.... so by my buying material goods, and buying several houses,
I am increasing the GDP and that becomes the good...my private vices
of greed has become a public good...the acquiring of my 5th vacation
home is deemed to be a public good... but is it? the entire question
revolves around the question of "is the growth of the GDP, a public good?"
and the rise of public issues like global warming, income inequality,
pollution, the reduction of resources like oil and water.. how can
such public issues like these be considered to be a public good?
how is say, the reduction of resources lead us to a public good?

and the rise of these issues stem from our fixation on the growth
of the GDP and the buying of material goods and the creation of jobs...
one could make the argument that by creating jobs, one is
increasing the GDP and thus is increasing issues like global warming
and income inequality...we don't know because we haven't had
that discussion of the value of income inequality... it is good or is it bad?
once we talk about it, then maybe, perhaps we might have some idea
about the value of job creation and the creation of income inequality...

or perhaps we can talk about global warming and job creation...
does creating jobs increase global warming? who knows, certainly
no one here knows...if global warming is increased by the increase
of jobs, of job creation, does that slow us down in our fixation
on job creation? is slowing down the GDP worth saving our planet?
that is an argument worth having....
that there are many such arguments that we should be having but
are not because of the fact that people don't want to hear "negative"
things....now for me, I will happily engage in such arguments
because I believe in discussing what matters, no matter how
uncomfortable it might be... here in America, one of the unspoken
rules of society is not to discuss salary.. but I hold differently...
we should be talking about the effect of salary and the growth
of the GDP and of Job creation and of income inequality...

I have my paycheck in hand, I make 25.23 an hour...what if any
impact does my salary have on income inequality or on
the GDP.. frankly given how little I make, I have virtually
no difference on the GDP....when one is talking about billions
of, indeed trillions of dollars, 25 bucks an hour is not much of
an impact.. but take millions of me making 25 bucks
an hour, and that does have an impact...that does impact
global warming and that does impact income inequality...

and the question becomes, now what?
and as I stated, I believe a conservation is needed
about what we should or shouldn't reach for in
the future...and that is where my point next gets to...
the MAGA/CONSERVATIVE crowd believes in the past...
MAGA: ''Make America great again''

but as I have mentioned before, which America are you trying
to reach.. the America that believed in Slavery or in women
were considered to be property or the America that engaged
in the genocide of the American Indian? Which America are
we considering to be worth repeating?

I am of the opinion that returning to the past is the path to failure...
you can't go home again.... that is true individually and collectively...
We have but one path and that path is toward the future.. not the past....
and that is one reason, why I hold to liberal ideals... we strive toward
the future.. we do not consider the past as being worth trying to reach....
do not just say, we must return to being the "shiny city on the hill" give
us exact details on how we should return to the past.. which past
exactly should we return to?

there are many discussions that we should engage in, but talking
about fake cultural war issues is not one of them...
who cares if a trans person in Ohio, uses a women's bathroom?
don't we have far more important things to talk about, like
how do we pay for health care and how do we put food on
the table or how do we send our children to college?
those are the important discussions along with such discussions
about what it is we are trying to do.. increase our GDP and to what
end does that matter? are we trying to end climate change?
and how do we go about that? these are the discussions we
should be having...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so injustice is the unequal application of the laws/rules...

If ethics is subjective, then so is justice and injustice.

K: ummm, as I mentioned, justice is the equal application of the laws
and injustice is the unequal application of the laws/rules...
so if the laws are by there very nature wrong.. such as the previous
laws of slavery, then a just application of the law would be
the equal treatment of slaves... but as we have noted,
that slavery by its very nature isn't fair, it isn't just
and it isn't right... by what right do we have to hold
human beings as property? to hold women as property?
but not white men as property......unequal application
of the law which for superficial reasons, are applied to
people.... for example, the law in Nazi Germany was
applied unequally against the Jews... that is not justice...
that is unjust....to hold a people, a group, a person, a religion,
a political viewpoint or by sexual orientation, differently
is unjust... we must hold everyone by the same standard within
a group or a single person.... to single out a person due
to say, disabilities, is the argument against injustice...
to make laws against me because I am disable is unjust....
or to make laws against an entire class of people due to
events beyond their own control, or accidental causes...
like blond hair or blue eyes or birthplace is wrong, unjust...

Kropotkin

[Atla]

The problem is that ethics has been undermined by those who say that ethics and morality is relative and subjective.

The problem is with people who can't accept that it's the 21st century, and by now it's clear that ethics/morality is subjective. Expecting everyone to be too mentally handicapped to notice this, simply doesn't work anymore.

So we would need to accept it, and then agree on a good subjective ethics/morality, that humanity could use. And then treat it as it was kind of objective. But as long as objectivists are holding us back, this will hardly happen.

[phyllo]

K: ummm, as I mentioned, justice is the equal application of the laws
and injustice is the unequal application of the laws/rules...
so if the laws are by there very nature wrong.. such as the previous
laws of slavery, then a just application of the law would be
the equal treatment of slaves... but as we have noted,
that slavery by its very nature isn't fair, it isn't just
and it isn't right... by what right do we have to hold
human beings as property? to hold women as property?
but not white men as property......unequal application
of the law which for superficial reasons, are applied to
people.... for example, the law in Nazi Germany was
applied unequally against the Jews... that is not justice...
that is unjust....to hold a people, a group, a person, a religion,
a political viewpoint or by sexual orientation, differently
is unjust... we must hold everyone by the same standard within
a group or a single person.... to single out a person due
to say, disabilities, is the argument against injustice...
to make laws against me because I am disable is unjust....
or to make laws against an entire class of people due to
events beyond their own control, or accidental causes...
like blond hair or blue eyes or birthplace is wrong, unjust...

If there is a law on the books which says that some group can be enslaved, then justice is application of the law to all members of the group equally. Therefore the rights of slave owners is enforced. The obligations of slaves is enforced.

That's a narrow and limited view of justice but it's what you are suggesting by referring to laws.

Justice is not really about laws. It's about what is fair. Which precedes and supersedes laws.

[ThinkOfOne]

what is the underlying problem here?

The problem is that ethics has been undermined by those who say that ethics and morality is relative and subjective.

Which has lead some people to believe that what is ethical is whatever they think is ethical. They think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters.

You mean like Christians?

[phyllo]

what is the underlying problem here?

The problem is that ethics has been undermined by those who say that ethics and morality is relative and subjective.

Which has lead some people to believe that what is ethical is whatever they think is ethical. They think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters.

You mean like Christians?

Christians do not believe that ethics are relative or subjective.

[ThinkOfOne]

The problem is that ethics has been undermined by those who say that ethics and morality is relative and subjective.

Which has lead some people to believe that what is ethical is whatever they think is ethical. They think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters.

You mean like Christians?

Christians do not believe that ethics are relative or subjective.

I had sentence in bold in mind: Christians "think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters".

While many Christians seem to like to believe that their ethics are objective, they are in reality subjective. This is rooted in the fact that their interpretation of the Bible is subjective. As evidenced by the fact that there have been and continue to be Christians on opposite sides of so many issues. In short, the ethics that they believe is "of God" is in reality a "personal ethics".

[Peter Kropotkin]

there seems to be two parts to this ethics/morality question...

we have our own personal ethics/morality... I don't hit women..
or I don't have sex with children... and we have
a public aspect... the state and its laws....

as I have noted, the state within its laws is not a very good
indicator of morals/ethics... the fact that slavery was legal
and that women were the property of men and that the Holocaust
was legal and that anyone hiding Ann Franks was breaking the law....
We note this discrepancy between what is legal and what is
"right" and the two quite often clash... the legal and the right part....
so how do we sort out this question of the legal and what is right?

one possible answer lies within the question of justice...
Justice is the equal application of the law but, and this is important,
it is not just the equal application of the law but the equal
application of our rules, our internal beliefs, and the equal
application of our values...... justice requires us to treat
all people equally... regardless of what we may feel about them....
so, let us suppose I was raised in a bigoted, prejudiced family...
(I wasn't but let us suppose) and I think blacks are inferior..
so, by my own prejudice, I treat them differently...whites
are treated differently than blacks... is that justice?
I would argue no...and that no is an unequal application of
our values... we treat some differently because we are prejudice
against them...that is, by its very definition, unequal... thus is
unjust....now some may argue that that unequal treatment
of people, despite being unjust, is the very definition of being human....
we human beings just by being human treat, people unequally...
we practice being unjust all the time... and that makes it right, how?

in my own daily dealings with people, I try to treat all people equally...
recall, I work in a grocery store.. I deal with hundreds of people a day...
and I try, to the best of my ability, to treat each and every one of them,
equal....do I fail? yes, quite often....and by my own personal
actions and beliefs, I attempt to practice justice in my own dealings
with people.....and do we need the state, the political actions
of the state to dictate to me, how I am to deal with others?
I am respectful of others, I am equal in my treatment of others,
I don't practice bigotry or prejudice toward others....
there is no need for the law, the state rules about what
is moral and immoral to even affect my own actions/behavior/ beliefs...
for my own actions and behaviors are stricter than what the state
calls for... and that is right and just and just as importantly,
moral/ethical..... now the question becomes this:
is what I consider to be moral/ethical, should or ought to be applied to
others? and what do I consider to be ethical/moral?
the equal treatment of my beliefs and values to others..
I treat everyone to having some value in the universe...
I don't treat people to having some means to an end...
I don't expect them to even notice my existence and
my equal treatment of them...

and the question always arises, why do I get out of the equal
treatment of others? what's in it for me?

I never ask that question... for in my eyes, the equal treatment
of others gets me a orderly space around me... I am quite often
at self-checkout... I ran a rather tight ship there.. I make sure
that there is one line and I try to prevent others from jumping in
line ahead of others... I attempt to practice justice by the equal
application of the rules to everyone in self-checkout...
I don't practice justice for my own benefit, but for the smooth
running of the self-checkout... an orderly system for
everyone to safely and quickly get in and out of the store....
and it has nothing to do with me or my ego... I am simply
trying to allow everyone equal access to the self-checkout area
and as quickly as possible...in other words, I am practicing
justice on a small scale at the self-checkout..
the equal application of the rules to everyone involved...

and why can't we do the exact same thing in our society/the state?
and we run into the same problem I often run into, people's ego..
they believe that they are, for one reason or another, above
the laws meant for everyone... that they should go first based on
some rule/law that is in their own head.... I am better than they are..
and they act on that belief.... but that belief is, by its very nature,
unjust.. it is the use of unequal application of the rules/laws that make
it unjust... in this situation, it isn't about freedom or being right,
it is about the equal application of the rules... and the ''society'' around
the self-checkout is better for it...and when is the area around the
self-checkout in chaos and disorderly? when one or more people
demand special treatment by going first or being treated differently
then the other people in line....and this causes chaos in the
self-checkout area.. think about those in line who have been
waiting patiently for the use of the self-checkout.. and to have
others cut in front of them because of... ego....
and what we have in the self-checkout area is anger, being mad,
disappointment, and in some cases rage.... this example shows
us what happens, on a small scale to be sure, but what happens
when we fail to apply justice equally...to allow others to escape
justice is to create anger and even rage within the line of
people who live there....
the truth is that we apply justice to everyone to keep everyone
happy... unjustness creates issues within people and if we have
enough unhappiness within enough people, we have revolts,
anger and alienation from the state/society....

to extend the results of the application of justice from one
small area, the self-checkout to the entire society/state is a
legitimate action/exercise.....we can see how the unequal
application of justice in the self-checkout area can create unhappiness,
chaos, and even fights.... so in the end, what are we trying to avoid?
both within a society/state and even a small area like self-checkout?

we are trying to avoid the creation of the "state of nature" as
thought of by Hobbes....the state/society works better if avoid
chaos, fighting, anger issues, and ego problems....from a society/state/
self-checkout to work, needs everyone to cooperate and act together....
every man for himself creates chaos and disorder and because of
the chaos and disorder created by that "state of nature"
the risk to that society/state/self-checkout is the risk of
collapse and so much disorder that thing no longer work...
the fact is that to function, we must have an orderly
and a relatively efficient society/state/self-checkout area...

the truth is that we cannot meet out goals, become anything if
we don't have a society/state that is functional and works with
us, not against us.....the act of justice allows a state/society to
continue to function... and we can keep doing our own thing only,
only if the state/society we live in holds to order...

The laws/rules/regulations is what keeps the society/state functioning.
and we can only keep doing our own thing in a functional and working state....
the survival of our society/state requires, demands that we have rules,
laws/regulations that keep the society functioning....once a society/state
becomes unfunctional, it ceases to be.. it allows a ''state of nature"
to occur in which its every man for himself...

the state exists to keep the society from falling into a ''state of nature"
the rules exists to keep the society/state functioning...our very
survival depends on the state/society maintaining its functional
self...a return to Hobbes "state of nature" is the end of our survival
and quite possibly the end of our species...

and justice being practice is another tool to help us to keep
the society/state functional... if we have a just and fair society/state,
we are much more likely to survive and thrive.. an unequal society/state
threaten our safety/security and peace... it is not enough to think
about matters as to how it affects us, what is in it for me...
but what is in it for all of us.. that is the question we should be
asking.... how it affects us all....

Kropotkin

[Age]

As I have noted, the problem isn't about the stealing/shoplifting..
but about the mindset that makes the stealing/shoplifting
easy to justify?

If the owners of the story say are a family WITH billions of dollars, which they have OBVIOUSLY STOLEN from 'their customers' through OVER PRICING their products and/or services, then WHY NOT STEAL, BACK, FROM 'them' ALSO?

IF, and WHEN, 'you', human beings, STOP DOING 'for profits', for 'you' and a relatively VERY SELECT FEW, and STARTED DOING, FOR ALL, then 'stealing' would NEVER become an 'issue' AGAIN.

Oh, and by the way, look up the word 'problem', and what WILL BECOME VERY CLEARLY OBVIOUS IS that I just SOLVED 'that problem' here FOR 'you'.

it is about the factors the allow one to
steal with no/little moral qualms... the justification to steal can
be "I deserve this" to "this corporation can afford this" to
"I'll show them" but rarely one might actually get honest
and say, "my life sucks and so I steal''
there are as many justifications to steal/shoplift as there
are people who do it.... but how do we answer this question
and how in making our answer, stop people from stealing/shoplifting?
as is noted, I think of it as a part of a larger issue...

I believe that the reason that people steal has several different
tracks... legal,, political, social and philosophical....

legal: in the fact that here in California, the laws about
stealing/shoplifting from stores are very laxed.. in other words,
we can't really stop anyone from stealing/shoplifting.. we can't
physically stop them, and we can't accuse them of stealing
and we really aren't allow to even ask for a receipt...
basically we can't do anything about it... so there is no real
legal way for us to stop stealing/shoplifting...

but I don't think of shoplifting/stealing as a legal problem...
granted there are no legal consequences to stealing,
but that shouldn't matter... what about the mindset that
thinks that stealing is somehow acceptable?

we to clearly define our problem... for example, if people
are stealing to feed their family, that is an economic
problem, not a legal problem...and economic problems
require an economic solution... as I deal with people who
have EBT cards in which people can use public money to
feed themselves and their families...and frankly I have no
problem with my tax money feeding people in need..
but is it possible that the money we give them on EBT cards
just isn't enough to actually feed people? we must consider this...
what if we gave people more money to feed themselves and thus
help them avoid going the stealing/shoplifting route to be
able to feed their families? that is one route but it doesn't account
for most of the stealing/shoplifting we have.. which as I have mentioned
involves stealing booze... how do we change the mindset that makes
stealing booze somehow acceptable?

one of the obvious mindsets is the alienation that people feel
from the society/state... the state/society doesn't give a dam about
me, so I will steal in compensation for that...
to show my disdain for the society/state.... I'll show them....
and that is one obvious mindset people have....
and the possible solutions to that problem lies in our rethinking,
reevaluating the relationship between the individual/family
and the state/society...

as far as I can tell, the relationship between the individual and
the state/society is more adversarial than it has ever been...
in my youth, the relationship between the individual and the
state, wasn't as adversarial as it is today...so what changed?

I would say, this adversarial relationship came about from a
couple of different events/people... one was the Vietnam war...
one cannot imagine the before and after of Vietnam... the second
event was Watergate.. I don't think people realize that
that we had a different world before Vietnam and Watergate...

and the last event which is connected to Ronald Raygun...
the Iranian hostage crisis and his presidency... look at the difference
from Watergate and the Iran/Contra affair... and it was clear
from that event, that several people including Bush Sr. was
involved but by destroying evidence and the use of the pardons,
they were able to escape any responsibility for Iran/Contra...
(sound familiar)

Clinton had no real scandals of this sort...
but Bush Jr. and his Iraq/Afghanistan polices brought us to a place
where bush lied and people died and there was, once again,
no consequences for these lies and deceptions

and once again, Obama had no scandals to speak of ...
but we reach the IQ45 era... when all it was were lies
and deceptions.... and once again, there was no accountability
or any responsibility taken...

when we see no accountability taken for events, it embolden us
to do the same... we see business executives getting away with
crimes and we see politicians doing the same.. and we see
high profile people getting away with crimes that the average
citizen could never even think about.... for example,
take the theft of classified documents that IQ45 took from
the White House... we have a number of people in jail for
exactly the same crime.. and they were put in jail long
before the trial began as security risk.. why hasn't IQ45
been taken to jail? as dozens of other citizens have been?
the notion that one is above the law, either through title,
wealth or connections is a notion that allow people the
mindset to steal/shoplift... because justice applied
unequally, isn't justice at all.... and that is one of the major
problems with us today... is that we don't have justice in
this country.... to have justice, is to have a law applied
equally to everyone... not just to some or a few or even one...
because if we apply the law unequally, we no longer have
justice in America.... and this is clearly the case....
and within this understanding lies the mindset that
allows justification for some to steal.... now recall
that justifications are not logical, reasoned idea's,
but they are emotional actions... we justify from
our feelings and emotions... not from logic/reasoning...
and if justice isn't being applied equally, we are,
so the thought goes, exempt from having justice applied
equally to us....

and this is one partial reason that allow people to
justify stealing/shoplifting.... we don't have justice
in this country anymore... and if some can get away
with things, actions, event, then why am I not above
the legal system? and they have a point.. if justice isn't
applied equally, then why are some above the law
and some are not? the answer lies in those who
are legally held accountable are poor or lacking
in power or connections or not having a title...

so we can, to some extent, understand the rise in crime,
in stealing and shoplifting, to the lack of justice in America today...

why am I held accountable and others escape accountability?

Kropotkin