10k Philosophy challenge

[Age]

I think you do. You know, for example, that the women empathetic to a Charles Manson, or the people who have empathy for Che Guevera and run around wearing t-shirts of a man who shot Cuban dissidents into ditches, you know that empathy has gone wrong.

I know about Charles Manson, but nothing about these women you say have empathy for him. If they are drawn to him in some way, what reason do you have for calling that empathy? I remember the Che Guevara posters from when I was a teenager; they were a very familiar sight in the 70s, but I had no idea who he was, other than a vague notion that he was a revolutionary, but I was no better off for knowing that, as I didn't really know what a revolutionary was. I suspect the women you refer to were in pretty much the same position. Again, you call it empathy, whereas in reality they probably just found the image sexy. I still don't really know who Che Guevara was, or what he actually did, and I have a feeling that most of those who wore T-shirts with his image on them didn't know, either. In other words, all this is a complete irrelevance.

What you're talking about is the ignorance of the people who are empathetic.

Again, you do not seem to have yet comprehended what the 'empathy' word means and refers to, exactly.

If you would like to explain to the readers here how you define the 'empathy' word, then this will help them in somehow understanding what you are trying to express and explain here.

And that is exactly the problem I'm pointing out: whatever feelings of "empathy" they think they're having, they're not well-grounded in reality or fact.

Well considering the irrefutable fact of how you have misconstrued things here so much, then who here is, actually, not so-called 'well-grounded in reality or fact' is fairly obvious to 'us' here.

Their feelings may be no more deeply felt than yours or mine...but they're totally misguided, badly informed, wrongly directed and foolish, as we can both recognize.

What are you even on about here? you have yet to explain, exactly, how they are feeling and what they are feeling, exactly.

And, the Truly ironic thing here is if you had any actual 'empathy', then you would already know.

[Age]

Well it seems to me that we come into the world with a capacity for having moral attitudes; we are hard wired for it, you might say, but the attitudes themselves are not hard wired. We seem to accumulate those as we go through life, but I disagree that reasoned analysis has much, if anything, to do with the process. We pick up our moral attitudes from our parents, and from our society in general, without even questioning them, although we may well do that later in life. I'm pretty old, and way back when I was young, sex outside marriage and homosexually were morally wrong as far as my society was concerned, but that is no longer the case. I wouldn't say that is because we subjected the matter to rational analysis, but quite the opposite; we just came to realise that there was no rational basis for that attitude towards those things. And think of things like incest, where there is a rational reason for inhibiting it. Most of us avoid it because we have an emotional aversion to it, not at all because of any rational reason not to engage in it. Maybe I'm overlooking something, and you can explain the part that reasoned analysis plays in morality.

First of all, "realizing we had no rational basis for that attitude towards those things" sounds like reasoned analysis to me, and we have in fact engaged in most moral progress due, at least in part to reasoned analysis (I'll admit that the widening of the empathetic circle has certainly been useful). The argument that "you are willing to give rights to these people and we are not relevantly different from them, so you should give rights to us" has done a lot of work over the years.

Second, what is true and what people believe are not the same thing. People can have whatever attitudes they like, but that doesn't make those attitudes correct. When society thought homosexuality and sex outside marriage was wrong, they were incorrect.

Why do you say, claim, and believe that 'they' were incorrect?

What is 'the source' that you use of what is correct, and incorrect, in Life?

Also, your view and belief here appears to be an extremely shallow and/or judgmental one, especially considering that you do not yet even have 'the answer/s' to how you should live your own life.

There is difference to be drawn between general attitudes towards right and wrong, and right and wrong themselves. People might do things for all sorts of silly reasons, but so much the worse for them.

So, what, exactly, are 'right' and 'wrong', themselves?

And, how do you draw a difference between 'them' from 'general attitudes towards right and wrong', exactly?

[Age]

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

I mean, no. That's why I wrote a whole thing, because the context is necessary to understand the question. But I can give you it in a nutshell.

How does FC resolve conflicts between different persons that involve violations of different kinds of freedom? For example, how do we determine how many persons' sight we should save over one person's life?

Hope that helps.

Again, your example here is just Truly ridiculous and absurd in relation to how you human beings 'should' live your lives.

And, in what way/s would anyone ever have to ever choose the sight of some over one's life?

[Age]

Atla - I mean, that's true in the sense that there are some constraints on morality based on starting assumptions, such as it needing to be applicable to all persons. But that isn't inconsistent and I have been pretty clear about starting assumptions from the off.

If, and when, you ever start with an 'assumption', then you will never ever know if you are on the 'right track' or have just been going 'off track' from the very start.

So, I will suggest that you never ever assume any thing here.

After what is irrefutably True and Right is HERE before you, always. So, there is no good reason to assume any thing at all, and even starting off with assumptions.

[Age]

Age - Hmm, definitions are tricky things, but I'll have a go. By "morality" here I mean the objective normative truths about the world. That is, the way we should live our lives.

To me, saying, 'the objective normative truths about the world' is;

1. Not really saying anything at all.

2. In no way means nor even relates to, 'the way we should live our lives'.

3. Is another great example of complicating and confusing what is Truly very simple.

1: I'm not sure which words you are struggling with.

Why did you even begin to assume that I was struggling with any words here?

I was just pointing out that some of the words you use together here are not really saying any thing at all.

For example, you have said and written here, 'The objective normative truths about the world.', Is not really saying any thing at all, well to me anyway. And, especially so, when you could have just said and written instead, 'The way we should live our lives'.

And, if you are, seriously, wanting to discover, learn, and understand 'the way', 'you should live your lives', which would be 'the best way' for absolutely every one, and which would help in start creating a much better world for every one, which you allege you are by offering $10,000 in some particular currency, then just asking for advice about 'how you human beings 'should' live your lives' says a great deal and thus a lot more than asking for answers about the so-called 'objective normative truths about the world'.

2: Normative truths are those truths related to what we should do. Things we ought to do. Normativity can be thought of as "oughtiness". So I'm not really sure why you don't see how this relates to how we should live our lives.

If the words 'how we should live our lives' suffices, then why even add words like, 'objective', 'normative', 'truths', and 'the world'.

All of which only complicate what is Truly simple and easy. That is; how 'should' you live your life/lives.

3: I don't think I've said anything very complicated there at all. You asked me for a definition, and I attempted to provide one.

Which you did, in two ways.

One way was a Truly over-complicated, needing clarifying, and thus an unnecessary way. And, the other way was Truly just very simple and easy, and ll that was needed here.

[Age]

"Proper" should probably include "coherent," don't you think? And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

What if, and this is a big if. What if there is nothing higher than human law when it comes to morality.

Morality being just a man made concept nonetheless?

Then, as Nietzsche pointed out, morality is just a construct invented by those who want to have power. There's nothing more behind it. So a smart person will ignore morality completely...at least in regards to himself. He may use the language or appearance of morality to position himself better relative to the fools in his society who actually believe in it, but he'll know better. He'll be "beyond good and evil," as Nietzsche put it.

Why do you keep 'trying to' imply that those who think the same way you do are 'smart people' and those who do not think the way you do are 'not smart people'.

Obviously, any person who thinks that God is male gendered is NOT 'smart' in absolutely any way at all.

Absolutely who thinks or believes that a male gendered 'anything' created the whole Universe, Itself, is a Truly closed, and thus absolutely stupid, person who does not contemplate nor consider why 'it' thinks and believes 'the way' that it does. Obviously, these people will just accept and believe what is told to them, by some other people. And, this is all that was needed for them to view and see things from then on.

[Age]

Now, once you work out, or learn, and understand what the word 'abuse' means and refers to, exactly, then what will be discovered is how the answer here fits in perfectly with everyone's view and perspective of 'morality', itself.

I don't think you're right in that. I think people have different perspectives on morality and I don't think that all of them come down to not abusing anything.

1. you are absolutely free to think or not think absolutely any thing you like. But, obviously, what you think or do not think does not necessarily have to be even close to what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

2. And, in the days when this is being written, if you only 'think' that people have different perspectives on morality and you do not think that all perspectives come down to not abusing anything, then you are missing what is absolutely blatantly obvious.

Obviously, in the days when this is being written, you people have different perspectives on morality and just as obvious is not all of those perspectives come down to not abusing anything. This is, and was, a 'known' Fact, and not just 'thought' to be true.

And, remember you, like others, are 'looking for' 'the answer/solution' to 'morality', how you all 'should' live your lives. So, what you doing 'now', when this is being written, is not the Right way.

So, just maybe you 'should' all find out what 'it' is that you all agree upon and accept in regards to 'morality', itself. And, like I was alluding to, once you all do, then you will see what 'it' is, exactly, that you all 'should' be doing in how to live your lives.

Quite apart from anything else, that's not where my intuitions lie at all.

'your intuitions' have, obviously, been leading you astray, and have been leading you so far astray that you are now offering $10,000 to another/others to help guide you back onto the Right track in Life. Even nearly ten years of trying to work things out here 'your intuition' has not helped you.

So, I would very strongly suggest stop using 'your intuitions' to 'look at' and 'see' things from.

I can only guide you on to how to find the answer/solution for "yourself". I certainly cannot, nor would not, force you to do absolutely any thing.

[Age]

Age - I wouldn't say that self-reflection is never helpful to the project of engaging with reasoned analysis, and reasoned analysis does require a certain level of intellectual honesty with oneself, but I think you may be overstating its importance.

you keep stating what 'you think'. But, what 'you think' is absolutely nowhere near as important as what 'you know'.

Now, do you 'know' here?

And, you are the one who came here, supposedly, seeking 'answer/solutions', and even, supposedly, offering $10,000 for 'answers/solutions'.

So, I will now suggest that if, really, are seeking answers/solutions, then stop just rejecting what is being said and pointed out here, and start contemplating what is actually being meant. And, this is done, best, by just asking clarifying questions, from a Truly open perspective.

Also, there is a world of difference between looking at one's moral intuitions as a guide for moral truth and taking an honest look at yourself and asking yourself why you believe the things you believe and whether they are the result of bias or delusion. They almost could not be more different.

Okay.

So, what is 'it', exactly, that you want to say and point out here and, by the sounds of, what you also want others to follow and listen to or adhere to?

Also, what even are 'moral intuitions', to you, exactly?

If one is looking for 'a guide' for 'moral truth', for example, then using one's already so-called 'moral intuitions' is never ever going to work. For surely if one does not yet know 'a moral truth', then, obviously, 'their moral intuitions' have been of no use.

[Age]

Good thing nobody's doing that.

You are doing it. You are applying the term, "murder", to something that does not qualify as murder.

God says it does. You say it doesn't. I say I'm with God on that.

When and where, exactly, has God, supposedly, ever said any such thing?

you speak absolute Falsehoods, and express them from a 'superiority complex', but when you are questioned and challenged over them you fail absolutely.

Look "immanuel can" you can say you are 'with a male gendered thing', which created the whole Universe, all by 'itself', but you can also claim that you are 'with anything else' as well. But, this will never ever actually mean that 'that thing' is even real and true, as well.

[Age]

You are doing it. You are applying the term, "murder", to something that does not qualify as murder.

God says it does. You say it doesn't. I say I'm with God on that.

If I ever find myself dwelling in the Kingdom of Heaven, which is highly unlikely if you are to be believed (although you usually aren't), I will abide by God's rules, but I am living on planet Earth right now, in the human world.

Here is another prime example of these ones, back then, believing in, and spreading, 'the misinterpretation', and not the actual Fact.

The so-called 'kingdom of heaven' is 'on earth', or wherever else 'we' end up living, in this One and only Universe. The 'kingdom of heaven' is not in some other imagined, magical, mystical, nor misinterpreted place. The 'kingdom of heaven' can only ever exist 'here' where, and while, 'we' are living.

[Daniel McKay]

Why do you say, claim, and believe that 'they' were incorrect?

What is 'the source' that you use of what is correct, and incorrect, in Life?

Also, your view and belief here appears to be an extremely shallow and/or judgmental one, especially considering that you do not yet even have 'the answer/s' to how you should live your own life.

So, what, exactly, are 'right' and 'wrong', themselves?

And, how do you draw a difference between 'them' from 'general attitudes towards right and wrong', exactly?

Are you asking why I am claiming people were incorrect to believe homosexuality was wrong? Because it isn't.

Asking what the "source" of morality is is an inapppropriate question. If you mean, what source have I used to come to that conclusion, then reasoned analysis as detailed in the primer I wrote in order to explain my position.

I would say I am much closer to the answer of how everyone should live their lives than anyone else.

"Wrong" is a normative quality of an action such that one ought not to do it. "Right" is the inverse, the normative quality of an action such that one should do it.

I would draw a distinction between right and wrong and the attitudes toward them the same way I would draw a distinction between anything and the attitudes people have toward it. For example, people's attitudes towards the shape of the planet are different from its actual shape. It doesn't matter how many people on the internet claim that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. Likewise, people claiming something is right or wrong does not make it so

[Daniel McKay]

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

I mean, no. That's why I wrote a whole thing, because the context is necessary to understand the question. But I can give you it in a nutshell.

How does FC resolve conflicts between different persons that involve violations of different kinds of freedom? For example, how do we determine how many persons' sight we should save over one person's life?

Hope that helps.

Again, your example here is just Truly ridiculous and absurd in relation to how you human beings 'should' live your lives.

And, in what way/s would anyone ever have to ever choose the sight of some over one's life?

As I have said before, this seems an entirely plausible dilemma one might be faced with if they were faced with funding a drug that saves lives from a rare but potentially fatal disease and a drug that prevents blindness from a more common disease. This is exactly the sort of decision state healthcare services are required to make.

[Daniel McKay]

Atla - I mean, that's true in the sense that there are some constraints on morality based on starting assumptions, such as it needing to be applicable to all persons. But that isn't inconsistent and I have been pretty clear about starting assumptions from the off.

If, and when, you ever start with an 'assumption', then you will never ever know if you are on the 'right track' or have just been going 'off track' from the very start.

So, I will suggest that you never ever assume any thing here.

After what is irrefutably True and Right is HERE before you, always. So, there is no good reason to assume any thing at all, and even starting off with assumptions.

This is all incorrect. There is very little you can learn without making some starting assumptions.

[Daniel McKay]

Why did you even begin to assume that I was struggling with any words here?

I was just pointing out that some of the words you use together here are not really saying any thing at all.

For example, you have said and written here, 'The objective normative truths about the world.', Is not really saying any thing at all, well to me anyway. And, especially so, when you could have just said and written instead, 'The way we should live our lives'.

And, if you are, seriously, wanting to discover, learn, and understand 'the way', 'you should live your lives', which would be 'the best way' for absolutely every one, and which would help in start creating a much better world for every one, which you allege you are by offering $10,000 in some particular currency, then just asking for advice about 'how you human beings 'should' live your lives' says a great deal and thus a lot more than asking for answers about the so-called 'objective normative truths about the world'.

If the words 'how we should live our lives' suffices, then why even add words like, 'objective', 'normative', 'truths', and 'the world'.

All of which only complicate what is Truly simple and easy. That is; how 'should' you live your life/lives.


Which you did, in two ways.

One way was a Truly over-complicated, needing clarifying, and thus an unnecessary way. And, the other way was Truly just very simple and easy, and ll that was needed here.

"How we should live our lives" is a bit vague. I was being more specific and clear. For example, you seem to have read "we" as "human beings" but this is incorrect. It is not just human beings that are bound by morality, it is all persons. I was not overcomplicating anything, I was merely being clearer.

[Daniel McKay]

'your intuitions' have, obviously, been leading you astray, and have been leading you so far astray that you are now offering $10,000 to another/others to help guide you back onto the Right track in Life. Even nearly ten years of trying to work things out here 'your intuition' has not helped you.

So, I would very strongly suggest stop using 'your intuitions' to 'look at' and 'see' things from.

I can only guide you on to how to find the answer/solution for "yourself". I certainly cannot, nor would not, force you to do absolutely any thing.

I have no been guided by my intuition. As I've said before, I don't think intuitions are a reliable way of determining the truth. Also, it is not the right track for my life that I am seeking, it is the answer to morality entire.