Why Be Moral?

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is just right, commendable, or good.

If that's true, you cannot recommend "independent individualism." It is, at the very most, only one among value-equal options for someone.

I don't believe you believe that.

If living morally does not benefit oneself, and does not result in one's own life being all it can be and one's own enjoyment of it to the fullest possible, if it results in loss to oneself, suffering, and self-destruction, why should anyone choose it?

Ask Stalin. It's not "myself" that's at stake. It's what I (Stalin) will be able to do to anyone who stands in the way of some goal I have. Thus I (Stalin) choose it because it served my turn. And since I am the only individual who counts, to me, who will say me "Nay"?

There is only the fact that you must choose how you live, and whether your life is a successful life of enjoyment or an unsuccessful life of suffering will be determined by how you choose to live it.

Stalin has chosen. And you, being an independent individual, what are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

Do not ask me to be sorry for you or to pick up after you.

So "death to the Kulaks," you say? No pity for them at all? And no condemnation for Joseph Stalin, who has falsely accused them and had them slaughtered to serve his own paranoia and his political ends?

I think a lot of people would (rightly) call such a conclusion amoral, and perhaps immoral as well.

[RCSaunders]

1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated

If the human species were extinct, who would care? All human beings are going to die. There are no problems for something called, "humanity." There are only individual human beings (without which there would be no humanity) and all problems are only problems for individuals. If no individual human beings had a problem, would you still believe in some mythical, "problems of humanity?"

Your problems are your problems for you to solve for yourself. No one else is obliged to solve your problems for you.

[RCSaunders]

Nothing is just right, commendable, or good.

If that's true, you cannot recommend "independent individualism." It is, at the very most, only one among value-equal options for someone.

It is not usually a good idea to tell someone else what they can and cannot do, but in this case, it does not matter, because I'm not recommending anything. I've already said, ("live any way you choose"), which you apparently do not understand, so I'll say it again, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING ANYTHING.

If living morally does not benefit oneself, and does not result in one's own life being all it can be and one's own enjoyment of it to the fullest possible, if it results in loss to oneself, suffering, and self-destruction, why should anyone choose it?

Ask Stalin. It's not "myself" that's at stake.

The question was rhetorical, meant to help those who can think to ask themselves why they should do anything if it led to their own suffering. So why do you tell a lie like, "It's what I (Stalin) will be able to do to anyone who stands in the way of some goal I have," when you know Stalin was never a threat to you. If he were, then you would defend yourself, and if you didn't you would deserve what you got. No one else is obliged to do for you what you refuse to do for yourself.

No matter what you think someone should do, if it leads to their own suffering, why should they do it? Was the suffering of the Kulaks more important than anyone else's?

There is only the fact that you must choose how you live, and whether your life is a successful life of enjoyment or an unsuccessful life of suffering will be determined by how you choose to live it.

Stalin has chosen. And you, being an independent individual, what are you going to do about it?

He could never be a threat to me. The first rule of self-defense is, "don't be there when it happens." If anyone is a genuine threat to me, and there is no other way to eliminate that threat (there usually is) I would use any amount of force necessary to defend myself from that threat. My defense is my responsibility, your defense is your responsibility.

Do not ask me to be sorry for you or to pick up after you.

So "death to the Kulaks," you say? No pity for them at all? And no condemnation for Joseph Stalin, who has falsely accused them and had them slaughtered to serve his own paranoia and his political ends?

I do not think you know who the Kulaks were. They were not a "kind" of people, they were the wealthier peasants who during the 1917 revolution, expropriated land not their own. The peasant class of Ukraine (later to be the “kulaks”) controlled 96.8% of all farmable land they had confiscated.

They seized approximately 140 million acres from landlords. Peasants, formerly serfs who had been fully liberated by the, Emancipation Reform of 1861, were totally free citizens able to buy land. The revolution of 1017 was used as an excuse to expropriate landowners lands with the same excuses used in other countries today for claiming unearned "reparations."

I do not know enough about the actual conditions of that period in history, partly because so much of it has been intentionally covered up, to know why the Kulaks did not defend themselves. Nothing excuses what Stalin (hardly by himself) did or mitigates the horrors the Kulaks suffered, but I do know the entire population of Russia, especially before 1920 was terribly superstitious and believed that God, the Church, or Government could solve all their problems and therefore mostly supported those institutions.

I do not care what lies you imply or think about me or my views. I only know in a society comprised mostly of those who choose to be fully responsible for all they think and do, refusing to be anything less than they can possibly be, never seeking anything they have not earned or achieved by their own effort, and never seeking relationships with any others except those all parties agree to for their own chosen mutual benefit, socially or in business, the horrors and atrocities of any country in history would be impossible. I cannot imagine why anyone would not embrace that unless they like to see war, oppression, poverty, and human misery.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is just right, commendable, or good.

If that's true, you cannot recommend "independent individualism." It is, at the very most, only one among value-equal options for someone.

It is not usually a good idea to tell someone else what they can and cannot do,

"Cannot logically." Cannot and be consistent with yourself. Not "cannot because I say you can't."

I'M NOT RECOMMENDING ANYTHING.

So "independent individualism" isn't a particularly good idea for anybody, in your view? I wonder why you bother talking about it, then.

Stalin was never a threat to you.

Heh. No way, RC. You're not that dense. I know it, and you know it. Remember, this is not the first discussion we've had.

You're being obtuse. You know exactly what the real problem is -- not that Stalin in particular threatens me in particular, but that anybody can threaten or harm anybody else, and the "independent individual" doesn't have reason to care.

Was the suffering of the Kulaks more important than anyone else's?

By the principle of "independent individualism," nobody's suffering is important. Kulaks, Jews, rape victims...nobody's. Maybe you think yours is, but because they are also individuals, nobody else needs to care. It's just your problem.

I don't agree, of course, but that's how "independent individualism" would have to argue.

My defense is my responsibility, your defense is your responsibility.

So if you were there when Hitler's victims were marched off to the gas chambers, and you would fold your hands and watch? After all, their defense is their own responsibility...

I do not think you know who the Kulaks were.

You are incorrect, but here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
But for our purposes, and for the purposes of this argument, it doesn't matter. We could talk about the any victims. The Kulaks are just one case among many, where the choices and decisions of some others create ghastly harm...and the "independent individual" has to make a moral call to stand by and let it happen, or to intervene, or at least to say, "That's wrong...stop that." All of which, you seem to say is nobody's business.

I cannot imagine why anyone would not embrace that unless they like to see war, oppression, poverty, and human misery.

Nevertheless, you don't "recommend" it, you say. Even though now you insist "anyone" would naturally "embrace" it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We might "need" such a thing. I don't doubt we do.

But that's not to say we can have it. We may need it to the point of death, and still not have it. It depends on whether or not one can go from the claim,

"There is no God, and this world is just the product of a cosmic accident," (basic to secularism)

...to the claim,

"Therefore, we are morally obligated to do X." (a binding moral conclusion of any kind)

...and have anybody have reason to believe us.

The problem? We cannot. There is no logical route that will take us there.

Strawman! I never claimed there must be a binding moral conclusion of any kind!

I know. But really, that doesn't matter. It's what we need. A non-binding one would be worthless, because it would be merely optional. The "Hitlers" of the world would simply ignore it, and we'd have not one thing to say about that, either to them or anyone else.

That is my point why we cannot enforced any moral oughts on any one.
Justified moral oughts can only be used as GUIDES to guide improvements in human behavior toward the ideal good.

Therefore if you are a normal human being you will agree with point 1 which follows through to the need for a secular objective absolute moral ought as a GUIDE only for the moral control-feedback system.

"Guide"? That's a very weak thing, because a "guide" need not be followed by anyone, and it can't compellingly be used to identify those who are doing the right or wrong thing. They just say, "Well, your guide doesn't count for me."

We need some sort of binding force that enables us to say, "Mr. Hitler, even if you don't agree with this, you're simply wrong," and to be right when we say it.

As I had stated, the moral absolute ought is abstracted and justified from empirical evidence of human nature.

Here is an analogy;

• When it is observed certain species of duck-D always fly south during a certain period of time and fly back after a certain period of time year in year out, we can abstract the rule;
  "Every Duck-D ought to fly south by Day of Month-Y"
  The above is an imperative for any duck-D or else it would die of hunger and be frozen to death as evident.
  Fortunately for the species of duck-D the above imperative ought is an instinct embedded in their DNA.
  Any duck-D who insisted "Well, your guide doesn't count for me" would be a dead-duck literally.
  
  There are cases where due to exceptional reason a small flock of certain ducks had to be bred by humans and thus temporarily lost their instinct to fly south. These ducks were then trained by humans to fly south as they naturally ought to.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QAjfH05IUE
  In this case, Christian Moullec triggered the ducks instinct to guide them to fly south.

For humans, we will not be forcing them to adhere to the moral ought.
As I had stated above, the moral absolute ought is abstracted and justified from empirical evidence of human nature.
As I had argued, the moral ought is inherently embedded in the DNA and brain of each human individual but it is clouded by various 'noises' via nurture.

You are a few steps behind.
As for any 'Hitler' at present it is perhaps too late.
What I had proposed with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is to ensure no Hitler will be born in the future [not now] or we have nurturing processes to prevent an emergence of a Hitler and evil prone persons.
We have to do that since we have the inherent imperative ideal ought [as justified] which we must strive towards, i.e. "no human shall kill another human."

The GUIDE is not to be binding.
But this GUIDE is inherent and clouded by noise, so humanity will have to clear those noises and allow the GUIDE to be activated and alignment and drive the person towards the impossible ideal as justified.
It can only be done in the future when humanity will have the advance knowledge and technology to train and develop the brain and mind of the individual to be spontaneously aligns to the moral oughts which are inherent [DNA wise] in the first place. So nothing new is introduced but merely an efficient adaption to what is natural.
This constant alignment and drive will enable continuous improvement from whatever is one's existing state.

we need the justifiable moral ought as a necessity [imperative] for guidance.

An "imperative" is, by definition an obligation, and if it's "categorical" it's universal. If it's a "necessity," then it cannot be avoided. This is WAY more than some "guide." And I agree...that's what you need, on the premise of secularism.

And it cannot be had. (If you think it can, then create the syllogism that shows it can. But nobody's ever been able to do it so far, so you'll be the first.)

I have done that many times.
Note my syllogism to justify why 'no human ought to kill another human' as justified from empirical and philosophical reasoning.

OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Covid19 - A Case for Objective Moral Standard
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28781

ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28561

Why the Need for Objective Moral Ought?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28801

IF you do not agree to point 1 and all the premises that follow then, you are an ignorant, selfish and useless human being.

Ad hominem.

And a bad bluff, I'm thinking. I can see you're rattled when you lapse into such things.

Of course, I could as easily write, "If you believe in your 'guide' idea, you are an ignorant, selfish and useless human being." Would it make you stop believing? Would it even be a good reason for your to stop believing in "guides"? Would you be moved, and would any sensible onlooker be impressed?

Of course not. It would be just as pointless and illogical for me to do that to you as it is for you to try to do it to me. We don't need ad hominems. I hope we're both too old for that nonsense.

Perhaps I should not have directed to you personally but rather to state,
'any one who do not agree with the argument is ignorant and selfish because that person is not concern to resolve the problem of evil within humanity effectively.
If one do not agree, then provide the counter argument.

I will not be rattled in any circumstances even if your argument is solid but rather in this case I am bothered by your failure to address my whole arguments to indicate which premise is false.
What I had stated is very logical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated

If the human species were instinct, who would care? All human beings are going to die. There are no problems for something called, "humanity." There are only individual human beings (without which there would be no humanity) and all problems are only problems for individuals. If no individual human beings had a problem, would you still believe in some mythical, "problems of humanity?"

Your problems are your problems for you to solve for yourself. No one else is obliged to solve your problems for you.

That is why your thinking is shallow and narrow plus you are very ignorant of human nature and that of your own.

Note my analogy of duck-D [in the above post] and its instinct, i.e. a ought to fly South by certain period of time or else it will be a dead-duck literally.
viewtopic.php?p=447531#p447531

Similarly all humans are embedded with survival and moral instincts i.e. oughts but they are clouded by noises via nurturing and other factors.
How can you so ignorant of the evidences?

As evident all living species emerge to continue as long as possible till the inevitable.
Show proof if you insist it is otherwise.
It is inherent within the species [as evident] the drive for survival is driven by the principles of large numbers so that even if a percentile of the species die, the rest will continue to sustain the survival of the species.
The human species as a group is represented by humanity - for communication sake.
This is so evident, thus how can you be so ignorant to deny this fact?

Note all [normal] human males are programmed with codes embedded in their DNA to fuck females wherever they can or use force where they can. This instinctual drive is only mitigate by various types of noises via nurturing.
Will you insist, each individual male fuck for fuck sake and pleasure [or etc] only?
You would be considered as dumb if you are not able to use your reason and logical faculty to infer, all those fucking by males and females are to produce the next generations and thus to preserve the continuity of the species. This is so evident with most biological species engaging in sexual reproduction.

I am not denying the existence of the individual[s] and the need to ensure their personal integrity but it is the species that prevail ultimately.
You many resist the concept of 'humanity' but you cannot deny the fact that humans are gathered, live and worked in groups.
Note the current Covid19 pandemic, it is not the individual that is primary but rather all humans to align collectively to find the effective vaccines to counter it.

It is more critical with 'without the species, tribe and collective' the individual and individuality will not survive rather the other way round.
Note examples like insects that need to colony to sustain itself and this principle is sustain throughout the animal world.

[RCSaunders]

1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated

If the human species were instinct, who would care? All human beings are going to die. There are no problems for something called, "humanity." There are only individual human beings (without which there would be no humanity) and all problems are only problems for individuals. If no individual human beings had a problem, would you still believe in some mythical, "problems of humanity?"

Your problems are your problems for you to solve for yourself. No one else is obliged to solve your problems for you.

That is why your thinking is shallow and narrow plus you are very ignorant of human nature and that of your own.

Note my analogy of duck-D [in the above post] and its instinct, i.e. a ought to fly South by certain period of time or else it will be a dead-duck literally.
viewtopic.php?p=447531#p447531

Similarly all humans are embedded with survival and moral instincts i.e. oughts but they are clouded by noises via nurturing and other factors.
How can you so ignorant of the evidences?

As evident all living species emerge to continue as long as possible till the inevitable.
Show proof if you insist it is otherwise.
It is inherent within the species [as evident] the drive for survival is driven by the principles of large numbers so that even if a percentile of the species die, the rest will continue to sustain the survival of the species.
The human species as a group is represented by humanity - for communication sake.
This is so evident, thus how can you be so ignorant to deny this fact?

Note all [normal] human males are programmed with codes embedded in their DNA to fuck females wherever they can or use force where they can. This instinctual drive is only mitigate by various types of noises via nurturing.
Will you insist, each individual male fuck for fuck sake and pleasure [or etc] only?
You would be considered as dumb if you are not able to use your reason and logical faculty to infer, all those fucking by males and females are to produce the next generations and thus to preserve the continuity of the species. This is so evident with most biological species engaging in sexual reproduction.

I am not denying the existence of the individual[s] and the need to ensure their personal integrity but it is the species that prevail ultimately.
You many resist the concept of 'humanity' but you cannot deny the fact that humans are gathered, live and worked in groups.
Note the current Covid19 pandemic, it is not the individual that is primary but rather all humans to align collectively to find the effective vaccines to counter it.

It is more critical with 'without the species, tribe and collective' the individual and individuality will not survive rather the other way round.
Note examples like insects that need to colony to sustain itself and this principle is sustain throughout the animal world.

Thank you for the very entertaining comments. I certainly don't mind if your ideal is to live like an insect or herd animal. I suppose you cannot help it.

You said: "Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain ... therefore by our inherent human nature, you cannot demand the individual to be ultimately independent."

I take your word for it that it applies to you and that you can't help writing this nonsense. It's just that DNA/RNA embedded deep in your brain, making you think and write these things. There is hope for you though. Scientists are making great strides in dealing with genetic disorders, such as yours, and may be able provide you with a full human capacity to choose what you think and do and no longer be driven by these evolutionary demons, "deep in your brain," that are controlling you. Good luck!

[RCSaunders]

I'M NOT RECOMMENDING ANYTHING.

So "independent individualism" isn't a particularly good idea for anybody, in your view? I wonder why you bother talking about it, then.

Well, it probably would not be "good," for anyone who did not care to live and enjoy their life and had no aspiration to do anything more than merely exist and have their life directed by some set of rules that did not require anything except obedience. But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary.

As I wrote: "live any way you choose, reality will teach you when you are violating its requirements. If you choose wrong, you will suffer the consequences and you cannot do wrong and get away with it. If you choose to do wrong, you will suffer for it. It's called justice."

It is not up to me (or you) to tell others how to live their lives.

My defense is my responsibility, your defense is your responsibility.

So if you were there when Hitler's victims were marched off to the gas chambers, and you would fold your hands and watch? After all, their defense is their own responsibility...

So if you were there when Hitler's victims were marched off to the gas chambers, you would, what? Why would you be there? Would you have apologized to all those Jews you had encouraged to stay and trust in God, or Society, or the government to save them, because you and they naively believed, "it cannot happen here." I wouldn't have been there, because I would have left before it happened and encouraged all my Jewish and Roma friends to leave with me.

I personally like adventure, and, if for some reason, I were forced to stay in any of the German occupied countries, I would probably have participated in the underground movements that did save some of the Jews.

So what would you have done?

I cannot imagine why anyone would not embrace that unless they like to see war, oppression, poverty, and human misery.

Nevertheless, you don't "recommend" it, you say.

If by, "recommend," you mean tell others how they should live their lives, you are right, I do not do that. The world, society, and my neighbors are not mine to save. Mencken was right, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."

[Immanuel Can]

A non-binding one would be worthless, because it would be merely optional. The "Hitlers" of the world would simply ignore it, and we'd have not one thing to say about that, either to them or anyone else.

That is my point why we cannot enforced any moral oughts on any one.

"Force" is not the issue. "Rational justification" is. We cannot make people always obey anything, and I'm certain it would be bad if we could, because it would deprive them of choice. But we can justify rationally why we object to, oppose, resist or penalize their behaviour, if we can show the world rationally (i.e. justify) that it's bad for them to choose what they chose.

Justified moral oughts

THIS is the problem. There are no "justifiable moral secular oughts."

can only be used as GUIDES

More than that. Not just "guides" but standards. And the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement, anymore than a thermometer could "produce" the temperature of the atmosphere; the standards can only tell us when we have obtained or located the right actions...it cannot make them happen.

"Guide"? That's a very weak thing, because a "guide" need not be followed by anyone, and it can't compellingly be used to identify those who are doing the right or wrong thing. They just say, "Well, your guide doesn't count for me."

We need some sort of binding force that enables us to say, "Mr. Hitler, even if you don't agree with this, you're simply wrong," and to be right when we say it.

As I had stated, the moral absolute ought is abstracted and justified from empirical evidence of human nature.

But this is the problem. "Human nature" is an "is," not an "ought." You can argue that "human nature" is kind, but also that "human nature" is violent. You can make a case that "human nature" is social, and also that it is individual. You can argue that it's good, and yet that it's bad. Cases can be made on all sides.

We can learn nothing about the relative values of these things from studying the "is" of human nature. What we need to know is what aspects of that nature ought to be encouraged, and which ought to be suppressed, resisted and removed. In other words, we don't need to know what human nature is right now; we really need to know what it should be.

Here is an analogy;

• When it is observed certain species of duck-D always fly south during a certain period of time and fly back after a certain period of time year in year out, we can abstract the rule;
  "Every Duck-D ought to fly south by Day of Month-Y"

No, we can't know that. That's too much to suppose.

Some ducks in my area stay, even when it gets cold. Are you suggesting they're immoral for doing so? They have food, they have sufficient open water, and even though they are naturally migratory, they have discovered they don't need to migrate, because their needs are met here.

Are they evil? Of course not. Do they die? No. Do they even suffer? No.

It's like your claim that all humans somehow "ought" to breathe. We don't have any moral duty to do so. I can hold my breath until I pass out, without being evil. In fact, every person who dies also stops breathing without being evil. It's just what happens, that's all.

So ducks and breathing are not moral issues. They're merely practical, and merely contingent. No duck and no person has a moral duty there.

As I had argued, the moral ought is inherently embedded in the DNA and brain of each human individual but it is clouded by various 'noises' via nurture.

It could be. But if it were so, the problem is separating the moral "signal" from the moral "noise." We would not know what part of the "cloud" is the right stuff. Some is stuff we should cease, and some we should continue.

We need some other means to detect that. Secularism assures we have none.

"no human shall kill another human."

Why not? Who says?

In a secular world, why isn't killing just fine? Animals survive by survival of the fittest, and nature is full of killing. How would you justify not doing what every other creature (and secularism informs us we're just animals) does on a routine basis? And, in fact, if you subvert the law of survival of the fittest, how will evolution go forward? It's Darwin's only mechanism of progress.

You see the problem, I'm sure.

Note my syllogism to justify why 'no human ought to kill another human' as justified from empirical and philosophical reasoning.

OUGHT from IS is Possible

Not under secular assumptions. I showed you why not, back at that discussion. You didn't believe me, or any of the many others who showed you flaws in that reasoning. But it didn't stop you claiming victory and departing the field, apparently. Yet nobody else was convinced, and nobody else is now.

And, at the cost of flogging your dead horse, I should point out what you provided wasn't even a syllogism. It was merely a list of websites where you've tried and failed to achieve the same arguments.

Sorry. That doesn't work.

'any one who do not agree with the argument is ignorant and selfish because that person is not concern to resolve the problem of evil within humanity effectively.

That's still ad hominem. Say "anyone" or say "you," and it's still silly.

Think about it: all you're doing when you make an ad hominem is floating an insult, on the level of 'You are a poo-poo head -- and if you don't want to be a poo-poo head, you have to agree with me."

Ad hominems are every bit that childish. They're just couched in bigger language, that's all.

[Immanuel Can]

But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary.

This is the "recommendation" part. You're essentially trying to convince people that unless they are your "independent individuals" they will necessarily lack the things; and unless you hope the also think these are GOOD things, you're not saying anything at all.

So you are listing what you consider good things, and pronouncing them conditional upon "independent individualism." You're recommending, even though you say you're not.

It is not up to me (or you) to tell others how to live their life.

Then you need to stop pretending that all good things are natural consequences of "independent individualism."

It's not true, anyway. There are plenty of things people consider very good that they get from being socially interactive or interdependent. But it seems to me that you don't even acknowledge these. Maybe that's why nobody's being swayed by your argument; it doesn't recognize the advantages of any other view, and doesn't recognize any deficiencies in itself. But others can see these things.

My defense is my responsibility, your defense is your responsibility.

So if you were there when Hitler's victims were marched off to the gas chambers, and you would fold your hands and watch? After all, their defense is their own responsibility...

So if you were there...

No, no...you don't get off the hook by reversing the question.

I'll answer, but only once you answer. What would you personally do with such a situation, on the basis of "independent individualism," RC?

I personally like adventure, and, if for some reason, I were forced to stay in any of the German occupied countries, I would probably have participated in the underground movements that did save some of the Jews.

This is also evasive, because it doesn't address the moral dimension.

Rather, it imagines that underground movements would have been some kind of "adventure" or maybe even "fun." How badly that trivializes the situation! The question is what you would have done with the moral defectiveness of Nazi conduct. And that has to include situations in which doing the right thing isn't only not "fun," but is is actively nasty, dangerous, unpopular and so on.

So what would you say in response to the moral standing of Nazi actions? And what would you do when resistance was no fun or "adventure," but was a perilous undertaking likely to get you also marched off the the gas chambers (as indeed, was the case)?

That's the question.

[RCSaunders]

But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary.

This is the "recommendation" part. You're essentially trying to convince people that unless they are your "independent individuals" they will necessarily lack the things; and unless you hope the also think these are GOOD things, you're not saying anything at all.

So you are listing what you consider good things, and pronouncing them conditional upon. You're recommending, even though you say you're not.

Have you ever had your reading comprehension tested? What I said was: "But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary."

Do you see the word, "good," anywhere in there. Do you see, "independent individualism," in that sentence. Is it your evaluation that the description I gave describes what is good? I only pointed out what would be necessary for anyone who wanted their life to be more than mere existence. I don't think most people want that. I don't think you do. If you do, why do reject the idea that one must be responsible for their own life and choices, that they must learn all they possibly can and think as well as possible and make their choices based on knowledge without contradiction?

It's not true, anyway. There are plenty of things people consider very good that they get from being socially interactive or interdependent.

Who said anything about not being socially interactive--and there is a huge difference between social interaction and mutual parasitism (interdependence). Only those relationships which are entered into willingly by all parties where each regards the relationship a value to himself are benevolent relationships. All other relationships are those between slave owner and slave or criminal and victim. You do not seem to know the difference.

But it seems to me that you don't even acknowledge these.

Well if it seems that way, it is because you intentionally evade knowing what I acknowledge, intentionally not reading what I wrote:

It is because the independent individual has no desire or interest in interfering or controlling anyone else, no need to be, "understood," "appreciated," "approved," or, "supported," by others, and no requirement for their empathy, sympathy, or compassion that the independent individual's relationships with others places no demand or expectations on them beyond mutually enjoying one another in normal human intercourse, from pleasure to business. Much of the enjoyment of others for the independent individual is an appreciation of the incredible differences in their experiences, knowledge, activities, interests, desires, goals, and achievements, all of which enrich the independent individual's own life and experience.

The independent individual's general attitude toward others is to expect them to be successful and happy to whatever level their own ability and ambition makes possible, "wishing," for everyone to be as satisfied with life as possible. Since the independent individual knows the potential of life, and its infinite possibilities, his ideal world would be one in which every individual in it were as free as he himself is, and as totally satisfied with life as he himself is. This is the attitude that determines his relationship with all other individuals.

The independent individual's life is always full of that pleasure derived from his relationships with others, from the most casual acquaintances to serious business relationships, from his personal friendships to those he loves. There is even a sense in which the independent individual loves everyone, since the real meaning of love is the appreciation of true value in others. The independent individual regards every individual to have value, at least potentially, because they are human beings, the only other beings with the same interests and potential as himself. It is why the independent individual gives every individual the benefit of the doubt, and judges them only on the basis of what they demonstrate or declare themselves to be, and nothing else, especially not any group or collective others might identify them with.

Since you obviously have no idea what I, "acknowledge," if you are serious about embracing the truth, read the next section after the one from which I just quoted, which beings:

Independent Individuals And Society

Since an independent individual only deals with others by means of reason, offering value for value, and always gives others the benefit of the doubt, you'll almost never find anyone more reasonable to deal with. They just have no desire to have anything from anyone that others do not see is to their benefit to give, usually in the form of a trade.

...

Maybe that's why nobody's being swayed by your argument; ...

Unlike you, I am certain no truth is established by how many people agree with a view. There was a time when nobody would have been swayed by my arguments that the world is not flat and painless surgery is possible.

So if you were there...

No, no...you don't get off the hook by reversing the question.

But I DID answer the question. I have to assume you don't have an answer to the same question you asked me.

I personally like adventure, and, if for some reason, I were forced to stay in any of the German occupied countries, I would probably have participated in the underground movements that did save some of the Jews.

This is also evasive, because it doesn't address the moral dimension.

Rather, it imagines that underground movements would have been some kind of "adventure" or maybe even "fun."...

So, the moral dimension means one cannot enjoy what they are doing. H.L. Mencken was absolutely right. He called them, "puritans," but it applies to all so-called moralists. They are people, "who are terrified that someone, somewhere, might actually be enjoying their life." They cannot image anything moral that does not cause someone some kind of discomfort or suffering. If anyone does anything because they want to do it or enjoy doing it, it is, ipso facto, immoral in your and other moralist's view. How sad!

[Immanuel Can]

But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary.

This is the "recommendation" part. You're essentially trying to convince people that unless they are your "independent individuals" they will necessarily lack the things; and unless you hope the also think these are GOOD things, you're not saying anything at all.

So you are listing what you consider good things, and pronouncing them conditional upon. You're recommending, even though you say you're not.

What I said was: "But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary."

So you are not implying that "independent individualism" is the best way to achieve those things? I beg your pardon, then. I had thought you thought "independent individualism" somehow superior as an option.

And now you say it's not: it's just one of many ways.

Okay, I guess.

It's not true, anyway. There are plenty of things people consider very good that they get from being socially interactive or interdependent.

Who said anything about not being socially interactive--and there is a huge difference between social interaction and mutual parasitism (interdependence).

Heh. Parasitism is, indeed, one form of "interdependence," but not a good one.

There are others, forms of positive symbiosis, with both organisms benefiting -- or even depending for their very existence -- on the continued thriving of the other. As an immediate example, the bacteria in your stomach do very well because of you; and you do well because of them. Neither of you is harmed, thereby; rather, neither of you would thrive under conditions of the death of the other.

But you don't consider such possibilities -- why?

It is because the independent individual has no desire or interest in interfering or controlling anyone else, no need to be, "understood," "appreciated," "approved," or, "supported," by others, and no requirement for their empathy, sympathy, or compassion that the independent individual's relationships with others places no demand or expectations on them beyond mutually enjoying one another in normal human intercourse, from pleasure to business. Much of the enjoyment of others for the independent individual is an appreciation of the incredible differences in their experiences, knowledge, activities, interests, desires, goals, and achievements, all of which enrich the independent individual's own life and experience.

Ah. So "independence" is the base, but interdependence and sociability are just a sort of light option...a sort of "enrichment" program, to use your term, rather than essential to one's actual thriving?

Since the independent individual knows the potential of life, and its infinite possibilities, his ideal world

Ah, RC... you really expect me to believe this? Would anybody?

O, pray tell, how does the "independent individual" automatically obtain this superior knowledge? You actually say he "knows the potential of life?" I hope he will tell someone quickly what it is, so we can all benefit from his consummate insight. And you say he knows the "infinite" as well -- how unbounded his wisdom! -- and not just that but the infinity of "possibilities," things that have not even come about yet? What a sage!

And you crown this with the claim that he has prior knowledge of his "ideal world" as well.

I had no idea that taking care of oneself in exclusive concern could be so utterly illuminating. These are truly magnificent claims, RC.

Can you justify any of them?

The independent individual's life is always full of that pleasure derived from his relationships with others,

I wonder how, since he has no concern for them. Do they love him for his selfishness? Or is it his amorality that they find so attractive?

...the independent individual loves everyone.

Does he? Pray tell, what is the source of this emotional goodness he also possesses? He loves all those whose interests he does not care about?

I think I'd rather he didn't love me that way.

So if you were there...

No, no...you don't get off the hook by reversing the question.

But I DID answer the question. I have to assume you don't have an answer to the same question you asked me.

Of course I do. And I have promised it to you. But you did not answer, you dodged. You made it painless...even fun..."adventurous" you said, to live in the conditions experienced by the underground.

Now, that's not a fair representation of the experiences of the underground, as self-reported, of course. But worse than that, it removes the moral issue artificially. For morality is never even involved when what we want to do and what is good to do are just exactly the same thing. Rather, morality is something we only consult when what we want to do is at variance with what we suppose we ought to do.

So to make rescuing persecuted others from Nazis into a bit of light fun does not remotely represent the situation with which I taxed you. That's neither realistic, nor does it necessitate any moral deliberation or decision on your part.

That's what makes it evasive, not forthcoming.

However, when you do give an real answer, the kind of answer that does justice to the question and to morality, I will very happily respond with mine. I promise. I will not disappoint you.

So, the moral dimension means one cannot enjoy what they are doing.

No, it doesn't not. But if one enjoys what one is doing, one is going to presume it's fine, and never need to consult morality at all. One will just decide to go ahead. It's only when we begin to suspect we owe it to do something that just might not be so enjoyable that we are going to have to decide to be moral -- or else to stick with the merely enjoyable.

Morality is about "oughts." And "ought" is, grammatically, a contraction of the expression "owe it." So to say you "ought" to rescue persecuted Jews from Nazis would be to say you "owe it" to do what you are frightened to do, what you could end up in a gas chamber for doing, what would never be fun or safe, and is not in your independent interest to do.

But it's to say you "owe" to do it anyway.

That is, if you believe there are any "oughts" in the world. But in a purely individualistic world, that remains to be proved.

[Immanuel Can]

And a new thought, RC:

The Coronavirus.

I'm a healthy, young, individual, let's say. I may or may not be carrying the virus. If I am, I may have no symptoms at all, ever. Or perhaps I may have a few, but not badly. At worst, I will have a period of flu-like sickness, from which I will recover.

I'm an "independent individual." I am bored at home. Economically, I am hurt by the slowdown, and can't go to work or the shops, or sporting events, or social gatherings. Getting out and around would do me good.

I also have no elderly relatives who are not locked up in "rest" homes. These currently have no visitors. And only old people die from this virus.

Advise the "independent individual": what's right for him to do? Why?

[RCSaunders]

That is, if you believe there are any "oughts" in the world.

"Ought," like a value term requires an objective, goal, or purpose. Reality determines what is possible and what is not. If any objective is to reached, what, "ought," to be done to reach it is determined by what is possible, because what is not possible cannot achieve the objective. Where there are no objectives, there are no oughts.

But in a purely individualistic world, that remains to be proved.

If you object to an, "individualistic world," it is no wonder you pine for a different one.

Unfortunately for you, this world is an, "individualistic world," and every individual in it must use their own mind to consciously choose everything they think and do. It is the one thing human beings have no choice about.

[RCSaunders]

And a new thought, RC:

The Coronavirus.

I'm a healthy, young, individual, let's say. I may or may not be carrying the virus. If I am, I may have no symptoms at all, ever. Or perhaps I may have a few, but not badly. At worst, I will have a period of flu-like sickness, from which I will recover.

I'm an "independent individual." I am bored at home. Economically, I am hurt by the slowdown, and can't go to work or the shops, or sporting events, or social gatherings. Getting out and around would do me good.

I also have no elderly relatives who are not locked up in "rest" homes. These currently have no visitors. And only old people die from this virus.

Advise the "independent individual": what's right for him to do? Why?