Philosophy Now Forum

in terms of ethics/morals, the conservative believes that
only by a return to god and the bible, can we return to
ethical and moral behavior... and the liberal believes
that by the creation of laws/rules can we return to
ethical and moral behavior.... and neither one sees the
overall picture... ''ad hoc'' rules/laws will not solve any sort
of ethical problems and a return to values that are long dead
will not solve them either...

is violence a answer to the question of conflict resolution?
nope, violence never solves anything and in fact it creates
many more conflicts.. and being passive seems to solve some
conflicts, it only puts off conflicts for a short time...
a conflict needs to be resolved sooner than later...
for the longer a conflict festers, the greater problems it creates....

can emotionalism solve conflicts? I don't see how... emotions
quite often stir up conflicts and prevents their resolutions...

but being rational/logical would be a solution if, if everyone
were rational/logical... but most people are not.. and in fact,
most conflicts are the result of people not being rational/logical....
but being emotional, illogical causes most conflicts...

or said another way, for men, and I have the scars to prove it,
for men, our ego quite often leads us to conflicts... if we were
to remove our ego from our day to day life, we would have
far less conflicts in the world... one solution to conflicts is
to understand ourselves in terms of psychological knowledge...
why we act why we do...the Socratic motto of "know thyself" is
one solution to the ongoing problem of conflicts in the world....

one way to think about this is that our unconscious drives us and quite
often drives us into conflicts....and why does our unconscious drive us
into conflicts? we should probably ask ourselves that... but the fact is
that most people are afraid of an engagement with our unconscious mind...
for we fear what we may find and that finding might interfere with
our current understanding of who we are..... we are afraid of finding
out that we are not who we think we are...

this psychological understanding of ourselves is far more important
then we let on... in fact, I would venture to say that much of
the world's problems lie in the fact that we have failed to understand
ourselves psychologically....

the reason that we favor one philosophy over another is really because
of psychological reasons... if you understand my philosophy, you will
understand me psychologically.... the truth is that we are, in ways
we still don't understand, psychological creatures, one of the paths
to understanding human beings is in the unconscious, or psychological
aspect of being human... we are what our unconscious is.....

so in fact, ethics and morals are really just another means of understanding
our psychology.. our unconscious.... what drives our behavior psychologically?

one way to understand human beings is to note that a certain percentage,
perhaps 10% of all human beings are psychopaths...with no care or concern
about anybody but themselves... when the world depends on saying yes,
the psychopath will say no regardless of the consequences...
because the psychopath couldn't care less.... they are the ones
that actively root for the world to burn...and the end of all human beings...
they have no problem with that....they are not interested in the world or
its happiness or in finding love... they couldn't care less.... if the world
depended on them to say yes, to saving the world, they would say no...
just out of spite....

and that is one example of human psychology, the ones who
couldn't care less if the world went on or died....want an
example of this, IQ45 is a perfect example of a psychopath...
if he doesn't get what he wants, he would happily burn down
the world... and with this type of person, there is no argument,
no possibility of rational discussion, no possibility of reasoning with them,
and no chance of using emotions because they are so locked into their
own mind/beliefs/and emotions, that they don't even notice other
people in the world....

so how do we deal with psychopaths like this? the usual conflict resolutions
don't work with these people... and so we must adapt....
and that is what I am writing about..... that one size fits all in dealing
with people will fail..... and we must rethink our conflict resolutions in
dealing with a psychopath......and much of our answers in how do
we work or deal with the world is actually psychological in nature...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:56 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:54 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:41 pm in thinking about ethics/morals, I am wondering what could
become the basis of ethics/morals?

I believe one of the basis of ethics/morals is another concept, that of
justice.. Justice done correctly is really equality... everyone being
treated equally is justice... to single out one person, for or against,
is being unjust.. to single out a group, for or against, is unjust...

What does it mean to be moral or ethical? What does moral and ethical mean? You seem to be equating morality/ethics with justice, which is I think is an example of morality/ethics but not equal to morality or ethics.

As I stated earlier, it has to do with our goals. Morality and ethics is a subjective perspective (there is no objective morality/ethics) of other people's actions in relation with your own goals. Immoral acts are those acts by others that hinder your goals. Moral acts are the acts of others that promote your goals.

K: so, by your theory, my goal is to murder as many people as possible,
and, again by your theory, ''Immoral acts are those acts by others that hinder
your goal"

so, am I acting morally in wanting to murder and others who try to stop
me are acting "immorally?" that is an interesting twist on morality...

Kropotkin

Again, read what I said (you seem to be engaging in the same intellectual dishonesty and putting words in other people's mouths like Age who you've complained about). Morality is the relation between your goals and other people's actions. So murdering others is immoral because it hinders the potential victims' goals of staying alive. Trying to stop a murderer would be immoral to the murderer because they're goals are being hindered. As I pointed out, morality is subjective and any ethical dilemma will show this. What reasons is the murderer murdering? This is something that needs to be addressed, which is why we try to get at the motive of such acts. Most likely they have some sort of mental disorder (psychopathy, etc.), which I have yet to see you acknowledge in any of your posts. It seems like the solution to such dilemmas would be to try to prevent psychopathy using genetic/cultural changes. The solutions are simple to come up with, however implementing them might be another story.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 4:14 pm is violence a answer to the question of conflict resolution?
nope, violence never solves anything and in fact it creates
many more conflicts.. and being passive seems to solve some
conflicts, it only puts off conflicts for a short time...
a conflict needs to be resolved sooner than later...
for the longer a conflict festers, the greater problems it creates....

Which is worse, or less ethical - a war which lasts a few years where the opposition is completely eradicated, or a war that lasts centuries where the opposition is allowed to still maintain it's sovereignty and engage in terrorist acts against the other? Would it have been best if Israel/Arabs were completely wiped out by the Arabs/Israel back in the 20th century or what we have now with never-ending violence from both sides for a century?

it seems to me that France and England tried to end each other
for centuries... and yet, over the last hundred years, they
have been allies.. and the same is true about France and Germany...
now are they best of friends and all chummy, no, but they no longer
trying to destroy each other either.....given time and the right enemy,
even a France and England can become best of friends.. or not at least
attacking each other with every chance they get....like they
did for over 500 years... and with that I will suggest if, if the
earth is visited by aliens from space and they in some fashion
threaten the earth, I would guess that every single country
on earth would unite to end their attack.. and that is a profound
thing to understand about people.... given the right circumstances,
even sworn enemies will unite to overcome some obstacle that
threaten them both... that is human nature... to make a deal with
the devil if necessary to survive...so I wouldn't be so sure that
enemies for decades, even centuries, can't at least be civil to
each other given good enough reasons...

Kropotkin

now to slightly shift the discussion....

the connection between morals and ART has been around for centuries,
Kant for example made this connection as did Plato...
let us take one example of this connection between morals and ART...

Anna Kerenina, a book I cannot say that I have read... I have read other stuff
by Tolstoy.. "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" for example.... and within ''Anna"
this "morality play" brings us to see morality within ART... ''Anna" is unable
to return to Russian society due to her affair with Vronsky.. but he is allowed
to freely move about Russian society even with knowledge of the affair...
eventually, ''Anna" winds up killing herself by throwing herself under
a train...(mind you it is a 1000 page book with lots of stuff thrown
into it) but within ''Anna" has a basic truth about it...that men
and women are held to a different standard in terms of morals/ethics...
a standard that is still with us... we can see within ''Anna" what
happens when a man and a women engage in the same ''moral'' action,
which in this case is an affair between a married women and an unmarried
man...and these two eventually do wind up getting married, it does end
badly...train and all......and this is the beauty of ART.. it allows us to
portray morals within realistic ART...ART can serve as examples of
moral actions and their consequences... for example, we have the movie
''Casablanca''... and all its morals and consequences laid out in black and white...
and the conflicts between individuals and individuals and between the
state/society and individuals...

and as the years have moved into our "modern" times, we see hero's
being of dubious nature... for example, Han Solo is clearly an criminal..
and is stated as such by, well everyone...but he is also the one of
the primary hero's of Star Wars... and the conflict of the hero,
and usually portrayed as criminals, and their actions being "heroic",
John Wick for example and in fact, one of the primary themes of
modern ART, has been the redemption of evil criminals like Wick or
Solo or the "man with no name" of Clint Eastwood... men who can find
redemption in acts of goodness or kindness.... but rarely do we
see women finding redemption in such acts... as they are portrayed
as not being evil or criminal in the way that men are portrayed...

this portrait of women being less evil or being less criminal than men,
is a cultural bias of ours...women can be as evil as men, they just
don't advertise like men do... women were just as involved as men in
the Holocaust, and a few were even punished as the men were....

this bias view of morals and ethics about men and women is an example
of how we can view ethics and morals within the practice of ART....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 4:03 pm There are specific reasons why I don't converse with certain people..
and you are one of them.. and why?
Your ''answers" are so idiotic and simplistic, that an 8 year old would
be embarrassed to hold those ideas...let us look at one such answer

Kropotkin: ''how do we ''know'' that any certain action is actually ethical, moral? "

AGE: VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY, as I keep SAYING and REPEATING here.

ANY behavior that is AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL as being GOOD or Right, and which one would want done to 'them' as young children is what IS ACTUALLY ethical, and/or moral.

How MANY TIMES do I have to KEEP SAYING 'this' BEFORE 'it' IS HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

K: now, name me a "behavior" that is agreed with and accepted by all?
and I am not even talking about the second part of your statement,
about what we teach the children, but what behavior or value do
we know of, that is accepted by all..

simple enough question...

Kropotkin

Actually Age has a good point. Why not treat everyone (more or less) along the lines of how we would treat children? I don't know that adults should always be treated the same as children but it seems like a fair start. As far as I can tell, that's all Age is stating above. Perhaps the next direction to go ought to start with whether or not you agree with Age's statement and if not, why not.

actually AGE is an idiot.... but please at least you be the one who tells
me what behavior is "agreed'' to by all... and that
what was my question to AGE... show me behavior that has
been agreed to by all?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 4:41 pm an idiot... /...show me behavior that has been 'agreed to by all'?

I think ego is exacerbating the situation.

For instance, what kind of ego...

...repeatedly claims that they 'can show' certain things, but they do not?
...claims there are simple and easy answers, yet cannot express or demonstrate it in any significant or meaningful way?
...speaks as if they are apart from the people 'of this time', yet obsessively posts to an obscure forum comprised of such people?
...claims they want to learn to communicate better, but ignores common feedback from the audience as to how to do that?
...dissects phrases and sentences to the point of meaningless distortions, and then responds to those distortions?
...continually expresses beliefs, yet claims to have no beliefs?

It it one thing to think and communicate in a different way (mental variations). It is quite another thing for an ego (of any mental variety) to do the things listed above. Mental variation is not an excuse or reason for doing such things. Delusional superiority and toxic falseness of an ego intent on maintaining and serving itself can clearly come in all mental forms.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 4:41 pm actually AGE is an idiot.... but please at least you be the one who tells
me what behavior is "agreed'' to by all... and that
what was my question to AGE... show me behavior that has
been agreed to by all?

Kropotkin

Assault, murder, incest, adultery. Those are all pretty commonly taboo. Would you approve if any of those things were done against you? Do you think many would approve if those things were done against them? By against them, I mean being in the role of victim.

As far as Age is concerned. I don't always understand what he's up to. With hindsight, a lot of times I think I misread him because he does have a different approach than I'm accustomed to. But I'm beginning to see a pattern emerge that I can relate to.

Peter Kropotkin:
actually AGE is an idiot.... but please at least you be the one who tells
me what behavior is "agreed'' to by all... and that
what was my question to AGE... show me behavior that has
been agreed to by all?

GARY: Assault, murder, incest, adultery. Those are all pretty commonly taboo. Would you approve if any of those things were done against you? Do you think many would approve if those things were done against them? By against them, I mean being in the role of victim.

K: ahhh, at least someone is brave enough to attempt this, but, and this is a big but,
every single example has its believers... for example, we read about cops assaulting
people all the time... it isn't even a thing to be assaulted by a cops it is so common..
murder, ah, the state murders all the time... and once again, by cops.. or doesn't the
name George Floyd ring a bell? as for incest, the Hapsburg dynasty and
Egyptian pharaohs both practice incest.... and adultery.. please, IQ45 has
made adultery part of his campaign and people just ignore that aspect of
his presidency... they are not taboo's by any means... even pedophilia,
which is a better example of a taboo, has its defenders... and by having
children beauty pageants, that is just another form of pedophilia..
the sexualization of children.. and very few have called for the end
of this sexualization of children...

your example rings false because they are common in the world, with
the possible exception of incest and that isn't as uncommon as you might think...
again IQ45 has literately made hundreds of comments about wanting to sleep
with his daughter, Ivanka? My guess is that he did when she was a child, under
the age of ten...so there is that...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 6:50 pm Peter Kropotkin:
actually AGE is an idiot.... but please at least you be the one who tells
me what behavior is "agreed'' to by all... and that
what was my question to AGE... show me behavior that has
been agreed to by all?

GARY: Assault, murder, incest, adultery. Those are all pretty commonly taboo. Would you approve if any of those things were done against you? Do you think many would approve if those things were done against them? By against them, I mean being in the role of victim.

K: ahhh, at least someone is brave enough to attempt this, but, and this is a big but,
every single example has its believers... for example, we read about cops assaulting
people all the time... it isn't even a thing to be assaulted by a cops it is so common..
murder, ah, the state murders all the time... and once again, by cops.. or doesn't the
name George Floyd ring a bell? as for incest, the Hapsburg dynasty and
Egyptian pharaohs both practice incest.... and adultery.. please, IQ45 has
made adultery part of his campaign and people just ignore that aspect of
his presidency... they are not taboo's by any means... even pedophilia,
which is a better example of a taboo, has its defenders... and by having
children beauty pageants, that is just another form of pedophilia..
the sexualization of children.. and very few have called for the end
of this sexualization of children...

your example rings false because they are common in the world, with
the possible exception of incest and that isn't as uncommon as you might think...
again IQ45 has literately made hundreds of comments about wanting to sleep
with his daughter, Ivanka? My guess is that he did when she was a child, under
the age of ten...so there is that...

Kropotkin

And do we not bring "cops" to trial when it is determined that they "assaulted" someone? Do you mean Trump by "IQ45"? If so, then has he stated that he has slept with his daughter, or was he taking the low-brow approach of advertising his daughter to would-be "mates"? I wish I could help you determine exactly what counts as murder, assault, incest, and adultery, however, they are conditional terms and don't necessarily apply under certain extreme circumstances. In the end, they are relative luxuries that can be afforded after basic survival is met. Most people who commit those crimes do so out of some sort of privilege ("cops" for example). However, if they themselves are stripped of immunity, few would be happy to commit those things to others. What you seem to me to be talking about is the presence of artificial boundaries that protect some so they are able to do to others what they would not wish done to themselves.

as it is 90 around here, the wife and I are going to the coast for
lunch... will reply, perhaps today, more likely tomorrow...

Kropotkin