here we try, try to connect certain ideas into one
coherent picture....
what we are trying to avoid is Hobbes ''state of nature",
where ''every man is at war with each other"
where, as Hobbes says,
"the nature condition of mankind is a state of war in which
life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
and there is no progress of any kind, personal or social..
we are just engaged in a daily war with each other for
the basic necessities of existence, food, water, safety/security,
even love.... and what is the basic point of existence?
to move past the animal existence of seeking the necessities
of existence.. there must be more to life than just spending our
days eking out a bare minimal existence.. always in fear of our
fellow man... who could take what necessities we have, our
shelter, our food, even our children or spouse...this type
of existence is nothing more than animal like...
and we are more than just animals. and the path to
to becoming animal/human and then finally fully human,
lies within the growth of the society and state around us....
it is this state/society that has lifted us past, beyond
the existence of being an animal.... so much so that when
a Republican wants a return to a smaller government, they
are actually calling for a closer relationship with Hobbes
"state of nature" .. if we remove the state, we get Hobbes
"state of nature" and only a fool would want that.....
so that is one aspect of what we are trying to do, avoid
that "state of nature".... but what is another aspect?
to be able to achieve our own dreams/possibilities.... and that
is only achievable within a state/society...
My stated goal is to be one of the greatest philosophers of
all time... I don't hide that goal... it is what drives me to
writing.... and in Hobbes "state of nature" I would be far
too busy just trying to survive to engage in thinking or
philosophizing...the state/society allows me to achieve one
of my possibilities... to have time to just think and read and write...
I have the police out there protecting me and I have the fire department
protecting me from fires and I have the garbage men taking out my
garbage and I have roads and hospitals and libraries... all the essential
of an civilization.... and I am more than happy to pay for those things
because it allows me the time to do my own thing....
I benefit greatly from have a society/state/civilization...
as you do... and this is what we are trying to keep
and maintain....and as the number of people increase in our
world, to maintain our level of government and institutions,
we have to put more energy into the government/institutions...
we have to grow the government/institutions to even keep
even with an ever-growing population...
to bring about a smaller, more efficient government,
frankly threaten all of us with a possible ''state of nature"..
government must grow or die... it is not really much more than that....
the question becomes, how do we keep this growth, a growth that
must happen if government is to keep pace with the larger and larger
populations and hope to be able to work out the things that matter
to us... to have the freedom to be, to become who we are, the
right to seek out justice, which is equality.... how do we hope
to hold onto these things and still have an ever larger, growing
state/government?
my own personal goals and desires are tied into what type of
government and state and society we have....
let us now think about our ism's... we have capitalism..
a economic theory that is a dolled-up version of Hobbes
"state of nature" we individually seek out our own goals,
regardless of how they impact the government, state or society
at large... as they say, or to be more correct, Mandeville says,
"our private vices creates public benefits"
and yet, there is no evidence of this, either in fact or in theory....
to seek out our private vices regardless of the impact on the state/
society leads us closer to Hobbes "state of nature" then it does
to us coming closer to a functioning society...
To avoid Hobbes ''state of nature", we must unite, connect
various part of our society into a working, viable society,
that works for all of us, not just some of us....
thus the better fit for us to reach our stated goal of having
a society/state that functions for us all, is to walk away
from individualistic isms like the economic theory of capitalism....
where private vices do not, do not create a public good....
we must engaged in a more socialistic, communistic
theory of the economic in order to keep us away from
this "state of nature"... now to some, this may sound like
a walk away from democracy.... but the fact is,
we have to be able to choose what our lives should look like,
and a democracy is the best way to accomplish that....
but that is the point, to unite our political system and our
economic system into one functional system.... to remove the gulf
between our political and our economic systems.... and unite them
into one system.....
let us look at various political systems... democracy, authoritarian,
monarchies, oligarchies, and totalitarian political systems...
as we can combine authoritarian and totalitarians systems,
we really have but three possibilities, democracy, monarchy
and authoritarian systems...
as already state, given our need for us to have some say in our lives,
our only real choice is a democracy... and now what about our
economic systems? we can have, mix and match as it were, our
political systems and our economic systems... thus we can have
a democratic system and a socialistic economic system...
and this would be my choice, having the government have
a much larger say in our economic system seems to me,
to be a more of a benefit than a problem....and why?
because we have control over the government.... thus,
we have some control over the economy...
even if it is rather indirect control....
today, our economic system, capitalism has control over
our political systems whereas the only goal worth reaching involves
making profits... to the detriment of human beings and their values..
for that is nihilism... denying human beings and their values...
and everything the government does is to protect the corporation,
and not the consumer, the individual....and this is our state of
affairs today... the corporation owns the government....
and this is where we must start....ending the corporate
chokehold on the government/state...
removing money from the political sphere is where we begin....
remember, the economic means of capitalism is every man for himself...
the economic version of Hobbes "state of nature"
and to become something different, we must, or die trying,
to change this current state of affairs....
we must always think about what it is we are trying to do,
and by this action, we are removing the excessive force of
the corporation on our lives... and we are staying away from
Hobbes "state of nature"... we are trying to steer into some
middle ground... between excessive force, politically and
economically... and having some freedom in our lives.. both
politically and economically....
to see what we need to do requires us to have some
understanding of what is and what needs to be....to have
a goal in mind is very much part of what will make us
successful in our lives....
how do you see the future and what role do you play in that future?
Kropotkin
just another step...
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
so another step for us to take is to
remove seeking profits as a goal in ourselves
and within our state/society......
in seeking profits, we dehumanize, devalue human beings
and their values....that is nihilism.... and in our seeking our
own personal profits, we are bringing us closer to Hobbes
"state of nature" by removing profits as a goal, we are
turning more toward a unified society/state... going away
from the ''state of nature" and toward a world where
we work together to achieve our goals...
politically, socially, and economically...
for me to achieve my avowed goal of becoming,
I need a working, functioning state that does
the work of protecting, of educating, of moving
the society and state to a point where we don't
have to individually do the things necessary to
become what we are or want to be.....
think of it as a house.. we have the bottom/base, a structure
that does the fundamental work for us.. to
have the state do the "dirty" work, to protect us, to build
roads and pick up the garbage.. to have schools and to have
prisons...if the state is doing this, then we don't have to...
we are free to engage with our own lives.... to become...
the state/society is necessary for us to have the infrastructure to
import food, to have police, to have roads, to be safe on the streets
and in our homes... all of this comes from having a state/society...
I don't think we really understand the benefits of our state,
the society enough to really appreciate it....not until its missing....
the state/society makes our lives possible and makes it possible for
us to seek out our own goals and needs.... without the state,
we would live in a ''state of nature'' and that would be bad, very
unfortunate...and we would not be very successful as a people,
country, a civilization without the state to make it possible....
so what is next to work out, is our actual goal, our function within
that state/society... what is our role within the state/the society?
now it might be said, that the greatest gift the founding fathers,
our forefathers gave us is in the political system we have....
now our economic system, for it can be argued, that we have
had our political system longer than we have had our economic
system....capitalism, true capitalism didn't really function in
the U.S until The Civil War... until the Civil War, America was
really a rural agrarian society/state.... it was the Civil War
that made America into a country and a powerhouse to be
reckoned with... the rise of America industrial power comes
with the Civil War... and as Lincoln said, America's political system
was founded 87 years before the Civil War....
and in the 35 years after the Civil War, until 1900, we turned
from a rural society into a place, an urban society.. by
1900, more American's lived in the city, than in the rural area's...
and all of this is important for us to remember so, we can
be aware of where we have been, where we are and where
we want/need to be.....
if we know where we were, and we know where we are,
the question becomes, where do we want to be? what future
do you want to see? what is your place in this future?
what does it mean to be human in the future world?
these are not only questions we need to ask ourselves,
but to ask about our state/society/civilization.....
it isn't just about us personally, but about us collectively...
and I don't see such ism's as capitalism or a dictatorship,
bringing us to a future that we want or need...
and so what should a political system do?
what should our political system actually do for us?
I believe that part of being human is that we, each of us,
have needs and wants that are necessary for us to reach...
to be able to have food, water, shelter, education, health care,
and the psychological needs met, of love, safety/security,
esteem, a sense of belonging.... a world where our bodily needs
and our psychological needs are met...
and so, the government we should have, will do everything
possible for us to meet our physical and psychological needs..
the role of government isn't to tell us what to do, but to
help us meet our needs... and thus we have programs of the type
that help us meet our needs... thus we have a welfare state...
until all needs are me, we are falling short of being an ideal society..
and that should be our goal... to be an ideal state, to be an
ideal society.... what would it take to become an society/state
that meets the needs of its citizens?
so, the first thing we need to do is to understand what
is the point of, the goal of our state/society?
why have a state/society if not to meet our goals/needs?
Kropotkin
remove seeking profits as a goal in ourselves
and within our state/society......
in seeking profits, we dehumanize, devalue human beings
and their values....that is nihilism.... and in our seeking our
own personal profits, we are bringing us closer to Hobbes
"state of nature" by removing profits as a goal, we are
turning more toward a unified society/state... going away
from the ''state of nature" and toward a world where
we work together to achieve our goals...
politically, socially, and economically...
for me to achieve my avowed goal of becoming,
I need a working, functioning state that does
the work of protecting, of educating, of moving
the society and state to a point where we don't
have to individually do the things necessary to
become what we are or want to be.....
think of it as a house.. we have the bottom/base, a structure
that does the fundamental work for us.. to
have the state do the "dirty" work, to protect us, to build
roads and pick up the garbage.. to have schools and to have
prisons...if the state is doing this, then we don't have to...
we are free to engage with our own lives.... to become...
the state/society is necessary for us to have the infrastructure to
import food, to have police, to have roads, to be safe on the streets
and in our homes... all of this comes from having a state/society...
I don't think we really understand the benefits of our state,
the society enough to really appreciate it....not until its missing....
the state/society makes our lives possible and makes it possible for
us to seek out our own goals and needs.... without the state,
we would live in a ''state of nature'' and that would be bad, very
unfortunate...and we would not be very successful as a people,
country, a civilization without the state to make it possible....
so what is next to work out, is our actual goal, our function within
that state/society... what is our role within the state/the society?
now it might be said, that the greatest gift the founding fathers,
our forefathers gave us is in the political system we have....
now our economic system, for it can be argued, that we have
had our political system longer than we have had our economic
system....capitalism, true capitalism didn't really function in
the U.S until The Civil War... until the Civil War, America was
really a rural agrarian society/state.... it was the Civil War
that made America into a country and a powerhouse to be
reckoned with... the rise of America industrial power comes
with the Civil War... and as Lincoln said, America's political system
was founded 87 years before the Civil War....
and in the 35 years after the Civil War, until 1900, we turned
from a rural society into a place, an urban society.. by
1900, more American's lived in the city, than in the rural area's...
and all of this is important for us to remember so, we can
be aware of where we have been, where we are and where
we want/need to be.....
if we know where we were, and we know where we are,
the question becomes, where do we want to be? what future
do you want to see? what is your place in this future?
what does it mean to be human in the future world?
these are not only questions we need to ask ourselves,
but to ask about our state/society/civilization.....
it isn't just about us personally, but about us collectively...
and I don't see such ism's as capitalism or a dictatorship,
bringing us to a future that we want or need...
and so what should a political system do?
what should our political system actually do for us?
I believe that part of being human is that we, each of us,
have needs and wants that are necessary for us to reach...
to be able to have food, water, shelter, education, health care,
and the psychological needs met, of love, safety/security,
esteem, a sense of belonging.... a world where our bodily needs
and our psychological needs are met...
and so, the government we should have, will do everything
possible for us to meet our physical and psychological needs..
the role of government isn't to tell us what to do, but to
help us meet our needs... and thus we have programs of the type
that help us meet our needs... thus we have a welfare state...
until all needs are me, we are falling short of being an ideal society..
and that should be our goal... to be an ideal state, to be an
ideal society.... what would it take to become an society/state
that meets the needs of its citizens?
so, the first thing we need to do is to understand what
is the point of, the goal of our state/society?
why have a state/society if not to meet our goals/needs?
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
One of the things I find lacking in this modern world is
the complete lack of a discussion about morals/ethics....
we should have every single political leader talking about what
is moral, what is ethical..... and what does it mean to be
moral/ethical in our modern world? I want Biden to
talk about the ethical/moral position we have in the world...
I want Bill Gates to discuss what is ethical, what is moral?
I want Lebron to discuss what is moral, what is ethical?
I want a society wide discussion of what it means to
be an ethical/moral person....
what does it mean to do the ''right thing?"
and the "right thing" according to whom?
and why is that the ''right thing?" and not another
choice?
I believe that we will continue to flounder as a state and as
a society until we begin these discussions....
and the right wing will continue to be wrong as long as their
question is, what about god? today, is talk about god, a solution
or a problem? I hold it is part of the problem because any discussion
about god requires us to ask, which god, and why that god,
and not another god, other rules to live by.....
so as part of this discussion, requires us to engage in this
question of what is the standard, the basis for our discussion?
on which rock, shall we build our ethics/our morality?
religion, societal needs, human values?
how do we judge what it means to be ethical, moral?
which rules do we use and why those specific rules?
and we have to decide our ethical/moral rules also with
an understanding of our political/ economic situation....
we cannot have rules about the state/society without some
understanding of the state/society we are talking about.....
it is all connected... the rules/ethics/morality and
the state/society we live in....
to have context of the rules of ethics and what state/society
we live in.... we are not just about our own individual lives,
but about the state/society we live in.... and our rules/ethics
have to have context of within that state/society...
the rules of ethics have to fit within the political and economic
structure we have.... and today, they do not fit within our
political/economic system we have....
to match our political and economic system with
the rules of ethics/morality that we have....
Kropotkin
the complete lack of a discussion about morals/ethics....
we should have every single political leader talking about what
is moral, what is ethical..... and what does it mean to be
moral/ethical in our modern world? I want Biden to
talk about the ethical/moral position we have in the world...
I want Bill Gates to discuss what is ethical, what is moral?
I want Lebron to discuss what is moral, what is ethical?
I want a society wide discussion of what it means to
be an ethical/moral person....
what does it mean to do the ''right thing?"
and the "right thing" according to whom?
and why is that the ''right thing?" and not another
choice?
I believe that we will continue to flounder as a state and as
a society until we begin these discussions....
and the right wing will continue to be wrong as long as their
question is, what about god? today, is talk about god, a solution
or a problem? I hold it is part of the problem because any discussion
about god requires us to ask, which god, and why that god,
and not another god, other rules to live by.....
so as part of this discussion, requires us to engage in this
question of what is the standard, the basis for our discussion?
on which rock, shall we build our ethics/our morality?
religion, societal needs, human values?
how do we judge what it means to be ethical, moral?
which rules do we use and why those specific rules?
and we have to decide our ethical/moral rules also with
an understanding of our political/ economic situation....
we cannot have rules about the state/society without some
understanding of the state/society we are talking about.....
it is all connected... the rules/ethics/morality and
the state/society we live in....
to have context of the rules of ethics and what state/society
we live in.... we are not just about our own individual lives,
but about the state/society we live in.... and our rules/ethics
have to have context of within that state/society...
the rules of ethics have to fit within the political and economic
structure we have.... and today, they do not fit within our
political/economic system we have....
to match our political and economic system with
the rules of ethics/morality that we have....
Kropotkin
Re: just another step...
Have you ever experienced the elation of being handed something on a plate, only to have it followed by the let-down of realising it would be far too easy, and the lack of challenge in attaining the prize would completely rob it of any value?Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 4:30 pm
My stated goal is to be one of the greatest philosophers of
all time...
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
in a no-god world, all we have is situational ethics,
the situation creates the ethics...and within capitalism,
we have a different set of ethics.. and if we had
communism (as an economic system) then
we would have a different set of ethics...
as having a hunter-gatherer economy,
would have a different set of ethics.....
the different economic and political systems creates
different ethics/morals....
and a democracy has a different set of ethics than
a dictatorship.... ( as a political system)
I believe that our ethics/morals is a reflection of our
political, economic systems....reform one, the political/economic
system, you reform the other, the ethical/moral system.....
part of what makes us different than animals is our ethics/morals...
without them, we are, to be blunt, animals... and the more
we understand and appreciate our morals/ethics, we become
more human... we grow from being animal to animal/human to becoming
fully human... and that is what is reflected in our history...
our collective history as a species... the quest to become
fully human is the quest for us to work out our moral/ethical
system...
Kropotkin
the situation creates the ethics...and within capitalism,
we have a different set of ethics.. and if we had
communism (as an economic system) then
we would have a different set of ethics...
as having a hunter-gatherer economy,
would have a different set of ethics.....
the different economic and political systems creates
different ethics/morals....
and a democracy has a different set of ethics than
a dictatorship.... ( as a political system)
I believe that our ethics/morals is a reflection of our
political, economic systems....reform one, the political/economic
system, you reform the other, the ethical/moral system.....
part of what makes us different than animals is our ethics/morals...
without them, we are, to be blunt, animals... and the more
we understand and appreciate our morals/ethics, we become
more human... we grow from being animal to animal/human to becoming
fully human... and that is what is reflected in our history...
our collective history as a species... the quest to become
fully human is the quest for us to work out our moral/ethical
system...
Kropotkin
-
FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 8819
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: just another step...
Why did you use the quote marks there if you couldn't be arsed to get the actual quotes to go between them?Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 4:30 pm what we are trying to avoid is Hobbes ''state of nature",
where ''every man is at war with each other"
where, as Hobbes says,
"the nature condition of mankind is a state of war in which
life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
K: ok, how are the quote marks on this statement?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 8:21 pmWhy did you use the quote marks there if you couldn't be arsed to get the actual quotes to go between them?Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 4:30 pm what we are trying to avoid is Hobbes ''state of nature",
where ''every man is at war with each other"
where, as Hobbes says,
"the nature condition of mankind is a state of war in which
life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
"little minds can only focus on little thoughts"
is that good enough for you? or do I need to rewrite that one
as well?
Kropotkin
-
FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 8819
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: just another step...
That's quite a thin skin you have there. If you are going to refer to something Hobbes wrote without getting the actual quote, you can just describe what you are doing as paraphrasing instead of quoting by simply omitting the quote marks. Otherwise, if you want to quote some of the most recognisable sentences in all of philosophy, they are easy to google and then copy pasta.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 6:14 amK: ok, how are the quote marks on this statement?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 8:21 pmWhy did you use the quote marks there if you couldn't be arsed to get the actual quotes to go between them?Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 4:30 pm what we are trying to avoid is Hobbes ''state of nature",
where ''every man is at war with each other"
where, as Hobbes says,
"the nature condition of mankind is a state of war in which
life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
"little minds can only focus on little thoughts"
is that good enough for you? or do I need to rewrite that one
as well?
Kropotkin
If you think you are ever going to be the greatest philosopher ever, then you need to accurately cite sources. Also you should learn to cope with basic notes like that without getting pointlessly irritable.
Re: just another step...
Yes, I also thought his response was a little on the tetchy side.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 1:13 pmThat's quite a thin skin you have there.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 6:14 amK: ok, how are the quote marks on this statement?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 8:21 pm
Why did you use the quote marks there if you couldn't be arsed to get the actual quotes to go between them?
"little minds can only focus on little thoughts"
is that good enough for you? or do I need to rewrite that one
as well?
Kropotkin
-
Iwannaplato
- Posts: 8551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: just another step...
You mean you've somehow missed the ethical moral discussions around abortions, critical race theory, transrights, the war in the Ukraine, what children should be exposed to, immigration...it would be easy to go on.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 5:27 pm One of the things I find lacking in this modern world is
the complete lack of a discussion about morals/ethics....
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
in reading about Kant's Aesthetics theory, one point
has struck me... that in thinking about aesthetics,
it is the ''intentionality'' of it
by "intentionality" I mean, we are focused and aware of something...
it is not a secondary thought but a primary thought...
I intentionally look at what is beautiful and why this object/thing
is beautiful...and what makes it beautiful?
and I also see how this "intentionality" is not really part of the
daily discussion we have... for example, those who oppose abortion,
say they are ''pro-life" but the fact is that they don't actually discuss,
or give the morality/ethics of abortion... they say "abortion is bad"
but why, why is it bad? The opponents just say, "abortion is bad/evil"
but what ethical/moral theory are they using?
under what standard is ''abortion'' evil/bad?
and they say they are ''pro-life" but what does that actually mean?
they might say, "to preserve life" but give us some examples of what
preserving life actually means? For example, conservatives who claim
to be pro-life, also want to reduce the size of government by
taking everyone off of entitlement programs... but those people
on entitlement programs needs those programs to feed their children...
how is taking children off of entitlement programs being "pro-life?"
in other words, as with most people, our views, beliefs are a series
of "ad hoc" beliefs, established to deal with day to day values and actions...
this action, the invasion of the Ukraine is "good" or "evil" or
''bad'' but again, what values have we used to decide such a thing?
why is the invasion of the Ukraine, good or bad, what standard
are you using?
what I am saying is that we need to use this idea of "intentionality",
what standards are we using to justify a particular belief?
Abortion is wrong because of? One could, reasonable argue,
that by abortions, one is ensuring the health of the mother
and by that standard is pro-life.. under the idea of
intentionality, which standard are we going to use in
rethinking which entity is "more valuable" the mother or
the fetus? the "pro-life" movement always assume the life
of the fetus trumps the life of the mother....
but why? the mother is actually existing, the fetus is
only a potential life.. not actually within life yet...
and one should give priority to actual life, not potential life...
and why? because the mother is within life.. she actually
exists.. and by taking away abortions, we quite often threaten
the live/health of the mother...and how is that less desirable
than the health of the fetus?
the question of "intentionality" forces us to explain, justify
our thoughts and beliefs.. why these sets of beliefs and not another
set of beliefs? what standards are we using to justify a set of beliefs...
in abortions, the invasion of the Ukraine, entitlement programs,
a whole lot of "ink" is spent praising or denouncing such actions,
but rare is the person who actually explains why said actions is
"bad" or 'evil' or ''good".. for the most part, the standards used
are assumed..
but as always, every single ''I'' is really about the "we" the collective
''we'' the society at large... I believe that abortions are ethically/
morally acceptable, and I have previously stated my reasons for such
a belief, but ethics/morals are not about an individual value system,
but about us, as a society and what we believe collectively...
morality/ethics is not an individual value system, but
a collective value system.. for example, voters in Montana rejected
an abortion measure that would allow criminal penalties to
health care providers.... and Kentucky rejected a proposal that
would have rejected further restricting abortion rights...
as Michigan enshrined abortion rights.....
and this may be the path into the future... instead of
legislators who clearly work for vested interests like
big business and not for the residents of the state,
we should be allowed to vote on such moral/ethics issues
like abortions... let the people decide....and we take this
viewpoint because moral and ethics are a collective,
society wide concern... not an individual concern...
because it doesn't matter what an individual might think is
moral or ethical, because in the end, the state/society will
make its presence known as to the correctness of one's
individual values... but that leads us to other questions best
delt with later....
Kropotkin
has struck me... that in thinking about aesthetics,
it is the ''intentionality'' of it
by "intentionality" I mean, we are focused and aware of something...
it is not a secondary thought but a primary thought...
I intentionally look at what is beautiful and why this object/thing
is beautiful...and what makes it beautiful?
and I also see how this "intentionality" is not really part of the
daily discussion we have... for example, those who oppose abortion,
say they are ''pro-life" but the fact is that they don't actually discuss,
or give the morality/ethics of abortion... they say "abortion is bad"
but why, why is it bad? The opponents just say, "abortion is bad/evil"
but what ethical/moral theory are they using?
under what standard is ''abortion'' evil/bad?
and they say they are ''pro-life" but what does that actually mean?
they might say, "to preserve life" but give us some examples of what
preserving life actually means? For example, conservatives who claim
to be pro-life, also want to reduce the size of government by
taking everyone off of entitlement programs... but those people
on entitlement programs needs those programs to feed their children...
how is taking children off of entitlement programs being "pro-life?"
in other words, as with most people, our views, beliefs are a series
of "ad hoc" beliefs, established to deal with day to day values and actions...
this action, the invasion of the Ukraine is "good" or "evil" or
''bad'' but again, what values have we used to decide such a thing?
why is the invasion of the Ukraine, good or bad, what standard
are you using?
what I am saying is that we need to use this idea of "intentionality",
what standards are we using to justify a particular belief?
Abortion is wrong because of? One could, reasonable argue,
that by abortions, one is ensuring the health of the mother
and by that standard is pro-life.. under the idea of
intentionality, which standard are we going to use in
rethinking which entity is "more valuable" the mother or
the fetus? the "pro-life" movement always assume the life
of the fetus trumps the life of the mother....
but why? the mother is actually existing, the fetus is
only a potential life.. not actually within life yet...
and one should give priority to actual life, not potential life...
and why? because the mother is within life.. she actually
exists.. and by taking away abortions, we quite often threaten
the live/health of the mother...and how is that less desirable
than the health of the fetus?
the question of "intentionality" forces us to explain, justify
our thoughts and beliefs.. why these sets of beliefs and not another
set of beliefs? what standards are we using to justify a set of beliefs...
in abortions, the invasion of the Ukraine, entitlement programs,
a whole lot of "ink" is spent praising or denouncing such actions,
but rare is the person who actually explains why said actions is
"bad" or 'evil' or ''good".. for the most part, the standards used
are assumed..
but as always, every single ''I'' is really about the "we" the collective
''we'' the society at large... I believe that abortions are ethically/
morally acceptable, and I have previously stated my reasons for such
a belief, but ethics/morals are not about an individual value system,
but about us, as a society and what we believe collectively...
morality/ethics is not an individual value system, but
a collective value system.. for example, voters in Montana rejected
an abortion measure that would allow criminal penalties to
health care providers.... and Kentucky rejected a proposal that
would have rejected further restricting abortion rights...
as Michigan enshrined abortion rights.....
and this may be the path into the future... instead of
legislators who clearly work for vested interests like
big business and not for the residents of the state,
we should be allowed to vote on such moral/ethics issues
like abortions... let the people decide....and we take this
viewpoint because moral and ethics are a collective,
society wide concern... not an individual concern...
because it doesn't matter what an individual might think is
moral or ethical, because in the end, the state/society will
make its presence known as to the correctness of one's
individual values... but that leads us to other questions best
delt with later....
Kropotkin
Re: just another step...
What makes you think that restrictions on abortion are not what the voters want?for example, voters in Montana rejected
an abortion measure that would allow criminal penalties to
health care providers.... and Kentucky rejected a proposal that
would have rejected further restricting abortion rights...
as Michigan enshrined abortion rights.....
and this may be the path into the future... instead of
legislators who clearly work for vested interests like
big business and not for the residents of the state,
we should be allowed to vote on such moral/ethics issues
like abortions... let the people decide....and we take this
viewpoint because moral and ethics are a collective,
society wide concern... not an individual concern...
because it doesn't matter what an individual might think is
moral or ethical, because in the end, the state/society will
make its presence known as to the correctness of one's
individual values... but that leads us to other questions best
delt with later....
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
ok, let us rethink, reevaluate, well pretty much
everything we take for granted....
so, what are laws, what are public budgets, and what is an
individual law? all three are statements of morals/ethics....
we have laws, all kinds of laws and each individual law
is an ethical/moral thought brought to life... and what is
a public budget?? More ethical/moral thought brought to life...
let us take one example, the Minium wage... that particular law
is not an political or economic statement, but the minimum law
is a moral/ethical belief...to pay people wages that barely allows
them to survive is, in my mind/opinion, immoral, unethical...
the fact that we pay people barely enough to survive is
nothing more than saying that those people have no value,
no worth within a society/state....for if we were to actually
value them, we would pay them enough to not only survive,
but to prosper..... the vast majority of Americans do not
make enough money to buy a house in America today....
they can only rent and that is getting way too expensive for most
people....
Ok, Kropotkin, how would you justify a increase in the minimum wage,
if it were a moral question, not an economic one....
the fact is that all beings, all creatures have set, certain needs...
and some animals have needs that other animals don't have...
so this question of needs is based on what an animal specifically
needs... a lion needs to hunt, a giraffe needs to eat trees...
niche existence requires niche needs... but we are talking about
human beings... what specific needs do human beings have?
Food, water, shelter, education, health care are some of the
basic biological needs as well as human beings needing
psychological needs.. such as love and hope, our need for
safety/security, a sense of belonging, and esteem...
we must have each of these things or we will suffer
and possibly even die... a baby without love in the first year,
will die even if all their biological needs are being met...
an existence without love isn't an existence worth living....
so, our laws, our ethics must be directed towards us meeting
our biological and physical needs...so a law that limits our
wages to the point of barely surviving, is in opposition to
our being able to met our needs....wages have to be
able to allow us to eat, and have a place to stay and be
educated and to have health care.... and we fail in that
aspect in terms of health care and housing and for many,
being able to eat properly...
the fact is that low wages is immoral because it prevents
us from meeting our fundamental needs... we now see how
the laws, individually and collectively are not economic or
political laws, but they are ethical and moral values put into
action...
as is the budget put into place by both state congress and
the national congress.... if we spend our money on the army,
and the defense of the country, we are making a moral choice,
an ethical choice... that defense of country has more ethical
value than people having food to eat or being educated...
to have entitlement programs within a federal or state budget
is a moral, ethical choice about how we value people....
we can no longer see state/federal budgets as an economic
or political choice, but those budgets are an moral/ethical choice...
what do we value more? building a bigger army or feeding people?
I say, who gives a fuck if we are better protected as a nation if
we are not feeding people or housing them or educating them....
what is the point of defending our country if we don't have
the people within that country meeting their needs, both
biological and psychological needs...
putting money into the military before you put money into
feeding people or educating them is immoral and unethical....
based on the beliefs that people have value just because
they have been born... human beings have an inherent value
because they are human beings... and that ladies and gentlemen
is truly being ''pro-life"....if we value people, then we must
treat them equally/with justice and we must put our emphasis on
on feeding and giving people shelter and educating them....
and not on building a bigger army or building faster military
jets... but taking care of people as if they actually mattered...
as if they have actual value.. just because they are people...
and people have an inherent value just by being...
and that must be reflected in our laws, in our local/state/
and federal budgets...
but Kropotkin, we have had situations where the state had laws
that were immoral and unethical.. for example, slavery was legal
and women were, legally, considered to be property...
and the Holocaust was legal and hiding Jews to escape
the Holocaust was illegal... and each of those examples
are of the state acting unethical, immoral... and what is our
response to these unethical, immoral laws?
we must fight them with every tool at our disposal,
but the question still remains...how are we to judge,
what standard do we use to judge these laws as to
their ethical, moral value? How do we know that
slavery that exists within the law, is immoral, unethical?
that people have value, by their very existence..
thus we can judge that anti-gay, anti-trans laws
that currently exists are immoral, unethical....
that those laws demeans and devalues those people...
a law that demeans and devalues people, no matter who they
are, is a law based on unethical, immoral beliefs....
for as we noted in an earlier post, nihilism is the
negation, devaluation of people.. of denying human beings
their being and their values, just as the pursuit of profits,
is nihilism... the devaluation of people and their values
in search of profits is nihilism... and in denying people their
value because they are gay or trans is also nihilism...
any negation of human beings or their value is nihilism....
and the laws also reflect that.. if the law negates, denies
a person based on some perceived values is nihilism...
and how is abortion not nihilism?
by putting the value on the life of mother, not on the fetus...
there is value in existence, not on potential existence, but
on actually existing...in the present, not a possible future...
so devaluing women or black by legal means is denying the
value of a human being, and that is nihilism.. and must be fought
and rejected at all costs...
so we use the concept of nihilism as one standard to work
out if a law or a budget is immoral, unethical.....
Kropotkin
everything we take for granted....
so, what are laws, what are public budgets, and what is an
individual law? all three are statements of morals/ethics....
we have laws, all kinds of laws and each individual law
is an ethical/moral thought brought to life... and what is
a public budget?? More ethical/moral thought brought to life...
let us take one example, the Minium wage... that particular law
is not an political or economic statement, but the minimum law
is a moral/ethical belief...to pay people wages that barely allows
them to survive is, in my mind/opinion, immoral, unethical...
the fact that we pay people barely enough to survive is
nothing more than saying that those people have no value,
no worth within a society/state....for if we were to actually
value them, we would pay them enough to not only survive,
but to prosper..... the vast majority of Americans do not
make enough money to buy a house in America today....
they can only rent and that is getting way too expensive for most
people....
Ok, Kropotkin, how would you justify a increase in the minimum wage,
if it were a moral question, not an economic one....
the fact is that all beings, all creatures have set, certain needs...
and some animals have needs that other animals don't have...
so this question of needs is based on what an animal specifically
needs... a lion needs to hunt, a giraffe needs to eat trees...
niche existence requires niche needs... but we are talking about
human beings... what specific needs do human beings have?
Food, water, shelter, education, health care are some of the
basic biological needs as well as human beings needing
psychological needs.. such as love and hope, our need for
safety/security, a sense of belonging, and esteem...
we must have each of these things or we will suffer
and possibly even die... a baby without love in the first year,
will die even if all their biological needs are being met...
an existence without love isn't an existence worth living....
so, our laws, our ethics must be directed towards us meeting
our biological and physical needs...so a law that limits our
wages to the point of barely surviving, is in opposition to
our being able to met our needs....wages have to be
able to allow us to eat, and have a place to stay and be
educated and to have health care.... and we fail in that
aspect in terms of health care and housing and for many,
being able to eat properly...
the fact is that low wages is immoral because it prevents
us from meeting our fundamental needs... we now see how
the laws, individually and collectively are not economic or
political laws, but they are ethical and moral values put into
action...
as is the budget put into place by both state congress and
the national congress.... if we spend our money on the army,
and the defense of the country, we are making a moral choice,
an ethical choice... that defense of country has more ethical
value than people having food to eat or being educated...
to have entitlement programs within a federal or state budget
is a moral, ethical choice about how we value people....
we can no longer see state/federal budgets as an economic
or political choice, but those budgets are an moral/ethical choice...
what do we value more? building a bigger army or feeding people?
I say, who gives a fuck if we are better protected as a nation if
we are not feeding people or housing them or educating them....
what is the point of defending our country if we don't have
the people within that country meeting their needs, both
biological and psychological needs...
putting money into the military before you put money into
feeding people or educating them is immoral and unethical....
based on the beliefs that people have value just because
they have been born... human beings have an inherent value
because they are human beings... and that ladies and gentlemen
is truly being ''pro-life"....if we value people, then we must
treat them equally/with justice and we must put our emphasis on
on feeding and giving people shelter and educating them....
and not on building a bigger army or building faster military
jets... but taking care of people as if they actually mattered...
as if they have actual value.. just because they are people...
and people have an inherent value just by being...
and that must be reflected in our laws, in our local/state/
and federal budgets...
but Kropotkin, we have had situations where the state had laws
that were immoral and unethical.. for example, slavery was legal
and women were, legally, considered to be property...
and the Holocaust was legal and hiding Jews to escape
the Holocaust was illegal... and each of those examples
are of the state acting unethical, immoral... and what is our
response to these unethical, immoral laws?
we must fight them with every tool at our disposal,
but the question still remains...how are we to judge,
what standard do we use to judge these laws as to
their ethical, moral value? How do we know that
slavery that exists within the law, is immoral, unethical?
that people have value, by their very existence..
thus we can judge that anti-gay, anti-trans laws
that currently exists are immoral, unethical....
that those laws demeans and devalues those people...
a law that demeans and devalues people, no matter who they
are, is a law based on unethical, immoral beliefs....
for as we noted in an earlier post, nihilism is the
negation, devaluation of people.. of denying human beings
their being and their values, just as the pursuit of profits,
is nihilism... the devaluation of people and their values
in search of profits is nihilism... and in denying people their
value because they are gay or trans is also nihilism...
any negation of human beings or their value is nihilism....
and the laws also reflect that.. if the law negates, denies
a person based on some perceived values is nihilism...
and how is abortion not nihilism?
by putting the value on the life of mother, not on the fetus...
there is value in existence, not on potential existence, but
on actually existing...in the present, not a possible future...
so devaluing women or black by legal means is denying the
value of a human being, and that is nihilism.. and must be fought
and rejected at all costs...
so we use the concept of nihilism as one standard to work
out if a law or a budget is immoral, unethical.....
Kropotkin
Re: just another step...
And all three statements cunningly disguised as questions.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:46 pm
so, what are laws, what are public budgets, and what is an
individual law? all three are statements of morals/ethics....
And I suspect you prompt that very same question in many others.I say, who gives a fuck
Indeed.but Kropotkin
Do we?so we use the concept of nihilism as one standard to work
out if a law or a budget is immoral, unethical.....
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: just another step...
in light of my previous post, we can rethink what
it means to be human, to ask questions like
the Kantian questions, and work them out
in terms of morality and ethics... in other words,
questions like ''what am I to do" "what should I believe in"
"what can I know" are not legal questions and they are not
political questions, not even philosophical questions,
but they are moral/ethical questions...
even a basic question like, ''what is the meaning of life"
is a moral, ethical question, not a political or legal question...
rethink existence in terms of what is morals, what is ethical?
those are the questions we should be asking..
what is the point of government? that is not a political or
legal question but an ethical/moral question.... and the laws
passed by the government, they are in fact moral, ethical
laws, not legal or political laws.....
what is the moral, what is the ethical.. that is the questions
we should be facing....
Kropotkin
it means to be human, to ask questions like
the Kantian questions, and work them out
in terms of morality and ethics... in other words,
questions like ''what am I to do" "what should I believe in"
"what can I know" are not legal questions and they are not
political questions, not even philosophical questions,
but they are moral/ethical questions...
even a basic question like, ''what is the meaning of life"
is a moral, ethical question, not a political or legal question...
rethink existence in terms of what is morals, what is ethical?
those are the questions we should be asking..
what is the point of government? that is not a political or
legal question but an ethical/moral question.... and the laws
passed by the government, they are in fact moral, ethical
laws, not legal or political laws.....
what is the moral, what is the ethical.. that is the questions
we should be facing....
Kropotkin