unapologetic

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I still ask people to explain what they mean by spiritual. Maybe they mean a journey to a new state of mind?

From the article:

if we take ‘spiritual’ to mean perceiving, communicating with and being influenced by forces (eg, spirits) that other people are not aware of, then the presence of spirituality in psy…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The religious beliefs that drive an inhumane criminal justice system.

Religion has a dark side (vengeful punishment) and a light side (peace, love and charity).  Those who concentrate on the dark side, can be pretty unpleasant.  Those who concentrate on the light side can be a bit passive-aggressive in my e…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
You’re like a spider and people who fly into your web end up being enmeshed.

If there’s a web, it’s not of my making.  I’m just asking straightforward questions, that can be answered straightforwardly.  You and Davis experienced an enmeshing web: Reg barely got sticky.  Ask yourself why is that.

@unseen – morality is fiendishly intricate and interesting.  That’s why so many people spend their time puzzling over it.

They’re all good points.  Can you refute them?

Davis wrote:
Jesus bloody donkey crackers. What happened to you Simon? Where did you go wrong?

Apparently, studying philosophy, and philosophers, makes people dogmatic and closed-minded towards doing new philosophy.  People are allowed to do new philosophy.  It’s interesting.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
people do act in selfish ways … the Problem of Evil

Evil or moral badness is defined as people acting selfishly at the needless expense of others.  If they needed to be selfish, it wouldn’t be seen as bad.

We could say that evil is the worst of this: when someone deliberately hurts others for the enjoyment of it.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The word “needlessly” is not necessary because people do act in selfish ways. By that I mean they act to achieve their own interests first. They do not act to “ideal standards” to achieve “optimum outcomes”.

There’s nothing wrong in putting one’s own interests first.  In fact, evolutionary ethics is based on inc…[Read more]

@davis – so the answer is “just because”.  I’ve identified a weakness that you yourself have agreed with.  I’m sure a moral philosophy professor would not be so dogmatic.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
In the mundane routine of everyday life most people carry out tasks to serve their own personal interest or the interests of people they share their lives with. Those people in turn reciprocate with acts of their own. I admit at times their actions may reach some zenith of excellence but never when they realise it is…

[Read more]

@davis – explain why it’s not silly, pointless and dogmatic: “just because”.  Give some actual reasons based on real life or facts of some kind.

In my opinion, this is an example of where conventional moral philosophy is unhinged from everyday life.  If the study of morality is a science of everyday life – something’s wrong if someone can’t g…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
There are advantages and disadvantages to all moral systems. None of them are inherently correct. None of them possibly could be as morality isn’t written into the fabric of the universe.

By “correct”, I mean “factually accurate”.  If it is insisted that two complementary systems are mutually exclusive – this is just silly and po…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
What are “ideal standards” and who sets them and on what authority?

Ideal standards are virtuous performance of one’s work in carrying out the task.  For example, in fixing a car, in best practice one would do everything necessary to make sure it is done properly: don’t lose any pieces, make sure everything is tigh…[Read more]

If there were two sets of circumstances, with everything the same, and something needed fixing – if one person did their job well (living up to ideal standards) then the results are very likely to be better than if the other person did their job poorly (not living up to ideal standards).

If the two aren’t mixed, then there’s something wrong with them, because in actual real life, the phenomena they seek to describe, are mixed.

I’d rather study real life than -isms.  This is precisely my point: moral philosophy is mired in ignorance of its own making.

Davis wrote:
Until you educate yourself on this, discussion over.

It’s pretty boring to be more into defending -isms than doing real philosophy.