Deal with it? I think we've already established you're the one who is having a hard time accepting the fact that other views exist. And that is your problem, not mine.

Projection seems to be becoming a theme in our conversation, no?

That's it then? The way you rationalize your hatred for views you do not agree with is some vague notion that I didn't care enough?

Remorse? Remorse for what? The millions of deaths and untold suffering that I am somehow responsible for in your head?

Please.

You're just trying to convince yourself that I must be a horrible person so you don't have to think about what I have to say.

You need a long look in the mirror my friend. — Tzeentch

And if you have any trouble figuring out where you should start looking, start here:

When you are confronted with a view you do not agree with, you wish for that person to get hit by a car.

When I am confronted with a view I do not agree with, I wish for them to reflect.

Now reflect upon that, and tell me which one of us hasn't progressed beyond the mental age of 15.

And please, please do not look before you cross the street next time. :up:

+This goes for anyone else who hasn't progressed beyond a mental age of 15 and thinks it's cool to do stupid shit because "mUh fReeDoM!". Keep doing it. You'll get your Darwin award eventually. — Baden

I guess instead you'd like everyone to make mature comments such as this one.

You need a long look in the mirror my friend.

If you have such a hard time dealing with other people's views maybe you're the one who should leave.

That's your problem. Not mine.

@Baden Oh, is that so? Do you offer similar tirades to people who do not look before they cross the street?

The only one you are fooling is yourself.

@Baden Does it bother you that people aren't as afraid of this as you are?

Interesting topic.

For two reasons I think being taught critical thought should always precede being taught philosophy.

The first is that critical thought is often required to understand why philosophers think a certain way. Without it, many ideas of philosophers will seem absurd to children who grow up in a world that lives according to very different principles.

The second is that critical thought is one's only weapon against a faulty or opinionated teacher.

Philosophy is a type of teaching that shouldn't be taught to someone who is incapable of challenging the ideas. I think that goes against the nature of philosophy. That's why teaching children should be done with caution.

But the fatality rate wasn't the reason for measures. It was the impact on the healthcare system that required and continues to require measures. — Benkei

The strain on our medical facilities wasn't caused by covid itself, but by the disproportionate measures that were taken and never reversed. Hospitals are overworked because a large portion of their personnel is "treating" patients who have flu symptoms.

The fatality rate wasn't known and everybody who knew what he was talking about didn't talk about the fatality rate but case fatality rate. — Benkei

Turns out they made wrong assumptions, then. I don't fault people for making wrong decisions when there was no information available. Information is available now, and governments should start acting upon it instead of trying save their hides by pretending they haven't made some grave mistakes.

The problem in the end is no pre-existing immunity anywhere with a high reproduction rate. — Benkei

Yet we accept this "problem" every year with the flu and other coronaviruses.

And if you want to talk about confirmation bias I would suggest a long look in the mirror first.

Single studies don't prove. They make plausible. And what this makes plausible is that the infection fatality rate of covid-19 is only a fraction of the estimates which were used to plunge the world into a full-blown panic.

A certain amount of people owe a certain amount of other people an apology.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

What I think requires consideration is the common sense notion that suffering is an objective thing, external to the individual. I think when examined, suffering is internal. It is highly subjective, and caused by the desires (however understandable those desires may be) of the individual.

If this type of action is permissible, then so are actions like allowing someone to drown, be tortured, etc. — Pinprick

Except this would be more akin to a situation in which two persons are drowning and only one can be saved.

I'd say the moral thing to do is to save one rather than to let both drown. I'd certainly not consider it immoral to save at least one.

I don't know what "this" is. — khaled

If someone believes they are helping someone, but in fact they are not (the person who is helped does not consent) then the helper was ignorant to the desires of the person who is helped.

The probem with "helping others" is you don't know if you're being an actual help or if you're harming them in some way — khaled

This is why I posit that the valid point you are raising is covered by my point about ignorance in relation to outcomes.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, let me see if I got it right:

A is capable of helping both B and C, and because he chooses to help B, your argument is that this harms C, because since B is helped, C is deprived of that help.

I have two issues with this.

First, I don't think this constitutes harming someone. Whatever C needs help with, this harm has already been done in the past. Therefore C needing help is the starting point and not a result of A's actions.

Second, as I argued, the neutral situation here is that both B and C need help, and if A only has the capability of helping one or the other, he is still capable of producing a net positive effect where either B or C is helped, instead of both not being helped.

Isn't this covered by ignorance, though?

And if someone successfully manages to help someone else, isn't consent implied here?

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not on board with this. I think it should be argued from a neutral situation, being "No one is helped", so whoever I manage to successfully help it's a net positive.

I think a well intentioned person "believes they are being moral, and desires to be moral", but their actions may result in immoral outcomes. — Philosophim

The way I view morality is, that only actions performed by moral agents can be said to be either moral or immoral. So an outcome (not being an action) cannot be said to be moral or immoral, as far as my views go.

The question I see being problematic with this is what if helping one person inadvertently, or perhaps even knowingly, harms someone else? — Pinprick

Again, basically the same point with this. What if intentionally harming someone helps someone else? — Pinprick

So in these cases one's intentions do not match the actual results. In other words, despite one's best intentions one was ignorant of what was required to achieve the desired results. This would belong in a category that may be called 'naive morality' or 'naive immorality'. One's actions are moral (or immoral), but one is not able to act in a way that brings these intentions about.

For example:

A friend needs help with a psychological problem, but despite one's best efforts, instead of helping this friend one only makes his problem worse.

That would be an example of 'naive moral' behavior.

What if it is intentional, like when a boxer intentionally inflicts as much damage as possible within the rules in order to win the match? Perhaps the contractual nature of boxing, and sports in general, eliminates morality? If I say it’s ok for you to intentionally harm me, is it actually ok? — Pinprick

That depends.

If the intention of the boxer is to win, and hurting his opponent is an unintended side-effect, then I do not think he is being immoral, but possibly ignorant (if he deals more damage than he intends).

If the intention of the boxer is expressly to hurt his opponent, I would say we are certainly in immoral territory.

There is an added dimension of consent in the fact that both boxers agree to being physically hurt by each other in the practice of their sport. I think in this case there's an agreement between the two parties and ideally both parties are aware of what is 'acceptable' hurt to inflict upon each other.

There is of course a difference between having to intention to bloody someone's nose, or trying to deliver brain damage. The other party would likely consent to the former, but not the latter. So in the former case I'd say the behavior isn't immoral, but in the second case it might be.

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe you could argue that a perfectly moral act actually requires some level of ignorance. I find it difficult to think of an act that is essentially vacuous, that only affects one person at one particular time and place. Because of this, it is likely that what helps one person may unknowingly harm someone else. So, if one were omnipotent, and was aware of these unforeseen consequences, would s/he even be capable of only intending to do good? Basically, I think most, perhaps all, moral acts are the type of situation where doing A helps B, but harms C. If we have full understanding, then doing A is intentionally causing both harm and help at the same time, which isn’t perfectly moral. — Pinprick

Lets take our friend with a psychological problem again. Lets say I want to help him, and I succeed in doing so. Who or what would be the party that is harmed in this example?

Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how compeletely worthless these posts are? — Baden

Do you?

Doesn't this then reduce to good intentions? What we're really describing here is expectations. Part of making a moral choice is an expectation of an outcome for a given course of action. The actor can only act on likely outcomes based on prior experience and incomplete reason. An expectation of an outcome of one's own actions is an intent. — Kenosha Kid

Another good point. Though I'm not sure it reduces the problem to good intentions, but it does pose a problem.

Since a person can never be said to be completely certain of anything, he is always to a degree ignorant, and therefore is not capable of a perfectly moral act.

Perhaps then such a perfectly moral act should be regarded as a distant ideal?

A good point, though it seems ignorance may yet encompass such errors. Let's assume they are 'unforeseen circumstances', doesn't that classify as ignorance?

Come to think of it, I wonder if the definitions I have given could be extended to include actions to hurt or help oneself as well.

I think the same applies.

However, when in business or sports one is simply trying to win, and does not have the intention of hurting or helping others, then perhaps it is not a matter of morality.

And if in such a situation one does hurt others (without any intention) it is only a matter of ignorance. Again, potentially just as destructive, but different in its nature.

128,000 covid-19 cases, resulting in 6,428 deaths, on a population of 17.28 million.

These are the official numbers shared by the National Institute of Public Health.

No amount of loud bleating is going to change these.

Zullen we een potje anecdotes vertellen spelen? Leuk!

Kijk eens wat verder dan het NOS journaal.

Do yourselves a favor and start being critical of the information you're receiving through media. I'll admit I cannot speak for the US, but covid deaths in the Netherlands have initially been grossly misreported, because covid was being stated as cause of death for any and all who had traces of the virus in their body upon death. Furthermore, many of such diagnoses were done with equipment that now is suspected of having great error margins. So make of those numbers what you will. But even if they were a multitude of what is being reported, it still would not justify the way our government has abused and is abusing its power to control the lives of people. Consider that there also exists a death toll of the measures taken against covid. People who are not being diagnosed or treated for serious diseases like cancer, elderly people dying of neglect, people developing serious depression or anxiety, etc.

That covid isn't the killer virus that everyone had expected is painfully clear here, and the only ones still maintaining that it is, are in the sitting government who is being torn to shreds by the opposition for it. Meanwhile, the population has been in a state of lockdown for half a year, and legislation is being passed which gives the government power over people's private lives which is simply unconstitutional.

Funnily enough, where I live (Netherlands) covid has been put on the same level as the somewhat severe influenza epidemic of last year by the statistics of the National Institute of Public Health itself, and with deaths being almost exclusive to the elderly with underlying health issues.

Turns out I was right. Overblown hysteria, fueled by corrupt media.

So, crawl back under your rock, please. It's disgusting that you think you have any moral standing here. — Baden

Hadn't even noticed this.

What I find disgusting is that these words are coming from a moderator of a philosophy forum that has no less than 10,000 posts made. That's a lot of time spent with very little wisdom to show for it.

You support the guy whose lies resulted in 200,000 Americans dead. — Baden

Then you know more than I.

I don't support Trump any more than I support the infantile behavior with which this thread is filled.

Realize that this type of aggression towards anyone who even looks like they might have a different opinion than you, is exactly the reason figures like Trump get so much support.

I honestly can't tell if you all are joking or actually serious. I'm hoping for the former.

You'd expect that on a philosophy forum people would have some reservations about wishing death upon others.

Being hungry is what causes me to desire food. Being in pain is what causes me to desire it’s alleviation. — Pinprick

Upon inspection, isn't a desire to continue living at the root of being hungry or feeling pain?

Interesting discussion for sure, though when I read your post I am a little unsure what part of this problem you'd like to discuss. Maybe you could give a little direction to the discussion you'd like to have, perhaps by asking all of us a question you'd like to see answered.

So the “force of Evolution” can be defeated. But that is always going to be a pyrrhic victory of man over nature. — philosophience wordpress com

Why is that? I see physical existence, and evolution as a part of it, as the great enslaver of the mind of man. How can the breaking of such chains be anything other than a triumph of the mind?

You note their offspring may be less successful, but successful by what standard? Hasn't the standard of evolution been rejected by the individual? And would someone who is truly free of the bonds of their physical existence be concerned about siring offspring in the first place?

I doubt that a desireless person has ever existed and I doubt that even if existed, she/he would be happy. — philosophience wordpress com

Consider a person who is meditating. Let's also consider that they are adept at it. When their mind is empty, do they desire? And if this practice did not make said person happy, why does the sage keep returning to this state?

But is it true that this always occurs? Do good people always end up happy? Do bad people always end up unhappy? — petrichor

Goodness is one prerequisite for happiness, but it is not the only one. Wisdom is another, for example.

As for "bad" people, I would say they will always end up unhappy. As I said, goodness is a prerequisite for happiness. If one possesses no goodness, they will not be happy.

When we see people suffering, is it always because they did something bad and so deserve it? — petrichor

I don't think so.

The idea that goodness produces happiness, and badness produces misery.

Only mosquitoes and idiots don't go away when you ignore them. When any bible puncher is ignored they eventually figure out that they are wasting their time and go away. If you get upset by them I think it says more about you and your agenda than theirs. — Sir2u

Here, here!

Anger attempts to hide vulnerability. Whenever one gets angry at the words of another, one should ask themselves why those words are making them feel vulnerable.

When approached as such, emotion can lead to great personal insights, so I don't see why it cannot have a place on this forum.