So as I have asked somebody before, if your daughter gets raped, are you going to tell your daughter that she is no better than the person who raped her, since you believe moral decisions don't make you any worse than the next person, correct? — chatterbears

First of all, there's no reason to tell my daughter that she's morally superior to anyone. And if you believe that to be a proper way to console rape victims, well I don't know what to tell you.

Secondly, one doesn't know whether one is a morally superior person. If one were to be put in the exact same position as that person, perhaps one would be doing the same thing. Perhaps not, but one simply doesn't know.

And any self evaluation on this subject has proven to be generally inaccurate. Ordinary people who participated as prison guards in for example the Stanford Prison experiment must've undoubtedly thought themselves of (at least) average moral fibre, yet were confronted with their own ability to do extremely immoral things and all it took was a scientist to give them a bat and tell them they were a guard. That's why a lot of those people now have PTSD-like trauma; because it completely shattered their illusions of having moral fibre. The Milgram experiment showed much the same thing.

Though, I believe I've made this point to you once before. In your own thread, no less:

Feelings of moral superiority serve no other purpose besides inflation of the ego. Are such feelings common? Undoubtedly. But they are also highly dangerous, both when cultivated in individuals and in communities.

I'd say I am also morally superior to a husband who cheats and/or beats his wife. — chatterbears


This is where the mistake lies: This illusion of moral superiority stems from one instance, in which one attests that under the same circumstances one would have made a different decision.

Firstly, unless one has been in the same situation, one cannot be sure of this. How many people judge themselves to be morally superior to Nazi concentration camp guards? However, we also know that it is very likely that the average person would, under such circumstances, act in much the same manner.

Secondly, it is a mistake to judge the merit of a person on one example. Feeling morally superior to another means one has the illusion of being able to judge the entirety of another's moral being, and the entirety of one's own moral being, compare the two, and conclude one is superior.

Now, either of these could very well be true, but it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to find out. However, even if one were to gain, by some miracle, an accurate insight of one's own moral being compared to another, what is the use of blemishing this achievement with feelings of moral superiority? Why can one not congratulate oneself for being on the right path, and pity the poor fool who isn't? — Tzeentch

You never responded to this. Perhaps you care to do so now.

Now, on the judging of others. I believe it is only fair that if one chastises another for showing up late at work, one had best always be on time themselves. Otherwise that would indeed make one a hypocrite and one lose one's credibility. This applies to any situation in which one feels the need to judge others or chastise them for their behavior. Now, if one has never been in a situation as the one they are about to judge, perhaps one had best reserve judgement.

I'm reminded of an instance where a father shot the rapist of his child. The father must have thought himself to be quite morally superior to his child's rapist, and then in anger shot the man dead in court while he was handcuffed. He, in an act of vengeance, killed this man while he was in a vulnerable state, essentially committing a similar crime as the rapist, thereby proving he was in a sense no different.

Though, one must ask, what is even the point of judging others? I'd say it serves no other purpose than masturbation of the ego.

I don't having any such illusions, since that would make me delusional. Even worse, having illusions that one knows to be false would make one delusional by choice. And feelings of moral superiority I find similarly distasteful, no matter who has them towards who.

I posted this earlier in this same thread:

Behind a thin veil of careful wording it is becoming apparent that there exists a sense of moral superiority in some of these people with regards to their veganism. A sense of moral superiority which is blatantly hypocritical, because they choose to voluntarily participate in a society the faculties of which inevitably cause suffering to living beings, both human and animal.

Unless one is perfectly dedicated to the reduction of suffering, it is hopelessly hypocritical to judge the moral fibre of others. — Tzeentch

And I guess you proved my point, except for the 'thin veil' part.

It's an interesting subject, though a very personal one. If someone hasn't had an experience of oneness with something, it is almost impossible to convey the concept to them. I could rationalize it and claim to be one with something, but unless I fully experience it as such it remains phoney in my view.

For the most part I believe it is best to not subscribe to a certain viewpoint until one has experienced such a viewpoint to be true. Therefore I don't subscribe to the Buddhist view, even though I find it very interesting and learn a lot from it. A viewpoint I find just as interesting is the Hermetic point of view, which asserts that human existence is part of a larger existence, and it seems to connect to your view.

On the topic of ego; it is a bit of a tricky subject. Very clearly there is an observer. How else could we be observing and thinking? In general, I think the ego refers to specifically the identification of the observer with its worldly, material form and desires. So while ego dissolution is the letting go of one's worldly identity, I don't think it necessarily means letting go of being. The state of being is in many such disciplines one of the highest attainable by man. Perhaps this eventually will be released as well?

I didn't mean to call your proposal inferior, but I am wondering how one would prove that all is one without the ego being an illusion. The ego implies a separate 'I'.

With regards to practicality and intelligibility, what would the purpose of such qualities be? And is Buddhism really that vague? It requires a certain mindset, but with a bit of effort it can be understood. One doesn't become a doctor or a neuroscientist without putting some effort in, so why should it be different with philosophy?

Also, that means you agree that duality is a contingent property of reality. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure what you mean. If one's view is all is one then duality does not exist as anything other than an illusion.

Yes, in my view it is a distinct possibility that duality is a human construct, thus an illusion. There are also many, predominantly eastern, religions and philosophies that argued this.

However, experiencing a world without duality, in other words experiencing oneness, cannot happen in the way that you proposed. By arguing from the position of a person who is deprived of all fluctuations that could create illusions of duality, one is still assuming the existence of a person. In fact, a lot of the mental barriers one must pass through in order to experience oneness have to do with the realization that there is no 'I', that the ego is an illusion and a very unpleasant one at that.

These concepts of ego and duality are rooted deeply in our minds and it makes describing oneness very difficult. Others do a much better job at it than I. Though, ultimately it is something that needs to be experienced, not deduced, in order to comprehend it.

You phrase the question as such:

Can a world exist without duality? — TheMadFool

But I am not sure if you are talking about the actual world or the subjective human experience.

I'll share my take on the matter, and it will sort of cover both.

Duality is a construct man uses to understand his surroundings. For example, man may call things hot or cold and through his own experience be convinced they are two separate things. These phenomena both come from the same source, temperature, and are not dual in nature.

If one looks at the world, the only duality left standing is the duality between existence and non-existence (energy/matter and vacuum). However, this too begs the question that man may be unaware of the underlying phenomenon at the heart of both.

Now, can man experience this non-duality? This would mean unity, and a feeling of oneness with everything would be called by many a mystical experience. If we assume that mystical experiences or forms of enlightenment indeed make one experience oneness with everything, then the answer is yes.

My experience with depression and depressed people has convinced me that depression is nature's way of forcing a person to change certain beliefs about themselves, the world or reality at large and actions that may come from those beliefs. One has been "walking the wrong path" and nature is making one backtrack and realize they took a wrong turn somewhere.

The problem is that depression has become a taboo in western society, and this taboo is growing. The prevailing view is that there is something wrong with people who are depressed, and that they are mentally ill. They are put on medication and told that they are not responsible for the trouble they find themselves in, but that it is caused by chemical imbalances or stress. This can never be more than temporary pain relief, and one is in need of a long-term solution.

This is bad for two reasons. First, the taboo causes people to hide their thoughts from others and ultimately from themselves, severely restricting the chance of a confrontation of these thoughts which is so desperately needed. Secondly, by putting the cause of depression outside of the person, agency is further taken away from them. Not only will this discourage reflection about oneself and one's beliefs, but it will also reinforce the idea that they are not capable of changing their situation for the better. Convincing people that they are the victim of circumstance is the best way to ensure they will never change.

When depressed thoughts are left hidden, denied and ultimately unaddressed for long enough, the problem will eventually grow beyond what a person might be able to handle on their own. The pit they have dug for themselves is simply too deep. They took a wrong turn, but have gone so far down the wrong path that they cannot find the way back.

When people are depressed, they need a brutally honest confrontation with themselves. One may try to convince them that their beliefs are fallacious and causing them great psychological pain, but old beliefs die hard. In some cases there's even vanity associated with these beliefs, and they believe themselves to be as virtuous as Jesus dying on the cross, as they wither away in their own misery. This is clearly very unproductive if one is looking to better their situation. So how such a confrontation should be established is probably very complicated, but it should be the main goal of anyone who is trying to help people with depression.

Am I correct that your gripe is with the word "everything" here?

Honestly, let people say what they want about each other. Even if it is meant to ruin their reputation and based on lies. Perhaps if that becomes standard practice, people will eventually stop believing everything they hear (which is an epidemic in my society). It is no different from high school gossip, but with higher stakes.

Refusing to honor an oral contract isn't quite a matter of free speech, though? That's a legal matter. Oral contracts can be legally binding, as far as I am aware.

The example of the theater is an interesting one. Should someone be fined for yelling 'fire' in a theater even if it doesn't cause panic? Again, I think such a person should be punished for the physical consequences of his actions and not for the utterance of a word. For example, if in the panic people get hurt, clearly the person who yelled should be punished, but not because he uttered a word, but because of disturbing the peace, or causing bodily harm, etc.

And let the neo-nazis demonstrate, even in Germany. Suppressing their opinions won't change them, and letting them demonstrate gives them a (semi-)harmless way of venting their anger, which I think is actually an important thing.

Could you provide a link to the actual study?

Of course. The old "I don't like your opinion so your academic findings must be forgeries."

And no, I am not a Christian. By your angry and irrational response I had actually almost taken you for a religious fundamentalist. I suppose following such rhetoric we should start killing babies in the ghetto then?

Ah yes, non academic. I assume you have not even looked at the references then, have you?

Abortion is very clearly a terrible thing. One denies a potential human being the chance to live. Perhaps the only chance they ever had. It is pointless arguing whether it is bad, because the statistics speak for themselves. According to this article, abortions are the cause of PTSD (19%), 25% see a psychiatrist after their abortion, sleep disorders (36%), anxiety (44%). Suicidality in women who suffer from such complications is a whopping 60% (with 28% attempting suicide). Risk of alcohol abuse doubles. 30 to 50% suffers from short and long-term sexual dysfunction and the list goes on.

Clearly, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with abortion. No matter how hard one tries to justify it, one can only lie to their own psyche for so long and it will inevitably return with a vengeance.

With that said, the problem is that there are no real alternatives. So while everything should be done to minimize the amount of unwanted pregnancies, abortions are a necessary evil when they do inevitably happen.

I don't believe any form of speech should be censored, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, hateful or violent. One is either are a proponent of free speech or of censorship and I choose the former. Let the revolutionaries preach the revolution. Let the KKK preach their racism. Let conspiracy theorists talk about how the government is brainwashing you. I don't see why that should bother me, unless they commit violent actions. At that point the authorities should swoop in and enforce the law.

It is my personal view that humans are essentially dualist, or perhaps trialist in nature. Dualist in the sense that the division lies between the reptilian brain and the mammalian brain. The selfish and the selfless. The shadow and the ego. The unconscious and the conscious.

It could also be defined as a triad. For example, MacLean's concept of the triune brain, dividing the brain in the reptilian complex (aggression, territoriality), the paleomammalian complex (social behavior) and the neomammalian complex (language, reason). Plato's tripartite of the soul; ἐπιθυμητικόν (desire), θυμοειδές (emotion) and λογιστικόν (reason). Freud's id, ego and superego.

I think I like the triad the best, since it specifically names that part of human nature which is linked to understanding, which I think is the quintessential quality of man.

Even though I've been critical of your views, I sympathize with them in general. I agree that humanity needs to rethink the way it is currently behaving in relation to the planet.

However, the more I think about this problem, the more it becomes apparent to me that life needs to consume other life in order to live. One may eat plants under the assumption that they do not feel pain, but this isn't certain at all.

It seems that somehow one needs to reconcile the fact that one's existence almost inescapably causes suffering to other living beings, whether they be animals, plants or other humans. I think this is quite a challenge.

You don't think plants and trees are life forms?

"Patriarchal oppression" makes it sound like a conspiracy. Given the axiom of "men like things, women like people" (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004) it is not surprising that men generally thrive in a materialistic society.

Calling it oppression would suggest that somehow this has been premeditated by the 'evil woman-hating man', which is coincidentally the sort of sentiment that would lead to the pathology as described in the original post. Though, a distinction needs to be made between innocent laughs about innocent pain and sadism.

Jung wrote some very interesting things about how men have a feminine side (anima) and women have a masculine side (animus) which need to be properly incorporated to become a psychologically healthy individual. Sentiments like "Women only care about money" and "All men are pigs" are all too commonly expressed these days, indicating child-like levels of development in this regard. It really begs the question of what is wrong in male-female relationships these days.

Great to see such wholesome behavior from long-time members of this forum.

Retribution is always a terrible idea, no matter how grave the injury. When someone is injured, in order to properly heal the wound one must at some point reach forgiveness and acceptance. This process can take very long, especially with deep wounds, but it must take place if one is ever to put the event behind them.

If one exacts vengeance in kind, this process becomes vastly more complicated and in some cases impossible to complete.

I am reminded of the example of the father whose daughter was murdered, and who then shot the perpetrator in court. Forgiveness was now impossible, because vengeance had already been exacted and the perpetrator was dead. But worse than that, by murdering the perpetrator while he was in a vulnerable state, the father committed the same crime as the perpetrator himself, thereby the father would not only have to accept that he had lost his daughter to the actions of a horrible person, but that he himself was capable of the same evil actions as this person. Also he would have to engage in such a difficult process inside a prison cell.

Vengeance is self-destructive and should never be the motivation for a punishment, if only to protect the injured from their own passions which will inevitably wreak their own vengeance upon the mind.

Humans aren't capable of grasping the essential nature of objects either, and that ties into your argument, perhaps rephrasing it a little.

One may look at an object or phenomenon, gravity for example, and say things about its behavior, its properties and qualities. It is then by these factors one determines one is observing the workings of gravity. But what is gravity? One can give a fairly accurate model for gravity, but it remains a model. A sound man produces to describe the observation of a certain phenomenon. It is not true understanding of the essential nature of what man calls gravity. So in a sense, a human being is also simulating understanding, without ever achieving true understanding, just like the computer in the Chinese Room argument.

I am not against human rights, but I don't pretend to be a champion for human rights either, nor do I harbor any illusions about being morally superior to others. So whatever point it is you're making, I think it misses its mark.

Many take a leap of faith — Rank Amateur

What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith?

What Camus says is he is looking for the absurd hero - who knows there is no meaning, but who challenges the absurdity and at the same time accepts it ( not sure how one is supposed to do that). That in the absence of meaning they finds contentment in knowing the truth that there is no meaning. — Rank Amateur

Maybe I am nitpicking here, but knowing the "truth" in this context sounds naive. One can find contentment knowing that there may not be meaning, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to beyond a reasonable doubt experience the meaning of life or an absence thereof.

Personally, the closest thing I can imagine to being an objective meaning of life is the quest for self-development. One strives to become a better person, recognizes his faults and works to resolve them. Generally this greatly benefits the person, but also the community in which they live.

Behind a thin veil of careful wording it is becoming apparent that there exists a sense of moral superiority in some of these people with regards to their veganism. A sense of moral superiority which is blatantly hypocritical, because they choose to voluntarily participate in a society the faculties of which inevitably cause suffering to living beings, both human and animal.

Unless one is perfectly dedicated to the reduction of suffering, it is hopelessly hypocritical to judge the moral fibre of others.

I'll gladly answer that for you, but I think you owe me an answer first.

Are you now saying that your position is that if one doesn't do one of those things (some ludicrous, some that have no impact at all) then there is no point in doing anything to reduce suffering? — andrewk

No.

If you weren't saying that then point were you trying to make in this post? — andrewk

That there are possible alternatives within reason, which is something that was denied by you earlier.

One doesn't have to justify something for which there is no reasonable alternative. If one is born into such a society, the best one can do is minimise unnecessary consumption. — andrewk

In order to get an answer, you'll first need to explain what it means. How does who justify what? — andrewk

Making use of comforts that cause suffering to others, while one's ideals seem to be to reduce suffering.

I never suggested you should not be doing these things, so do not pretend I did. Meanwhile, why don't you answer my question?

My question is how do you justify it. The fact of the matter is that while in some instances one sacrifices comfort to reduce the suffering of others, in other instances one consciously makes choices that increase it.

Does one feel by these sacrifices one has done enough and is justified in enjoying these comforts?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. — andrewk

And never let proverbs stop one from putting one's ideals into practice.

One could migrate to a country where life is less taxing on the environment. One could renounce his life of material wealth and consumerism and retire to a cloister. One could live self-sufficiently in some remote area (there are even communities of such people). Even voluntarily becoming homeless would effectively minimize one's negative influence on the environment.

I'm sure all these alternatives to consumerism sound horribly inconvenient to you, but they're not unreasonable. You wouldn't be the first one to make such a choice.

Define "reasonable", because there are alternatives aplenty depending on what one finds reasonable or 'convenient'.

I understand the difference, but you didn't answer my question.

If one believes one shouldn't eat animal products because it causes harm to others, how does one justify driving a car, which pollutes the atmosphere? How does one justify living in a consumption based society which inevitably causes suffering to both animals and humans on a large scale? Why does one believe that not eating animal based products is the chosen method? Practicality?

It's just an obvious, easy choice that others are too stubborn to make. — NKBJ

Obvious to you, perhaps. Do you think on the whole vegans are better people than non-vegans?

That's not true. Almost all commitments we make are imperfect. — NKBJ

And thus you will find that there aren't many things people are truly committed to. An imperfect commitment is nothing other than the pretension to be perfectly committed, when one is in fact committed to a lesser ideal, as we've discussed. However, as I have pointed out several times before, this does not mean one should give up. One should be more conscious about how they view themselves and others.

You do what you can. — NKBJ

You do what you want.

And "preaching" is a red herring. This thread is about whether veganism in and of itself contains a contradiction. Whether or not certain vegans seem to you preachy is entirely beside the point. — NKBJ

Sometimes in a discussion other topics come up.

Do you ever do charitable work? Or donate to a charitable cause? Or even just help out someone randomly? If yes, then why don't you donate all of your income? Why not become a saint or the next Mother Theresa? — NKBJ

Because I do not pretend to hold ideals that I cannot or do not want to live by.

A commitment to doing good, or at least reducing harm in the world does not equal a commitment to sacrificing your whole life. Are there areas all people could improve? Sure. — NKBJ

Then it is not much of a commitment. Would you call me committed if I were to live by my ideals only when it suited me? Ideals that do not lead to action are meaningless, mental vanity.

Again, the fact that we can't be perfect about our commitment to a better world does not mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater and just do whatever the heck we want. — NKBJ

An imperfect commitment is not an actual commitment. What one is in fact commitment to is an ideal that sounds a lot less appealing. Something along the lines of "I will live by ideal X as long as it is convenient for me to do so." One shouldn't lie to oneself or others about the nature of their commitment. This is something many do not like to confront themselves with, as it does not fit the image of a morally superior being they have of themselves.

If a person when asked, "Do you eat meat?", would reply, "Yes, but I don't drive a car", would a vegan feel like the person made an equal sacrifice? Most likely not. But the person is showing the exact same selectivity as a vegan.

In short, doing good things is good, whatever one's ideals. However, preaching ideals that one does not follow themselves is not.

How does a vegan justify living in a society that is based around consumerism? How does a vegan justify the use of anything beyond the bare necessities of life when such luxuries almost universally cause harm to something, somewhere?

I'm generalizing, of course, but I do know vegans in real life and none of them take their ideals to their logical conclusions. They drive cars, they live in sizable houses, they use extensive amount of beauty products, etc. The epitome of hypocrisy must be the vegan bodybuilder, who consumes large amounts of resources for his own vanity project. This is the general image of veganism I am presented with. Honestly, a homeless man would do more for the environment by virtue of not being able to consume at all.

The real paradox lies in the fact that one is willing to part with some, but not all, luxuries in order to reduce the suffering one induces on others. Apparently, the consumption of meat is an acceptable sacrifice, but to take the bicycle to work or foregoing hot showers is not. If one's ideal is not to cause suffering to other beings, then how does one account for this?

I didn't say one shouldn't bother. What I said was that one either commits to the ideal fully or one should adjust one's attitude to be more humble. The suffering of living beings is a terrible thing, so if one living being can be saved by taking no more hot showers from this point onward, surely one with the ideal to impose no suffering upon others should do so? How can one who claims to hold such an ideal justify that some meaningless comfort should lead to the suffering of others?

Anyone who claims to hold such ideals should ask themselves those questions, and doubly so if they believe themselves to be morally superior because of it. Ideals are meaningless if they aren't translated into action.

Needless to say, I don't know you or the way you practice your veganism, so don't take this as being directed specifically at you.

Veganism, at least in the way that it is most common in western society, has always struck me as a sort of 'pseudo-moralism'.

What starts as a noble goal,

'My life should not incur suffering upon other living beings',

in practice results in,

'My life should not incur suffering upon other living beings (unless it means I would have to part with my favorite luxuries).'

People all too often don't realize that their goal isn't the former, but the latter. Would they part with daily hot showers? A pointless waste of water and energy? Of course not. Would they prefer to keep washing their bodies with a wide selection of perfumed shampoos, scrubs and soaps? Would they take the bicycle to work, even when it is raining and the wind is blowing? Do they use central heating, instead of a single heater in the main living area? Do they prefer branded clothing over second hand clothing? Do they use plastic? Do they grow their own vegetables? Etc.

All too often one finds that these people use all the luxuries society has to offer, except for the fact that they don't eat animal products, ignoring the fact that all these other luxuries contribute either directly or indirectly to the suffering of other beings (including other humans). Such a morality is no morality at all. One is either fooling themselves or attempting to fool others.

There's nothing inherently wrong with religion. However, when it is coupled with certain human behavior it can become dangerous.

The first instance of this is when religion is coupled with power structures, which will inevitably lead to religion being corrupted by those who are in power and wish to remain there, or even expand their domain.

The second instance is when it is coupled with the fact that on average humans do not respond well to uncertainty, and belief is almost always uncertain in nature. A common response is to zealously attempt to convince as many persons as possible that one is in fact not only certain, but one is also right. When faced with resistance there is much kicking and screaming, and in more archaic times also violence.

The zealot may claim to only want to help the other uncover the truth, but a feigned arrogance together with a total lack of the respect of the other's viewpoints reveals the true intention behind his actions; to compensate for a lack of certainty, by trusting the age old principle of 'repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth'. It's exactly for this reason that I don't hold men like Christopher Hitchens in particularly high regard.

The problem lies with humans, not with religion. Then again, it is also particularly human to be looking for the problem outside oneself, instead of within.

Are you saying that the mechanics of making Lenin and Stalin into deity-like figures, following hard doctrines and mantras to make enemies of those who think differently from the regime, isn’t religious in its mechanics? — Christoffer

Doesn't this support a hypothesis that this behavior while usually attributed to religion, has nothing to do with religion?

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." - R D — Mayor of Simpleton

Such a narrow and condescending view of spirituality and/or mysticism foregoes the fact that science started out as nothing other than a form of mysticism. As it turns out, a lot of these 'comforting illusions' turned out to be true, however modern science has made these things definitively measurable, and over time came to accept only that which is definitively measurable.

The modern view of the 'spiritual' and 'mystical' is a western woman who attends yoga class and wears tree branches in her hair. This could not be further from what actual mysticism entails. I'm not going to go through the painful labour of explaining what it is, but suffice it to say that many people who have contributed to greatly to the various fields of human knowledge were mystics or had mystical ideas. Freemasonry is probably one of the most well known examples of modern mysticism, and the list of famous Freemasons includes everything from US presidents to inventors to even astronauts (Niel Armstrong, among many others). Some other famous names include Pythagoras, Galileo, Carl Gustav Jung, Nikola Tesla, even Einstein had certain mystical ideas (which is why he called himself agnostic, and expressly not atheist), and don't even get me started on famous philosophers who were also mystics or had mystical ideas.

Mysticism is a way of understanding reality intuitively, empirically, rationally and through a holistic lens. To any degree it does not acknowledge facts or seeks to create a reality that is desirable rather than truthful, it is not mysticism, but delusion.