How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet. — Mikie

You and your imagination.

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. — Hanover

But there's no shiny happy people around you.

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?

What if the trigger puller's mind consists of a heterogeneous mosaic of multiple, different will-vectors? — Quk

Which is often the case anyway. People have all kinds of desires, goals, impulses, and then they choose which one to act on.

Which of the many will-vectors belong to that "single person"? And when the killer is caught, what part of this person has to get into jail?

My reply was in response to the dichotomy between the leaders and the followers/citizens.
In discussing responsibility in terms of war, it tends to be taken for granted that being a soldier is legitimate, and that for soldiers to follow orders is legitimate. But because of such taking for granted, we end up with just the kind of questions the OP does.

While we're at it: Could this principle be applied to an entire country as well? Every person in this country represents one individual will-vector. The person itself is sort of a country too, containing many different will-vectors.

What if we were to transcend the notion of country or nationality, and treat people as individuals? Because at the end of the day, it's that individual who pulls the trigger. Yes, the individual is subject to all kinds of pressures and forces and influences and is embedded in a socioeconomic context -- yet it is also the individual who decides whether to pull that trigger or not.

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
— baker

How do you know I'm not doing that? — Christoffer

Because you're sticking to your old guns.

And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?

??
I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.

You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here.

This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.

For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.

So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.

But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?

As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.

Given the strategies used so far ....

It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.

I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies.

If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.

How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?

It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.

I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.

As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.

Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes.

So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.

There you go, outsourcing responsibility again.

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.
— baker
To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.

Example(s):
Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality. — Chet Hawkins

I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive.

Not to get too Nietzschean about it, but if you look at the function of uttering propositional moral statements, it is precisely as described above. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing more to propositional moral statements but that they are tools for controlling others.

That’s what I am genuinely unclear about. Are they talking about acts I am doing, or about acts somehow derived from the words I am writing? Am I or is the utterance performing the act? — NOS4A2

I think your actual issue of lack of clarity is about acts. What constitutes an act? What is an act?

An act is that which one does deliberately, intentionally, for some purpose. One hopes to achieve, accomplish something with an act. Thus, there are mental, verbal, and bodily acts.

The main responsibility is on the one who pulls the trigger. Not on the one giving the command to pull the trigger.

Compliments are more challenging, not because we can't think of things, but because it takes us out of our comfort zones to be nice. — Hanover

Oh, I thought people came here to unlearn being nice.
It's easy to be nice and to care.

Anyway, I throw down the gauntlet. Only compliments.

Lol, of all the idioms, you choose a martial one, and then invite compliments. It's as if you're categorically unable to say something without it being a double entendre. Don't repudiate it, it's a fine art.

I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, — Hanover

The promotion of which human life?
All of it, or just your tribe's?

Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever. — Mikie

How many of those lives do you actually appreciate?

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

A strange sarcasm then, if you advocate classism but also shy back from means needed to put it into action.

It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

Good luck trying to discuss this with the climate activists!

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

People are reluctant to "form an orderly queue" already at a grocery store.
How do you propose to get them to wait patiently in line for their death?

A true friendship was built... :flower: — javi2541997

Except that I'm wearing black.

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals. — Christoffer

And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?

I've met plenty. — AmadeusD

Good for you then.

On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.

Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.

I think that in order to effectively counteract human-caused climate heating, radical steps would need to be taken. Such as people not having any children for the next 30 years, not eating any animal products, forbidding luxury tourism, forbidding air conditioning, and so on. Obviously, this is not realistic. I suspect that many climate activists actually realize that only such radical steps might prove effective, but this is not something that can be said in polite society. What is currently being suggested as "effective steps to save the planet" (not using plastic bags, going paperless, carpooling, solar energy, etc.) amounts to rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

In order to actually stand a chance at "saving the planet", people would need to change the very nature of their relationship with the planet. That is, they would need to stop having a consumerist, materialist attitude toward it. This isn't happening, of course. Instead, people are being lulled into a false hope that by keeping their fundamental materialistic, consumerist attitudes intact and doing trifles, they can nevertheless "save the planet". And if that doesn't work out, the "solution" is already given: others are to blame.

That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.

People like this are wasting what might very well be the last opportunity to do something that might make a real difference for the planet.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.

You talked about "running them over":

Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates — Christoffer

How do you plan to do that?

Basically any Mark Twain quote. — Lionino

How can you tell, since most of them are ironic or sarcastic anyway?

We may wonder whether there is such a thing as a "happy family", no one questions the abundance of unhappy families. What with oedipal conflicts, penis envies, death wishes, and run of the mill neuroses, one might say that "happy families" are merely simmering pots that haven't boiled over yet. — BC

There really are happy families, with no end to their happiness in sight. There really are such people. I don't know how come, but there really are such people. I guess they just lack all sense of drama.


As for "sounds great but is false": fake Buddha quotes. There's a whole website dedicated to them:
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/all-fake-buddha-quotes/

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives? — Christoffer

Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist.

They're having elections in Pakistan. Many people there are illiterate, so the ballots have graphic symbols for each candidate. On the news, there was a short interview with an illiterate man, who said he voted for the candidate whose symbol is an eagle, because he likes eagles better than lions (a lion was a symbol for another candidate).
This example illustrates the depth of democracy rather well.

But yes, hey, your contempt is well-noted. So democratic.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.
— baker

It's not wrong either.

"Shakespearean" implies a measure of class, dignity. There's no such thing in the political matters we're discussing.

It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel. — jgill

Which is what so much climate activism really seems to be all about: activists feeling good about themselves.

I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.

If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims. — Mikie

You're missing the point. The point is that your method is ineffective. Which you then simply excuse and blame others.

To each his own though. — Mikie

And thus you annull your climate activism efforts.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
—

Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.

But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad. — Mikie

It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them.

Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.

The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes. — Christoffer

You're inconsistent.

This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.

What choice, if you plan to "run them over"?

it is because hate and contempt are the easiest ones that we opt for — Ege

Not at all.
They must be learned.

It wasn't meant as a joke. Some people, esp. those more science-minded, seem to have no inner life.

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.
— baker
Absolutely! — L'éléphant

And it's a problem, because it makes them ineffective against those they oppose.

well, Baker can a benevolent prick. — L'éléphant

*sigh*

One thing that I find so peculiar (and for which I have gotten a lot of flak) is the almost complete lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, and lack of applying the theme that is being discussed to oneself, on the spot. Esp. in Western philosophical discourse, any request for such is instantly dismissed as a fallacious ad hominem. I just don't understand this.

There is a whole existential meta-level to a philosophical discussion, yet esp. in Western settings, this meta-level is entirely off-limits, and anyone probing to this level is dismissed as a troll etc. etc. As if the norm of philosphical discussions is to engage in them, and then close the book, shut down the computer, and go and have a beer as if nothing happened.

Interested in how others think they’re perceived…and as a bonus: how different would these perceptions be in real life? — Mikie

I don't have to imagine this, I only need to think of things I've been actually told. A troll, boring, not cool enough.

This is pretty much how I feel most of the time here:



esp. around the forum greats.

(For example, I’m actually a nice guy in the real world! If I had any friends you could ask them.)

Bah, that's the thing with this forum: one never knows when one should read between the lines and when not.
And then there's the Old Boys club.

I think I’m mostly perceived as an asshole and a punk — Mikie

And proud of it!
It annulls your climate activism.

How does one read between the lines of a one-liner?

The mere action of kindness can bring a sense of euphoria to a person while hatred only brings more hatred towards each other — Ege

Yet people love to hate and despise. Perhaps the strongest emotion there is is contempt, and the most pleasurable one.

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.
— baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that? — Chet Hawkins

I meant usefulness in a meta sense.

"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]"

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.

What determines the right way? Is it how most speakers of the language use the word? If the vast majority of Arabic speakers use the word "أخلاقي" to describe acts which are condoned by the Quran, and if the meaning of a word is determined by the things most speakers of the language use it to describe, then it would seem to follow that being condoned by the Quran is part of the meaning of the word "أخلاقي". — Michael

Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.

But in culture at large, in day-to-day dealings with people, "The other person is wrong/inferior" is probably the most common explanation for differences in how people understand morality. Even at a forum like this, "You're wrong/inferior" tends to at least lurk behind so many posters' arguments.

It's not clear what determines the right way to understand morality, but it seems to be central to a person's sense of morality to take for granted that they know, in an axiomatic manner, what is moral and what isn't.

Part of why theistic systems are muddled. — Banno

As if non-theistic aren't.

I would not call NDT a conservative
— Lionino
I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy. — Joshs

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe. — Michael

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly.

Your view reminds me of Madhyamaka Buddhism, but I doubt many scientists would take up a Buddhist philosophy to such a strong extent. — Leontiskos

Why do you think that is?
If they go so far as to venture into Buddhist philosophy at all, then why not do it properly? One would expect as much given their academic credentials.

Still, what are your thoughts on using idealism as a rhetorical ploy, along the lines of Stephen Law's "Going Nuclear"? — wonderer1

This wouldn't be an isolated case, as there is a whole school of Buddhist thought whose basic approach is reductio ad absurdum:

The Prāsaṅgika view holds reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method of demonstrating emptiness of inherent existence, and that conventional things do not have a naturally occurring conventional identity.[1] Further, the Prāsaṅgika argue that when initially attempting to find the correct object of understanding - which is a mere absence or mere negation of impossible modes of existence - one should not use positivist statements about the nature of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_according_to_Tsongkhapa

Someone like Law would probably accuse the Prasangikas of "going nuclear", failing to see that there's no "ploy", rhetorical or otherwise.

I think it's sad that someone came up with the idea of accusing idealism as being a "rhetorical ploy". Such an accusation is a complete denial of lived experience.

Both Prasangikas and (some) idealists have one thing in common: they both hold that lived experience matters.