I believe that you have a useful basis for thinking about evil starting from our experiences and relating it in a wider way to others. Here, I think it involves think about our own suffering and connection it to potential evil of others who may suffer. This may be an existential approach, involving wisdom and compassion. — Jack Cummins

I would consider it more of a placeholder than a basis. "Do unto others..." is generally a creed that if lived by will avoid at least the greater kinds of excesses, however it does not suffice, in my opinion.

After all, just because one wishes to be treated in some way, does not mean that that same treatment is wished for by or good for another.

Unless we know a person and we know them well, it may be difficult for us to tell what that person really needs; what is truly good for that person.

As such, I think voluntary interaction in the widest sense of the word is key. Voluntariness in physical interactions obviously, but also intellectual interaction.

In order to make sense of good and evil, one must start with the concept in its most simple form: within the individual.

Personally, I don't find the concept of evil very helpful. Individuals do what they believe is good for them. The problem is that for all sorts of reasons they can be wrong.

Good < > Not Good ("Evil")

Wisdom < > Ignorance

(Self-) Honesty < > Deceit

What seems radical about Christianity is the extension from self-interested altruism into loving your enemy and helping that most loathed of all people e.g., the Samaritan. This is much harder to justify than being 'good' in your own tribe. This seems to echo the Roman poet Terence - "Nothing that is human is alien to me." By extension, all humans are sacred. — Tom Storm

It might be a response to the conclusion that 'an eye for an eye' (the opposite of 'turning the other cheek') essentially turns one into the thing one hates.

We all know Nietzsche's quote about staring into abysses. It seems appropriate here.

There seems to be a strong correlation between depression and the ideology of “following” one’s heart. — Ladybug

Maybe this is true, because when one initially 'follows one's heart' one may scarcely know where to find it.

The path of self-actualization is long and perilous, and it may lead to all kinds of uncomfortable truths about oneself and others that can cause serious mental distress if one isn't properly mentally and intellectually equipped and prepared for it.

A life spent in fear of death is a wasted one, no matter how long it lasts. Even if it lasts an eternity! But death will catch up, no matter how hard one tries to run away from it. We're all going to die.

If one believes in reincarnation, isn't there even less reason to put much value in nature's winners and losers?

t completely depends on the moral framework you adopt. You can pick one, where it has no value or you could pick one where it is highly valuable. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

The cycle having no value to the individual seems logical. As these things go way beyond the life of the individual, if the cycle were to end even one day after my death I would not be around to grieve or celebrate it.

Whether the cycle has some cosmic importance, i.e. life on planet Earth has some greater purpose that we are unaware of, is something none of us can answer, however I lean towards 'no'.

Of course, a winner might overdo it or follow some unproductive ambitions, etc. but still, in the same circumstances, a winner would be happier, than the looser. — stoicHoneyBadger

There are people whom you might consider "winners" who are deeply dissatisfied with life. There are people whom you might consider "losers" who in fact are living content. Whatever success they may have in nature's game is irrelevant and these labels of winners and losers meaningless.

On the other hand, why should we assume happiness is the goal anyway? — stoicHoneyBadger

Individuals do things because they believe these things are Good, and happiness to be the result. Of course individuals can be wrong and misled for all sorts of reasons, For an individual to do things that they believe not to be Good, is as irrational as sticking one's hand in a furnace when one's intention is to not get burned.

Indeed, nature doesn't facilitate your happiness. It only functions to continue the cycle. A cycle which has no value to the individual and perhaps no value at all. Procreation is nature's carrot on a stick.

Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal? — Tzeentch

So again, does nature truly favor or serve the individual?
No, many individuals serves nature, which is why these "winners" are so unhappy.

Nature favors the winners — stoicHoneyBadger

Does it?

The "winners" will die just like everyone else, and their lives spent participating in the rat race for money, fame, power, conquest; pointless. The evils they commit in their foolish pursuit probably end up hurting, rather than benefiting them.

Strapping oneself infront of the cart of one's desires, civilization or 'nature' is a bad recipe for individual happiness.

Therefor people are usually driven by instincts - a pattern of behavior, which formed during billions of years of evolution, to which logic is subservient. — stoicHoneyBadger

And is the misery these people find themselves in and create for others not readily apparent?

When desires and instincts aren't properly understood and controlled, they are a bottomless pit that do not function in favor of the individual's happiness. Perhaps that was never their purpose; perhaps the purpose of these things was to serve mankind at the expense of the individual. But why should an individual accept such a bad deal?

When individuals, or worse, groups of individuals, start following their desires and instincts, we get the situation that you apparently call "winning"; causing suffering to others in an attempt to fill the earlier mentioned bottomless pit. Conquests, war, greed, etc. The pointless, destructive endeavors human history is riddled with.

While the "winners" keep racing their chariot around the endless hippodrome of their desires, men like Socrates sit in the spectator stands, enjoying a day in the sun.

One will not get anywhere within the field of philosophy, without a complete grasp of their own psychology. It is fundamental. If one cannot understand that which is most close to them (their own psyche), then any attempts at making sense of life's deeper questions is futile.

As per Plato's tripartite soul, the emotional and desiring parts of one's psyche, unless understood and controlled, will inhibit one's ability for reason.

For many people, gender labels form the basis of their artificial identity.

Rejecting those labels can be like opening Pandora's box, where the individual is confronted with the fact they have not (yet) developed a real identity.

Inner turmoil and insecurity predictably ensue, and the subsequent obsession with new genders and gender labels is the confused individual trying to claw their way back into the comfort of the land of masks and artificial identities.

To put the genie back into the bottle, the individual must reinstate a new artificial identity; an act of self-deceit for which they require all of society's affirmation (just like the artificial identities of traditional gender labels).

To me, happiness without wisdom and understanding is meaningless. Essentially blissful ignorance. Ideally one gets rid of the ignorant part and maintains the bliss.

However, the road from ignorance to understanding is a perilous one. With the realization that one's prior understanding of one's existence is insufficient, the bliss is the first to go and will only remain there as a distant promise.

Many people strand along the way. Intellectively capable enough to no longer remain ignorant, but lacking the fortitude of mind and soul to reach a form of wisdom and understanding.

Since the person in question is accepting the stress that is put on him, surely they themselves must believe it is good for something.

We could venture a layer deeper and ask ourselves why the subject is accepting the burdens that are put on him.

The easy answer is "everyone needs to eat", but ideals and standards of living imposed by the subject's environment since their birth play a far greater role. After all, even a beggar gets to eat.

Do you rule out a rotting pile of spaghetti in another dimension? — Gregory

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable.

Most of these opinions and beliefs don't even have a practical purpose, other than satisfying the mind with answers however uncertain they may be.

Nietzsche was not a very happy man, so what wisdom did he possess?

I cannot imagine success that is devoid of love and empathy.

What I dislike about advertisement is that the way ads try to influence people is manipulative, almost a form of "mind control". The people making the advertisements know their target audiences better than those audiences know themselves.

Unless one is very conscious of advertisement, their messages find their way into one's subconsciousness whether one wants them there or not.

My one contribution to that thread was asking whether any of the participants had ever visited both Israeli and Palestinian territories. Predictably, there did not seem to be anyone who had.

I don't think it is as much a addiction to conflict that explains the vitriolic nature of such threads, but rather the unconcious realization that a complicated, not yet fully understood issue is being oversimplified. That uncertainty is then translated into loud barking and chestpuffing.

More, better, longer; the desire that has fueled the cycle of human suffering since man lived in caves. A dog chasing its own tail.

This is hyperhumanism.

Name the last time a bomb was dropped on your head by your government. Not figuratively, but with bomb in the unfigurative, literal meaning. — god must be atheist

You misunderstood. I'm talking about war, of course. A long-standing, bloody tradition that (certain) countries cannot seem to get enough of, and that every taxpayer is complicit in whether they like it or not.

A small gang of thugs are worse. — god must be atheist

Well, I would disagree.

your statement does not state whether you disagree or agree. — god must be atheist

I don't think you are a misguided idiot, even if I disagree with you.

It's the same as driving recklessly, with a blindfold, or intoxicated. — Christoffer

No, it isn't. Is there no such thing as common sense and using one's own judgement in your world view?

The rules are based on scientific knowledge and facts. — Christoffer

These are scientific facts, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with reality itself. — Christoffer

You are ignoring the fact that science has been wrong numerous times during this pandemic. Remember how Covid-19 was initially ranked among diseases like Ebola, something which was in hindsight clearly wrong?

That is fine. That is how science works.

Science also tells us the restrictions and vaccinations come at a cost, and opinions on whether the costs weigh against the benefits of (some of) the restrictions vary. But you seem to have a low tolerance of opinions other than your own.

You don't give a shit about facts, you don't understand the science, you don't understand statistical analysis of different risk levels. — Christoffer

I do care about facts, but I may weigh those facts differently than you.

I don't care for anyone's opinion if that opinion has nothing to do with rationality, logic, facts and reason. — Christoffer

That's your issue, isn't it? What are you doing on a philosophy forum if you're incapable of accepting that people can look at the same facts as you do and come to different conclusions, let alone have a normal discussion about it.

"There is no subjectivity in my science".

I'm done. I'm tired of this forum and how my will to discuss philosophy always gets hijacked by people like you. — Christoffer

Maybe you wouldn't burn yourself out if half your post wasn't angry ranting.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. :kiss:

The choice to "drive a car" is not the same as crashing into someone. — Christoffer

And similarly, not being vaccinated and breaking regulations is not the same as killing or even infecting someone with covid-19.

Essentially what you're saying is, "I agree with the rules and therefore everyone that doesn't follow them I label as reckless." Of course, anyone who disagrees on the science or the rules you would probably regard as being wrong, because you think the science is conclusive: it isn't.

Anyway, fine. You're putting a lot of faith in whoever made those rules.

People may not agree with the rules. They may not have faith in whoever makes the rules. They may weigh things against each other and have different ideas as to what acceptable risks are. There's a subjectivity to all of this that you are not taking into account, that I am trying to make clear to you.

They are fundamentally different in mortality rate, — Christoffer

Different? Yes. Fundamentally different? Up for debate. Where I live it certainly is not fundamentally different from a heavy flu.

You argue that both hits are the same, so why would you need body armor if a slap and a sledgehammer are fundamentally just me hitting you? That's your logic right there, examine it. — Christoffer

No, that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth.

So we're at a standstill until you can grasp the basics of this. — Christoffer

I don't think we're at a standstill. You are, however, conducting yourself like a child.

One is an act that can have risks, one is a reckless act that can have direct serious risks. — Christoffer

When you step into a car, you may crash into someone. How is that not direct and serious, and not just as much of a reckless action as interacting with people without being vaccinated?

Just as an example, your comparison with the flu that you then point out that you didn't state that Covid was the same as the flu, but still use as a comparison to make... what point exactly? Why make the comparison to the flu? For what reason? — Christoffer

Because both cause many deaths, yet the flu is accepted as normal, yet in the case of covid-19 people start questioning fundamental human rights like bodily autonomy.

On a philosophy forum, few people will be impressed by your sloppy philosophical scrutiny. — Christoffer

There's a reason I didn't respond to the rest of your post. :kiss:

No, you don't take reckless action. All actions in the world have risks, but taking an active reckless action is not the same as taking an action that has potential risks. Ignoring the pandemic, ignoring the vaccine is actively a direct reckless choice. — Christoffer

Explain the difference, then.

You directly compared it to the flu. — Christoffer

Of course. I did not state it was the flu, however.

facts matter. — Christoffer

And you, of course, a self-styled expert in all matters concering facts.

This is why you are all over the place, you don't have a consistent counterargument to my conclusion, it's grasping at straws. — Christoffer

I've actually asked you some pretty straightforward questions which you've been avoiding.

On a philosophy forum few people will be impressed by these sorts of proclamations of victory.

By driving a car normally you do not actively do something reckless. — Christoffer

Whenever you step behind the wheel, you are actively accepting the risk of killing someone. The risk is small, sure, but your label of 'reckless' or 'not reckless' is obviously subjective.

Covid-19 isn't the flu. — Christoffer

I did not claim otherwise.

That is the same as saying that if I decide to go out and throw sharp rocks at other people, it's not my responsibility or moral issue because if people are afraid of being hit by rocks they should just stay home and not go out when I'm out. Their fear is not my fear, so I don't care. — Christoffer

Except that not throwing rocks does not incur any risks for the thrower. So it is not the same.

Somehow I am reminded some famous billionnaire whose name I have forgotten. In any case, this person was nearing the end of his life and despite possessing all of that money, he locked himself up in a sterile environment out of fear of catching some germ or disease.

The funny thing is, he was unmistakenly right: interactions with other people could kill him. I wonder how the world would have reacted had he proclaimed that from now on, all the world should take measures to accomodate his fears so he could live normally. I'm sure it would have been the source of much hilarity.

Your argument is built upon making those things extreme. — Christoffer

I am taking the ideas you are proposing and taking them to their logical conclusions.

You seem to believe sometimes it is fine for people to suffer as a result of one's desires and sometimes it is not.

So far you have been unable to explain what the determining factor is.

Abortion is about your own body, — Christoffer

And the body of one's unborn child, of course.

Bodily autonomy is irrelevant if you risk hurting or killing other people. — Christoffer

Of course it isn't. The flu kills hundreds of thousands every year but we don't infringe upon people's rights to bodily autonomy because they may carry the flu.

So please tell me which of the following do you deem bad judgment by the government, and which you vehemently oppose your money spent on — god must be atheist

Dropping bombs on civilians, for one.

If it were not for the government, then gangs of thugs would force you into much worse conditions, again through violence or threat thereof. — god must be atheist

What is worse, a large gang of thugs or a small gang of thugs?

Basically we think of each other as misguided idiots, who can't see beyond their noses, mutually and equally. — god must be atheist

Your words, not mine.

Do you want to continue with this? — god must be atheist

Or I wouldn't be here.

If people stopped driving we would have a hard time functioning as a society — Christoffer

Societies have functioned without cars for millenia. They are not necessary at all.

and if people stopped having children humanity would die out. — Christoffer

Yes, and?

People don't have children in some sort of sacrifice to the human endeavor. They have children because they desire to have them.

Not in the same manner as denying a vaccine and recklessly expose themselves to other people. — Christoffer

All these things can be said for driving and having children. You're simply labeling one as reckless and the other as somehow acceptable because of a form of cosmic necessity, which I will argue is nothing other than a guise for desire; not much different from a desire not to be vaccinated.

I'll propose something radical: if one is afraid that being sneezed on will kill them, they're the one who should be isolating themselves.

Seeing one's own fear as a legitimate basis to dictate how others should exercise their right to bodily autonomy; now that is immoral; no less immoral than pressuring a woman into how she should or should not have an abortion.

Your fear is not my fear.

Those behaviors affect other people, with a risk of hurting or even killing them.
Mitigating the risks does not change that. One could also claim to have attempted to mitigate the risks of them not being vaccinated.

To be clear, there is no necessity for driving a car or having children; those are merely products of our desires.

But behavior that affects other people, hurts them, kills them, regardless of causal proximity, should never be accepted and should be considered a crime. — Christoffer

Like driving a car? What about having children?

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing. — god must be atheist

Essentially a state will tell you what you need, and then claim it does a decent job at providing it. I consider it to be a bad judge at both. Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof.

Few things are so ignorant as thinking to know what another person needs.

It is okay to concede to a state of lack of freedom provided you are happy and your needs are met by those with power over you — Benj96

What if the state is unable to fulfill my needs? Also, am I allowed to determine what my needs are, or will someone else determine my needs for me and whether they are fulfilled or not?

It seems as individuals grow more powerless, alignment to states and political parties and ideologies becomes a means of satiating their will to power.

Fair enough. It does seem a far cry from the supposed world of mutual individualistic respect that has been brought up earlier in this thread though. — Echarmion

It may seem that way, but mutual respect can only come about as a result of free interaction. Mutual respect enforced through state coercion is just a deception.

In practice, individual rights under such a system are restricted to the right to not be directly physically attacked. All other rights only exist as mere potentials - they are there for you to take, if you have the power to keep them. — Echarmion

In a system where states are chosen as the guardians of individual rights, it would simply be a matter of what the state can coerce individuals into. More rights equals more coercion. From the perspective of individual rights it is self-defeating.

Mistrust in governments has grown, and when one realizes almost all of one's information has come from the very government one distrusts, one falls into an information vacuum that then gets filled up with information of varying validity.

There's not much of a mystery here. Intransparant and manipulative governance has only itself to thank for it. The mistrust, at least, is entirely merited.

Isn't that a bit like saying you have the right to bodily autonomy, insofar as you're allowed to defend yourself, but don't count on the state to interfere? Usually when people say the state should safeguard bodily autonomy they refer to proactive safety. That is to say they assume that there will not just be a determination after the fact of who was right and who was wrong, but instead an attempt to prevent a set of behaviors in the first place, on the basis that those generally violate someone's bodily autonomy. Is that not how you envision things to go? — Echarmion

I'm leaning towards not being in favor of proactive action in this instance. At least, not in the shape of the use of force or coercion, unless there's a direct indication that physical violence is about to take place.

Let's say A and B have a mutually agreed upon contract. Both get something out of that that they want. A wants to change the agreement. B prefers it to stay as it is, but prefers to change it's terms over loosing it entirely. At what point does A threatening to walk away become coercion? — Echarmion

Coercion involves violence or the threat thereof.

It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. — James Riley

You're thinking of the divine right of kings.

What is the right so self-determination? — Echarmion

Essentially it is the right of every individual to pursue those things that they deem comprise a good life.

Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? — Echarmion

No. It is up to the individual to decide what they wish to do with their lives, and it is also up to them to accomplish their goals.

I wasn't referring to "state" in the more general sense of "state of affairs", though I should have made that clear. I'd be interested in a more "colourful" description of how you envision such a society to look. Do you have real life examples which are closer to this ideal than most? — Echarmion

Assuming you are living in a free country, it is the life you are leading every day. Interaction based on voluntariness and respect for the other's wishes, individuality and freedom.

And if I’m following correctly, the disapproved of antitrust violator will be kicked out of the Individualists club, even though they’ve done nothing to restrict the rights of other individuals. — praxis

If they've not acted in contradiction to the ideas of individualism, then no.