The term 'tragic' would perhaps better describe that type of suffering from which no personal growth is possible.

It seems the problem lies with the meat industry then, and not necessarily eating meat.

the unnecessary pain caused to animals by their consumption doesn't come all at once with their painful (or painless) death. — fdrake

Could you elaborate?

This would imply that killing an animal painlessly is perfectly acceptable.

This leaves the most important part of my inquiry unanswered:

If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted? — Tzeentch

There's no good reasons to believe that plants suffer. Or bacteria. I dunno about insects. So the argument doesn't apply to them since killing them does not inflict harm. — fdrake

Science is inconclusive on whether plants feel pain. They certainly react to being killed.

But lets assume they cannot feel pain, then this just gets us into a right tangle. If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted?

Similarly, one could add that we should not make a distinction between animals and plants. Or mammals and insects, or even bacteria. We have to follow things through.

Then we have established that neither eating nor killing animals is categorically immoral, therefore let me suggest that the circumstances under which these things happen are way more important.

It is my experience that many vegetarians and vegans, when questioned, do not necessarily have a problem with hurting, killing or eating animals, (circumstances seem to matter) but with the treatment of animals, and more often specifically with the treatment of animals in what is commonly referred to as the 'food industry'. Though, correct me if this does not represent your views.

Well, that puts us in a rather odd position.

Veganism means one does not wish to use animal products at all, but not all animal products require the killing and hurting of animals. So by what you've said it seems you're not primarily interested in veganism.

Vegetarianism is also debatable, because it seems it would be perfectly acceptable for you to eat an animal that was struck dead by a bolt of lightning, dying instantly thus suffering no hurt, and dying by the hand of a natural occurence.

On the topic of the morality of killing an animal:

Would you consider it immoral for a hunter to kill an old, sickly member of a herd of animals in order for a young one to survive? This happens commonly to avoid healthy wildlife from starving. Let us also assume the hunter is skilled, and is able to ensure a painless death.

Perhaps you could elaborate further on what it is about eating meat that you find immoral.

Is it specifically eating animals?
Is it killing animals?
Is it hurting animals?
Is it the exploitation of animals?
Is it all of the above?

There's something terribly wrong with the way you are letting your personal beliefs and biases determine what is considered 'proper' for this forum and what is not. Impartiality is the basis of arbitration, and everywhere I see your posts I am reaffirmed in my impression that such impartiality is thoroughly lacking.

I have no illusions that this post will change your behavior, but nevertheless I feel the need to point out despotism when I see it. I think you're fooling only yourself.

Hm.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but maybe you wish to elaborate further.

Coming back to your earlier posts, your point seemed to be that it is easier to conceive of a physical hell than it is a physical heaven?

What is interesting is that 'hell' or 'the underworld' (Hades, etc.) have often been associated with the physical world. One can even see parallels with Buddhism here, as attachment to the physical will prevent one from attaining (degrees of) enlightenment.

'Heaven' has more often been associated with the non-physical world. Perhaps that's why it's not so easy to conceive of a physical representation of heaven.

So what about these enlightenment experiences (note, not the same as "being enlightened") that people have had and described? Why would something like that not qualify as a kind of heaven?

No one, absolutely no one, since the Shakya sage Siddhartha Gautama about 2500 years ago, has been credited with a bona fide state of Buddhahood. Isn't this odd? — TheMadFool

I don't think that's odd. Let's assume attaining complete enlightenment is indeed quite rare. Let's then say I were to attain it right now. Who'd be there to judge the legitimacy of that experience? Or perhaps a better question: would someone who has attained enlightenment even care about matters of legitimacy in the eyes of the world?

It's worth noting that there isn't one enlightenment experience, but many. This is true for both Buddhism and many other wisdom traditions which involve so called 'peak experiences'. These experiences are in fact not so uncommon and described by many to be quite wonderful. Could that not be regarded as a form of heaven?

Could an enlightenment experience as described by various wisdom traditions not be considered as a form of heaven? And those are available to us while we are still on Earth.

:roll:

The premise of The Republic can best be summarized by the following passage:

“But to come now to the decision between our two kinds of life, if we separate the most completely just and the most completely unjust man, we shall be able to decide rightly, but if not, not. How, then, is this separation to be made? Thus: we must subtract nothing of his injustice from the unjust man or of his justice from the just, but assume the perfection of each in his own mode of conduct. In the first place, the unjust man must act as clever craftsmen do: a first-rate pilot or physician, for example, feels the difference between impossibilities and possibilities in his art and attempts the one and lets the others go; and then, too, if he does happen to trip, he is equal to correcting his error. Similarly, the unjust man who attempts injustice rightly must be supposed to escape detection if he is to be altogether unjust, and we must regard the man who is caught as a bungler. For the height of injustice is to seem just without being so. To the perfectly unjust man, then, we must assign perfect injustice and withhold nothing of it, but we must allow him, while committing the greatest wrongs, to have secured for himself the greatest reputation for justice; and if he does happen to trip, we must concede to him the power to correct his mistakes by his ability to speak persuasively if any of his misdeeds come to light, and when force is needed, to employ force by reason of his manly spirit and vigor and his provision of friends and money; and when we have set up an unjust man of this character, our theory must set the just man at his side—a simple and noble man, who, in the phrase of Aeschylus, does not wish to seem but be good. Then we must deprive him of the seeming. For if he is going to be thought just he will have honors and gifts because of that esteem. We cannot be sure in that case whether he is just for justice' sake or for the sake of the gifts and the honors. So we must strip him bare of everything but justice and make his state the opposite of his imagined counterpart. Though doing no wrong he must have the repute of the greatest injustice, so that he may be put to the test as regards justice through not softening because of ill repute and the consequences thereof. But let him hold on his course unchangeable even unto death, seeming all his life to be unjust though being just, that so, both men attaining to the limit, the one of injustice, the other of justice, we may pass judgement which of the two is the happier.” - Plato, The Republic, Book 2, 360a - 361a

Plato describes two kinds of men. One completely unjust, but with the appearance of a just man. The other completely just, but with the appearance of an unjust man. He then makes the point that, when given the choice, one should always choose the just man over the unjust man.

This is the core of what The Republic is about; the role of justice in the soul of man. The city-state is used as part of an analogy to make his point, as has been shown in the passage I quoted previously.

But I am not here to lecture you on Plato. After all, you profess to have sufficient understanding of his works. I obviously didn't come up with this on my own, and I could help you to some sources, but as they say 'pearls before swine'.

"I think we should employ the method of search that we should use if we, with not very keen vision, were bidden to read small letters from a distance, and then someone had observed that these same letters exist elsewhere larger and on a larger surface. We should have accounted it a godsend, I fancy, to be allowed to read those letters first, and examine the smaller, if they are the same.” “Quite so,” said Adeimantus; “but what analogy to do you detect in the inquiry about justice?” “I will tell you,” I said: “there is a justice of one man, we say, and, I suppose, also of an entire city.” “Assuredly,” said he. “Is not the city larger than the man?” “It is larger,” he said. “Then, perhaps, there would be more justice in the larger object and more easy to apprehend. If it please you, then, let us first look for its quality in states, and then only examine it also in the individual, looking for the likeness of the greater in the form of the less.” “I think that is a good suggestion,” he said. “If, then,” said I, “our argument should observe the origin of a state, we should see also the origin of justice and injustice in it.” “It may be,” said he. “And if this is done, we may expect to find more easily what we are seeking?” “Much more.” “Shall we try it, then, and go through with it? I fancy it is no slight task. Reflect, then.” “We have reflected,” said Adeimantus; “proceed and don't refuse.” - Plato, The Republic, Book 2, section 368d - 369b.

It's not exactly hidden. :chin:

Platos agenda was a totalitarian project and specifically designed for a political elite of "philosopher kings" Aka priests. — Asif

"He will gladly take part in and enjoy those which he thinks will make him a better man, but in public and private life he will shun those that may overthrow the established habit of his soul.” “Then, if that is his chief concern,” he said, “he will not willingly take part in politics.” “Yes, by the dog,” said I, “in his own city he certainly will, yet perhaps not in the city of his birth, except in some providential conjuncture.” “I understand,” he said; “you mean the city whose establishment we have described, the city whose home is in the ideal; for I think that it can be found nowhere on earth.” “Well,” said I, “perhaps there is a pattern of it laid up in heaven for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen. But it makes no difference whether it exists now or ever will come into being. The politics of this city only will be his and of none other.” “That seems probable,” he said." - Plato, The Republic, Book 9, section 592.

:roll:

Well, I don't think I ever mentioned that being case?

Yet, in a democracy, the voters do have power.

It depends on you knowing that you're misinformed. It also puts the burden on voters to find the truth rather than the burden be on the politicians to tell the truth. — Harry Hindu

Not quite. I regard the burden as shared.

Those with the power should be held to higher standard. — Harry Hindu

Perhaps. Though, I find it difficult to imagine why the bar should be lowered for those who are not in power.

So you're telling me that voters vote for people that they know lie? — Harry Hindu

No. Like I said, many are probably quite ignorant. Yet, it is my view that those who are ignorant have both the capability, the means and the responsibility to make it not so, or at the very least recognize their own ignorance!

It is in the politicians best interest to get you to think that only one party or candidate is righteous and the other evil. — Harry Hindu

This plays into what I was saying about the voters being barraged by misinformation perpetuates more ignorance by the media. — Harry Hindu

Every person has a responsibility in this regard, for thinking for themselves and being critical of what they are told.

This portrayal of voters as victims of misinformation is something I dislike, because this seems to treat people as children who do not know any better, rather than independent agents. Many voters may be ignorant, but I consider it within their capability and responsibility to make it not so.

As such, the misleader and the misled are both part of this problem.

No one tries to cross party lines any more. — Harry Hindu

And whose fault is that? Surely this can be attributed to the voters as much as the politicians.

The democratic system, on every level, is not serving the people. — Aleph Numbers

The US is not a free, democratic country. — StreetlightX

Part of living in a democracy is that your team doesn't always win. If one unpopolar president is all it takes for citizens to go into meltdown then I guess the veil of civilization was truly thin indeed.

Alas, every country ends up with the government it deserves.

To violently riot in a free, democratic country is beyond pathetic.

"An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself." - Epictetus, Enchiridion

Moral importance, NOT responsibility - we correct past and current injustices not by standing with the perpetrators, but by standing against them, regardless of skin colour. Not by assuming culpability for the actions of others, but by assuming a share in the suffering of those unjustly treated. — Possibility

By that I understand that participation in this act of correcting is entirely voluntarily and people should never be forced, since there exists no moral responsibility?

On another topic, what exactly determines whether one should feel this moral importance, and on the basis of what? Does it extend to all forms of injustice?

The moral importance of correcting past and current injustices committed against races outweigh alternatives. — Judaka

A moral responsibility by virtue of sharing the same skin color as the perpetrators of racial injustices, historical or otherwise? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate some more on this.

Most governments in history have not been shaped by its people, rather shaped by a select few, or just one person. — Harry Hindu

The lack of choices, misinformation in the media, and the ability to buy your way to the top are definite obstacles to the people having real voting power. — Harry Hindu

Let me give you an example.

Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep? Why do politicians focus on throwing mud at their competition instead of presenting voters with solid, future-proof policies?

They do these things because it is what gets them votes. If it gets them votes it means it is what the voters want to hear and see. Thereby the behavior of politicians is directly influenced by the voters' preferences, in accordance with the quote "Every country gets the government it deserves."

What would happen if the voters were less gullible that they weren't so easily swayed by false promises? Or if they would immediately reject any politician that engaged in mud throwing as 'unfit for leadership' (which they should)?

Of course one may argue that there are plenty of people who disagree with the politcians' behavior, however as long as that number is not significant enough to affect election results one must still conclude that the majority of voters either like the politcians' behavior or is apathetic towards it.

Since pain and suffering exists — Zg3TWbIqgz7

If one would like to provide a counterargument for "the problem of evil" I'd ask whoever is defending it to prove either of these things exist. One may add evil in that mix as well.

It is a mistake to regard government as something external, as so many like to do. A government is shaped more by its people than vice versa, even though some governments in the past have tried. We see imperfect, authoritarian government, because it is governing imperfect people who require authority to be kept functioning.

Society needs authorities to be kept from devolving into chaos. People need, and in many cases desire (even if they would deny this, it follows from their actions), to be ruled. Therefore, a discussion about anti-authoritarianism cannot be held without regard for what it would require from the people to live as such. A society without laws would rely on people's personal integrity to behave in a cooperative fashion.

In short, the need for authority is a result of mankind's imperfect nature, and living in a society without authority would require mankind as a whole to make significant steps forward in terms of its intellectual development.

I think western society is rapidly running away from enlightenment, despite all of the education being in place to show the way towards it. Isn't our infatuation with pointless leisures and extravagance only growing? Education seems to play no role in this process. Indeed some of the simplest minds may have come closer to enlightenment than others who have worked for a university degree and dedicated their lives to it.

If one believes they weren't born with enough priviledge, perhaps they should have a stern conversation with their parents about it.

Can't say that I do, but a quick glance at Google ("monastery retreat Scandinavia") shows plenty of choice, from Christian to Buddhist to secular.

One doesn't have to be religious in order to spend time in a monastery. Many open their doors for all who require a break from modern living. Perhaps you will even find some souls facing a similar predicament.

Have you ever thought about spending some time in a monastery?

Humans are imperfect, and humans make up "the system". We are all a part of it and we voluntarily decide to reinforce it every day through our behavior, whether we are aware of this or not (and whether one thinks of themselves so selfrighteously that they consider themselves 'not part of the system': they are). All this finger-pointing hides ignorance and possibly a guilty conscience.

As long as humans are imperfect, there won't be a perfect system. Attempts at creating one are likely to produce an outcome worse than the original, not in the least because those who strive for change often lack any insight into their own human (and thus flawed) motivations. Be very wary of those who see no issue in forcing people to part with their wealth in search of a 'perfect' system'. It's indicative of the totalitarian mindset, and sadly it is well-represented here. On a philosophy forum, paradoxically(?). I guess that can be attributed to the arrogance of intellect, even though any real intellect seems to be lacking.

How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? — Benkei

Every child can become an orphan.

Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? — Benkei

Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty.

Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? — Benkei

It's a criterium for anyone who seeks to justify why states are allowed to force people to part with their money in the first place.

Roads only benefits people who drive cars. — Benkei

The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day.

Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. — Benkei

I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion.

Healthcare only benefits the sick. — Benkei

Same thing. There is no exclusion here.

In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism. — Benkei

As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented.

Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.

And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. — Benkei

Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy.

Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, — Benkei

Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.

Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays.

Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant. — Benkei

As irrelevant as learning from past mistakes, no doubt.

I don't think people who never partook in slavery owe anything to people who were never slaves. Notions that such would be the case have no place in a free society. In fact, putting people in historical categories based on nothing other than their skin color is, ironically, quite racist. To then distribute some type of shared blame and entitlements based on generalizations of literally millions of people, is foolish.

Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did.