By all means, do so. I remain selective. — Vera Mont

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — Cliche with literary pretentions

We should only think critically when emotionally balanced and calm? — praxis

I said "ideally."

It seems to me that critical thinking would be particularly useful when we're upset and therefore may not be thinking clearly. Rationality alleviates irrationality, in other words. — praxis

In my experience, the calm comes first, then the rationality. Actually, that's not true. They come together.

I certainly think much could be done to encourage people to think for themselves, and even more can be done to make factual, useful information generally available. — Vera Mont

Yes, but then much could also be done to build a sense of common purpose among our fellow citizens. As I noted, we can do something right now - treat people with respect.

I feel insulted by your wording "mythical society" and that does not advance a discussion of truth. — Athena

I can see why you would disagree with me, but why would you be insulted by that? My point is that the society based on dignity and independent thinking you seem to think existed enslaved and oppressed people. It certainly didn't treat black people with dignity. Does independent, critical thinking lead to slavery? That would be ironic.

We are fully supporting "the enslavement and oppression of human beings" today. Only today it is not exactly a human that is oppressing us, but technology. — Athena

There are many bad things to be said about the way our society is running these days, but I find it hard to swallow that there was somehow some golden age in the past when things were better, and, Oh, by the way - we kept people in slavery. People owned people.

Well just out of curiosity, what is the proper emotion to motivate critical thinking? — praxis

I think ideally it requires emotional equilibrium and calm.

Critical thinking can be motivated by fear, hatred, contempt, love, envy, and many other emotions and combinations of emotions. — praxis

I think your idea of critical thinking and mine are different.

I also want to use your iconic thumb. — javi2541997

It is in the public domain. Actually, it's probably not, but you're welcome to use it.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily. — Philosophim

I'm not sure that I agree with your understanding of the appeal of guns, but I do agree that a lot of the motivation for our troubles is economic. The Democratic Party used to be the party of working people. We've lost that.

My older books including grade school books have much to say about human dignity, and we used public education to advance a culture that embraced independent thinking, respect, and human dignity. — Athena

My response to this kind of argument is always the same - this mythical society focused on dignity you describe allowed and supported the enslavement and oppression of human beings. It was only after the events you describe ended that things changed in a significant way. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves.

A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate. — 180 Proof

Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it.

Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me.

I think you have big expectations on people... what a terrible mistake. — javi2541997

Democracy won't work without expecting a lot from citizens.

A true democracy - of the people, by the people, for the people, does not understand guns and gun powder, it understands education and even in its absence gets its way around by trying to understand the situation and coming to a non-violent and peaceful decision. — Beena

I don't think that's necessarily true. A lot of conservative gun owners I know have no trouble with what they consider reasonable gun control. On the other hand, many of them consider rights of gun ownership as important as freedom of speech. I don't go that far, but I can understand their reasoning.

As a registered Democrat, I think the problem is that the Democratic Party has played this wrong. A certain level of gun ownership in the US is fully established. It's strongly endorsed by the Supreme Court, so it's part of the Constitution. A large percentage of the people support it. Putting all our money on heavy restrictions doesn't get us anywhere but alienates people who otherwise belong in the Democratic Party.

People can share a common purpose without respecting each other. — praxis

I doubt that's true. I'll think about it some more.

The problem with uncritical thinkers and a desire for purpose is that they’re easily lead by people with divergent purposes. — praxis

As I see it, the criticism of "them" I've seen in this thread hasn't constituted critical thinking. Seems more motivated by fear, hatred, and contempt, just like we accuse them of.

I never said it can be done at all. — Vera Mont

That makes this whole exercise beside the point except as a hell-in-a-handbasket kvetch.

I wish you all the success in the world! — Vera Mont

Oh, good. Thanks for that enthusiastic endorsement.

As I noted previously - No further questions; I rest my case.

I banned invicta for persistently low quality posts even after multiple warnings and a one-week suspension. — Jamal

I appreciate that you have started using the suspension prior to banning in some cases.

Ranting on someone who no longer can post here...
Pretty humble from your side. — javi2541997

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out.

I think you're correct in your intuition that humans having a shared purpose is more important than critical thinking combined with internecine goals. One of the big issues we face these days seems to be the atomized nature of culture and the lack of solidarity. How do we get important projects initiated and completed without broad cooperation? — Tom Storm

I've been hanging around with other people for more than 70 years. We have much more in common than we do in conflict.

Question - I get the impression that things in Australia are much less contentious than they are here in the US. Is that not true?

You tell us how to go about that, and I'm on board. — Vera Mont

You haven't told us how to go about accomplishing the whole critical thinking, rationality thing. Why do I have to come up with a plan for the why can't we all just get along thing? The advantage my solution has over yours is that it's something you, I, and all people of good will can do right now. Treat people with respect.

I just don't know how to respect people who drive an SUV into a crowd, post death- and rape-threats to elected officials, value their guns above their children and want their republic-not-democracy presided over by Trump or De Santis? — Vera Mont

So, you equate people who support Donald Trump with people who drive their SUVs into a crowd. No further questions. I rest my case.

They shouldn't. I know I couldn't make common cause with someone who would prefer to see me hanging from a lamppost. — Vera Mont

So, you equate people who support Donald Trump with people who want to see you hanging from a lamppost. No further questions. I rest my case.

If you know a way to nullify the effects of dogma and propaganda without critical thought, please share it. — Vera Mont

No, I don't, but I think changing our attitudes toward each other would be easier than somehow creating a nation of so-called critical thinkers. As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. That just makes things worse. Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them?

I've been hearing this for decades. — Tom Storm

One of the advantages of being old is that you've heard everything at least twice. We've been going to hell in a handbasket at least since I was born.

I must admit, though, this feels like a special time. It feels like technology has brought us to a turning point. It makes it easier for people to hate other people they never would have come in contact with before. It makes the whole world one place so what's bad in one location gets spread everywhere. It has allowed us to start gaining control over the basic physical, chemical, biological, genetic, cognitive, and psychological foundations of life that will allow us to change our very natures. It's scary. I'm probably pretty safe, but I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell.

What strikes me is that all of the responses so far except @Joshs show contempt for our fellow citizens. Certainly this is not a sign of reason. We're all in this together, for better or worse. As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking."

that guess is perhaps as good as any other. — Manuel

I think the basis for this is primarily aesthetic. It just seems like it aught to be that way.

@javi2541997

Hey, Javi. I'm reading "Killing Commendatori." I'm enjoying it.

But does this mean (I'm asking semi-rhetorically) that the nothing you and I have in mind is impossible? — Manuel

I don't know, but I have the feeling that if we somehow got rid of the quantum vacuum, there'd be another turtle waiting in the wings.

Wondering if your own orientation in philosophy had anything to say about this... — Manuel

As a sometime pragmatist, I don't think my particular understanding has much to offer beyond "Who cares." As a pseudo-Taoist I guess all I could say would be "Were you not paying attention when I told you about the Tao." As for my understanding not associated with any particular philosophy - seems to me the universe always has been and always will be. It's a roiling, boiling whirlpool of this, that, the Tao, God, yada yada yada. Matter, energy, time, space, existence, something, nothing are all just different color paints of the graffiti on the subway cars of reality. Or something like that. No, I have no scientific or philosophical basis for that belief. It's what's known as seems-to-me philosophy or science. My favorite kind.

So the cosmos begins from a zero, nothing. — Beena

I have no trouble with the idea of something coming out of nothing, but there is a problem. You'll find here on the forum, and I assume elsewhere, that people will tell you your nothing is not really nothing at all. It's really something, e.g. the quantum vacuum.

Welcome to the forum.

It seems clear that popularity doesn't make a moral choice right. If it did then mass killing all people aged over 40 because the majority of people are in favor of it would make this justifiable moral action. But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What is the difference between a community standard which holds gay people are an abomination, or one which holds children should be protected from harm? — Tom Storm

This is something I think about whenever a discussion of morality takes place. It seems to me there is a fundamental difference between behaviors that arise out of my personal values and concern for the well-being of others and those that are intended for application to others, either by me or by the community at large. They certainly are connected, but then sometimes they are in conflict.

Ok, but this thread is about using the appeals to popularity as an indicator of whether something is a moral intuition: “X is a moral intuition because most people believe X". When and how do we determine if this is in fact true or just being used as an ad populum fallacy of justification (X must be a deeper moral intuition or truth, most people believe it!). — schopenhauer1

In the OP, you wrote:

When and how do you determine if a cultural convention (most people do or hold a belief about something in a society) is an indicator of a moral intuition?

It seems to me that people often confuse the two and make the ad populum fallacy. — schopenhauer1

I was agreeing with you. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by "moral intuition." I was taking it to mean:

behavior that reflects our common humanity and capacity for empathy. — T Clark

Conventional morality, if taken to mean "what most people believe" can be a form of social control in that it can be used to shut down arguments because it's meant to be presented as an indicator of what is truly moral (because most people believe it). If the argument doesn't go beyond this, it is simply a tool to advance ones preference that other views should not be considered. — schopenhauer1

I see conventional morality as a social phenomenon - it's imposed by a community, not by an individual - and not to shut down arguments but to control behavior. Otherwise, as I noted, I think we are in agreement.

To start, I acknowledge I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I looked at your profile page and read what you wrote about necessary suffering vs. contingent suffering. That distinction is exactly the difference I was describing.

That being said, I'm surprised by the level of offence you've taken. in what way was what I wrote an outburst? How was it an ad hominem argument?

The purpose of a fool is to provide amusement. — Banno

You said you were going to ignore me. In response I made you and offer, which you have not responded to. You should put you money where your mouth is.

Because that is what forgoing truth is; rejecting the need of consistency. And if that is your approach, then well done, since you have thereby placed yourself beyond mere argument, above coherence, and beyond the reach of reason. — Banno

Again, just restating you position without supporting argument, as if it didn't need a one.

An ignore you for a fool. — Banno

I would be happy if you would ignore me and my posts, but you won't. I'll make a deal with you - I'll ignore yours if you'll ignore mine. That way we can end our "epic feud."

When and how do you determine if a cultural convention (most people do or hold a belief about something in a society) is an indicator of a moral intuition? — schopenhauer1

I agree with you on this. I don't think really moral behaviors are matters of convention. By "really moral" I mean behavior that reflects our common humanity and capacity for empathy. As I see it, "conventional morality" is a form of social control meant to enforce homogeneity and the smooth running of society. It's a police function.

How do you know that I don't know how Buddhists "define" it? Explain please. — schopenhauer1

You act as if you think what Buddhists mean by suffering and what you do are the same thing, but they're not. I'm certainly not any kind of expert in Buddhist beliefs, but I know they aren't talking about the suffering of getting up in the morning and going to work - the everyday stuff you use as the basis for your argument people should not have children. I find it hard to believe Buddhists are anti-natalists. Maybe somebody can set me straight.

Has this been widely discussed — Banno

I have been in quite a few discussions on that subject. Generally, I was the one who raised the subject, since it's an important part of the metaphysics I find most useful. You should have seen enough of my writing that it wouldn't be a surprise to you.

If you think it true, then you are yourself relying on truth in your argument. But if you are relying on truth, then you are implicitly valuing it, in contrast to what your argument claims. — Banno

This is another discussion I've had many times. I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of that. As I noted, my positions on this are metaphysical. And as I've said many, many, many times on the forum, metaphysical positions are not true or false.

And if you do not value truth, and your point is merely rhetorical, then we have no need to pay your argument any heed. — Banno

And you accused me of making an argument for rhetorical purposes. You should be embarrassed.

The first is that the logic of any discussion depends on the propositions of the argument being true. — Banno

Clearly not true. Most philosophical discussions relate primarily to values, not facts.

The second is that if you are more concerned with advantage than with truth, you join the class of Bullshiters, — Banno

Again, embarrassingly rhetorical. I noted in my response to @Raef Kandil that I don't think the word "advantage" is appropriate in this context. The way I say it is that the important question for people is what to do next and that truth is a tool in that regard and not the primary goal. Did you not read that post?

Rejecting truth is self-negating, both logically and rhetorically. — Banno

This is you begging the question.

This is the poverty of pragmatism. Sure, go ahead and do what is to your advantage. The truth will catch you up. It plays the long game. — Banno

You're not even trying to address my argument. You just repeat your position as if it's self-evident, but it's not.

I love this observation :lol:. The shearing of Buddhist notions of life being suffering from the practices of mindfulness. — schopenhauer1

I think this just shows a lack of understanding of what Buddhists mean by suffering. It's something different than the way you generally define it.

First off, even if it is true(!) that "humans are primarily driven by their quest for personal advantage", it remains open to ask if the ought to be so. Perhaps we ought dissuade ourselves from seeking advantage and instead seek after truth. That's a view with a long heritage. — Banno

This is something that's been discussed a lot here on the forum. In most situations, I don't see what value truth has beyond being a tool to help us decide what to do next. Why should I care about truth sitting up there on its pedestal not doin' nuttin?

In the realm of philosophy, one of the fundamental questions that has intrigued humanity for centuries revolves around the pursuit of truth. However, upon closer examination of human behavior, it becomes apparent that our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking. — Raef Kandil

My first reaction to your post was negative. I think it was the word "advantage." To me that implies a competitive strategy against an opponent, which I don't think applies. I put it a bit differently. I think the most important question humans try to answer is "What do I do now?" rather than "What is true?" Is that the same as gaining an advantage? I don't think they're exactly the same, but they are similar. Truth for me is important as a tool we can use to answer the primary question.

That being said, I don't find your arguments for the position very convincing, or necessary for that matter. For me, a position like that you and I hold is clear just from understanding how people in the everyday world know things and how they use the knowledge they have.

I agree that it is a social process. I think my argument rests on that. — noAxioms

Trying to guess which assumptions you're talking about. — noAxioms

You and I agree that the fact that human behavioral processes must be consistent with the principles of physics does not mean humans are not responsible for their actions. I think our reasons are different.

To say that A causes B when B is not even theoretically predictable from A is meaningless. For me, free will is a metaphysical issue, not a physical one. Holding people responsible for their actions is a social process. It does not happen in any manner derivable from physical principles.