"Virtue signalling" is not an argument. It is the libertarian's attempt to stop a conversation they find uncomfortable. — Banno

Talk about virtue signalling and stopping a conversation!

If there was a collaborative effort to drop informational goods, flash drives and pamphlets over North Korea to inform North Koreans about how life is elsewhere as "truth owed", that effort might come with considerable state backlash (harm to its citizens). — Nils Loc

Really? If you were to tell the North Koreans about, say, the homeless in the US or the suicide rates in Switzerland, the government there would punish them?

What would be that "truth" you would tell them, and how complete would it be?

And what is good for the individual cannot be divorced from what is good for the species. — Questioner

Take capital punishment, for example. Killing some people might be good for society, or the species, but how is it good for the individuals who are killed?

"You will be killed for your own good, so now be happy with it" ...??

Or how about the state and medical professionals offering euthanasia as a "treatment option" ??

Metaethics and virtue signaling go hand in hand.
— baker
The retort "you are virtue signalling" is quite insipid. It is much the same as the child's outraged cry of "You can't tell me what to do!" — Banno

*sigh*
Oh, the irony. Now who's here for not having his views challenged.


I'm saying that when discussing metaethics, it's normal that people have concerns over how they present themselves and how they are perceived by others in such discussions. I argue that a number of classical problems in ethics (such as the one in the OP) are actually at least partly due to a failure to acknowledge this, and instead taking everything at face value, naively.

To properly discuss problems of ethics, we'd need to clearly distinguish between the actual ethical problem at hand and the virtue signalling that may accompany some people's approaches to discussing it.

Now, the question "Why should we?" might be answered by: Because we want to belong to the group. Because we want to live in peace. Because we want safety and security. — Questioner

And "we" don't care if all these peace, safety, and security come at the expense of the other group.

There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. — L'éléphant

I don't think this is a relevant difference at all. What is different is that the range of socially acceptable means of responding to this "bombardment" is dismally small. People aren't supposed to spit at others, throw shoes at them, not even call them names. (Unless they are rich and powerrful, of course.)

At the same time, the level of political discourse, as well ad general interpersonal discourse, is dismally low and shallow.

What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? — Shawn

Back then, stoicism was mostly a matter of the upper class. Being part of the upper class is a whole other category of existing, with quite different challenges and goals in life in comparison to being lower class.

Ancient societies were systemically classist and openly so. While nowadays, we live in socioeconomic systems of merely nominally equity and equality before the law and state. This brings along a lot of problems that people, especially upper class people, simply didn't have, while lower class people are left to the mercy of them.

As far as I can reconstruct, the ancient Stoics actually had enormous pride. It seems to me they were haughty and contemptuous. These are personal characteristics that make life a lot easier, especially when in combination with at least a solid socio-economic status.


In summary, if nowadays, you wouldn't take life advice from an upper class person, chances are you shouldn't take it from the Stoics either. Because it simply won't be applicable in your life.

As one such antinatalist, I would propose that there can be communal catharsis, things I've proposed many times before and people have in various ways disagreed with because various attachments to work and relationships and modern living have made it seem like I am just not giving a balanced report. Inherent and contingent forms of suffering aren't taken seriously.

And then, when something tragic happens, only then, maybe existential issues are entertained. — schopenhauer1

And in most cases, also quickly enough forgotten.

First off, I am proposing an even more extreme version in the Schopenhauer brand of asceticism. I am claiming that in his version, even the Middle Way of the Buddhist (Theravadans or otherwise), is not enough. — schopenhauer1

In Schopenhauer's time, the foundational text of Buddhism, the Pali Canon, was not yet conveniently compiled and translated, so he can be excused for having a spotty knowledge of it and thus for his conclusions based on it being off-base. However, the same cannot be said for modern people, who do have relatively easy and cheap access to the Pali Canon.

In short, the Buddhism of the Pali Canon stands and falls with rebirth, merely dying in terms of bodily death solves nothing. Which is also why asceticism per se doesn't solve anything. The Middle Way for monastics isn't there because of some recognition or appreciation that material comforts are good, or that people are social beings and need human contact etc. It's there because a person needs a measure of strength and social connection in order to practice the Noble Eightfold Path at all. And the purpose of this practice is to end rebirth.

In the early Buddhist perspective, a Schopenhauerian ascetic will be reborn, probably as a dog or some other lowly animal, and then, after many many rebirths in the lower realms, might again get a human birth, and suffer all over again.
From this perspective, Schopenhauer is actually naively idealistic, with his belief that death of the body means an end to suffering.

And audio books are a great way to use time for instance when you doing something like driving long distance, jogging etc. — ssu

Do you listen to audiobooks that way? If yes, how do you retain any of the heard (given that you can't make notes when driving or jogging)?

@Tom Storm
How do you measure "wisdom"?

What are we wanting people to "do" here? Why procreate more people here? — schopenhauer1

To fight, to be strong, to rule. People love to fight, to rule.

Suffering (with a capital "S") is simply the label I give all this negative understanding (self-awareness). Bed bugs, diseases, emotional trauma, and cancer are often situational and contingent.
[...]
/boredom/ — schopenhauer1

Why do you call these "negative"? Based on what standards? Why those standards?

Other animals do indeed feel pains and are harmed, but don't have the contingent-thinking to know that "something could be different". Things happen to most other animals. They don't opine that it could have been something else. They don't have the ability to see the picture of the category of Suffering in general.

So here we are, animals that can see the big picture of Suffering. That can know that things could be different, but are currently not the ideal.

These comparisons with animals seem to be very important to you. It's not yet clear, why, though. Some form of envy or nostalgia?
Do you think animals are better off than humans?

Yet, there’s a paradox here: the very recognition of our cognitive limitations seems to point to a desire to grasp something beyond them. Does this suggest an innate tension in human thought, or is it simply a reflection of the inherent constraints of our perspectival existence? — Tom Storm

Like they say, follow the money.

If you look at why in particular someone wants to "grasp something beyond" themselves, the motivations are mundane. People are looking for money, power, health, and when they can't get them, they feel "at the end of their wits". This is a recognition of one's cognitive limitations. But it's all for mundane purposes, not because of some profound yearning for "something more" or "beyond".

It doesn't say anything about what we ought do, so isn't intended to be "workable". It's a bit of frippery, like the OP. — Banno

Metaethics and virtue signaling go hand in hand.

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Actually, it is our own actions that we must always present to other people as being good and right, we must talk about ourselves as "I'm only doing what is good and right" and "I'm only acting in ways one should act".

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them?

Can one truly have a choice in remaining ignorant as the very state is a state of not knowing what they ate avoiding?

In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96

I can't think of many contexts in which this particular dichotomy would apply.


One such context is those religious/spiritual apologists who think this way, who preach "at all costs" and who are willing to die for "the truth". It's from them that I've heard this almost exact same formulation of this dichotomy. These are also the type of street preachers who rattle down the message of the Gospel in 20 seconds and then tell you that you now have no excuse anymore, for you have heard the Gospel, and if you reject it, you will burn in hell, and won't be able to claim innocence on the grounds of ignorance.
It's basically an effort to unilaterally incriminate the other person.

Another example of such a dichotomy underlies the thinking of people who refuse to be citizens. In the view of such people, ignorance of the law should constitute innocence of breaking it.


But beyond that, truth and free will cannot be at odds. Free will is merely about choosing between options, but it has nothing to do with the range of those options.

As for wisdom - most of the really wise I have known have not been big readers. They have tended to have a disposition that allows for accumulating wisdom directly through personal experience. — Tom Storm

Do you mean those people were confident?

Other people? This implies that the fetus is a person. — RogueAI

No. It's about the intention to kill. I've been talking about it all along.

And what if the mother's life is at stake or we're dealing with a rape victim?

These are statistical minorities.

The vast majority of abortions are simply advanced contraception measures. In old sex education books, abortion was actually listed in the chapter on contraceptives.

You would prohibit abortion in those cases too?

*sigh*
Abortion debates typically suffer from a lack of precision.

I see little problem with aborting pregnancies due to rape or concerns for the wellbeing of the prospective mother or child. Those are just unfortunate situations.

It's abortions that are simply advanced contraception measures that are morally problematic.

The other big problem is equating the two categories, as if aborting in a case of, for example, preeclampsia, were somehow no different than aborting in the case of failed contraception.

That's why I suggested we should treat existence as a political committee would,

putting a moratorium on it until we understand why we trudge forth,

but do this analysis unflinchingly, without the poetic cliches. — schopenhauer1

It's just that people usually die before they figure this out. The moratorium you speak of is indefinite.

The fact that we exist is something over which we have no control, it precedes us. As such, we have no say over its meaning. To try to figure out why we exist or why life is worth living and to make this a matter of decision is like trying to choose one's parents. That is, it's irrational, it cannot be done.

Let me ask you this- do you see ways of practically handling the situation that is not based on ideas of a spiritual nature (karma, dharma, etc.)? — schopenhauer1

The problem of "existential anxiety" only ever exists precisely in reference to religions and spiritualities, old and more recent.
It's inconceivable otherwise.

One cannot even suffer unless one has some beliefs about "how life and the world should be", and those beliefs are informed by religions and spiritualities, however vaguely and however (im)precisely delivered to an individual person via acculturation.

So for a modern mainstream psychologist, there is no such thing as "existential anxiety", only "chemical imbalances in the brain" and other "disorders" and "mental illnesses". For such psychologists, the solution is primarily medication, and then talk therapy, aimed toward basically seeing oneself as a biomechanical robot.

In order to solve the problem of suffering and existential anxiety, one first needs to figure out where one got the very concepts of "suffering" and "existential anxiety" to begin with and why one is taking them for granted.

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year. — praxis

So much for the social contract ...

Abortion erodes social trust, like I sketched out above.
As does adultery or any other crime.

But perhaps you want to go all Rand/Thatcher and declare there is no society and everyone is solely responsible for themselves?

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, — Tzeentch

Exactly.

so what on earth are our politicians doing?

Indulging in the results of many decades of Russophobia.

Pointing the finger at Russia (and China and South Korea) in order to detract attention from their own misdeeds. (Because, apparently, nothing makes one as innocent as casting the first stone.)

What are the implications? — praxis

Like I said right away in the post you're quoting:

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?" — baker

I would say there's a fundamental difference between ending a clump of cell's life and an adult human's life. They are plainly not hte same thing. — AmadeusD

But the intention for doing either is the same: destroying someone, acting in a way so that someone would not exist.
When and how are just practical matters, whether it takes a gun, a rope, a scalpel, chemicals, etc.

The reason people have abortions is to prevent that "clump of cells" developing and being born a human person.
People don't have abortions merely to remove a "clump of cells". They remove that "clump of cells" precisely because it has the potential of becoming a person, and it's the person they want not to exist.

Who is blind? — tim wood

You said earlier:

the ignorant (which includes all of us) — tim wood

If all of us are ignorant, then who is going to teach us? The ignorant?

And authoritarian misses the mark. What I'm about is some minimum degree responsibility and accountability

Responsibility and accountability toward whom? The ignorant?

I say we should have them, and where folks deny them,

to impose them.

Ie. authoritarianism.

The way that I think we need to deal with the definition of "post-truth" is that it's not about the perpetrators of lies, manipulations, deception, disinformation or misinformation etc.

It is rather about the inability to decipher them as doing such. — Christoffer

Not at all. It's natural for people to take sides, it's a necessity of survival to do so, and survival takes precedence over everything else. But maladapted idealists don't see this.

There is no such thing as a ‘Post Truth’ era, except as a fabrication of the media based on partisan politics. Ideological combatants throughout history have accused each other of falsification. — Joshs

Agreed. And the polarization is due to economic pressures, not ideology.

I don't disagree, but what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted". — LuckyR

That's a problem right there: trust cannot be a matter of "should".

Trust requires time and effort on both sides. But many people want to force it, expect it to be unilateral, even that it is someone's duty to trust a particular other.

Education for the ignorant (which includes all of us), and appropriate penalties for liars. "Appropriate" meaning penalties that will strongly disincentivize lying. — tim wood

The blind leading the blind, the blind judging the blind?

You don't see just how authoritarian you are.

Us ordinary citizens can't do a lot about that, of course, but the only antidote to lies is truth and the hope that others will heed it. — Wayfarer

Not at all. Vote with your wallet. The question is, whether you're willing to do that.

why they think banning abortion is the right thing to do. — Samlw

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?"

This, as far as I can reconstruct, is the concern that is actually behind some of the disapproval of abortion, although I've never heard it directly voiced like this (which is not surprising, given the content).

This also explains why anti-abortionists generally don't have a problem with capital punishment -- it's killing innocents that ix wrong, but not criminals. And also why they are in favor of firearm possession -- it's for personal protection, as they fear for their lives, living among those who are casually willing to kill even their own, innocent children.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention.

I'm evolving to a belief that as they try to subdue opposition in waves of lies,

we best return by insisting on truth and challenging the lies. — tim wood

To people who understand nothing that is less than lethal force?

amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms. — Wayfarer

The same type of reasoning has been used to justify discrimination against women, children, the poor, the sick, those of the wrong skin color, those "with too much dust in their eyes", those of the wrong religion, and then some.

You misinterpret me. — schopenhauer1

I didn't even interpret you.

First off, I am proposing an even more extreme version in the Schopenhauer brand of asceticism. I am claiming that in his version, even the Middle Way of the (Buddhist- Theravadans or otherwise), is not enough. Rather, that in his conception, whereby Will is extricabley tied up on physical existence, I see no way that the ascetic is physiologically still alive after their "grace" of salvation (spiritual redemption into non-being). It seems in his way, even the monk is not going to get there.

Schopenhauer didn't believe in rebirth and didn't see the problem with it, did he?



See here on the Buddhist idea of the cause of suffering and how to end it:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_92.html

And here an excerpt of the relevant text from the above link with easier to read formatting:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12050/page/p1

This isn't about reaching people, it's about dismantling an ideology or behavior /.../ — Christoffer

How do you propose to "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" without reaching people?

You can write a book where you "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" all you want, but if people don't read your book or don't heed it, how have you accomplished anything?

To be fair, the most common view for almost anything is "balance". I'm actually bucking that advise with what you may call "black-and-white" thinking. It's extreme and unsettling (when we usually think in terms of common advise terms like Golden Mean-type / Taoist koan "balance" or modern self-help stock strategies) for sure, not necessarily wrong. — schopenhauer1

The "middle way" is probably one of the most misunderstood terms when referring to Buddhism. For old-school Theravadans, the "middle way" actually means living a monk's life -- with eating only one meal a day, wearing only robes, not engaging in sex, and all the other rules of a monk's life.

For those Buddhists, death alone doesn't solve anything (regardless whether it's by starvation or gunshot wound). It's rebirth that needs to be ended, in order to end suffering.

Even the calculative aspect of selection you speak of already sets the stage prior to the engagement. — schopenhauer1

Only for someone with a too fragile ego.

The politically correct madness has reached the point where we aren't supposed to distinguish between a sociopath and a person with a strong character.

@Wayfarer
"Yeah! Hate wins! Lies, division and dishonesty carry the day. Don't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Baker?"

It's not Trump's fault that you're a maladapted idealist.
Brouhaha!

That is to say, the best some might be able to do is limit engagements, not completely eliminate them. — schopenhauer1

But there is better than merely limiting engagements (while thinking eliminating engagements altogether would be best): to prioritize them according to one's values in life.

In modern politcally correct culture, it's not acceptable to be ruthlessly selective in whom one associates with and for what purpose. And yet anyone who has ever achieved anything great has been doing just that: being ruthlessly selective in whom one associates with and for what purpose.