The morality of God is power

[EndogenousRebel]

It's simple. Power decides what is right and wrong.

We as humans have our own mortal morality let's say, and it's very flexible depending on context and what we (some of us) decide.

But it seems that, in a manner of speaking, change manifests via the movement of "energy" in one way or another.

Of course the variables are limitless. We have to consider what is an instance of "Power" and what is not.

A chemical reaction "just is". But when something/someone "wields" that, it becomes power. I'm not necessarily including intent, though that may be an issue.

Anyways, it is still a grave issue that humans have to contend with, as it is at the core of pathological thinking and game theory rationals. It all starts at the individual level, then goes into the group setting, and then society..

 

[Black Rose]

"Truth to Power"

loyalty is a value.

An or some atheists say they would fight god if god was evil no matter the consequences.

The consequence of believing in Jesus early on was death.

Myrterdom revolution they are about power in a sense but that power is either for the self or for someone else. intrinsic or extrinsic.

The lines blur when apply in game theory. self-sacrifice is based on value.
The passive vs active. Do I kill others or do I do the passive thing and let them kill me.

Do I want to be king? I would need to take the power.
Is the king corrupt? I would need to take his power.

Ashes and sackcloth.

In an honor culture, the cause of one's deeds is extremely important.
Doing wrong brings eternal shame.

But what is a power grab? In Ethics doing the right thing is discussed.

What is right?

solve et coagula

trial by fire

temperance (the pure refined metal of a sword)

once broken will never be broken again.

-

The in and out group.

or a universal theology

mono poly

Christ Consciousness

new age

unity disunity

-

Somehow we are supposed to believe that heaven and hell are real.
That the most powerful wins,

I was told that the ones who win are the ones with the most powerful mind.

And the ones with the most powerful minds are not bent on destruction.

and hobbits would decide the fate of all - quote

 

[onesteptwostep]

Theologically, you are correct. There was this theological debate back in the mediveal ages (13th cen iirc) where theologians argued what was the highest attribute of God. Some argued that rationality or reason was the highest attribute while others argued that God's will was his highest attribute. I think what settled the debate was that if God's highest attribute was rationality, then God would be beholden to another order of principality rather than the essense of God himself. Basically, if rationality was God's highest attribute, "Rationality" itself would be on a higher level than God himself, because God would have to operate under its logic. Aquanius believed that will was subordinate to reason, something called 'intellectualism', while John Don Scotus argued that God's will had primacy, which was called voluntarianism. I think on this matter John Scotus had it right, that God is an essense or someone who is above the operations of reason itself.

 

[Black Rose]

God is an essense or someone who is above the operations of reason itself.

la-gos is the principle by which reality operates.

existence proceeds essence but meta-existence proceeds existence.

the possible the impossible and the actual

whatever is possible can be actual but what is impossible cannot be actualized.

only a subset of the possible is actualized by the will of God through la-gos.

la-gos brings potential into actuality.

anything that is not actualized is impossible potential and thus never exists.

possible potential is in a superposition of actualized and impossible.

once la-gos decides what is to be actualized all unactualized potential becomes impossible potential.

as we move into the future potential is pruned and our path is narrowed to certain finite outcomes.

God reasons what he wants things to be in a finite reality. That is the principle of la-gos.

 

[Black Rose]

rational is ratio, proportion, fraction, phi (ϕ) maths

reason is psi (ψ) nous mind la-gos language, meta-consciousness (I AM)

Together mind does math.

but not all math.

God allows certain maths to exist. certain ratios called laws.

God has nous so is aware of what exists. and brings into existence laws.

This outside force that divides potential laws from actualized laws does so by will.

God desires certain outcomes this is why the laws are the way they are.

So that God's will, will be done.

Once the laws were set God then had only certain ways of intervening.

God has choice and we have choice.

They interact leading to the outcome.

God knows what we can do but not what we will do.

We can influence what choices God will make.

God influences what choices we will make.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Yes it certainly brings meaning to the Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

 

[Cognisant]

Power decides what is right and wrong.

This is what people say when they're in a position of power, and refute when they're not. Christianity was at its origins about peace, humility, compassion, y'know love thy neighbour, the meek will inherit the Earth, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, on the contrary, I just don't want to hear anyone bitching when I enslave you all with my robot army.

 

[Black Rose]

Robot army?

What Would Optimus Prime Do (WWOPD)

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Not saying that is what logic we should (ought) to operate under. Though I do think that robots, even of the AGI would gladly take those positions. Not saying that is necessary moral. Just that seems to be the rule of law imposed by "God".

You could take over with a robot army, and you would just be proving the point.

Maybe we could look at this as, any system that is unsustainable under the most extremes pressures will collapse? But it still sounds like the hypothetical intent of the universe is to create something that amasses power, thus that is their morality.

 

[Cognisant]

Not saying that is what logic we should (ought) to operate under.

Then don't call it morality, yes in a state of anarchy the ability to do things is determined by power, that doesn't make it moral, that's just what power is.

Not saying that is necessary moral. Just that seems to be the rule of law imposed by "God".

No that's the absence of God, here let me summon a professional god-bother'er for a second opinion. @Old Things

In the absence of a god there is no inherent morality because God is the arbiter of morality, there's no good deeds, there's no evil because all evil goes unpunished, there is just power, the people who have it and the people who don't. With that being the case why does God matter, your God may be all powerful but if its not going to use that power to arbitrate morality then how is God different to every other asshole with power over others?

God supposedly intervenes after death, in life we have free will and in death we are judged for what we decided to do with that freedom because obviously if we lived in D&D world where gods actually intervene in mortal affairs why wouldn't you be the most rabid god-bother'er you can be? Because that means you get kickass cleric spells. But it doesn't mean you're actually a good person, you're just self-interested and reacting to circumstances that reward you for being good, its only in the absence of God that said god can see who you are in the dark.

Now personally I'm an atheist, my moral arbitration comes from my conscience and my understanding of moral philosophy and my guiding principle is that in general being a good person benefits me, not because I live in a D&D world with interventionist gods, just as a matter of practicality.

 

[birdsnestfern]

All of the Gods are within us. They are you, they are not outside of you. Navigate them within.
If you feel the power of someone or something else, its probably there to tell you to look for your own power to match that.

If their power sucks you in, try to see its knocking you off balance and isn't good for you. Your heart and mind are your own lighthouse for your soul.
Fill with enough light and ask for inner guidance, visit often, look for, trust and rely on your present self in the present moment on the edge of creation - you are very very powerful from that place as it contains
the power of healing, creation, greeting life connected within to god source inside.

 

[scorpiomover]

In the absence of a god there is no inherent morality because God is the arbiter of morality, there's no good deeds, there's no evil because all evil goes unpunished, there is just power, the people who have it and the people who don't.

Maybe. But this isn't consistent with the following:

Now personally I'm an atheist, my moral arbitration comes from my conscience and my understanding of moral philosophy and my guiding principle is that in general being a good person benefits me, not because I live in a D&D world with interventionist gods, just as a matter of practicality.

Is there anything in the religion of atheism that says "If thou be an atheist, thou must have a moral arbitration that comes from thy conscience and thy understanding of moral philosophy and believe that thy guiding principle is that in general being a good person benefits thyself"?

If no, then atheist just means "person who doesn't believe in G-d", and says nothing about the moral arbitration of any atheist. So your moral arbitration is your personal choice, and has nothing to do with you being an atheist.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's simple. Power decides what is right and wrong.

Anyways, it is still a grave issue that humans have to contend with, as it is at the core of pathological thinking and game theory rationals. It all starts at the individual level, then goes into the group setting, and then society..

Not saying that is what logic we should (ought) to operate under. Though I do think that robots, even of the AGI would gladly take those positions. Not saying that is necessary moral. Just that seems to be the rule of law imposed by "God".

I'm a little unclear here. It sounds like you are suggesting the following:
1) That power decides morality.
2) All morality of all theistic religions are based on the principle "might makes right".
3) That "might makes right" is something we should view negatively.

It sounds like you think that:
1) There are alternatives to "might makes right"
2) That humans should embrace the alternatives.
3) That religions do not embrace the alternatives and are wrong for doing so.

Do you believe that "might makes right" is immoral?

If you believe that "might makes right" is not immoral, then it sounds like you agree with what you believe about religions. So what's the problem?

If you believe that "might makes right" is immoral, then since trying to put down religions as being immoral, is just a way that you might gain power over other people, then you would be bound by your own rules to not go around trying to make such aspersions, yes?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Then don't call it morality

Fuck you I like how deep I sound when I say it

In the absence of a god there is no inherent morality because God is the arbiter of morality, there's no good deeds, there's no evil because all evil goes unpunished, there is just power, the people who have it and the people who don't. With that being the case why does God matter, your God may be all powerful but if its not going to use that power to arbitrate morality then how is God different to every other asshole with power over others?

Good point.

We can destroy the hierarchy of value that is "intrinsic" to the world rather than refer to it. But at some point are we no better than the natural order of before?

As it is now, we have constructed morality and have tried to implement it in various ways. Like building over code that we don't like, but the code we write breakdowns or builds off of it where it left off.

Upon perfecting morality and its implementations, what distinguishes this? What would a morally perfect world even look like?

In anycase that metaphor is just to illistrate that when anything breaksdown, the natural order will come back full force. The psychotic emperors like Stalin and Genghis Khan of the past will always have an advantage if the know how to work the system. I'm not saying we should embrace it, I'm saying that there is a problem, for some people, where what they should pick is not clear.

To embrace it or to reject and find another- potentially futile path. Not a fatalist, it is just an interesting dilemma. Probably doesn't have a binary answer.

In anycase God would have a twisted sense of human to create a zero-sum game and then create beings that object to that mentality.

I'm a little unclear here. It sounds like you are suggesting the following:
1) That power decides morality.
2) All morality of all theistic religions are based on the principle "might makes right".
3) That "might makes right" is something we should view negatively.

It sounds like you think that:
1) There are alternatives to "might makes right"
2) That humans should embrace the alternatives.
3) That religions do not embrace the alternatives and are wrong for doing so.

Do you believe that "might makes right" is immoral?

If you believe that "might makes right" is not immoral, then it sounds like you agree with what you believe about religions. So what's the problem?

If you believe that "might makes right" is immoral, then since trying to put down religions as being immoral, is just a way that you might gain power over other people, then you would be bound by your own rules to not go around trying to make such aspersions, yes?

I'm persusing this line of thought to get answers to a different question. I think you are assuming to much about what decisions I would make.

For example. Freedom is a currency that we all as humans have. Some people have more or less, this can be accounted for with a different variable fairness.

Life is unfair, might makes right. But when ought we apply means to an end when it comes to things like freedom?

If I have to trade my freedom for a life I want, but I end up being less free. That's kinda fucked up. I am incentivized, intrincaclly to make other people sell of their freedom rather than I sell off mine.

You can implement morals, but when there is no enforcement, what is stopping me, why would I stop when I can be more free. Is freedom overrated?

That is where my line of thinking is focused at, not specifically what I wrote thought.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Morality is just fancy way of saying indoctrination.
Really we have innate moral compass.

Elementary building block of morality is connecting the dots of what is good and how you get there.
Morality says you should do what is good.
Avoid doing what is bad.
Our brains don't work in binary.
We just see what is more good or less good and feel it out through life and learn more and experience more so we know more about good.
But good is not available if you don't experience it.

Morality is mutual cooperation.
Its interaction between two people who help each other and that is it.

Power is a way of obtaining things.
If you have more power you are able to obtain more energy.
If you are able to obtain more energy you conversely have more power.
So its a cycle.
Its physics.

But people at some point figured out that dividing work gives you more security and bigger survival advantage.
And so societies scaled to larger head count and nowdays you just have billions of people living relatively in harmony.
* minus the wars and psycho dictator shit.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Yes morality without allowance for pluralism is indoctrination, I would argue that this would be built into the system.

I don't think relativism should have place here though. From my understanding relativism trys to say that there is no truth, at all. While pluralism says that there are many truths, some of which may overlap in instances.

Relativism doesn't much care about context, it is context. It is redundant if I am correct.

We are evolutionary beings and we are surrounded by other evolutionary beings. What we believe we owe to them and the world/universe at large (God) is relative, but pluralistically coming to certain truths is how morality ought to take place if it is to not be inhibiting/restrictive. The outcome being ultimately moral.

Morality is mutual cooperation.
Its interaction between two people who help each other and that is it.

Power is a way of obtaining things.
If you have more power you are able to obtain more energy.
If you are able to obtain more energy you conversely have more power.
So its a cycle.
Its physics.

But people at some point figured out that dividing work gives you more security and bigger survival advantage.
And so societies scaled to larger head count and nowdays you just have billions of people living relatively in harmony.
* minus the wars and psycho dictator shit.

This last part is the troubling thing that is not ignorable.

Division of labor is empirically sound, no doubt.

At some point, a certain class of people were able to structure the world and the economy in a certain way, and such a system has progressed in a way that makes it easier and easier for a certain class of people to accumulate power.

Who says that we need to depend on singular nations (like China) to sacrifice all their opportunity cost in manufacturing for certain products? Has that not been the problem for why shortages exist in the way they do?

Will things change for the better or will they just always regress to the mean, the mean being tangent on the physical (God's morality).

They are taking an opportunity, as you describe it, a opportunity physics allows them to take, to exercise power to make another (larger) class subservient to them.

It is strange to blame things on physics, when it's just a field of study that happens to describe things. I will say this is the first time semantics seems like an interesting conversation to have. But that is besides the point.

So this physical abuse (lmao) is imposed on people, and yet there are so many glaring holes in the system that we can simply not do that.

Yet people, for better or worse just don't see this and instead opt to either work within the system, and or float adjacent to the system (entrepreneurship) that is pathogenic to them and people they love and everyone that they would ever love.

Why?

The answer couldn't be greed, because we can simply make this immoral, and legislate against it. In which case we should just structure our legislative bureaucracy against that and call it a day.

Are we just too fucking stupid? Or are the physics just perpetually on the side of evil people in which we make a rational position to be evil?

The best I can do is instead of calling people evil, we call them lazy. But that just reverts back to being stupid. This doesn't really resolve the conflict.

From a Design Theory perspective: The physics that is "evil" is simply just simpler, and thus easier to adopt.

(KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid)

Now we have the issue where most problems we face on a daily basis are all attributed to stupidity. Where will we be then? We either tolerate stupidity or we become evil. Assuming we aren't succumbing to irrational narcissism.

Is the avoidance of narcissism and this consideration of a pluralistic moral system the only way to not be a stupid, evil, or otherwise winny bitch? Sounds like a brain crunching process to figure out how you are going to tango with reality.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes morality without allowance for pluralism is indoctrination, I would argue that this would be built into the system.

I don't think relativism should have place here though. From my understanding relativism trys to say that there is no truth, at all. While pluralism says that there are many truths, some of which may overlap in instances.

Relativism doesn't much care about context, it is context. It is redundant if I am correct.

We are evolutionary beings and we are surrounded by other evolutionary beings. What we believe we owe to them and the world/universe at large (God) is relative, but pluralistically coming to certain truths is how morality ought to take place if it is to not be inhibiting/restrictive. The outcome being ultimately moral.

People work by adaptation just like all organisms.
Bipedalism gave humans ability to efficiently cross larger land. Without wasting calories.
So we could get water even if it was too far away.
We could hunt even if it meant you had to go on a hunt for 2 3 days.
Then came the donkey and horses and they paved the way to civilization.

Morality is something you have to be able to afford.
We humans compete with others like us for resources, which is in form of territory.
Hence I guess why apes and monkeys still exist, but Neaderthals, Denisovans, etc. where wiped out.
Apes and monkeys pose no competition as they are tree climbers or very local and feed on stuff we humans don't eat as much.

Then came age where humans started competing between each other, and those that were less efficient and less aggressive and less able to defend, and smaller groups were wiped out, again and again, until we evolved societies that could hold their own.

There are two directions to improve resources.
One is take stuff from others.
Two is make more stuff yourself
Third option would be trade, but trade has limits as well.
Hence we still have wars.

Morality then is something you have to evolve into.
Stand alone humans have no incentive to be no more moral than the way they are born.
Hence most people don't need to learn or discuss morals.
We just accept what we are told as kids, and that is it.

Rational of power is that it needs to be distributed evenly over population.

If you get uneven power you get stratified society.
Such society will universally always have those who are subservient to those who have more.

But humans compete for resources even in group.
The more people are in one place, the more people have to have less.
This only changed recently with innovation, trade, and technology.

Unfortunately most humans are still genetically cavemen.
We are designed and primed to work in larger groups, but not in the thousands or millions.
That is why humans are so clumsy and awkward at it.
Give it another 1000 years, and we might figure it out.

That is also why our brains have such hard time working out certain things, we never had to workout in caves, or while hunting.
Like analyzing economy. Large scale economy is something that makes peoples heads spin.
We just don't have efficient brains to deal with such types of information.
Thus it takes life time for economist to come up with theories.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The answer couldn't be greed, because we can simply make this immoral, and legislate against it. In which case we should just structure our legislative bureaucracy against that and call it a day

Greed is eternal says Quark from Star Trek.
Greed just means you take or have more than what you need.
But who is to say what you need?
Greed is acquisition.
Maybe some version of greed is good.

Give people a promise of better life, and they will do anything, even revolt and burn the government down.
People are inherently greedy, but there is difference between those who make value and those who take value.
People who don't know how to make value are easy to manipulate.

 

[Black Rose]

What is unfair?

In order to keep consistent we must say that people either care or they don't care.

Why care that it's unfair? Because an attack on one is an attack on all.

It is personal. It is empathy. The golden rule. The god of this world does not care but it is said there is a god who cares.

the demiurge is the will of matter, it is the raw power of unconscious movement.

Sophia created it from herself in the platonic realms of all possible maths.

then the archons arose, the daemons, the unconscious archetypes, and programs.

the old ones. imprints on the psyche of mankind.

we as conscious beings became encapsulated in the matter of the Demiurge.

we were capable of deciding right from wrong, only we were capable of full morality.

the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the first moral understanding of meta-consciousness.

animal to humanbeing.

When Judas Iscariot realized he had betrayed Jesus he hung himself in the field called Hakeldama

Only a meta-conscious being can have full morality for good or evil.

To realize that there is a right and wrong. fair and unfair.

When we make a moral choice we are doing what is called "free will".

do not call unclean what god has made clean

When god intervenes it is by grace. If god was capable then god would have all the power, and all the free will. but god being pure potential (omnipotent) cannot act against the demiurge. That would destroy everything that would crash the server and all life would end. it would be Noah's ark all over again.

Jobe asked why? but could not blame God. how is god responsible?

I am the potter and you are the clay.

the dilemma Sophia finds herself in is that the demiurge is unconscious and cannot be destroyed. yet conscious beings are in it, what is her responsibility to them?

the only way to intervene is to send messengers to the creation she is separated from.

She knows everything being in the platonic realms yet to be.

from the beginning to the end. AΩ

The only choice available, the only option, is the awakening.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Unfortunately most humans are still genetically cavemen.
We are designed and primed to work in larger groups, but not in the thousands or millions.
That is why humans are so clumsy and awkward at it.
Give it another 1000 years, and we might figure it out.

That is also why our brains have such hard time working out certain things, we never had to workout in caves, or while hunting.
Like analyzing economy. Large scale economy is something that makes peoples heads spin.
We just don't have efficient brains to deal with such types of information.
Thus it takes life time for economist to come up with theories.

I do like the take right, don't get me wrong. However with that intellectualism thread, I kinda came to terms with certain appealing takes such as taking the evolutionarily biological/holistic anthropological perspective.

The whole picture is good, and we can all rest in the comfort that it brings because it does give good insight into many trends and repeating echoing trends that might reemerge.

A historical view in general is good, but unless we are able to apply specific situations we are loosing out on a lot of insight, and potentially not trying to get more insight without experimentation.

Are we not here in the present left with holding a blank check with no direction?

What if the fact that problems are now so inherently complex that the way that things conventionally operate are unsustainable? People say AI will solve everything- but really that is just an excuse to not change how we are in our current state.

Things need to change yes but how? Chaotic revolution might seem necessary but is this really a Neo, Matrix situation? And until they change, morally why should anyone even try to be good when as I said before, it seems like when you have enough power, you can just say fuck everything. Should such a state even exist?

Greed is eternal says Quark from Star Trek.
Greed just means you take or have more than what you need.
But who is to say what you need?
Greed is acquisition.
Maybe some version of greed is good.

Give people a promise of better life, and they will do anything, even revolt and burn the government down.
People are inherently greedy, but there is difference between those who make value and those who take value.
People who don't know how to make value are easy to manipulate.

I think that one can only hold this position if they believe the world would implode if everyone was well educated. By chance would you agree?

I myself have pondered such a thing. If we cured the masses of all ailments and legitimately gave them the tools to me on equal footing, would we be worse off?

The implied distribution of power via currency is not the whole picture. The upper class might have a leash on most people, but they fear dearly that it will come tumbling down. Why else spend so much money in trying to make the system keep running as is?

What is unfair?

I to my knowledge did not consent to existence. I couldn't have because as far I know I couldn't ask for, owe anyone, or do anything. Yet here I am with a whole bunch of losers that couldn't avoid existing either.

I would say that is the very foundation of our idea of fairness. Why even the murder, of anything with any measurable sentience, is unfair despite what one thinks about these animal's purpose in the world.

What is and isn't fair is completely up to the individual, but yes, the golden rule of do unto others as you would done to you is fine. However, there isn't even one answer people can give for this.

I don't care for people babying my ego and I'm not going to baby anyone else's. Is that confidence or is it a legitimate moral axiom because I don't like wasting time? Either is horseshit. I couldn't tell you.

All I can say is that if someone something that hurt me, I would want them to minimize that as much as they can. That is fair. But where is the line there? When are you over imposing, too greedy, sinful?

 

[Black Rose]

We are here because of some unconscious desire for things to exist.

But we are conscious beings in an unconscious world.

To make the best of things is to not make enemies, and to not seek destruction.

It's almost karma, when you harm people others see what you have done.

Cooperation/society is when people get together and decide how they treat one another.

So ethically everyone has the power to commit deeds and is associated with those deeds.

It depends on your reasons for trusting others.

As a subjective measurement of trust, we look at how fairly a person treats others.

Because that is how we gauge they will treat us and our associates.

Like I said you either care or you don't. This will depend on certain values and why you act the way you do. Anger is a poison the Budha said. Resentment is a slave morality Nietzsche said.

To forgive is the hardest thing to do. But to forgive others one needs to forgive oneself first. Weakness is self-imposed. It is the inability to trust oneself. To impose on others what one cannot impose on themself.

 

[Rook]

matter is decay, growth

power is merely a process

 

[ZenRaiden]

We are here because of some unconscious desire for things to exist.

You are not aware of your desire to live?
Curious. hmmmmmm

You are changing the definition of unconscious.

To make the best of things is to not make enemies, and to not seek destruction.

Then that is your karma. Your karma alone.
Sharks karma ergo the wheel of life, is to swim in water and hunt fish and eat them, and grow ever larger.
A tigers karma is to eat and hunt. So they grow claws and larger teeth that tear into flesh.
A bears karma is to hunt and eat dead flesh of dead animals.
A warriors karma is to fight wars.
A rulers karma is to rule his people and impose social hierarchy and order.
A philosophers karma is to love wisdom.
A rats karma is to hunt and eat plants and seeds.
A eagles karma is to fly and see its prey from far away and swoop down and grab it with claws.

Karma is what you do. What you do is what you become.
If you want to throw darts a lot you become good at throwing darts and then by that decision in your karma you become good at throwing darts.

A thief's karma is to steal. If he never gets caught then he will become more rich. Like a banker for instance.
A theif that is lousy will get caught and will become a prisoner.

Just because something is unjust or wrong to our senses, doesn't mean the universal order unravels according to our sense of justice and the universe does not reconfigure each time a warrior conquers someones land.

If karma were as punitive as westerners tend to think then the world would not look the way it is.

No I believe those who propose the order of karma are talking about something more larger than life and something more universal.

I think they are talking about the essence of being, and its existence in this world.
They are talking about the order of universe.

Also what makes you think your morals are superior to those who don't adhere to that sense of morals.
How and in what way can you measure your moral standing.
What makes you think you are more right in the way you are than say a brutal dictator, or a crab or a benevolent nun.

^ and that here is not rethorical question. Its legit open ended question.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't think relativism should have place here though. From my understanding relativism trys to say that there is no truth, at all. While pluralism says that there are many truths, some of which may overlap in instances.

Its relative to what you mean relativism is.
Since humans act on incomplete information all their life, whether they consciously want to admit it or not, does not make things less relative.
If you crash in the mountains with your football team, you are in a situation you never experienced before. Can you have some moral understanding of that situation apriory? Probably some yes, but once you are in that situations your values don't define the situation you are in whether you like it or not.
Chances are if you came back to normal life, knowing you ate half your team and roasted them on fire, you will feel guilty about it.
But if you did not you would never have a chance to feel guilty about it in the first place.
But what if you actually studied in school, instead of playing football, and were able to fix the radio and call for help, there by saving the whole team.
But you would argue, that situation never happens so you never had the incentive to learn about radios.
But then you are already in relativism sorts.

Another question is it moral to adhere to rigid morals in situations where the morals actually don't work and lead to suffering and death.
Or is it merely a habit of humans to feel better to think they live in a coherent world, and since its hard to replace old models of reality to new ones, we stick to our guns and morals out of habit, so we get the feeling the world is a sensible coherent place that has order and justice?
Or abandoning morals would make us feel like we betrayed our identity thus we enter the world of slippery slopes and thus its better to be as rigid as possible?
Or inbetween bits where you are as moral as premisable and rational by situation.
Knowing full well that even tiny deviation here and there, may lead to accumulated changes in your life later that are nothing you would expect.
But when is life something you would expect?
Well the answer in short is almost never.
Unless of course we don't engineer predictable life for ourselves.
Because the universe certainly won't do that for us.

be good when as I said before,

Lots of people try to be good. They still maybe short of people who are good though.
But what makes good good is also something people need to ponder.
Is bacon good? Depends who you ask.
People have fought entire world wars on the interwebz to decide whether its OK to eat bacon and whether its actually good.
Many souls have been eaten up in this war, and many have lost their minds.
But pigs are also cute and friendly and bit piggish.
What if your friend had the intelligence of a pig, would you still eat him?
I don't know about you, but the association of pig rights has been pondering this issue for 100 years, with Major Babe as presiding minister for some time.
Are we even allow to look at bacon anymore? They ask....

I would say that is the very foundation of our idea of fairness. Why even the murder, of anything with any measurable sentience, is unfair despite what one thinks about these animal's purpose in the world.

Exactly, and yet here we are clubbing seals like we are at a Eskimo party.

What is and isn't fair is completely up to the individual, but yes, the golden rule of do unto others as you would done to you is fine. However, there isn't even one answer people can give for this.

Golden rule is cool, but for a psycho Machiavelli that means to stab you in your back. Because that is what he would like to do to you, and he thinks you do that to him. Unless you want Machiavelli to tell you have to become a ruler, and help you become a king, which he did, so he stuck to the golden rule and wrote a book about it.
If leadership is zero sum game and there can be only one king, you get what they had in Egypt that every sibling tried to poison their other sibling lest they become the next Pharaoh.
Where all the people in royal family psychopathic, or do people turn into killing machines when it becomes zero sum game?

 

[Black Rose]

We are here because of some unconscious desire for things to exist.

You are not aware of your desire to live?
Curious. hmmmmmm

You are changing the definition of unconscious.

The universe did not consent to exist I did not consent to exist.

In the beginning, we are all here because of the unconscious desire of what the gnostics call the demiurge.

The reason I don't commit suicide is that I am not in pain.
If I were in extreme pain I would consider it but it would be extremely frightening.

Karma is what you do. What you do is what you become.

How and in what way can you measure your moral standing.

Well, you just answered that for me.
I become what my karma decides.
It is a relative judgment of my subjective stances.
Can I be trusted and in what ways?

do people turn into killing machines when it becomes zero sum game?

Unless people can overcome their fear zero sum become the only option.
We can be afraid of many things and it is a motivating factor.
Some are afraid of killing some are afraid of death.
Batman was afraid of killing but the scarecrow gave him an anti-fear serum and he almost killed someone.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The universe did not consent to exist I did not consent to exist.

In the beginning, we are all here because of the unconscious desire of what the gnostics call the demiurge.

The reason I don't commit suicide is that I am not in pain.
If I were in extreme pain I would consider it but it would be extremely frightening.

So you are fairly conscious of your desire to live.

Well, you just answered that for me.
I become what my karma decides.
It is a relative judgment of my subjective stances.
Can I be trusted and in what ways?

That is not all. Karma is you are human, but karma is your decision as well.
You could do 100s of things, instead of this post. The karma of deciding this post is partially your doing. That you made this post is just the fact you are human able to make it. But equally you are able to do many other things.
So in some sense you should be able to make decisions.
I did not say karma is fatalism or with no agency.

So your moral are relative subjective stances.. makes sense.

Unless people can overcome their fear zero sum become the only option.

Depends on situations. People always say you have options.
But not all options are equal.
Overcoming fear might also mean to commit to zero sum game.
After all no fear, no problem dying for a cause even if its zero sum game.
Its your unfounded implication, that some "fear" equals options other than zero sum game.

We can be afraid of many things and it is a motivating factor.

So is fear good or bad.
If fear motivates people, is lack of fear good or bad.

Some are afraid of killing some are afraid of death.

OK? Is that supposed to mean something?

Batman was afraid of killing but the scarecrow gave him an anti-fear serum and he almost killed someone.

For a guy who was afraid of killing people he sure did a lot of stuff close to killing people. But assuming that is right, what does it mean.

 

[Black Rose]

Agency is key because as moral animals we need to know the consequences of our actions to make decisions at least in theory. Mostly it is intuitive. I understand what I do affects others so I can be selfish or altruistic. Neither is wrong per se but it has consequences. Given the situation, we may act consciously or unconsciously. And we will be judged for it. By others or ourselves.

Generally, we understand the difference between malevolence and benevolence.

by their deeds you will know them

 

[ZenRaiden]

Generally, we understand the difference between malevolence and benevolence.

Do we?
What makes you think that?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

To make the best of things is to not make enemies, and to not seek destruction.

Even in a non-sentient world, there is destruction to maintain some sort of balance.

The Earth in a sense creates hurricanes due to buildup of heat. Storms where there is too much or too little of things become chaotic.

Even if you were to look at a glass of water with dirt in it, that water "wants" to escape due to pressures, and the dirt at the bottom of the cup is pushing between the glass and the water. You shake up the water, introducing an outside force and you see chaos for a short while, but the stability offered by the cup and lack of motion is too great assuming there are no outside forces.

To make the "best" of things would imply we know what best is.

We humans are gifted with immense intelligence, and a vast library of knowledge to help us apply that. Yet we squander so much of it, allowing our pre-programmed impulses to get the better of us time and time again.

Thus we basically default to monkey see monkey do. We follow the example of what we see around us. Perhaps nature itself was a parental figure at one time. Yet we have long outgrown them, yet we still follow its way, to much success. Do we have to do just that though?

 

[Black Rose]

If I harm others the likelihood of me being harmed increases, alot.
If I don't the chances decrease.
If I benefit others the chances of harm decrease substantially more.
Knowing best is to the degree of trust we have in others and ourselves.

The Attachment Theory: How Childhood Affects Life​

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If you crash in the mountains with your football team, you are in a situation you never experienced before. Can you have some moral understanding of that situation apriory? Probably some yes, but once you are in that situations your values don't define the situation you are in whether you like it or not.
Chances are if you came back to normal life, knowing you ate half your team and roasted them on fire, you will feel guilty about it.
But if you did not you would never have a chance to feel guilty about it in the first place.
But what if you actually studied in school, instead of playing football, and were able to fix the radio and call for help, there by saving the whole team.
But you would argue, that situation never happens so you never had the incentive to learn about radios.
But then you are already in relativism sorts.

I would tell someone who experienced that "that's really unlucky bro" and if I were the one to have experienced it my response would be "no shit?". Then I would try to figure out why their/my values can't account for permissively allow me to eat my colleges when the time calls for it without feeling guilty later. Yes indeed the education system has failed us.

In all seriousness these edge cases are things we should be looking at. Survivor bias (no pun intended) is a real thing. The idea that since one person has success going down a academic path, so we should instill that same process in others is pretty fucking dumb. It is antithetical to individual differences.

If you told someone that however they might look at you like you are fucking dumb though. Their attachment to certain values, "rational" as they may be will hold them back from seeing your point and even begin to think about potential alternatives.

Such a scenario almost makes rhetoric a necessity over making a good argument because people don't understand arguments, and harping on their emotions (pathos) and their sense of authoritative values (ethos) is more effective.

At which point you are no better than propaganda unless you can get a point across with the details of the argument.

Golden rule is cool, but for a psycho Machiavelli that means to stab you in your back. Because that is what he would like to do to you, and he thinks you do that to him. Unless you want Machiavelli to tell you have to become a ruler, and help you become a king, which he did, so he stuck to the golden rule and wrote a book about it.
If leadership is zero sum game and there can be only one king, you get what they had in Egypt that every sibling tried to poison their other sibling lest they become the next Pharaoh.
Where all the people in royal family psychopathic, or do people turn into killing machines when it becomes zero sum game?

Sidenote: There is a theory that Machiavelli wrote his most famous book as a way to convince competitors to implement his techniques so everyone would hate them and want to kill them. 4D chess if true, but maybe some people would see through that.

We are certainly overreactive. Why that is, is probably key to the last question there. We horde toilet paper when we hear about a shortage, and the shortage happens because people horde the toilet paper.

The idea of not being able to wipe ones ass, ironically made it so that some people would be less likely to wipe their ass, with toilet paper.

I suppose it does come back to cynicism, which most people have a poor relationship with. Being optimistic makes you primed to be hurt. Being pessimistic makes it impossible to be hurt but you probably disintegrate too much. The balance is hard, because there is no middle all the time.

But I suppose it is justifiable that in certain circumstances, people give in to their (para)sympathetic nerve responses because you cannot risk not doing so.

But how often is that statistically the case? This is something that is used to avoid accidents and emerging mistakes. Like while driving, on a ladder. Not when you're running a country or for example dividing up your parents will.

So, time we have to perform our actions is a factor. Risk, is also a factor. Calculation of certain variables (errors may be made that should be excused in some situations). It sounds to me like I want to be mad as often as possible I think.

 

[Black Rose]

The math of "God" is set to some degree.
Options are not unlimited. They have a frame of reference.
Freedom is constrained. Not entirely random.
What consequences come, the outcome is even higher than 5D chess.
At my level, the human Animekitty level I don't know what is ultimately best.
I can only act on what is optimum in my instance.
The math of Animekitty.
Fuzzy logic.

 

[Black Rose]

Epicurus' trilemma

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

5-value logic:

God is semi-powerful - can prevent some evil.
God is willing but semi-unable - God is semi-good.
God is willing but semi-unable - only some evil is preventable.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Epicurus' trilemma

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

5-value logic:

God is semi-powerful - can prevent some evil.
God is willing but semi-unable - God is semi-good.
God is willing but semi-unable - only some evil is preventable.

Yes, but when I wrote God I meant the structure of the universe itself basically. What you are describing is some sort of deity that is not necessarily intertwined with the fabric of reality.

Nothing wrong with being a deist. IIRC, the founding fathers of America subscribe to deism, which is why they took it upon themselves to set order in the world by learning from humanities mistakes.

However interesting that discussion might be, I would've put it in the faith and spirituality forum if it were the discussion I wanted to focus on.

It is very hard to integrate that sort of thinking with formal logic, as it's just an interface that hides logic and abstractions made. Hence people resort to reasoning by analogy, which is not always appropriate, and infact the opposite of appropriate often.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I guess the implication of Gods morality does include that conversation, but I'm not going to quibble about the nature of God on such a small scale of whether he can make farts beneficial for the Earth or not, or whether it is humans who are corrupt and not God.

If it were to take place here it would be because God or the sum of everything is more "real" than us and thus we cannot understand it, and where would the conversation go from there? No fucking clue

 

[Black Rose]

I guess the implication of Gods morality does include that conversation, but I'm not going to quibble about the nature of God on such a small scale of whether he can make farts beneficial for the Earth or not, or whether it is humans who are corrupt and not God.

If it were to take place here it would be because God or the sum of everything is more "real" than us and thus we cannot understand it, and where would the conversation go from there? No fucking clue

God has all potential and all actualized power.
Both abstract and empirical reality.
pandeism in loose terms.

And if God is both reality and meta-reality this includes both consciousness and unconsciousness.

God being the supra set i.e. the set of all sets as Kurt Godel called it.

Our axioms are limited - incomplete - we infer that God is all that is, was, or ever will be.

But if we can infer a God somehow we are part of everything that is.

At some level, we know that a Neumann exists beyond phenomena.

We cannot understand it more than to realize it exists beyond us.

Big G is up there and us little g are down here.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I guess the implication of Gods morality does include that conversation, but I'm not going to quibble about the nature of God on such a small scale of whether he can make farts beneficial for the Earth or not, or whether it is humans who are corrupt and not God.

If it were to take place here it would be because God or the sum of everything is more "real" than us and thus we cannot understand it, and where would the conversation go from there? No fucking clue

God has all potential and all actualized power.
Both abstract and empirical reality.
pandeism in loose terms.

And if God is both reality and meta-reality this includes both consciousness and unconsciousness.

God being the supra set i.e. the set of all sets as Kurt Godel called it.

Our axioms are limited - incomplete - we infer that God is all that is, was, or ever will be.

But if we can infer a God somehow we are part of everything that is.

At some level, we know that a Neumann exists beyond phenomena.

We cannot understand it more than to realize it exists beyond us.

Big G is up there and us little g are down here.

now I'm curious if you think that we created God or if God created us. One is sensible. Us creating the God of government for example. Or us creating cups, and things of the like. Platonisms and such make sense, but they aren't more real than us because we made them.

If a tree fell in the forrest with no one around to see it, did it really fall? Yes it did. But the raw data, while not entirely unique, does not indicate that there is a God of falling which a verb we put on a subject with language.

Not sure what your justifications are for including this in the thread. My interpretations agree with that song, except not in a political sense. Why do you like wearing the beaver hat? You look silly and I sense you are trying to give me some sort of ultimately superficial analysis. (*elitist too)

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would tell someone who experienced that "that's really unlucky bro" and if I were the one to have experienced it my response would be "no shit?". Then I would try to figure out why their/my values can't account for permissively allow me to eat my colleges when the time calls for it without feeling guilty later. Yes indeed the education system has failed us.

I think fringe cases show us that our reasoning about morals has limitations.
Since we often have situations that are predictable we can have law and order, but those things are sufficient in predictable cases.
But even law is arbitrated by certain moral of society.
Hence why countries have different laws.

More importantly there is certain necessity for moral relativism, because unfortunately humans brain work only from context and interdependence of information. Each piece of new information you are opened to changes your equations again and again, until the model of reality you work with expands to a point where what you were assuming previously no longer works.
But if variables change and assumptions don't its hard to pin point where morality fails, as it would mean morality is always right.
But if morals are always same they have to apply to everything.


When you have black market economy you also have mafia and that is result of black market value being higher than the risk of getting going into jail.
Worst the feedback loops there are well known. The more risk it takes the more aggressive and Machiavellian people go into this. The more Machiavellian people go into the black market the more laws they break the more reluctant will be the people for supporting changes which allow for integrating the black market.
For instance Italy has black market for disposal of dangerous chemicals, but companies definitely are perpetuating this black market not the mafia.
The mafia is just doing something the companies want and willing to pay for.
But the stronger the mafia is the more powerful it becomes.
So it is a chicken and egg thing.
Is it the government failure, or the mafia or the companies?
What if all three elements of equations are guilty of failure, but each point fingers at each other.

In all seriousness these edge cases are things we should be looking at. Survivor bias (no pun intended) is a real thing. The idea that since one person has success going down a academic path, so we should instill that same process in others is pretty fucking dumb. It is antithetical to individual differences.

There are all kinds of things.
Hard work pays off. Definitely not true. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
If we account for people who work hard don't succeed then we might know if its true.
Being good pays off, maybe true, but rarely do people actually say what sort of good it is that pays off.
What about being good and not having reward.
Capitalism says that is not right. IF its good, but you get nothing in return your self interest becomes a problem as you have no way of paying bills.
So ultimately you have feedback loops.
Plus number of people willing to help in such ways rarely have money, so they end up giving only meager help compared to people who have money and thus can change thing much more.

People are not rational about work, because we live in economy where unit of work is relativistic.
You can work hard and make very little money all your-life.
Then you can work very little, but in way that society values and make shit ton of it.
Talking about education its also feedback loop.
Education creates people who make up the working market.
The working market then makes values according to ability thus education which they got, and then the working market dictates what education people get.
Thus doctors, lawyers etc. are seen as successful even if the market is full of these people who depreciate their own standing by being too many.
In Jungs time being a psychiatrist was sort of rare job. Not something everyone did, hence why it was called specialization. Specialization in the past was really special.
Today having a Phd is like having a boy scout badge that you can do whatever every kid can do.
Its thus why so many outliers get crazy successful if they find a way to market abilities.

Such a scenario almost makes rhetoric a necessity over making a good argument because people don't understand arguments, and harping on their emotions (pathos) and their sense of authoritative values (ethos) is more effective.

Why pathos and ethos work though and not arguments.
Id argue it has to do with how much people can gain vs how much effort they give.
News are full of bull, so its hard to find the facts. Even if possible if you have to literally make a science of reading news just to get to actual real truth, you are better off just working to become rich man and read information that are easier to digest and have real world value.
People are not stupid, but they are socially engineered to think certain way, then they can and always will act stupid.
I mean reading news today without irony people became desensitized to so many things that would be unheard of in the past.
I found old news articles a little naive and funny, but at least they seemed more matter of fact.
Today they are not actually playing dumb when they want to spin controversy or misinform or lead on people.
They literally just tell you what they want you to think and then you see people on internet just repeating what they have been told.
Reading other peoples posts is like reading the news.
Trouble is news is not telling us facts, its telling us what to think. BIG problem.

The idea of not being able to wipe ones ass, ironically made it so that some people would be less likely to wipe their ass, with toilet paper.

I suppose it does come back to cynicism, which most people have a poor relationship with. Being optimistic makes you primed to be hurt. Being pessimistic makes it impossible to be hurt but you probably disintegrate too much. The balance is hard, because there is no middle all the time.

Yeah and how do you learn about society when what you learn can create feedback loops.
I still don't know where people got the idea of buying toilette paper from lmao.
I literally heard nothing and saw nothing until it happened.
Its like people have some top secrete channel to alternative universe.

So, time we have to perform our actions is a factor. Risk, is also a factor. Calculation of certain variables (errors may be made that should be excused in some situations). It sounds to me like I want to be mad as often as possible I think.

The thing about risk, is that it sometimes diminishes.
For instance Bill Gates at start of career made huge risk.
Later on he was basically in less risk than most people who never take risks.
A driver who drives on race cars, will probably be much better driver and safer than a average driver who is afraid to make risk.
A guy who fights fights is probably much safer in a fight then someone who never fights. That too might be karma.
I think senseless risk like jumping off cliffs even though no matter how skilled you are you die that is the type of dumb risk Id say is bad.
I think unreal optimism is much worse than unreal pessimism. That being said being categorically pessimistic is not necessary.

 

[Black Rose]

Why do you like wearing the beaver hat?

Am I to assume you think I believe in God because I am a rich guy?

I am a college dropout and below the poverty line.

My interest in religion is due to my interest in philosophy. To know what is true.

I believe that God created me. That God is some outside force.

I did not create God, the outside force.

I believe that the material world is not all that exists.

Something is beyond it.

It is where we came from.

Realities are nested within realities.

But the source is consciousness.

First Consciousness created everything.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What if all three elements of equations are guilty of failure, but each point fingers at each other.

Right. I would say that human's are inherently needy. Thus some foundation of individualism is needed. That libertarianism only goes so far.

You have to be educated/wise enough to at least be on the trajectory of what you need. reasonably. Thus society at large has to have the wisdom to know what people will need, and the people that make up that society have the moral obligation to facilitate that, reasonably.

This endless chain of blame of Cain and Able starts with the fucker who is in a position of power enough to change something but doesn't. That something that has to change, seems unclear.

Al Capone, despite any cynicism one might add, upon finding out that people would get sick from spoiled milk, was instrumental in starting a program that would place missing children on milk cartons.

Someone who ultimately wasn't bright beyond emotional intelligence, wasn't from a rich family, and by most account did immoral things did something, from a place that had no business doing it.

Of course things are more complicated than that, but you can say the same about certain other unsavory figures in history.

Once change is possible I would think is the answer, and people within the proximity to implement that change no matter how small would benefit.

Of course, the human brain is a Blackbox. But how much can we excuse that mystery?

What about being good and not having reward.
Capitalism says that is not right. IF its good, but you get nothing in return your self interest becomes a problem as you have no way of paying bills.
So ultimately you have feedback loops.
Plus number of people willing to help in such ways rarely have money, so they end up giving only meager help compared to people who have money and thus can change thing much more.

People are not rational about work, because we live in economy where unit of work is relativistic.
You can work hard and make very little money all your-life.
Then you can work very little, but in way that society values and make shit ton of it.

Yes

Talking about education its also feedback loop.
Education creates people who make up the working market.
The working market then makes values according to ability thus education which they got, and then the working market dictates what education people get.
Thus doctors, lawyers etc. are seen as successful even if the market is full of these people who depreciate their own standing by being too many.
In Jungs time being a psychiatrist was sort of rare job. Not something everyone did, hence why it was called specialization. Specialization in the past was really special.
Today having a Phd is like having a boy scout badge that you can do whatever every kid can do.
Its thus why so many outliers get crazy successful if they find a way to market abilities.

This is too true. It's almost verified by society?

Not in every instance, but in general. it's funny how (US) teachers, educators really seem to be at the bottom of the food chain yet supposedly hold and congregate regularly with the most knowledgeable people in the world.

Meanwhile PhDs just have life set up for them. Institutions will even give some of them "tenure" so they can sit around on their ass and do research for them on their campus. Masters and undergrads are basically from what I see the people that are doing the dirty work the "creative" class does in general.

Ironic, yet you are right. PhD's seem to get license to do everything after trading in what is mostly their youth.

Why pathos and ethos work though and not arguments.
Id argue it has to do with how much people can gain vs how much effort they give.
News are full of bull, so its hard to find the facts. Even if possible if you have to literally make a science of reading news just to get to actual real truth, you are better off just working to become rich man and read information that are easier to digest and have real world value.
People are not stupid, but they are socially engineered to think certain way, then they can and always will act stupid.
I mean reading news today without irony people became desensitized to so many things that would be unheard of in the past.
I found old news articles a little naive and funny, but at least they seemed more matter of fact.
Today they are not actually playing dumb when they want to spin controversy or misinform or lead on people.
They literally just tell you what they want you to think and then you see people on internet just repeating what they have been told.
Reading other peoples posts is like reading the news.
Trouble is news is not telling us facts, its telling us what to think. BIG problem.

Even logos in rhetoric should be looked at carefully. Often times they inject a irrelevant thing to make it sound logical.

Yes I agree. No one sets up articles in a format for critical analysis, there is so much to comb through (honestly the real crime is wasting time)

The idea of not being able to wipe ones ass, ironically made it so that some people would be less likely to wipe their ass, with toilet paper.

I suppose it does come back to cynicism, which most people have a poor relationship with. Being optimistic makes you primed to be hurt. Being pessimistic makes it impossible to be hurt but you probably disintegrate too much. The balance is hard, because there is no middle all the time.

Yeah and how do you learn about society when what you learn can create feedback loops.
I still don't know where people got the idea of buying toilette paper from lmao.
I literally heard nothing and saw nothing until it happened.
Its like people have some top secrete channel to alternative universe.

More like we need an alternate universe to hide our shit where only sane people can find it. Problem is at that point, people will actually come to there sense and lose it again once they have what they need.

So, time we have to perform our actions is a factor. Risk, is also a factor. Calculation of certain variables (errors may be made that should be excused in some situations). It sounds to me like I want to be mad as often as possible I think.

The thing about risk, is that it sometimes diminishes.
For instance Bill Gates at start of career made huge risk.
Later on he was basically in less risk than most people who never take risks.
A driver who drives on race cars, will probably be much better driver and safer than a average driver who is afraid to make risk.
A guy who fights fights is probably much safer in a fight then someone who never fights. That too might be karma.
I think senseless risk like jumping off cliffs even though no matter how skilled you are you die that is the type of dumb risk Id say is bad.
I think unreal optimism is much worse than unreal pessimism. That being said being categorically pessimistic is not necessary.

I look at people like RPG characters. Runescape for example. You have a tree of skills.

They go from broad as possible- to specific.

We don't need nomadic people right now. People don't have the essential skills to get and move to another spot and setup their living situation. Moving is a laborious task and the legal system that facilitates it for practical reasons doesn't make it any less laborious.

We as a society, and units of society like cities, don't want that to happen. That I guess is another implicit thing we don't question.

Am I to assume you think I believe in God because I am a rich guy?

You don't need to be rich to believe in God. I would one day like to meet a guy who thinks so. Sounds like maybe a nice guy.

Replace the wealth in plutocracy and change it with virtue. I guess I meant aristocracy, but even that doesn't fit culturally. Meritocracy is not the answer though.

That's what is seems to me. Then again it might be because I have a friend who is oddly on about similar things and came from a religious background. I have worked so hard to get him off some bizarre Western fixation on martyring himself with guilt and such and such because he think that if he feels guilty, mercy will be laid onto him. Such things come from great pain.

 

[Black Rose]

Such things come from great pain.

Guilt comes from being unable to live up to one's own expectations of oneself. From being a coward. Fear. - Lack of love.

The polarity of self-honesty. - self-respect.

One's identity is tied to the self-image.

The shadow of pride.

Peter was ashamed of his denial. He had little faith.

yet Christ did not deny him.

God's power is in his love.

It is what guides.

Love is God's virtue, not guilt.

My self-image is too much on guilt and not on love.

But God heals.

God heals broken hearts.

 

[scorpiomover]

In anycase God would have a twisted sense of human to create a zero-sum game and then create beings that object to that mentality.

I thought that was the objective of making such claims about a being one also claims to have never met.

I'm persusing this line of thought to get answers to a different question. I think you are assuming to much about what decisions I would make.

For example. Freedom is a currency that we all as humans have. Some people have more or less, this can be accounted for with a different variable fairness.

If I have to trade my freedom for a life I want, but I end up being less free. That's kinda fucked up.

How is that wrong? If your currency was "Freedom dollars" or "freedoms" for short, then you exchange "freedoms" for food, which means you end up having less "freedoms", the way you exchange "dollars" for food, which means you end up having less dollars.

I am incentivized, intrincaclly to make other people sell of their freedom rather than I sell off mine.

You are incentivised, instrinsically to make other people sell their dollars rather than you sell our dollars?

You can implement morals, but when there is no enforcement, what is stopping me, why would I stop when I can be more free.

Well, you. But if you won't stop yourself, and others need to keep stepping in, then we'll probably either see the collapse of society or we'll need a police force.

Is freedom overrated?

Freedom is a zero-sum game.

If you want to enjoy being able to walk whever you like, you have to be pretty self-restrictive on what you eat, and pretty self-disciplined to do some exercise most days of the week.

It's only rated, to those who rate it. So to those who rate it, a lot seem to rate it as being more important than anything except money and power.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'm persusing this line of thought to get answers to a different question. I think you are assuming to much about what decisions I would make.

For example. Freedom is a currency that we all as humans have. Some people have more or less, this can be accounted for with a different variable fairness.

If I have to trade my freedom for a life I want, but I end up being less free. That's kinda fucked up.

How is that wrong? If your currency was "Freedom dollars" or "freedoms" for short, then you exchange "freedoms" for food, which means you end up having less "freedoms", the way you exchange "dollars" for food, which means you end up having less dollars.

I am incentivized, intrincaclly to make other people sell of their freedom rather than I sell off mine.

You are incentivised, instrinsically to make other people sell their dollars rather than you sell our dollars?

Seeing as I didn't consent to existence (that I am aware of), and neither was anyone else, we are all here, in some capacity free to do whatever we want. Historically, we traded our freedoms for direct value. Like hunting gain.

However, today if I want to live cohesively with my fellow humans, I to large degree have to assimilate myself to their views. I am seemingly forced to subscribe to value of money for example, which is actually relatively new. We moved off the gold standard, which is even more new a couple decades ago.

Trade itself for example is a very old concept. Even chimps understand trade. However, money is a relatively new idea, that isn't necessarily bad. It just happens to be the thing "we" (by my estimation large corporate entities) have decided to stake our power in.

When we deconstruct why people think that is:

"because society just evolved to be like that"

It's not really an answer to why, it's an answer to how. The why, seems to be because we are just too lazy or too stupid to actively change things.

You can implement morals, but when there is no enforcement, what is stopping me, why would I stop when I can be more free.

Well, you. But if you won't stop yourself, and others need to keep stepping in, then we'll probably either see the collapse of society or we'll need a police force.

Why be moral is what I am getting at. Why not get away with being as immoral as you possibly can?

Yes of course I have compassion for my fellow man, don't get me wrong. This is why I brought up the argument though.

If I am intelligent enough, I could simply make people believe my actions were moral by appealing to some context, and I might even fool myself.

The answer to that question is important from a humanistic perspective. Altruism is rewarded by society. But what of when society is not looking? It is the fundamental problem of evil, and "God" ultimately decided that evil, rather utilization of power is king.

I suppose you could argue that sometimes the best way to utilize power, is in a moral way, but that isn't universal, is it. Lots of that is granted to us by society, and if society were to collapse, we would be right back at square one.

Is freedom overrated?

Freedom is a zero-sum game.

If you want to enjoy being able to walk whever you like, you have to be pretty self-restrictive on what you eat, and pretty self-disciplined to do some exercise most days of the week.

It's only rated, to those who rate it. So to those who rate it, a lot seem to rate it as being more important than anything except money and power.

I think that one can say that you can only have so much freedom throughout your life.

I am just getting at the fact that society, most governments, aren't setup to make us as free as possible. Perhaps for some people.

So much freedom at the bottom, it almost seems like you could make the argument that the people on top deserve to be there. Except, that loses all justification when you realize that many of those people didn't earn it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Except, that loses all justification when you realize that many of those people didn't earn it.

I don't envy people who have better life than me even if they did not earn it.
Even if its not fair.
I did not earn my life either though.
Neither did I earn life it self. >Just to be consistent.
Fairness is a small group construct, like when you are sharing a meal and you give the starving person as much as you get, even though you could just tell them to starve.
You give them food, because you have compassion, but you have compassion, because you see inherent value in a lose of life of another human.
You also acting on behalf of good will and that facilitates their good will towards you whether it was compassion or calculated move.
Reality is not partial to anyone.
Its our human conscious mind that is partial and we prefer it that way as it makes life much nicer.
No one cares for rich people being rich so long as the rich don't live of the back of the bruised.
In life there are winners and losers and its rarely fair.
Id argue though that being rich is a self imposed prison to some degree too.
Some level of wealth is good, but at some point becomes a chore and a life mission and a behemoth that needs feeding and attention just like tamagochi.
I remember having tamagochi and it made me realize its not fun feeding it and clearing its poop for sake of it its digital life.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Why be moral is what I am getting at. Why not get away with being as immoral as you possibly can?

Because you are a mammal.
Wolfs have certain ethics too, so do all group animals, but even bears have respect for territory of other bears.
Even if animals such as mammals have incentives to be amoral they act in good will.
Even if they act on brutal survival instincts they can be nice to each other.
Hence why you can have a pet cat and pet parrot and they don't kill each other.
But if you starve a cat enough it will kill the parrot and eat it.
Not because it is amoral. But because its a cat and had no choice.
When people have a zero sum game they can opt out or win.
Die or win situations are something people avoid automatically, because dying is not a good sport for mammals that need life to life.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Prospectively perhaps some conversations are better off not being had for health reasons, but on the other hand maybe not. I think I just quoted Peterson almost verbatim with that uttering, so maybe this is on the not side.

I link this song because I feel like it'll convey what I mean the best.

My favorite take/way to look at the lyrics of the song: it's progressively more affluent people one upping in each other.

The beginning you have someone who has the luxury of being able to practice a useless skill. And by the end you have people who increasingly on a whim can do virtually anything.

You might say this is hyperbolic if taken literally. It is. One person cannot effect that much change. Perhaps they can escape punishment, but do they even need to try to escape punishment when they can just throw money (power) at the problem?

There is paranoia, which can be justified maybe. Then there is psychosis, which is detached from reality.

There is a great deal of conversation to be had on whether billionaires should exist I think. I understand the premise you bring up naturally, as I do believe that there are many who just leave a mark on the world (and the financial system) and no one notices because they go quitely into the night.

But isn't it at least surreal that, so much power can be held in the hand of so few? Statistically right, there are just as many moral actors and immoral actors in the group, skewing tbh towards unscrupulous people.

Yet even business/organizational entities as whole, of which many exist and where responsibility is distributed; almost always act against moral interests.

This is really my final issue of the argument I initially brought up. Should such power and system of power exist? Where instead of physics we just accept this imaginary system built off trade that allows for such puppeteering with not other implication?

It's more a political question, and I myself and not proposing anything. I probably have to read more to get an opinion I think is worth sharing.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I suppose we can rest easy knowing that those that inherit their wealthy position won't use it that competently.

*this one provides context

 

[scorpiomover]

Seeing as I didn't consent to existence (that I am aware of), and neither was anyone else,

You didn't consent to be BORN. But from then on, you had the choice to end your existence by throwing yourself off a cliff, or walking in front of a bus, or by a myriad of ways. Your choice is thus to continue your existence or not, and you are clearly CHOOSING to continue that existence.

However, today if I want to live cohesively with my fellow humans, I to large degree have to assimilate myself to their views. I am seemingly forced to subscribe to value of money for example, which is actually relatively new. We moved off the gold standard, which is even more new a couple decades ago.

Trade itself for example is a very old concept. Even chimps understand trade. However, money is a relatively new idea, that isn't necessarily bad. It just happens to be the thing "we" (by my estimation large corporate entities) have decided to stake our power in.

As someone else pointed out to me, money is "a medium that facilitates the exchange of goods and services". Money makes it easier to trade goods and services that you have, for goods and services that you want.

When we deconstruct why people think that is:

"because society just evolved to be like that"

It's not really an answer to why, it's an answer to how. The why, seems to be because we are just too lazy or too stupid to actively change things.

Evolution is supposed to happen FOR A REASON. Saying "Evolution did it", without explaining why, is as useful as saying "G-d did it", but without explaining why G-d might choose that over every other possible alternative.

Why be moral is what I am getting at. Why not get away with being as immoral as you possibly can?

I learned that there are still certain areas of the world which are basically lawless. If you want to be lawless, you can move there. Why don't you?

Why not live somewhere where you can commit murder? More importantly, why did humans all over the planet develop this concept that you shouldn't murder each other?

1) Humans who live in the wilderness by themselves don't do very well. Humans were able to achieve much more, by living in groups and working together.

2) If you were living in a society where murder was legal, you'd always have to watch your back. You'd be constantly worrying. Life would be a misery.

2) If you fall in love, and/or have kids that you love, they could be walking one day and someone could kill them. You'd be constantly worrying. Love would be an endless pain.

So the solution to all these issues, is to live in society where everyone agrees not to kill each other.

Most of morality is like this: it's based on principles that inconvenience you in the short-term, but provide massively greater benefits in the long-term, if most of society sticks to those rules, and thus, is extremely practical.

Yes of course I have compassion for my fellow man, don't get me wrong. This is why I brought up the argument though.

If I am intelligent enough, I could simply make people believe my actions were moral by appealing to some context, and I might even fool myself.

Sure. But then if you are intelligent enough to make an argument that you should be allowed to get away with murder, other people will see that and imitate you, and then lots of people are getting away with murder.

Then you no longer have the advantage of living with lots of people who aren't killing each other.

The answer to that question is important from a humanistic perspective. Altruism is rewarded by society.

If altruism was rewarded by society, if a man saw a suicide bomber about to kill 20 children, and then jumped on him and pulled him into a nearby river, killing himself but saving all those children, then society would automatically tell his widow and orphan children that in return for his altruism, society will pay the family's rent, mortgage and bills, and look after them for the rest of their lives.

These days, if someone does that, the family might get a medal. If he doesn't have a huge life insurance policy, his family will probably have to come up with their own income or be made homeless.

So it doesn't look like modern society rewards altruism to me.

It is the fundamental problem of evil, and "God" ultimately decided that evil, rather utilization of power is king.

If G-d set a rule that "evil is king", then that would mean that G-d would reward us for doing "evil", and punishes us for going "good".

But what is "evil"? It's just a word. Why can't we say that "wicked is good"? We can. So what do we mean by "good" and "evil"? If G-d makes the rules, then what is "good" is "what G-d wants", and what is "evil", is "whatever G-d wants us to NOT do".

So then you'd be claiming that G-d made a rule that G-d rewards those who do what G-d wants us NOT to do, which would be nonsensical.

This would, however, make sense, if you were talking to a human that sets himself up like a G-d, and then does a trick like David Cameron.

Spoiler

Cameron was the PM of the UK, which is technically a democracy. So he didn't really have power, because he is only supposed to serve the people. He wanted to make public healthcare budget itself, by making the GPs responsible for their patients' medical budget. But obviously, the people didn't want public healthcare cut. So he used a "motte and bailey" trick. He then claimed a very extreme position, that of completely slashing NHS budgets which the people fought. Then he "retreated" to letting GPs manage their patients' healthcare costs. The people felt like they "won", and got what they "wanted", which just-so-happened to be what Cameron wanted in the first place.

Thus, it you are a human, and you want to impose something that most of the people in your country would fight against, and you're too weak to stop them, then you can use the same technique:

Spoiler

You think of what you want to achieve. Then you define that as "evil", and then define the opposite as "good". Then you encourage people to think that they can only succeed by doing evil, and make life more difficult for the people who do good, but avoid prosecuting and punishing the evil-doers. Then most of the people do what you defined as "evil", which is actually what you wanted them to do in the first place.

It is the fundamental problem of evil, and "God" ultimately decided that evil, rather utilization of power is king.

If you utilise power to do good, then you have done good.
If you utilise power to do evil, then you have done evil.
Utilisation of power depends on what you do with it.

But, if you want to ensure that what you have told people is "evil", is what most people will do, then you want to convince the good-doers that utilisation of power is inherently evil, because then you will only have powerful evil-doers who cause lots of evil, and powerless good-doers who have almost no significant effect of good.

The notion that utilisation of power is evil, would thus lead to maximising the effect of whatever you want that you defined as "evil".

 

[ZenRaiden]

You didn't consent to be BORN. But from then on, you had the choice to end your existence by throwing yourself off a cliff, or walking in front of a bus, or by a myriad of ways. Your choice is thus to continue your existence or not, and you are clearly CHOOSING to continue that existence.

irrelevant

Evolution is supposed to happen FOR A REASON. Saying "Evolution did it", without explaining why, is as useful as saying "G-d did it", but without explaining why G-d might choose that over every other possible alternative.

false

If altruism was rewarded by society, if a man saw a suicide bomber about to kill 20 children, and then jumped on him and pulled him into a nearby river, killing himself but saving all those children, then society would automatically tell his widow and orphan children that in return for his altruism, society will pay the family's rent, mortgage and bills, and look after them for the rest of their lives.

These days, if someone does that, the family might get a medal. If he doesn't have a huge life insurance policy, his family will probably have to come up with their own income or be made homeless.

So it doesn't look like modern society rewards altruism to me.

Given n take true.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Seeing as I didn't consent to existence (that I am aware of), and neither was anyone else,

You didn't consent to be BORN. But from then on, you had the choice to end your existence by throwing yourself off a cliff, or walking in front of a bus, or by a myriad of ways. Your choice is thus to continue your existence or not, and you are clearly CHOOSING to continue that existence.

I could also choose to be enslaved to some upper classman in India, but that doesn't sound that attractive to me. I grew up in a social context of the West and thus many of my values reflect such. Some I don't mind, others I mind very much so I have to work to change them.

Culture is basically implicit coercion. We live in a house of cards made of each other.

Beware talk of suicidal ideation: It's exactly why we don't judge someone who wants to end their own life harshly. We give them the benefit of the doubt that they have the autonomy to see that their death will hurt themselves, the people around them, and society at large, but they have decided that they want to escape whatever it is they are dealing with, everything, via a (supposedly) permanent solution.

I want to live you see. I think most people want to live. Yet we all live in the same world and we all must ask ourselves the same questions.

Yes I do have a choice. I do not see why, in a world where humans have choices much like I do, I have to live in a world where I am not actually free, but instead going from distraction to distraction, dealing with incompetence's of other people, my own incompetence, ect.

"That's what you get for living" Cool. It sounds like you may be implying something very dark.

If you told someone that who was thriving in the environment I describe they would look at you like you're a fucking idiot. I don't see why someone who is not thriving should do anything different.

However, today if I want to live cohesively with my fellow humans, I to large degree have to assimilate myself to their views. I am seemingly forced to subscribe to value of money for example, which is actually relatively new. We moved off the gold standard, which is even more new a couple decades ago.

Trade itself for example is a very old concept. Even chimps understand trade. However, money is a relatively new idea, that isn't necessarily bad. It just happens to be the thing "we" (by my estimation large corporate entities) have decided to stake our power in.

As someone else pointed out to me, money is "a medium that facilitates the exchange of goods and services". Money makes it easier to trade goods and services that you have, for goods and services that you want.

When we deconstruct why people think that is:

"because society just evolved to be like that"

It's not really an answer to why, it's an answer to how. The why, seems to be because we are just too lazy or too stupid to actively change things.

Evolution is supposed to happen FOR A REASON. Saying "Evolution did it", without explaining why, is as useful as saying "G-d did it", but without explaining why G-d might choose that over every other possible alternative.

You mean to say that the structure of the world is the way it is because it is the only thing humans could not destroy?

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I watched this video like twice this week because it was very insightful. In any case, we must destroy what the bomb cannot.



What you said by comparison in this thread wasn't really anything new. This appeal to naturalism has always been a fallacy. Interested to see how you would support it.


The way my throat evolved to me is convenient in most situations. When I eat, there is a non-zero chance, that a human being will have to help me dislodge a chunk of food from my throat, less I die of suffocation. The appendix is a ticking time bomb that goes off in most people. Teeth require unreal amounts of care throughout your lifetime that only todays society affords you.

Evolution doesn't = right. To say that we evolved into this state isn't wrong, but to believe that the why and how would justify it is something that I personally am not interested in doing.

Why be moral is what I am getting at. Why not get away with being as immoral as you possibly can?

I learned that there are still certain areas of the world which are basically lawless. If you want to be lawless, you can move there. Why don't you?

Why not live somewhere where you can commit murder? More importantly, why did humans all over the planet develop this concept that you shouldn't murder each other?

1) Humans who live in the wilderness by themselves don't do very well. Humans were able to achieve much more, by living in groups and working together.

2) If you were living in a society where murder was legal, you'd always have to watch your back. You'd be constantly worrying. Life would be a misery.

2) If you fall in love, and/or have kids that you love, they could be walking one day and someone could kill them. You'd be constantly worrying. Love would be an endless pain.

So the solution to all these issues, is to live in society where everyone agrees not to kill each other.

Most of morality is like this: it's based on principles that inconvenience you in the short-term, but provide massively greater benefits in the long-term, if most of society sticks to those rules, and thus, is extremely practical.

Morals were made because they were cautionary about what humans were capable of. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Yes of course I have compassion for my fellow man, don't get me wrong. This is why I brought up the argument though.

If I am intelligent enough, I could simply make people believe my actions were moral by appealing to some context, and I might even fool myself.

Sure. But then if you are intelligent enough to make an argument that you should be allowed to get away with murder, other people will see that and imitate you, and then lots of people are getting away with murder.

Then you no longer have the advantage of living with lots of people who aren't killing each other.

I'm not proposing that intelligent people can literally bend reality. There certainly are people who are very prepared in life, and most criminals don't fit that demo.

It's not about having an advantage that people can copy, its about having an advantage that is harder to copy. Do you think that someone should be able to get away with murder if they are smart enough?

The answer to that question is important from a humanistic perspective. Altruism is rewarded by society.

If altruism was rewarded by society, if a man saw a suicide bomber about to kill 20 children, and then jumped on him and pulled him into a nearby river, killing himself but saving all those children, then society would automatically tell his widow and orphan children that in return for his altruism, society will pay the family's rent, mortgage and bills, and look after them for the rest of their lives.

These days, if someone does that, the family might get a medal. If he doesn't have a huge life insurance policy, his family will probably have to come up with their own income or be made homeless.

So it doesn't look like modern society rewards altruism to me.

I would say that is just an example, much like the individual has trouble not being a hypocrite and standing up to their own ideals, so does society. It is usually individuals that feel they are compelled to give grace that do such things unprompted. We should not exploit these people's kindness, we should facilitate it and if possible make it unnecessary.

It is the fundamental problem of evil, and "God" ultimately decided that evil, rather utilization of power is king.

If you utilise power to do good, then you have done good.
If you utilise power to do evil, then you have done evil.
Utilisation of power depends on what you do with it.

But, if you want to ensure that what you have told people is "evil", is what most people will do, then you want to convince the good-doers that utilisation of power is inherently evil, because then you will only have powerful evil-doers who cause lots of evil, and powerless good-doers who have almost no significant effect of good.

The notion that utilisation of power is evil, would thus lead to maximising the effect of whatever you want that you defined as "evil".

Sure I can see that. That is not what I'm saying, I feel like you are talking about other people and Nietzscheism slave morality as if it is imposed by the upper-class. Maybe is convenient, except that's like, conspiratorial as fuck.

I'm just pointing to this issue. In a lot of instances, even in the society we live in today, being as "corrupt" (since you seem to be fixating on evil) as possible means that you can get ahead. If you are intelligent, then you can get REALLY a head.

Basically I guess I'm making the case that millionaires/billionaires probably do skew immoral. If you want to make this about what we consider immoral sure. That doesn't reconcile why someone should not give in to temptations to bollocks all their morals. It just shows how many of our morals don't really server our interest, which if I recall is not really the point of morals. Rather they fail to do this.