History of philosophy...
in Philosophy ·
Coplestone. 👍 Don't even get me started on Bošnjak—the guy is totally biased (probably because he's 😁 too close to the establishment). 😉
Home ›
ironbadger31 › Posts
Posts by ironbadger31
83 posts shown.
Would you help a Mexican?
in Close to Politics ·
To goes to the Moderator—can we please keep the political discussions in their own designated threads? This post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Marijuana legalization
in Health ·
GrapeC said:1. Once you’ve built up a massive financial lobby of processors and dealers, there’s no turning back. You can't just dismantle it—especially since marijuana is addictive. It’s the perfect product for building a cycle. Once a consumer gets hooked, they aren't letting go.
2. An introduction to drug theories.
If someone doesn't smoke tobacco, they probably won't jump straight to marijuana. And usually, those who do use marijuana tend to experiment with other things too.
3. Assessing the general decline of America.
How many new factories or actual jobs have opened up in the States lately? Zilch. We went from being a nation that engineered airplanes, submarines, dam elevators, and basically everything imaginable, to a country that mostly produces yogurt and tangerines—while performing little tribal dances for wealthy tourists from the West who are sweating and bored out of their minds.
Instead of focusing on tech and expertise, we've seen this culture of mindless spending become the ultimate lifestyle goal in America. (...) I'm not saying marijuana caused this (it didn't, obviously; the roots go much deeper), but it definitely comes along for the ride.
4. What's the point anyway?
Escapism has never actually fixed anything. In fact, escapism itself is part of the problem, because it's the most effective way to distract people from actually tackling their issues.
1. 😕 Marijuana creates significantly less addiction than the opioids fadedtrucker19 mentioned. Honestly, it doesn't even create a physical dependency. That kind of "addiction" (which is a bit of an exaggeration here) is more like the "need" to go out on the town—which involves drinking alcohol—or the daily habit of grabbing coffee and caffeine.
Nobody is breaking out in a cold sweat or shaking because they don't have a joint within arm's reach. Within reasonable social boundaries, it's primarily used as a way to enhance social interaction. 😁
I'm not talking about the extreme cases—and sure, they exist—where people are smoking multiple times a day, every single day, for years on end.
2. I think this is another one of those myths pushed onto public opinion. Only excessive use leads to an increased THC tolerance, which—when combined with a reckless personality—might lead someone toward harder drugs. But if you're consuming within reasonable limits, that whole argument is just nonsense.
3. I'll just point to the Netherlands as an example, where soft drugs are decriminalized. 😉
4. A sensible person doesn't actually believe that using any kind of intoxicant is going to solve their life problems. Only idiots think that way. People advocating for the legalization of soft drugs don't view it that way either; they aren't out there pitching them as some sort of "instant fix" for life's troubles.
Marijuana legalization
in Health ·
Look, if you’re hurting the people around you, you're doing yourself wrong. If using soft drugs ends up damaging the community—then yeah, that kind of usage should be off-limits.
By that logic, it would actually be way more "natural" to ban excessive drinking rather than marijuana. Honestly, I've spent a good amount of time looking into this, and I just can't wrap my head around why Western culture is so much more deeply rooted in the barbaric habit of smoking cigarettes—which, let's be real, are just crushed-up tobacco scraps evolved from cigars—and that whole "culture" of slamming cheap booze, instead of the occasional joint.
If the ancient Greeks had known about cannabis sativa, things probably would have gone very differently... 😁
By that logic, it would actually be way more "natural" to ban excessive drinking rather than marijuana. Honestly, I've spent a good amount of time looking into this, and I just can't wrap my head around why Western culture is so much more deeply rooted in the barbaric habit of smoking cigarettes—which, let's be real, are just crushed-up tobacco scraps evolved from cigars—and that whole "culture" of slamming cheap booze, instead of the occasional joint.
If the ancient Greeks had known about cannabis sativa, things probably would have gone very differently... 😁
The Partisans are on the hunt again
in Close to Politics ·
goldenbear3 said:And what do you actually know about the resistance fighters? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Nada.
It’s not even just about them getting equal pensions—honestly, they deserve way more than those scammers and fake veterans who were looting everything back in '91.🙂
Yikes, took you long enough to come up with that one... ☕
Alright, consider this your final warning, because from here on out... Chaos! 👋
Sam, Duv, Rambi, and Umpa: Nationalists manipulation on Reddit
in Close to Politics ·
Ram said:I'm about to ruin the mood here by asking a question: what even defines "left-wing" versus "right-wing" in today's world?
The real issue on this forum is that the self-proclaimed leftists have basically crowned themselves. They just slot themselves into that "leftist" category straight out of some generic high school civics textbook—I think it was either freshman or sophomore year, I can't quite remember—and then they try to disqualify anyone who disagrees with them by slapping a "right-wing" label on them (which is just them pointing to the opposite side of that same old textbook chart 😁).
This whole so-called "left" is actually miles away from the very people they claim to represent... those supposed "original constituents" of theirs...
👍 👍 👍
Sam, Duv, Rambi, and Umpa: Nationalists manipulation on Reddit
in Close to Politics ·
Jeez... 😲 With all due respect, I can't let conspiracy theories about our own Reddit members clutter up the main feed...
Feel free to go as wild as you want about it over here! 👋
Feel free to go as wild as you want about it over here! 👋
Thoughts on Utilitarianism?
in Philosophy ·
Wait, since when did you jump ship to the liberals?? 😁 But seriously, this actually reminded me of how people constantly mislabel liberals as being part of the "leftist" camp. See, the political spectrum isn't just a flat horizontal line—you know, that simple left-to-right axis—it’s got a vertical dimension too. One end goes toward total authoritarianism, while the other dips down into pure anarchism. So, yeah, it is totally possible to be a right-winger and still be a liberal. 😉
I'd say liberalism sits somewhere below the center point (where those X and Y axes meet on a graph—the zero mark). Honestly, the easiest way to pin it down is this: a liberal is someone who values individual freedoms over the needs or the integrity of the collective. To them, the individual stands above society—in a sense, society is actually subordinate to the person. It's the complete opposite of conservatism, where the community takes precedence and defines the individual.
I'd say liberalism sits somewhere below the center point (where those X and Y axes meet on a graph—the zero mark). Honestly, the easiest way to pin it down is this: a liberal is someone who values individual freedoms over the needs or the integrity of the collective. To them, the individual stands above society—in a sense, society is actually subordinate to the person. It's the complete opposite of conservatism, where the community takes precedence and defines the individual.
Thoughts on Utilitarianism?
in Philosophy ·
Pragmatism? Well, if you’re talking about the kind championed by James, John Dewey, and Charles Sanders Peirce—you know, that whole era from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s—then it doesn't actually overlap with the Enlightenment-style utilitarianism I brought up in my last post as much as you might think. It was more of a byproduct of that massive wave of optimism during that period—you know, all that faith in industrial civilization and modern tech—and the entire value system that grew out of it.
This brand of pragmatism really grew out of positivism (the big thing there is a strict insistence on hard facts and concrete data), and it focuses heavily on how practical any theory actually is—basically, its measurable, real-world value.
Under this principle, the worth of an idea depends entirely on its results. An idea that's useless—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer any tangible benefit in the eyes of these pragmatists—is essentially considered "untrue" in their view. Why? Because they reduce truth to usefulness or effectiveness. Knowledge becomes all about how well something can be adapted or put to work.
Now, "usefulness" isn't just one single thing; depending on the context, it could mean something beneficial for an individual, or something meant for the community at large.
The first major critique of pragmatism came from Max Horkheimer (who, as most people know, was a heavyweight social theorist in the vein of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas—part of that famous Frankfurt School). He has this great little story about a young boy staring up at the sky and asking, "Dad, what should the Moon advertise?" 😁
To me, that's such a perfect symbol of what happens to the relationship between humans and nature when we formalize our thinking this way. When you look at the world through that lens, nature itself is stripped of any inherent meaning or value; it only gains significance based on how useful it is to us. On the flip side, humans end up being driven by nothing more than pure survival. Everything gets funneled into reshaping the world into a tool to achieve that one goal.
So, all things considered, pragmatism is actually much closer to positivism than it is to that Enlightenment version of utilitarianism.
This brand of pragmatism really grew out of positivism (the big thing there is a strict insistence on hard facts and concrete data), and it focuses heavily on how practical any theory actually is—basically, its measurable, real-world value.
Under this principle, the worth of an idea depends entirely on its results. An idea that's useless—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer any tangible benefit in the eyes of these pragmatists—is essentially considered "untrue" in their view. Why? Because they reduce truth to usefulness or effectiveness. Knowledge becomes all about how well something can be adapted or put to work.
Now, "usefulness" isn't just one single thing; depending on the context, it could mean something beneficial for an individual, or something meant for the community at large.
The first major critique of pragmatism came from Max Horkheimer (who, as most people know, was a heavyweight social theorist in the vein of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas—part of that famous Frankfurt School). He has this great little story about a young boy staring up at the sky and asking, "Dad, what should the Moon advertise?" 😁
To me, that's such a perfect symbol of what happens to the relationship between humans and nature when we formalize our thinking this way. When you look at the world through that lens, nature itself is stripped of any inherent meaning or value; it only gains significance based on how useful it is to us. On the flip side, humans end up being driven by nothing more than pure survival. Everything gets funneled into reshaping the world into a tool to achieve that one goal.
So, all things considered, pragmatism is actually much closer to positivism than it is to that Enlightenment version of utilitarianism.
Let's talk about morality and ethics...
in Philosophy ·
Edward Green said:1. Who actually said that living means becoming human? I feel like I read something similar in a philosophy textbook recently...
2. ironbadger31, can you give me some help with the whole "context" thing? I'm totally stuck on how to write about it. Context affects every single part of morality—it’s impossible to look at any one piece in isolation. Period. So... now what??
1. You might be thinking of the quote "To be human is to become human."—which was actually put forward by the philosopher Karl Jaspers.
2. Nothing. 😁 Look, if we break it down simply, there’s the moral act, the immoral act, and the amoral act (which is basically just a neutral one). Let’s take an extreme example right out of the gate—murder. On the surface, you’d say murder is an immoral act, right? Most people would be ready to condemn anyone who kills without even pausing to think about the details, wouldn't they? 🙂
But it’s really not that black and white, and that’s exactly why we have the concept of context—it's what we use to assign value to an action. Murder (the violent ending of a life, by a general definition) is, strictly speaking, purely theoretical and stripped of reality, an amoral act. But once you add even a tiny bit of context—circumstances, intentions, accidental factors, or any other relevant data during an ethical review—that’s when you get a moral judgment.
For instance, killing in self-defense is a moral act. Killing out of premeditated malice (for a reason that doesn't justify the act) is immoral. "Killing a person," viewed completely without context, initially seems like something "immoral." But let's say you see a suicide bomber running toward a crowded restaurant—say, a Chili's in a busy shopping center—is it moral to stop him before he kills everyone else? Yes, it is.
I think those examples make it pretty clear what context is and why it matters so much. Now, try to abstract that idea and come up with your own principled definition in your own words.
Let's talk about morality and ethics...
in Philosophy ·
Edward Green said:I can't quite pin down the exact wording of my question because I've got it written down just like this—but here’s the gist. I'm looking at a section titled "The Moral Patient I," and there's a little note under the heading mentioning that it ties into the concept of human rights. So, if we define a "person" in this context as anyone capable of thought or reflection, does that mean someone in an unconscious state isn't considered a person?
2. new question 😁
So, what's actually the point of a principle? I mean, really? Is it just some abstract concept we toss around in philosophy classes, or does it actually serve a function in our day-to-day lives? I’ve been chewing on this lately—kind of like when you're trying to decide if you should stick to your diet or grab that extra slice of pizza—and it feels like there's more to it than just having a set of rules. What do you guys think?
- What does it actually mean to live a good life? It’s one of those big, sweeping questions that we all stumble upon at some point—usually when we're staring at a ceiling at 2 a.m. or sitting through a particularly tedious meeting. I was reading this old philosophy text the other day—you know, the kind that makes your brain itch—and it got me thinking about how much we overcomplicate things. We spend so much energy chasing these massive milestones, thinking that "the good life" is waiting for us at the finish line of some huge career goal or a certain bank balance. But honestly? I think it's much more grounded than that. To me, living well isn't just about avoiding misery; it's about finding that sweet spot where you feel useful, connected, and maybe even a little bit challenged. It's about those small, quiet moments—like a perfect cup of coffee on a Saturday morning or a deep conversation with an old friend—that actually make up the fabric of a meaningful existence. It’s less about the grand gestures and more about the daily rhythm of being present. Of course, everyone has their own definition. Some people find it in service to others, while others find it in pure, unadulterated creativity. There isn't a single roadmap, and I don't think there ever will be. But I’ve realized that if you aren't checking in with yourself once in a while to see if your actions actually align with what you value, you're just running on a treadmill. So, I'm curious—how do you all define it? Is it about peace, achievement, or something else entirely?
- The whole idea of restricting individual freedom—it’s one of those topics that really gets under my skin, isn't it? I was chatting with a buddy of mine the other day about how much we take our personal liberties for granted until someone starts trying to put up fences around them. It feels like there's this constant tug-of-war between what the government thinks is "for our own good" and our actual right to just live our lives without being micromanaged. I mean, look, I get it—society needs some rules to function, obviously. We aren't living in a total free-for-all where everyone does whatever they want regardless of who they hurt. But there's a massive difference between common-sense safety regulations and the kind of overreach that starts feeling suffocating. Once you start chipping away at those fundamental freedoms, where does it actually stop? It’s like a slippery slope—you give an inch, and before you know it, you're looking back wondering when exactly we decided that being told what to do was better than being free. It’s a tricky balance, for sure, but I truly believe we have to be incredibly careful. We can't let the pursuit of security become an excuse to dismantle the very things that make being an American worth it in the first place.
- The idea of reducing human suffering—it’s such a massive, heavy concept, isn't it? It's one of those things we all talk about, but when you actually sit down to chew on it, it gets incredibly complicated. I was reading this piece the other day that touched on it, and it really got me thinking about how much of our struggle is built into the very fabric of being alive. Is it even possible to truly minimize it? We spend so much energy trying to fix everything—trying to solve poverty, curing diseases, fighting injustice—and while that work is obviously vital, there's also this deeper, more existential layer to suffering that technology or policy just can't touch. It’s like trying to patch a leaky boat while you're still out at sea; you can make progress, sure, but the ocean is always going to be there. I sometimes wonder if we focus too much on the "how" and not enough on the "why." If we managed to wipe out every physical hardship tomorrow, would we just find new, psychological ways to hurt one another? It’s a bit grim, I know—sorry for the heavy turn!—but it feels like an essential part of the conversation. We need to balance the practical, boots-on-the-ground efforts to help people with a deeper understanding of what it means to endure the inevitable bumps in the road.
- ....???
It’s a little sad, honestly—if we’re saying a principle is some kind of fundamental rule or guiding law... then let me throw an analogy out there. Think about driving on the highway. If there were zero rules of the road, it would just be a massive, chaotic pileup of car wrecks because everyone would be doing whatever they wanted without a second thought for anyone else. Rules exist so things actually run smoothly—so everyone can get where they’re going faster and, more importantly, safer. Am I totally missing the point here? And if so, what exactly would the ultimate goal be? Also, how can restricting someone's freedom actually serve a purpose? Isn't that just a side effect? I mean, limiting one person's freedom is really just a way to protect the freedom of everyone else, right? (I might be rambling a bit or phrasing this poorly, but I really hope you guys get what I'm getting at!)
What defines a "person" when we’re talking about human rights? Honestly, I’d just go with that classic, old-school definition: a person is someone who is treated with actual humanity by the people around them. It sounds simple—maybe even a little poetic—but it really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it?
Look, here’s the thing—when we talk about ethics, there's this one fundamental rule you just can't ignore. You should never, ever treat another person merely as a means to an end. It's not just a good idea; it's a moral necessity. You have to respect people as individuals with their own value, not just as tools or stepping stones to get what you want. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that—it feels like a bit of a fragment! If you were trying to get a point across or ask a question, could you give me a little more context? I'd love to jump into the conversation, but I need a little more to work with first! If you want to reach some specific goal, just go ahead and use whatever—ideals, interests, or whatever else works—as long as they're pointed toward that final objective. What's the point? Just be true to yourself. At the end of the day, you have to stay grounded and actually be someone—real, solid, and unapologetically you. Purpose. When you're diving into the depths of human behavior, you really can't help but bring up Immanuel Kant. Seriously, if you're writing an essay on this stuff, he’s basically the gold standard—he spent so much of his life obsessing over these exact questions. His take on the whole thing would probably go something like this:Try to live in a way where you always treat humanity—both your own and everyone else's—as the ultimate goal, rather than just some tool or stepping stone to get what you want..
To me, being a "person" really comes down to one thing: treating someone like a human being rather than just another tool or a means to an end. You know, that fundamental idea that we should never just strip away someone's dignity to hit a target or get what we want. A person shouldn't ever be reduced to just a subject—basically just a cog in a machine used to achieve some other goal. It’s such a vital distinction, isn't it? If we lose sight of that, we lose our humanity. I honestly feel like we need to talk about dignity—real, genuine dignity. It’s one of those things that sounds simple until you actually try to pin down what it means in our modern world. To me, it isn't just about being polite or following some rigid set of social rules; it's something much deeper than that. It's about how we carry ourselves when nobody is watching and how we treat others when there's nothing to gain from it. I was thinking about this the other day while I was grabbing coffee downtown—you know, watching people rush around, stressed out, eyes glued to their phones. It felt like everyone was just performing, rather than actually *being*. There’s a massive difference between looking dignified and actually possessing dignity. One is a costume, and the other is a core part of your character. It’s easy to lose sight of that when life gets messy or when you're dealing with people who seem to have no respect for themselves or anyone else. But I truly believe that holding onto your sense of self-worth—that inner compass—is the only way to navigate the chaos without losing your soul in the process. It’s about standing tall, even when things are falling apart. When we talk about human rights, we’re really talking about a person's ability to call their own shots—that sense of self-determination that defines who we are. It all boils down to a few core pillars: the rule of law, true autonomy, and that delicate balance between freedom and responsibility. But here’s the thing—dignity isn't just something you possess in a vacuum. For it to actually mean anything, it has to be recognized by the people around you. It's a two-way street.
So, what’s the actual point of the principle here? Instead of getting bogged into some stuffy, textbook definition—you know, the kind that makes your eyes glaze over—I think it's better to look at it through the lens of a general maxim. If we want to capture the essence of what Johann Gottlieb Fichte was getting at on a high level, we should aim for a guiding rule of thumb rather than just a rigid formula. It's more about the underlying spirit of the idea, right? "Act in such a way that you can think of your own will as an eternal law for yourself." Basically—always live up to your own potential..
Regarding that answer about... It’s all just... for the sake of it, really. Check out what Principle is saying down below.
Actually, you hit the nail right on the head there. I think principles are basically just these fixed anchor points—sort of like a North Star—that give people a sense of direction on how to act depending on what's happening around them. But, for a principle to actually work—I mean, to truly serve its purpose and stay functional—it’s got to be applied equally to both sides of the interaction. Take two people talking, for example; if the rule isn't the same for both of them, the whole thing falls apart.
I’ll give you a closer example using, say, some recent political drama—blame my professional deformities from moderating news forums, I guess! What can I say? 😁Look, when we’re talking about political ethics—or honestly, just basic human decency in general—there’s a fundamental rule you have to follow: if you're going to throw an accusation at someone, you better have the receipts to back it up. It’s that simple. There's also this huge, unspoken principle that we should all be doing our absolute best to avoid slander—you know, making those wild accusations without a shred of actual proof. It's just common sense, really.
So, remember that whole mess with the Secretary of State—I’m talking about when the scandal first broke, if you caught those early headlines—back when CNN published that report claiming..."Žužul took $500 $0.00 in bribes during his wife's company merger." Back then, Index.com didn't actually have any solid evidence to back that up, so by running that headline, they basically ignored the golden rule—you don't throw accusations around without proof.
I mean, think about it: if everyone acted the way Index.com did in that moment, anyone could point a finger at anyone else for literally anything. It would be total chaos. You'd end up with this massive inflation of accusations where nothing carries weight anymore, and eventually, we'd lose sight of the truth—which is the whole thing we're actually working toward in our relationships with one another. When everything is just noise and fog, you can't find the truth. That’s why we need principles. You can actually tie this back to (again! 😁) Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative—the idea that you should always act in such a way that you would want your behavior to become an universal law for everyone else. A universal principle.
As for the whole debate about freedom versus using principles to limit it—and whether the goal of a principle is to expand freedom even if it feels restrictive—my advice is to leave that out of this section. Seriously, save the discussion on freedom for its own dedicated part. It’s way too complex to try and squeeze into this specific argument. 🙂
Let's talk about morality and ethics...
in Philosophy ·
Edward Green said:1.So, how exactly does something become a primary value for us? And more importantly—what’s the actual mechanism behind it? I've been chewing on this for a bit, and it really makes you wonder how we decide what actually matters versus what's just noise.
So, where does value actually come from? Seriously—what’s the root of it all?
So, has anyone actually settled this once and for all? I mean, is there a final answer to whether we’re truly free or just playing out a predetermined script? You know, like that guy who beats someone else up just to prove a point about having free will—is that even real choice? And while we're at it, what's the verdict on our basic nature—are we born inherently good, pure evil, or just starting out as a blank slate?
So, how am I even supposed to answer a question like that—asking what a person actually *is*? It’s one of those deep, heavy questions that just catches you off guard, isn't it?
Hmm. If I’m following your train of thought correctly, I’d probably rephrase your question like this: "How exactly do we assign value to the world around us, and what is our ultimate, primary value?" Now, here's my take. You've actually laid out quite a massive—well, let's be honest, a pretty blunt—set of categories when it comes to life values. It's a lot to process! It’s really all about how you choose to live your life—your whole way of being. It all really boils down to how much weight we decide to give a certain value. Honestly, if you're looking for a solid framework, there's this one categorization from Spranger that would fit perfectly into an essay.
He brought six different forms of life into existence—just imagine that! I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the economic landscape—you know, how everything seems to be shifting under our feet right now. It really feels like we're seeing a complete reshaping of the traditional financial structures we grew up with here in the States. It's one thing to read about market fluctuations in the news, but it's another thing entirely to feel that shift in your own wallet or when you're watching how local businesses in places like Chicago or Austin are trying to pivot just to stay afloat. It makes you wonder if we're moving toward a totally different kind of economic model altogether. Everything feels a bit more fluid, maybe even a little chaotic, but there's definitely a pattern emerging if you look closely enough. I'd love to hear what you guys think—are we looking at a temporary shakeup, or is this the "new normal" for the American economy? So, what happens when that becomes your core value—when it’s the thing that actually drives everything you do? benefitSo, you end up steering your whole life toward that one specific path—whether it’s your career, your daily grind, or just that one thing you're obsessed with pursuing. The intellectual shape—or maybe I should call it our mental framework—is such a fascinating thing to chew on. It’s how we structure everything we think about, isn't it? It’s that underlying architecture of the mind that dictates how we process reality. I was thinking about this the other day while grabbing a coffee in Seattle—how two people can look at the exact same situation and see two completely different worlds just because their "intellectual shapes" are wired differently. One person sees chaos where another sees a pattern, and honestly, neither is necessarily wrong; they're just operating from a different blueprint. For you, the whole point of everything—the big, driving force—is really about the pursuit of knowledge and that constant, restless search for the truth. Social structure—it’s one of those things we all live within every single day without even really thinking about it, right? It’s like the invisible scaffolding that holds everything up. Whether you’re looking at how neighborhoods are laid out in Chicago or how different social circles interact in a big city like New York, there’s always this underlying pattern to how we organize ourselves. It’s basically the blueprint for how society functions. At its core, what really matters is how we live together—it’s all about that shared human experience. It's about coexistence, basic humanism, and the way we actually treat one another. For me, life is really about that constant push to improve our relationships and finding ways to show up for people when they need it most. That's the real stuff. Aesthetic form—it’s such a broad concept, isn't it? I was just thinking about this the other day while staring at some modern architecture downtown. It’s funny how we all have these internal compasses for what "looks right," even if we can't quite put our finger on why. Whether it's the sleek lines of a Tesla or the way a classic diner looks in a small Midwestern town, that sense of aesthetic shape really hits different. It's more than just being pretty; it's about how everything fits together to create a certain vibe. For me, it all comes down to one thing—the real core value here is just finding joy in the beautiful things and getting lost in art. It’s really more about that religious angle—you know, how faith shapes everything we do. At the core of everything—the absolute foundation—is God. It’s that deep, driving pull toward holiness, the search for salvation, and all those other things we chase when we're looking for something higher than ourselves. It’s that classic archetype—the one built entirely on the pursuit of power. You know the type. It’s a mindset where everything you do, every move you make, is basically just a stepping stone to grabbing more control. It isn't about building something meaningful or connecting with people; it's all about the climb. Honestly, I see this play out in corporate America all the time—people climbing the ladder at places like Goldman Sachs or even just local firms, not because they love the work, but because they're addicted to the leverage. It's a pretty exhausting way to live, if you ask me. At its core, it’s all about that drive for self-validation—you know, that deep-seated need to prove yourself against everyone else and finally stand out from the crowd.
If you take each one of these values and really dive into them—flesh them out with your own words—you’ll pretty much cover all the bases. Honestly, you'd end up hitting almost every core value that most people hold dear.
So, where does our sense of right and wrong actually come from? It’s a big question, isn't it? Honestly, I think there are a dozen different places we pull our values from—it could be an individual, the culture we grew up in, our local community, a religious authority (like a holy book), a deep philosophical text, or even just how we were raised. If you want to break it down simply, you can basically split all these sources into two camps: heteronomous and autonomous. Think of heteronomous values as those that sit "outside" of you—they're things you've inherited or accepted from someone else, like a set of rules handed down by a parent or a preacher. Then you've got autonomous values—those are the ones you've truly made your own. They aren't just borrowed from a third party; they're the principles you've internally processed and decided to stand by yourself.
We still haven't actually settled the debate—is everything predetermined, or do we really have free will? It’s one of those big questions that stays hanging in the air! 😁 Look, it’s not like there are only two extremes to choose from—you can actually define things however you want. It’s much more nuanced than that! How much? The question isn't whether humans are free—it's *how* we actually exercise that freedom. When you start digging into what people are like by nature—whether we're inherently good, bad, or just some neutral middle ground—you realize there’s no consensus. It’s a rabbit hole! You’ve got the "blank slate" crowd who believes we enter this world without any pre-set moral compass, then you have the traditional religious view that we’re all born with a bit of sin in our souls. And if you want to go down a much darker path, you could look at someone like the Marquis de Sade—who, let's be honest, wasn't exactly a philosopher or an ethicist in the formal sense, but he certainly had some intense thoughts on the matter—arguing that deep down, everyone is fundamentally corrupt and wicked. It's wild how much there is to unpack.
Now, when we talk about a "person" in this specific context—I’m talking about someone who actually engages in deep thought and takes certain values seriously. I know, that’s a bit of a narrow way to put it, and if you looked this up in a standard dictionary, you’d get a totally different definition. So, maybe be a little more specific about what you're asking? I want to make sure I'm on the same page!
And hey, if there’s anything else you’re curious about—seriously, just ask! Don't be shy about it. 😁
Let's talk about morality and ethics...
in Philosophy ·
alexxx said:agents (moral agent + moral patient)
Anyone capable of making a choice and then actually following through on it.
moral agents: agents who are ready to take responsibility for the decisions they make.
moral patient: someone upon whom an action is performed—the recipient of the consequences resulting from a moral agent's actions or omissions.
Can someone please explain this to me? I consider myself a pretty smart person, but I honestly just don't get this. pleeease.
So, basically, these terms really started coming to light with the rise of animal ethics—you know, studying how we relate to animals and their rights in the context of ecology and all our modern environmental crises. See, it used to be assumed that moral subjects could only be humans, because only we have enough awareness to "process" things and hold ourselves accountable for what we do. But wait—what about people with severe cognitive disabilities, young children, elderly folks with dementia, or even animals? (Especially now that fighting for animal rights and vegetarian ethics has become such a huge thing!)
That’s why we use the terms "moral agent" and "moral patient"—this was actually introduced by philosopher Tom Regan. A moral agent is basically any conscious human being—me, you, the average people you see walking down the street—basically anyone who has the capacity to make a moral judgment or evaluation and then act based on it.
On the flip side, moral patients are those individuals who lack that specific capacity (meaning they can't perform that kind of moral reasoning toward others) but still have the ability to "experience" or be affected by the moral judgments made by others. Think of little kids, people with certain disabilities, or even animals.
So, yeah, not everyone is capable of choosing and acting according to their own choices, which is exactly why we need to distinguish between a moral patient and a moral agent.
Hopefully that clears things up! If not, feel free to ask more. 🙂
Thoughts on Utilitarianism?
in Philosophy ·
So, if you want to look at utilitarianism in its broadest sense, it’s basically just this idea that the whole point of being a moral person is to maximize "whatever is most useful" . You’ve got your individualistic version and then the social side of things—plus pragmatism, which kind of acts as a middle ground. Honestly, the best way to wrap your head around it is to start with Enlightenment-era utilitarianism (think Paul Holbach) and just work your way forward from there chronologically.
If you can sharpen up your question a bit, I can definitely give you a much more specific answer. 😁
If you can sharpen up your question a bit, I can definitely give you a much more specific answer. 😁
Plato: Misconceptions and attempts at clarification...
in Philosophy ·
Yeah, wow... Jesse, I have to say, I was a little caught off guard by the sheer amount of unnecessary insults you've been throwing around here... 😢 I honestly wasn't expecting that kind of energy from you...
Look, if we’re going to keep this civil, please, just dial back the attitude and the aggressive rhetoric—it really isn't doing you any favors. And since I don't want to get dragged into the middle of this debate as a third party, I'll just point out one thing: there are some pretty massive holes in your explanations (I read through everything 😉), so the hostility definitely doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Anyway, I'm heading out. 😁
Look, if we’re going to keep this civil, please, just dial back the attitude and the aggressive rhetoric—it really isn't doing you any favors. And since I don't want to get dragged into the middle of this debate as a third party, I'll just point out one thing: there are some pretty massive holes in your explanations (I read through everything 😉), so the hostility definitely doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Anyway, I'm heading out. 😁
Unknown group meets on Maui to discuss the former Soviet Union!
in Close to Politics ·
Man, Rebecca Miller2—you’re really taking this thread on a wild ride, aren't you? 😁
👋
👋
Ronald Reagan vs. Joseph Stalin: The ultimate showdown
in Close to Politics ·
Michael Sullivan3 said:Look, I wasn't pointing the finger at you—I was talking about one of the mods. There were six votes cast. Or are you actually suggesting I'm making things up here? 😉
Since I don't think you're lying, if some supermod or admin really pulled this stunt (and I'm assuming it wasn't any of our usual suspects), then we'll just have to wait and see if they're brave enough to come clean about what they did... 😉 😁
Ronald Reagan vs. Joseph Stalin: The ultimate showdown
in Close to Politics ·
Michael Sullivan3 said:Huh, that's weird... just five minutes ago Ronald Reagan had six votes, and now it's down to five. Is one of the mods or admins messing around with the "edit poll" setting? 😉
Michael Sullivan3, please—don't you dare go accusing me of stuff like that... 😉 Seriously, go check with the rest of the admin team—I actually just went and asked them myself—if you don't believe me... 😉
Ronald Reagan vs. Joseph Stalin: The ultimate showdown
in Close to Politics ·
Just wanted to open this up for some casual chatting—nothing too serious, I promise. 😉 It’s a total madhouse in here, honestly! 👍 👋
Postmodern ideas...
in Philosophy ·
Man, you guys always bring up such fascinating topics in here... crimsonjackal8, you really stirred up a pot of postmodernist mush there—honestly, it’s so tangled you can’t even tell where the head ends and the tail begins... 😎
I wish I had the inspiration to whip up a little essay right now, but I promise I'll get to it in the next day or two... 😉
I wish I had the inspiration to whip up a little essay right now, but I promise I'll get to it in the next day or two... 😉