Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

[Belindi]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

[LuckyR]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

That was true before the advent of mass media, now in democracies where those with the most votes generally set policy, the political process revolves around the numerically few wealthy and powerful, selecting certain social issues to inflame majority numbers of the not-wealthy enough to vote for those who champion legislation that is against those voter's best economic interests.

[Sy Borg]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

I used to believe that but, alas, it is nonsense. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians. The selfish and the kind.

I look at what the ANC did to South Africa since apartheid (I strongly advocated dismantling apartheid like almost everyone else). Or how about Venezuela, who were ruined by short-termist left-wing policies? Or Argentina under Peronist policies? Even in Australia, there has been a real problem with rents becoming unaffordable for people earning an average wage. So our "compassionate" government let in half a million migrants and middle class people are now needing help from charities to feed their families, with ever more locals being forced into homelessness.

Self-preservation has to come first. Then one may give with what can be spared, if one chooses. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. Left and right are yin and yang, complementary in terms of society - the tensions and conflicts of interests as individuals within a group.

However, left and right in no way represent the good/evil polarity or kind/selfish. Perhaps the moderate/extreme polarity would be closer to good and evil? Think of the horrors inflicted by extremism - religions and ideologies. Ruthless authoritarians have come from both the left and the right.

[Belindi]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

I used to believe that but, alas, it is nonsense. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians. The selfish and the kind.

I look at what the ANC did to South Africa since apartheid (I strongly advocated dismantling apartheid like almost everyone else). Or how about Venezuela, who were ruined by short-termist left-wing policies? Or Argentina under Peronist policies? Even in Australia, there has been a real problem with rents becoming unaffordable for people earning an average wage. So our "compassionate" government let in half a million migrants and middle class people are now needing help from charities to feed their families, with ever more locals being forced into homelessness.

Self-preservation has to come first. Then one may give with what can be spared, if one chooses. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. Left and right are yin and yang, complementary in terms of society - the tensions and conflicts of interests as individuals within a group.

However, left and right in no way represent the good/evil polarity or kind/selfish. Perhaps the moderate/extreme polarity would be closer to good and evil? Think of the horrors inflicted by extremism - religions and ideologies. Ruthless authoritarians have come from both the left and the right.

I can understand all you write. I guess I must be deeply influenced by Christian morality i.e. the rich man can't really go to Heaven. The scenarios you describe are fluid compared with the British elite's behaviour. Within the past few days we got evidence of extant feudalism within the law. There will always be an elite however the huge differential between them and us is sometimes hidden by elites.

Yin and yang stem from ancient Chinese hopelessness among an oppressed people.Changes can be a matter of volition.
There need not be extreme polarity keeping social classes apart .People such as yourself are fighting on.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

I used to believe that but, alas, it is nonsense. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians. The selfish and the kind.

I look at what the ANC did to South Africa since apartheid (I strongly advocated dismantling apartheid like almost everyone else). Or how about Venezuela, who were ruined by short-termist left-wing policies? Or Argentina under Peronist policies? Even in Australia, there has been a real problem with rents becoming unaffordable for people earning an average wage. So our "compassionate" government let in half a million migrants and middle class people are now needing help from charities to feed their families, with ever more locals being forced into homelessness.

Self-preservation has to come first. Then one may give with what can be spared, if one chooses. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. Left and right are yin and yang, complementary in terms of society - the tensions and conflicts of interests as individuals within a group.

However, left and right in no way represent the good/evil polarity or kind/selfish. Perhaps the moderate/extreme polarity would be closer to good and evil? Think of the horrors inflicted by extremism - religions and ideologies. Ruthless authoritarians have come from both the left and the right.

I can understand all you write. I guess I must be deeply influenced by Christian morality i.e. the rich man can't really go to Heaven. The scenarios you describe are fluid compared with the British elite's behaviour. Within the past few days we got evidence of extant feudalism within the law. There will always be an elite however the huge differential between them and us is sometimes hidden by elites.

Yin and yang stem from ancient Chinese hopelessness among an oppressed people.Changes can be a matter of volition.
There need not be extreme polarity keeping social classes apart .People such as yourself are fighting on.

Ha! I'm not fighting anyone or anything. I'm not a player, just an observer.

I hadn't thought about Christian morality in context. To the Christian mind back then, Christians were the poor and Rome was the rich. Nero = 666. Good and evil. Cut-and-dried.

What I have come to realise is that human progress requires a hierarchy, even though it sucks. A society consisting of a relatively homogeneous pool of low ranking equals cannot develop the technology needed to defend itself against hierarchic cultures. History has shown this, time and again. So a society has a choice - develop its own hierarchy or accept another society's imposed hierarchy. Generally, societies treat their own better than they treat those of their colonies.

Ultimately, the organisation of societies echoes that of our body. The brain relatively takes ten times more energy than other parts of the body, which echoes the situation for decision-making elites. Now consider how much can be achieved without that expensive brain ... maybe about as much as jellyfish, starfish, sea urchins and microbes.

The biosphere is a ouroboros - it develops by eating itself, over and over. So life is inherently competitive. Most of us wish it was less harsh, and many have wondered if Earth is actually Hell, but there's no escape from it, other than in denial.

[Pattern-chaser]

The scenarios you describe are fluid compared with the British elite's behaviour. Within the past few days we got evidence of extant feudalism within the law.

Oh, which particular British government atrocity are you referring to?

There will always be an elite however the huge differential between them and us is sometimes hidden by elites.

There always have been elites, but maybe there doesn't have to be an elite? But that's just imagination. I think the practically-addressable issue is that the differential between the rich and the poor is so very wide. It could be made less extreme, and I think maybe it's time to start on that, perhaps as a matter of urgency.

[Belindi]

So, when the left and right argue, theoretically one side argues from the desire for growth and fear of stagnation, and the other agues from the desire for growth and fear of societal breakdown or "quiet invasion". I say "theoretically" because, in truth, debates between right and left today tend to be little more than lazy and mindless ad hominem attacks and disproving absurd strawman arguments.

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

I used to believe that but, alas, it is nonsense. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians. The selfish and the kind.

I look at what the ANC did to South Africa since apartheid (I strongly advocated dismantling apartheid like almost everyone else). Or how about Venezuela, who were ruined by short-termist left-wing policies? Or Argentina under Peronist policies? Even in Australia, there has been a real problem with rents becoming unaffordable for people earning an average wage. So our "compassionate" government let in half a million migrants and middle class people are now needing help from charities to feed their families, with ever more locals being forced into homelessness.

Self-preservation has to come first. Then one may give with what can be spared, if one chooses. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. Left and right are yin and yang, complementary in terms of society - the tensions and conflicts of interests as individuals within a group.

However, left and right in no way represent the good/evil polarity or kind/selfish. Perhaps the moderate/extreme polarity would be closer to good and evil? Think of the horrors inflicted by extremism - religions and ideologies. Ruthless authoritarians have come from both the left and the right.

True, my potted theory that I wrote is Christiany , a socialist theory of morality, which sans rewards after death, is a pessimistic theory. The extremely philanthropic behaviour of medics ,working in Gaza hospitals until death ,stops me endorsing that extremism is bad and only median behaviour is right. Such people are modern day Christs who demonstrate what human nature is capable of. Taoism belongs properly to oppressed people who have no choices and must submit, and I understand Taoism began during a period of interminable warring

The ANC began as Left wing with Mandela and over the course of years it became corrupt.This was not a Right wing coup but cultural evolution; which to my mind shows how any nation may become corrupted unless people are strong to defy corrruption.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting perspective. I tend to think of Left and Right as part of the balance between the community and the individual. The Left lean toward the community, while the Right lean toward the individual. And as we know well, those who move toward the extremes, in either direction, end up advocating inappropriate paths for unjustifiable reasons. Extremists actually reach an understanding that the community/individual should be opposed, or even suppressed. This is a slippery slope toward doom, I feel. I'm sure most of us do too.

Given that a human person's main motivation is his or her own power, I think that classes of persons are bound together for mutual aid within their class. Thus the Right are supporters of the moneyed and landed class while the Left are supporters of all sentient beings including the most powerful class of men.

Perhaps then we can think of sociopaths as individuals who don't identify with either class.

I used to believe that but, alas, it is nonsense. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians. The selfish and the kind.

I look at what the ANC did to South Africa since apartheid (I strongly advocated dismantling apartheid like almost everyone else). Or how about Venezuela, who were ruined by short-termist left-wing policies? Or Argentina under Peronist policies? Even in Australia, there has been a real problem with rents becoming unaffordable for people earning an average wage. So our "compassionate" government let in half a million migrants and middle class people are now needing help from charities to feed their families, with ever more locals being forced into homelessness.

Self-preservation has to come first. Then one may give with what can be spared, if one chooses. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. Left and right are yin and yang, complementary in terms of society - the tensions and conflicts of interests as individuals within a group.

However, left and right in no way represent the good/evil polarity or kind/selfish. Perhaps the moderate/extreme polarity would be closer to good and evil? Think of the horrors inflicted by extremism - religions and ideologies. Ruthless authoritarians have come from both the left and the right.

True, my potted theory that I wrote is Christiany , a socialist theory of morality, which sans rewards after death, is a pessimistic theory. The extremely philanthropic behaviour of medics ,working in Gaza hospitals until death ,stops me endorsing that extremism is bad and only median behaviour is right. Such people are modern day Christs who demonstrate what human nature is capable of. Taoism belongs properly to oppressed people who have no choices and must submit, and I understand Taoism began during a period of interminable warring

The ANC began as Left wing with Mandela and over the course of years it became corrupt.This was not a Right wing coup but cultural evolution; which to my mind shows how any nation may become corrupted unless people are strong to defy corrruption.

In the end, the modern day "Christs" will do a small amount of good but it's the inventors and innovators who will do far more to reduce suffering and always have done, eg. invention of general anaesthetic. In the future, innovations in clean energy, means of gathering fresh water, land rejuvenation and food synthesis will do more to create a better Earth than a hundred thousand such "christs".

Just as the freedom of black people in South Africa turned out to be a disaster rather than the triumph so many of us were expecting, it turned out that Mother Teresa was not the saint we imagined. https://allthatsinteresting.com/mother-teresa-saint

Though Mother Teresa’s medical centers were meant to heal people, her patients were often subjected to conditions that made them even sicker. In the same documentary, an Indian journalist compared Mother Teresa’s flagship location for “Missionaries of Charity” to photographs that he had seen of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

“Workers washed needles under tap water and then reused them. Medicine and other vital items were stored for months on end, expiring and still applied sporadically to patients,” said Hemley Gonzalez, a noted humanitarian who briefly volunteered at Missionaries of Charity.

Gonzalez continued, “Volunteers with little or no training carried out dangerous work on patients with highly contagious cases of tuberculosis and other life-threatening illnesses. The individuals who operated the charity refused to accept and implement medical equipment and machinery that would have safely automated processes and saved lives.”

It wasn’t just volunteers who criticized Mother Teresa’s treatment of patients, either. In her hospice care centers, Mother Teresa practiced her belief that patients only needed to feel wanted and die at peace with God —

I should be miserable. Almost everything I ever believed turned out to be wrong and - worse! - my conservative father turned out to be right in our many disagreements far more than I would have liked We - the people - have been lied to and manipulated enormously. Even more so, we have been been fed much information that was considered to be right at the time but has since been disproved.

But I'm more curious than miserable. Given that surface information is unreliable, I'm now just trying to look for deeper undercurrents. What we are talking about in this thread, and many others, is just the ever-changing froth on top of the waves of life.

That's why I talk about the Earth so often. When I consider what has happened in the last four billion years, I see a lot more manipulation by the environment and circumstance than I see action based on values. The only consistent value is the survival of self and kin. In extended societies, "self and kin" can extend beyond immediate family, hence the "christs" tending injured people in war zones ... funny that you never hear about such acts in Ukraine, although they must surely be happening, but Ukraine's publicity machine is clearly less effective than that of Hamas. No one is marching for Ukraine. The disparity makes no sense, but the chaotic froth on a wave also makes no sense.

Even when we consider wartime charity, it's still only applying to other human beings. We worry about "genocide" when actual extinctions are happening all the time. What are the "saints" doing about it? Saving the Oppressor so they may oppress some more when they recover. Every saint is someone else's sinner. Such is life in the ouroboros.

[Belindi]

The scenarios you describe are fluid compared with the British elite's behaviour. Within the past few days we got evidence of extant feudalism within the law.

Oh, which particular British government atrocity are you referring to?

There will always be an elite however the huge differential between them and us is sometimes hidden by elites.

There always have been elites, but maybe there doesn't have to be an elite? But that's just imagination. I think the practically-addressable issue is that the differential between the rich and the poor is so very wide. It could be made less extreme, and I think maybe it's time to start on that, perhaps as a matter of urgency.

The "atrocity" is not the government's making but that of the elite class . In this particular instance the monarchs actually own parts of Britain to the extent that the monarch benefits from the estates of deceased persons who die intestate. This is feudal.

I agree with your main point. There has to be an elite class for social control, but excessively greedy behaviour of the controlling class has to be governed so it can't be dictatorial or oppressive. ( NB I include colonisers, illegal settlers, and other aggressors with "elite classes").

Education
(NB not training or indoctrination) to tertiary level, free health care, adequate social housing, transport, and utilities must be available to all so that the electorate is fit to vote. Proportional representation would be a good start.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:-

" The biosphere is a ouroboros - it develops by eating itself, over and over. So life is inherently competitive. Most of us wish it was less harsh, and many have wondered if Earth is actually Hell, but there's no escape from it, other than in denial."

But would you consider that Sapiens through culture can and often does rise above nature the ourobouros? Culture doesn't simply evolve, it progresses.Culture is what we do.

[Good_Egg]

Evolution wants (metaphorically speaking) us to feel appalled by it and to feel that it is immoral...
...
....their behaviour is not morally anything, but if it causes harm then we need to and should find it appalling/morally wrong and we need to constrained them.

Ah, so Evolution is your God (metaphorically speaking).
You're saying that of all the evolved behaviours that you see around you, some of it is what Evolution wants and therefore that's good. And somehow some of it is what Evolution doesn't want, and that makes it bad.

And you, the prophet to whom it has been granted to know the mind of your God, preach the revelation that "causing harm" is sinful. Where "harm" is what you define it to be...

It's just another constructed pseudo-religion.

(Did you ever take the road to Damascus ? Don't bother to answer that).

That you hold a value, an ideal of cooperative behaviour, is fair enough. What is spurious is your appeal to Evolution as moral authority to justify it.

[Lagayascienza]

Hell no!

Evolution has nothing to do with moral goodness or badness. To think that evolution dictates what's right or wrong would be to fall into the worst sort of naturalistic fallacy. Evolution is blind and it cannot track moral right or wrong because they don't exist. Evolution just selects genes that are good at surviving and launching themselves into the future. It does this mindlessly. It's just that humans who carried genes that helped them to cooperate in groups were able to reap the benefits non-zero sum-ness which increased the group's and the individual's chances of reproduction. And evolution made us feel that being nice to other group members was right and being nasty was wrong. It just worked better that way. It's that simple.

Of course, there has been an overlay of cultural evolution on top of genetic evolution which helps account for the slight variations we see in moral values across cultures, but the core human morality is remarkably uniform across our species.

Evolution is science. Not religion. It should not and cannot be used to justify moral values. Our values cannot be objectively justified and they don't need justification. I'm glad evolution made me (and others) (mostly) nice. We wouldn't (couldn't) want it any other way.

[Belindi]

LaGayScienza wrote:-

"Our values cannot be objectively justified and they don't need justification. I'm glad evolution made me (and others) (mostly) nice. We wouldn't (couldn't) want it any other way."

Do you wonder what the values of Netanyahu, or Stalin, or some madman killer? Who is the "our" to whom you refer?

[Lagayascienza]

Most people.