MSC

I think I see what you mean and now wonder what is meant by "better" too. Do they mean more of the resources life needs are in greater abundance there? I definitely don't agree it would be better for our kind of life. We have different degrees of survivability just based on the variance of climate and weather patterns on our own planet. It may be that a larger earth like planet would have zones fit for our habitation (assuming we'd have some way of bolstering our immune systems to be able to deal with an entirely different an more diverse microbiome). It could be however that this hypothetical planet has less human fit habitable zones by square meter than earth does. There could be super desserts, Massive polar tundras, Colossal Volcanoes, Vaster and deeper oceans, Wetter rainforests with larger trees, larger and more dangerous wildlife, the scale of it's natural disasters could be completely out of our league. It could be that increased variance and geo instability simply doesn't allow anything to survive long enough to become a specialised survivor through earth typical evolution.

You had me at "Don't have Donald Trump". When do we leave? If other planets have Humans, should we call SG-1? Michael Shanks has been struggling for roles since, so he'd probably be keen! Thanks for highlighting some of the inconsistencies not my field, so I wouldn't have noticed that.

Yes, although some of those traits being psychopaths or sociopaths (Anti-Social personality disorder tends to be the clincal terms) psychopath and sociopath are more like pop criminology terms. Not every clinician agrees on all the traits on that list. Fear dominance for example is heavily debated as being a true anti-social trait.

Why did I get a notification saying I said this? I'd have corrected it myself but wasn't sure if English was that persons first language and busy most of the day today.

I know, I am holding a lot of faith in science to be able to combat that... If people can start to behave and work together and if we can also combat deep political polarisation.

I love how you switched the words around and it can still mean the same thing in sentiment ahhhh language So beautiful.

A reconceptualisation of what a deity is coupled with being subject to effed up behaviours from my "religious" family. I worship something, but there is nothing supernatural about it. However it will judge me and all of us and it is the beginning and the end, for our form of life atleast. Children, or the future I guess. Hopefully, they'll figure out where this ages wisdom lies. Might help them. Wanna join the eff all your factions faction? Your application will be ceremonially rejected obviously, but if you're a true believer you just won't apply in the first place, because faction. Seriously though, strictly conforming ideologues are scary in how predictable they are .

Anyone got any good recommendations for Philosophy of Music? My current reading is Margaret Urban Walkers - Moral Context. (Not the same field as philosophy of music but I want to branch out after this to something different.)

Firstly, thank you so much! I do really want to learn to code but my head gets crunched by a lot of the terminology within the first few lessons, however the sites I used weren't the ones you've supplied so I should give it a better go. in your experience, are there certain things you can interpret, that I cannot, about a programmer based on his code? Like say, knowledge, expertise, work ethic etc? I think my first stop there will be Gibbon! Thanks MigL. I have read a lot about the rise of the Roman Empire, but outside the Huns invasion led by Attila and the Ottoman siege and capture of Constantinople led by Mehmed the conqueror, I haven't read nearly as much about the decline and fall. Those are just the smallest tip of the iceberg too, being purely military history.

Fair enough. Textbooks allowed. I'll edit the OP to reflect. My apologies. Edit, nevermind. Won't let me edit the main body. Is that just on mobile browsing or can I not edit on pc either?

I believe in a more critical and interdisciplinary approach with freer use of language. As I would in certain types of lectures in a classroom. The only difference is we are all teachers and students here. Ethics and Meta-ethics is broad, trying to answer within too narrow constraints only diminishes the nuance and detail it requires and it's not wrong to write in an interdisciplinary fashion these days. If you think this is bad, try having this conversation in German at Goethe. Even so, you're the moderator. I've made my case. Decision is entirely yours. Thank you for your time. In adherence with the moderators note: The first claim of the five year old, should we say it is 75% mathematically accurate but 25% percent incorrect? To the 5 year old at least? The five year old wrote 75% of the full formula correctly, the percentage of the answer is 25% as the child is also being graded on showing his working and handwriting for single line sums. Should we say of the second non-verbal claim: It's okay to hit my sister is behaviorally 100% wrong? I suppose if it is 100% why even bother with the percentage? Note to moderator: I do apologise for this getting a little out there quickly before. I hope this makes up for that somewhat and shows I am listening to you. Moral contextualism is somewhat unheard of outside certain circles because the terminology is relatively new. I can dig up some readings (not mine) to send you if you'd like? Riveting stuff but it has a high demand for learning as it is pretty complex and some of the writers are at times, near incomprehensible without a lot of background explanation.

Absolutely! I wouldn't be a contextualist if I didn't already believe that. I think an underlying theme in my OP, is an unasked question; Is the binary a good tool for moral education? If so, at what stage of cognitive development, in regards to moral psychology?

Is reality just three lines? Is that what you're equating realism to or am I just misinterpreting what you're trying to paint? Would you be able to rephrase what you mean? I bet you enjoy structuralism too. I agree with your sentiment toward modern minimalism. Just lazy contrarianism if you ask me.

Can you not give me an impression of realism? Maybe that's why I was openly and sincerely appreciative. Any psychologist will tell you that word choice can convey potent and relevant emotional meaning. I think you'd enjoy reading into the concept of "Philosophical feeling" and Philosophy of non-verbal emotive language. If you haven't already, if you have then you are welcome on a future post about that

What is the best entry level book for your field/fields of expertise? Self directed homework. Feel free to add a personal book list in the order you'd read them in. No textbooks please. Unless that is stylistic of an individual relevant and important author. Thanks so much in advance!

New post will be needed soon. I appreciate your artistically and linguistically expressive short responses. I genuinely wish I was capable of that, I made a point to study stoicism but I took temperance to mean only speak when it is required, so what do you do if you feel a lot is required? Unfortunately making myself clear isn't always easy and I can't seem to get away from excessive detail. Oh well, my later publications will require a heavy hand with the highlighter!

Actually yes! I can't see the original comment you made for some reason? Can screenshot if you need proof of that. No matter, I can see it now that you've shared it and agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, there isn't a subsection in philosophy for meta-ethics There probably should be though, you can ask the admins about that maybe? I'm a bit new to the forum to be asking for structural context changes. I do apologise if it felt like I was just straight up ignoring you! Will retract the comment reaction. That was unfair and I'm sorry if it justifiably upset you.. Although also a lucky coincidence for your point. I made an incorrect conclusion based on a lack of knowledge that was outside of my control. Incorrect is a lovely term I think, really helps us separate mistake from intent. Do you think those who lacked intent for harm should be punished or is apology always sufficient? Would you agree if I said, "we are greater than the sum of our intentions"?(Guess which tv show that is from anyone? One of the greatest Sci-Fi shows of the last decade at least!) For example, could we say that people who conform to the binary and reject the reading of books on ethics even though they know they exist? Or is it enough that they are watching Morally centred narratives in tv, cinema and music? What about those who completely reject engaging with art that they know us out there? Sorry, your comment that I can't see on the thread wss actually really good and got me thinking a lot! Sorry for writing so much. You did not come across as terse at all. None of your word choices expressed that tone and I did not try to imagine a voice saying the words. Well, actually I suppose some generic AI voice (like microsoft Sam) works because you didn't send a voice recording along with the message to convey your true spoken tone. What about individuals whom have been diagnosed with 40/40 points for anti-social personality disorder whom have been found to be completely lacking their amygdala? Are they 100% psychologically bad but also free of moral responsibility, due to a brain abnormality beyond their control? I still agree with keeping them out of the general population but only out of pragmatic ethics. Or should we believe these individuals are in some way reformable and therefore morally responsible? Edit: I don't sympathise with these people, I do empathise but they aren't the same thing. Their actions make me just as angry as they do for most people.

😄 Indeed. I do so love this planet. Would be better if we didn't always feel so caught between a rock (People) and a hard place (Nature)... Although... maybe there is only the hard place and I'm imagining the rock?

It is a meta-ethical question actually, what are your grounds for claiming it isn't? I wrote the OP and gave ground to Studiots excellent point, that the OP forces binary choices. So now we've moved onto delineation to escape the binary and carry on a collaborative discussion, instead of me wasting peoples times by defending a point not worth defending, and getting upset by it like I believe, if my idea is attacked, I am attacked. I don't believe that. Do you have an answer to those questions?

I do so appreciate people who reject binaries! However, is it a case of delineation through scaling or categorising? Should we be quantitative or qualitative when we think of things being good or bad? Right or wrong? What sounds better to you; A given action could be said to be 60% wrong? A given action could be said to be a type of wrong? Or a joint application of both?

This is all very context-sensitive. I'd say that the avocado cannot be the thing that makes a moralistic determination. If I had fed you avocado five minutes before you told me you were allergic, I'd have done something bad. Because I've worked in kitchens and know better than to prepare a meal for someone without asking about allergens or dietary requirements. Even if it is just a mistake, my knowing better makes it negligent. An amateur to food safety rules and procedures would have made an honest moral mistake which would be wrong, not bad. It would be bad for you to self-harm by eating avocado knowing of your allergy, it would be bad for your wife to feed you avocado, since she should know of your allergy. The avocado is blameless in that it has zero choice in whether it gets eaten, it's an avocado. It's literally poison to most other animals on the planet, I think it might even be something only we have evolved to eat. It's an evolutionary defence mechanism to give the seed it's best chance to germinate and grow. I'm of the belief that behaviours and actions can be bad. However causal responsibility, and moral responsibility aren't the same thing. If I cause some kind of unintentional harm to some else, where I couldn't have been reasonably expected to know any better, I'm causally responsible but not morally. If I did know better then I'd be morally responsible. I think people, can be sick, they can be wrong. I think the things we should be morally judging the most are behaviours and actions, including certain kinds of speech. A society is something that is probably deserving of moral responsibility and judgement for how it impacts peoples lives. It's part of the environment after all.

Prospects for life elsewhere. The candidates are all pretty far away, however the hope is identifying the characteristics of these types of planets would give us clues as to how to locate them more locally.

Using pattern recognition to identify and treat sick people, is probably a better way to phrase this. Bad is quite the strangest term to apply to an individual. I blame whatever maladaptive family and support culture they came from. Genetics has it's role in determining certain aspects of disposition in life, most individuals of most dispositions, given intervention and guidance can find moral functionalism somewhere in this wide world and wellbeing and security along with that. I don't care what anyone says, I want my surgeons to be at least a little bit sociopathic. Their hands don't shake. Same with dentists, but be punctual, if you are late they can be a little sadistic with even a simple cleaning. Learned that one the hard way! Damn.... I must be a male stripper then... I could probably make it work. I fire spin!

My claim; All bads are wrongs. Not all wrongs are bads. A 5 year old claims; 12+50=71 Wrong, but bad? Clearly mixed up the tens and units column in 12. 5 year old child hits his sister. Wrong, but bad? I have attached a simple logic puzzle, image in attachment. This logic puzzle is a good example of where we are also being asked; How many times do you need to be wrong, before you can be right? Let's add the ethical spin; Let's imagine that each time an incorrect choice is made, a bomb will go off, killing a nearby person standing a safe distance away from the boxes. Now imagine two individuals, they have both been told $1,000,000 is in the box under the produce. One of them has been told that each incorrect box is wired to deadly explosives within killing distance of the people nearby. Let's call them the FI for the forewarned individual and II for the Ignorant individual. They are both told they can walk away at any point and are undergoing the same set up separately. II opens one incorrect box. Is absolutely shocked and just runs away crying tears of shame and guilt. FI opens the minimum number of boxes needed to figure out where the money is, takes the money and leaves the other boxes. Both clearly did something wrong by most objectivist and group-relative standards. Did they both do something bad? A shiny new donkey to anyone who wants to answer the puzzle btw. Don't worry, it won't blow up.

Really like this one actually. Biocentrism for the win.