You'd enjoy Kant's categorical imperative and Mills utilitarianism.

Act with the collective in mind! It's fun for the whole family!

I cant read well Philosophers that know less physics and math than i do (without the benefit of modern perspective i mean) although those you mention are both interesting and Mill not very distant in time. It is very disturbing to me because i disagree very often so i can no longer follow the train of thought faithfully.

They are great minds for sure but they are very difficult to read even when i agree with a lot because of my instant opposition on endless issues which is precisely fine because if they lived today they would disagree with their past selves similarly and prove massively important in our times.

I have similar problems with bs speculative physics that passes for authority often.

I am able to instantly dislike the collective if it makes sense to do so. If all society becomes morons then the hell with them. But mankind and collective historical culture of all people is something precious that deserves a chance to get it right.

When a young child smiles at you and asks naive questions with genuine curiosity, trust and love, you know the chance to get it right begins again! You have to fight so that this child will be happy one day and that this present state of kind heart witnessed will not be cynically destroyed with age by a selfish world of morons that dont get it.

Admirable as it appears, your incessant musing about the future and our survival as a species is never contextualized in (a) the context of your short life and (b) the utter insignificance and meaninglessness of humanity's achievements within a universe that must either undoubtedly end or be infinite. If looking to the future gives you purpose, fine. It doesn't give everyone purpose. Importantly, it shouldn't have to.

Your ethics strongly reflect your beliefs about the importance of the future; a future in which you are not; a future for which you shall not and cannot be judged, whether good or bad; a future that does not exist and may not ever exist. This contextualization is always missing.

For this, reading broadly, like philosophy, can contribute. And yes, much of it is dated, but some is and will remain timeless. Get through the muck and you'll find some pearls. At the very least, enjoy some masterful prose.

Or don't.

It's a ride, man. Enjoy it how you want, until the next one.

It is not at all insignificant. At this moment it is the only example of higher complexity this neighborhood of a billion galaxies seems to have produced. And it can understand the universe in ways never seen before in other life forms of this planet. It is for all i know a phase transition in this universe in terms of complexity. This planet is not at all insignificant. It can prove the center of expansion to millions of galaxies altering the structure forever and even the character of natural law is some sense or enabling properties of it that random matter never had a chance to do.

The future is now. I influence many people i interact with instantly as they also influence me. If you behave well to others in ways they didnt expect they recognize it, it motivates them to reciprocate and to defeat the cynicism that tries to attack them from all corners.

As i said before; Predictions are difficult, especially about the future says Niels Bohr. One is left therefore with one choice, to create the future they wish to predict.

This is how it starts, by caring for others a little more than the average background does.

snip
I dont think its so binary. There are other factors, besides reward feelings, that contribute to human behavior. Our consciousness extends us a certain degree of choice beyond the route etched in by our feelings. Don’t want to slide into the determinism rabbit hole though, so feel free to ignore that if it bothers you. Or feel free to jump on down. Whatever.

That is not the only way this “do what feels better” notion is complicated. Sometimes doing what feels better now creates a whole lot of feeling bad for later. I could bang some morphine and feel amazing for the next short while, but that could cause myself tremendous suffering down the line.

snip
Seems like there is a contradiction here. If people are in fact acting morally strictly because it is the best avenue for good feeling, then to sway from these morals would be to inflict cruelty onto themselves, or at least a lesser amount of good feeling.

Agreed they are. But self-sacrifice does not always produce them.

My current experience is meaningful to me. Does your experience mean nothing to you? Humanity’s achievements have made this ride more enjoyable. Solving current problems entails looking to the future. If we continue to solve problems and extend our logic of ethics past ourselves we can create an even more enjoyable experience. Sometimes that requires a little self-sacrifice. Give and take. There’s your balance.

Intercepted.a memo from cows to cows-

"Becoming human food is an amazing species survival strategy. Humans at least have the potential conscious awareness to value food enough to insure it's perpetuity of supply and an insurance of food species survival.

And the icing on top is some humans will go so far as to insure species survival that they won't eat you."

Dang, cows.

HAHA! good stuff well played

Do what feels better- overall. Not necessarily what feels better - now. You'll quickly realise that doing morphine all the time doesnt feel better.
Nietzsche is saying that a sense of freedom is essential to a 'good conscience' - something moralists are missing, by making themselves slaves of moral rules and conventions.
If you MUST be moral, you cannot be otherwise. The more moral rules you adopt the more of an automaton you become.

If being a moralist makes you feel good overall, then keep at it. It's a winning system for many. It's a fun game to play.
Reads like a neat narrative. Whatever works for you.

Let's have a contest of who is in charge or ethics using no morals what so ever.

Sure, but you can’t have it both ways. If we grant that people act morally because it makes them feel good, then acting amoral will make them feel bad, or at least less good. So, it follows that morals are just a recipe for the correct decision.

We start with an axiom and then create a set of rules to better keep us in harmony with that axiom. The axiom in life is set for us. You MUST not be moral; You MUST be moral to adhere to the axiom. When someone goes against this set of rules they are simply making a mistake. You can lie to yourself and feel ok about acting amoral, but from an outside perspective it is still objectively incorrect because you are working against this axiom.

For example, sam holds a moral belief that stealing is wrong. Why does sam hold this belief? He doesnt like having things stolen himself. He has a built in mechanism,empathy, which allows him to feel with other people. If he steals from someone else, he knows they will feel bad and this will cause sam to feel bad. Beyond that, as Masque touched on in an earlier post, there are game theory elements in play. Think prisoners dilemma. Acting in a cooperative fashion increases all of our chances for a better ride. As a side, its interesting to note that empathy provides a sort-of intuitive guide to game theory in life.

Yesterday sam came across a bike that he really likes. Problem is he couldn’t afford it. He wanted it so much that he decided it was worth abandoning his morals, so he stole it. You can see from an outside perspective that this is incorrect, even though it seems right for him in this moment. Somewhere in the subconscious he probably knows that even though it feels ok in the moment, it is not logically consistent with the original axiom.

That is what inflicts the cruelty. A very circuitous form of self destruction.

You can have it both ways. Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and Camus only spent their entire lives trying to communicate to the rest of us plebs, the importance of freedom; the importance of exercising your freedom. Freedom from all rules, moral or not.

The only judge (of your decisions) that matters in this world, is yourself. Your own conscience.

If you're aware, at all times, of the game that the conscience plays, you're empowered.

Much like how an awareness of death can be liberating and can change the way you live, so too, can an awareness of the internal heuristics by which you feel better or worse. Importantly, an awareness of how substitutable and flexible these heuristics really are.

Many, for example, decide how they'll feel, before they act or respond to situations. I'm sure you've heard people say - if my wife cheated on me i'd be gutted. This need not be so. You have the absolute freedom to interpret situations in any way you want. It is the fear of this absolute freedom, that leads men to become moralist automatons. Predictable, boring human beings. There is nothing so terrifying as the idea of how much you are truly capable of achieving and who you are truly capable of becoming.

Embrace the freedom. Do not fold under its burden. Take risks. Act out of character. Be vulnerable. Importantly, as another favourite author often says - fighting fear is fear, seeking security is insecurity. Contradictory to some, balanced to others.

I'm aware that the conscience plays games that can be described as game-theoretic. I'm aware it fits with our intuitions and our sense of empathy. I'm also aware that none of this has to matter if I choose it not to. If I choose that there is something greater:

Balance.

Speaking of insecurity and vulnerability, I'm about to attend a party mainly comprising of lesbians ive never met. Usually the saltiest of moralists. I bet I'll have an awesome time.

Complexity. Ability to experience external environments through multiple apparatus (e.g., smell, taste, touch, see) AND contemplate on that experience in order to predict or reflect.

Can you recount the time before you could do this? How do you remember that time as being?

Animal House Movie, another reason USA#1. Thanks, Lastcard.

You gotta buy your own weed.

Little worse than a drug parasite.

Remind me again... what became of those guys? I know cheap shot, but couldnt resist. I havent poured over all their stuff but they all seem like great thinkers. I once saw a quote from Nietzsche which I will now butcher. Something like, “Just because a man does not possess the key to his own shackles does not mean he does not possess the key to yours.” I believe that.

On we go...

We set the axiom that being jailed is not good. If we act in a way that gets us jailed, we might be able to change how we feel about being jailed, but from an objective perspective we failed to stay consistent with our axiom.

Now I know you’re saying that there is no relevant objectivety; the only thing that matters is our subjective experience. But even if we grant that, we’re still forced to change our view on how we feel. We are bound by cause and effect. Furthermore, we are slave to the urge, which arose seemingly from nowhere, that tempted us to do whatever we did that landed us in jail. If we are constantly giving in to these whims then we are like marionettes- controlled by the very same thing we thought we were in control of- our feelings.

Balance.

High highs. Low lows.

Good/bad.

Experience.

You have always been here.
You will always be here.
You cannot know non-experience. You cannot experience non-experience. You. Have. Lived. Eternally.
There is no non-experience.

I must stop here. For I, am tired. Of repeating, what has been said, for ever.

You are slave to what you choose.

Choose rules.

It works.

I don't see how you think that animals have right to their lifes.

Hegel, Derrida? I mean if you care to use philosophy

I hope that you are not talking about the balance mentioned in weak ideas, like Buddhism and espcially Zen Buddhism.

If you are talking about "balanced life" as part of the "Four Noble truths" I don't see how you can use philosophy... ever.

Do you have a right to your life?

I dont care so much to use philosophy. I care to philosophize.

Yes because I know what death is. Animals do not know what death is.

Animals end their existance, People die.

I suggest you read Jacques Derrida's book:
Aporias (Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics)Dec 1, 1993.

I am not that smart do work on things that took 10 decades to be figured out.

Example:
When a baby bear dies the mother looks at it. Tries to make it stand up. Then she eats it.

Animals grieve. Thats not to say they understand and intellectualize the concept of death as we do. But apparently that level of understanding is not required to suffer.