Not sure what you mean, there are different versions of idealism, more or less radical ones.
I am a materialist, so there is a reality made of matter that exists autonomously from our mind.
I think I figured it out. In post #7, you were quoting Wikipedia about idealism, but part of that quote was taken out and responded to as if you had said it. So, cool, materialism, seems pretty obvious to me, matter makes up everything, with a little help from energy, which might be the same thing if understand Einstein.
Now, getting back to that post #7. This was in your point #2
Iâm not so sure about the line you draw from âimposing injunctionsâ to exploitation and conquering. Those moral maxims usually come from weaker parts of society, asking for human rights to be recognized, they arenât able to âimposeâ them. I donât think we have ever seen a culture that has too much equality, or too much regulation of violence.
Moral injunction is linked to virtue ethics, and divine command ethics, which is linked to Catholicism, but also other religions.
Letâs stick with Catholicism and Europe:
Even if we contend that violence against women, violence against homosexuals, violence against men in general (the Crusades, the torture, or whatever), colonialism, were not in the scriptures, but stems from a bad interpretation by humans, as a point of fact, during this time when divine command catholic ethics was the main source of social organization, society was not, in my definition of what morality is (human welfare) a moral society.
On the other hand, as a point of fact, with the rise of bourgeois ethics, utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number; an ethics which is historically linked to the philosophy of materialism and hedonism/epicurianism), society became, in my moral standard, very much moral: slaves started to be freed, colonialism reached an end, feminism developed, homosexuals can now get married, the conscription has ended (thanks to the horrible capitalist selfish Milton Friedman) etc. etc.
It is the same world that many people consider as lacking morality, in their understanding, lacking virtue, moral injunctions; and as driven by selfish materialist bourgeois interests.
And who opposed this industrial utilitarian bourgeois framework?
_The aristocracy
_Religion
_Communists
_Romantics/existentialists (Nietzsche, Châteaubriand, etc.)
The liberal conservatives hide in between (being both bourgeois, and both religious/traditionalist). This is why I consider them the greatest adversary, because they are harder to grasp.
One could say it is true about social democrats, but not really because, yes they hide in between, but at least they donât reject Reason to take tradition as the main argument. So it is still possible to having (interesting and/or) serene discussions
Liberal conservatives (if you know Thomas Sowell, you will certainly get what Iâm talking about) always use opportunistic arguments that sound correct at first glance, but are in reality very dishonest. And so debates with them can be very frustrating.
I see. To me, you are mixing up what is CONSIDERED morality and what is actually moral. âActually moralâ is not something that can be stated as truth, itâs constantly being adjusted, but lâll stick to the comparison of Catholic Europe to modernity. Slavery, for example, today we call that immoral but a thousand years ago it was accepted by churches and states everywhere. To me, when the state imposed slavery on others, that wasnât âimposing a moral injunctionâ, that was the state acting immorally.
When I say you are âmixing upâ, Iâm referring to mixing what a church or official policy says is moral, and makes a law about, is not necessarily moral. In the same way, materialism doesnât automatically lead to moralism either. It is a better basis for arguing what is moral, but still requires compromises between justice and mercy, equality and freedom.
But why is it?
Isnât it because we were not clear enough what, as you say below, what should stand as the basis for arguing what is moral?
It is precisely that: if were are clear that what is the basis for arguing what is moral is empirical materialism, and not any virtue ethics, then I am pretty sure colonialism and other kind of things would have had far lesser ground to be justified and developed.
From materialism, we can put the focus on the body, that is, on human welfare (the respect of human body). Pretty simple, but pretty fundamental.
From empiricism, we can, instead of top-down imposing our own views on other peoples (ethnocentrism: âhow, sure, these guys would love to adopt Jesus or our French republican values!â) because we believe they are innately universal (Descartes rationalism, as opposed to Locke empiricism), start to simply first observe the actual similarities and differences.
And I contend that holding ideas (virtues, for instance, are ideas)/spiritualism/etc. as the basis for morality serves people to justify more easily they desire for domination.
If the basis for arguing what is moral is materialistic human welfare, well, itâs quite straightfoward, people can judge pretty quickly if the self-proclaimed savor of the society is/was moral: did he make them better off?
But if the basis are vague ideas, it is far more difficult.
With communism, the number of deaths far far exceeded the number of deaths committed by fascism, but they had âmoral idealsâ, and as a result communism is still far less controversial than fascism. Which is crazy.
Thatâs why gurus hate so much materialism (in both philosophical and non-philosophical senses of the term).
Thatâs my philosophy, but Iâm not so confident as you that it is the one that will solve all these problems. To me, it starts with assessing my own basic needs, like sleep, safety, a little time to reflect, after having eaten enough to survive. From there, I apply that to how I should treat others, because I know I canât all things on my own, not in the long run. And, further, to how I should treat the environment, because we all need that, or individual survival wonât happen.
The question remains, what am I imposing on my environment, and am I acting in a way that maximizes the welfare of all? How do we measure maximum welfare? I think there should be a lot less inequality, but Iâm not sure what âequal justice for allâ really looks like. I want more justice and more welfare, but at what point do we say itâs good enough? At what point are we unjustly enforcing equality on others?
Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. Slow it down a little. Youâre saying way more than necessary. Repeating yourself.
1 Like
Ok, sounds we have the exact same mindset on that.
I think the main problem is poverty, not inequality.
There is no point were the level of average/median poverty level is low enough, it could always be lower.
I donât care if there are billionaires.
What do you mean? That it is okay to have poor? Or that the average lower income should be higher, or�
Arenât poverty and inequality two sides of the same coin? I mean, I care very much if there are billionaires when others are starving. That inequality can be seen pretty easily to be the cause of poverty. Or is this what you are saying?
Poverty threshold (Wikipedia):
In September 2022, the World Bank updated the International Poverty Line (IPL), a global absolute minimum, to $2.15 per day[7] (in PPP). (âŚ) Per the $1.90/day standard, the percentage of the global population living in absolute poverty fell from over 80% in 1800 to 10% by 2015, according to United Nations estimates, which found roughly 734 million people remained in absolute poverty.[10][11]
(1) The poverty level in the world in 2015 was 10%. It should get lower up to disapperance.
(2) The International Poverty Line in 2022 in the world was $2.15. It should indefinitely get higher.
I only care if people are starving or not.
Billionaires create jobs.
With the salary people get from these jobs, people can venture to start their own business.
All depends on whether other people have the opportunity to innovate and start businesses, and whether the money of billionaires and entrepreneurs can be grabbed by the state at any moment to enrich a few people protected by arbitrary laws.
I donât buy that billionaires create jobs. At least not in any fair way. Trickle down economics has been proven to be bad for the average worker time and again.
Itâs too easy for a billionaire to monopolize a sector and therefore dictate how any worker in that sector is treated.
3 Likes
I didnât say we should favor billionaires. I just said I donât care that there are billionaires or not.
I maintain that billionaires create jobs.
I said we should favor the creation of businesses: âAll depends on whether other people have the opportunity to innovate and start businessesâ.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this has nothing to see with trickle-down economics.
Forgive the use of wiki, but itâs quick:
Trickle-down economics are economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper end of the economic spectrum, i.e., wealthy individuals and large corporations.The policies are founded on the premise that spending by this echelon will âtrickle downâ to those less fortunate.
What is the relation with being able to start a new business easily?
The monopolistic practices of billionaires rejects competition. I.e., new business in that area.
Never heard harsher criticism of monopolistic practice that from free-market economy theorists.
It is precisely to avoid monopoly that we need laissez-faire and a smaller government.
What threatens more a monopolistic company than other companies that would like to get its position?
Monopoly forms from CEOs trying to get laws favorable to their business.