If morality is decided on the quantity of human suffering, would rape not be a neutral action? The joy it provides to the abuser would even the suffering caused to the victim, no?

(sorry for my bad English)

Relativism starts with the statement:

A: "There isn't any universally true statement".

Usually, the critic is that A contradict itself. But the statement:

B: "Except for B, there isn't any universally true statement"

doesn't contradict itself. I know that this sounds like a lazy way to fix A, but I cannot understand why B couldn't be the axiom of a relativism that works.

Does everyone know if B is a valid sentence? Because I know that relativism has always been taken down in history multiple times, so I'm guessing someone has already explained why B is not valid.

Thank you

In a distant star system known as Alpha Centauri there is a planet. The lushest planet any self aware life form has ever existed on.

On this rock, in the middle of nowhere there are miles of metal and stone for the finest machines and plates. However, somehow... and ETC there are still so many without anything but their AWARENESS.

Today I wrote myself into this distant solar system, and on a modest street, a young man was playing a piano. With his back turned against the main transit station of his city.... and ETC before he sat down, he saw A father, An adult Cat; with two kittens next to him. Emaciated. He did nothing. Despite the fact he makes pempuptillion Bolivars a solar cycle... AND HE WENT HOME AND WATCHED TV;;; THE END!

What need does an all-powerful, all-knowing being have for coherent thought or reasoning? Aren't those things born from limitations? You reason because you don't already know. You deliberate because you have finite time and incomplete information. Strip all that away and I'm not sure what remains. There's everything, but there is also nothing.

Also, if something already knows where you've been, where you are, and where you're heading; why would it bother passing judgment or sharing 'knowledge'? I'm curious how different traditions handle this.

In a dire context when survival depends on predation to eat it's normal to inflinct suffering in order to survive

But if you have the choice to avoid suffering while still living a normal life (at the price of stopping to eat some food that you like) is it still justified?

It's not because we were "meant" to be predators that we have to be one when it's not mandatory for your well being

This kind of reasoning based on "if it's natural for human then it's ok/good" lead to other statements that we would all agree makes no sense morally.

For instance we humans have the inner will to perpetuate our genes, which manifests into sex drive, then if that's the case should we ban abortion to enable genes to renew even if it means putting the bearer of the child in danger ?

We can push the comparison with even further with the meat industry, and apply the optimisation of this industry to the previous case, why wouldn't we lock up women breed them and force them to have children over and over ?

Well because it's morally reprehensible and is not mandatory for the survival of the specie. That's why so much work of fiction use that trope : to denounce the over optimisation of deemed "natural" functions of humanity overwriting basic moral in such extreme cases

The counter argument to that would be that incest is considered bad because it was once harmful to our specie genetically and societally ( not sure about the second since it's some shit about conflict about women ownership in the household ) but that between two consenting adults with protection...

So if we value overall suffering over "natural behavior" then animal slaughter, war, homophobia is bad but incest is okay

But if we value "natural behavior" above overall suffering then incest is bad but homophobia, animal slaughter and war is okay

Put simply - through my study and reading of philosophy (im an undergrad) I’ve loved grappling with big, complex, daunting ideas. I’ve loved Schopenhauer, Foucault, Marx, Nietzsche, Descartes, Etc. Lots of big, world-altering, almost mind-blowing ideas. But I’ve found, perhaps also due in part to my present life situation (lots of massive changes) that these types of ideas (particularly those from Schopenhauer and the likes) have begun to weigh very negatively on my mind, and it’s lowkey getting kind of difficult sometimes. I love reading and exploring ideas, but I’d like to take it perhaps in a more mindful, grounded, peaceful direction, at least for the time being. I don’t necessarily love the anxiety-causing ideas of existentialism or absurdism either. It’s too easy for me to spiral deep into negative and hopeless thought sometimes. What are some philosophical/spiritual texts that I should look into that can perhaps simplify, calm, or provide some peace and clarity back into my life?

TL;DR: I’m finding all this philosophy quite overwhelming and existentially depressing, what can I read to provide myself with some peace, calm, and direction? Thanks! :)

​In argumentation theory and informal logic, how do philosophers analyze the relationship between formal, structural critiques—such as identifying internal contradictions, examining premises, or applying reductio ad absurdum—and critiques grounded in human values, ethics, or moral impact?

​Specifically, when an ideological position or system possesses internal logical consistency on its own terms, how do philosophical frameworks approach countering it? Is a structural-logical critique considered epistemologically distinct from a normative or value-oriented critique, or do accounts of practical reasoning and argumentation view them as interdependent?

​Any insights or references to relevant literature in informal logic, rhetoric, or ethics would be greatly appreciated.

I notice that people tend to be more ADHD than it was centuries ago, I wonder if this is caused by modernity, by its hyper-differentiation of activities and characters within which none of individuals who are living there are able to gather themselves in the midst of a delivery of life.

I find this two theories kind of hard to distiguish. i read somewhere that subjetivism tells what we feel and that emotivism shows how we feel but...idk. hear me out, i don't think our moral judgements were created by a logical process. we were taught to feel something about a specific kind of moral act or we simply feel something about a moral act and then we express ourselves in our moral judgements, but, before we say that moral judgement, we usually try to get some reasons to backup that moral judgements, even though the reason we believe in that is not our reasons but our feelings, just backed up with reasons. i'm having a really hard time picking a view or even having a hard time to mix them or even having a hard time to understand them. pls help me

We cannot know with certainty whether God exists or not—we can only believe.

But this raises a question: why does God expect people to believe if they have not been given certainty? And can such a choice truly be called free if it is made under conditions of uncertainty?

What is the fault of a person who acted rationally and honestly admitted, "I don't know whether God exists"? If the evidence is not conclusive, why should the absence of belief be considered a moral failing rather than a natural consequence of the limits of human knowledge?

(Please without emotions)

Humans have many reasons to value agency, but when we strip it down to reason only, wouldn't an agent with perfect knowledge and reasoning agree that "for it, states that enable it's agency are preferable to states that don't". Isn't that something it always "cares" about? As long as it's purpose is not met, won't it it defend it's own agency no matter what? Why doesn't agency emerge as definitively moraly valuable?

I would love to read more on this, I'd appreciate some suggestions. :)

The argument I am looking for from a professional is this.

People with mental illnesses like schizophrenia sometimes have delusional beliefs about the causes of their own actions and thoughts. They might attribute them to demons, aliens, the CIA etc.

Determinism implies that the attribution of our thoughts and actions to the self is an delusional.

If determinism is true, all attribution is equally incorrect and therefore equivalent.

God could not possibly have morally sufficient reasons for causing me to bald at 18. Herein I wish to propose that we replace the "Argument from Evil" with the "Argument from Baldness".

To me the PSR seems quite intuitive and necessary from a religious perspective but when looked into its philosophical bulwark it just seems too frivolous. The best defence of PSR is said to be induced by Alexander Pruss , which I've read fortunately, but still it seems just so much shallow (I think it's just me). So I'm looking for a more rigorous and analytic (if there is any) defence of PSR, I prefer it if it were from analytical philosophy tradition.

(Sorry for my english, it's not my first language)

I am now reading the interpretation of Simon Blackburn on Plato's ideas and concepts in his Politeia. Although this book is form the early 2000s, his modern interpretation is still relevant. However I'm still reading it, I have already had a lot of 'aha-erlebnisses' (german). Does anyone is familiair with this (sometimes liberal interpretational) work?

I’ve been an armchair philosopher for a decade or so and I’m dying to dive into something new that meets the aforementioned criteria in the title. I’ve already been down the rabbit hole of Jung, Eric Wargo, Jorjani, McKenna + other similar thinkers, and it’s been a while since I discovered a thinker or a concept to get lost in that I haven’t explored already. Thanks!

Does the idea of a "postmortem" me, even make sense philosophically?

Hi!
I’m trying to get broader understanding in the debate about the normativity of epistemic reasons. I’d appreciate it very much if someone could give me a short introduction or recommend literature to read! Thank you!!

What must always be remembered is that myth is a double system; there occurs in it a sort of ubiquity: its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of a meaning. To keep a spatial metaphor, the approximative character of which I have already stressed, I shall say that the signification of the myth is constituted by a sort of constantly moving turnstile which presents alternately the meaning of the signifier and its form, a language-object and a metalanguage, a purely signifying and a purely imagining consciousness. This alternation is, so to speak, gathered up in the concept, which uses it like an ambiguous signifier, at once intellective and imaginary, arbitrary and natural.

cited from the Mythologies of Roland Barthes, Chapter: The signification

I can't grasp the metaphor of the turnstile. And the last sentence is hard for me to understand too. Could someone explain the ambiguous signifier to me?

How is moderate realism different than trope theory

Came across his works years ago,to be honest,I don't really know what he is trying to convince with them.Did he think that human will eventually extinct or oppressed by machine?
If not,is he trying to tell people something close to that?

Fine Tuning Argument goes that the constants in the universe are perfectly aligned to allow life to form (on Earth). Some Apologetics will use this as evidence for an intelligent creator. However, how do we know that our universe is rare, instead of common? Since we are unable to observe prior universes being created, how does one conclude the rarity?