Have you seen something in my commentary that you do not like? Do provide me with constructive feedback.

[removed]

I swear I thought "Immoral" was some TV series which would have said advice

[removed]

You think that’s bad. You should see the stuff I do when I’m only thinking of myself…

I presume as we are not family or friends of his then in his philosophy it's okay to tell us to make the life choice of not doing this?

Isn’t it immoral to not help someone from a bad decision? One that could end their life? A person who begins drugs goes to rehab, they are out still going through recovery and there is a clear opportunity to stop them from relapsing. Would it not be immoral to allow their life to end or be damaged if you didn’t help them?

It is no class struggle drama. It’s a class with no hope fighting against each other with the sole aim of making money

Agree

I think the nitpick of eternity vs infinite time is just weird word games.

Omnipresence applies to all possible universes God created or will create not just this one.

And at this point I am not that untreated Interested in your other twisting of commonly understood words to mean something they are not.

Yes you are right. We all most probably do if not we would not be talking about philosophy. We'd be sleeping or worrying about other things than philosophy.

[removed]

Losers vs losers. No class struggle. Same class trying to obliterate the other while the elite enjoy the spectacle

I do, lovingly, after a nice rich meal.

This is the first thing they teach social work students. You can help people question things but you can never know what's best, or take responsibility if it turns out good (or bad)

His assertion that it is “immoral” is ludicrous. If a friend or family member asks for advice on something it is our duty to assist them…but I think advice given unasked is uncalled for and possibly detrimental to a person.

I agree. Advice is often ill informed and can be harmful.

However, I'm not sure if he's saying that advice itself it immoral or that nonconsensual advice is immoral. News media is a pretty unreliable source for technical information.

The experience of others is valuable, and I do not see how consensual advice could be objectionable. All you have to do is ask.

Eternity is typically seen as “outside” of time. Aquinas was probably the first to articulate this fully:

> Endless time is not eternity: it is just more of time. Eternity differs in essence, not merely accidentally in quantity. Endless time is an elongation of time. More of the same thing is essentially the same thing. … There is a crucial difference between the "now" of time and the "now" of eternity…. The "now" of time moves; the "now" of eternity does not move in any way

See [here](https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute of SA Studies/4.5.3.24_32Staley.pdf) and here for some interesting discussion and counterpoints.

I’ll also note that omnipresence is only infinite if the universe is infinite, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Whether omniscience is infinite kinda depends on how you define it. There are some interesting problems that come up if you try to give a technical definition.

I don’t feel like it does interfere. The article sounds like what an academic in philosophy does when they have friends that have overstepped their boundaries by giving too much advice on Personal issues.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I'll agree to this if the opinion or help was unsolicited. But if they come asking for help and my opinion... I'll give them that.

I think you're right, and I can see that what I wrote is confusing. I meant, "in this altruistic act, I place your interests above my own." It says nothing about what you might do in return. It's not a moral precept.

On the other hand, there are many different kinds of reciprocity, in various contexts. If my survival depends on your survival, personally - then of course I am going to help you in any way I can, and I am repaid in the long term by your continued well being. This is the interdependence hypothesis of human non-kin altruism. It was the situation for the human family tree for most of 2 million years. So, unconditional altruism does exist in some circumstances.

But tit-for-tat belongs in a more impersonal environment where I depend on you only indirectly and there is no great reason for us to trust each other beyond the enforcement of our reciprocal agreement.

No it does not protect the people that “run” the company, it protect the people that “own” the company.

Too much to comment on here, but this stood out to me

>Tomasello (2016) characterises altruism with the moral formula, "you > me" ; i.e., “I place your interests above my own”.  

That is true of pure altruism, but I am not sure there are many people over the age of six or who believe in that as a moral precept. Rather, much more common is a belief in reciprocal altruism, which is much more like enlightened self-interest, a willingness to help out without any immediate payoff in the expectation of help later on.

Taking any/life advice from The Guardian would be like learning fire safety from a criminal arsonist.