I always muck up that distinction. Thank you for clarifying!

This strikes me as too Kantian and idealized. Morality is a biological adaptation of our species meant to foster cooperation. Moral claims take the form of "should statements" simply because they are claims that you endorse and recommend others endorse as well. But the notion about reasonable rejection being used to distinguish what are the "true" moral principles seems problematic, as we don't know what it means to mount a "reasonable" objection. My assumption would be to take a Rawlsian line and say that reasonableness characterizes the attitudes of we modern day liberal democrats, but then we're starting to move away from the sort of objectivist account I think you're aiming for.

Helpful for sure but if you have read some Stirner you know what I mean. Fundamentally freedom as a concept is something that’s been endowed to you to mean something from how others constructed and defined it (or in a contradistinction) . That does not mean it’s a salient term to abide by in a super construct called morality. The corollary cannot be supposed if the prior supposition is nonsense

Reads to me like some kind of Kantian constructionism. You might enjoy reading some Korsgaard, who I think articulates a different slant on how morality derives from the nature of rational agents.

Personally, I'm skeptical of these varieties of meta ethics which rely on assumptions about the nature of an abstract rational actor. I think the constitutive nature of the rational actor is where the underlying principles really derive from, because you make all kinds of assumptions about what they want (e.g. not being used as a means to an end) and who is accepted as a rational agent (e.g. animals, slaves).

Thanks for the review! I describe what I mean by freedom here and its moral relevance here, if that helps at all.

Thanks The Philosofyzr! A very good analysis! The author has nothing to add. :)

"the choice to cover a story and what parts of the story to cover are always going to be a reflection of values."

This was always the highest power of the press. In the recent past, the choice to ignore a story, if agreed to by 3 or 4 press entities, meant the story was relatively "secret". The difference now is with the democratization of information.
So now people have a comparison with which to judge the choices made by any given dissemination, and to apply their own value system to the relative importance of any fact or story, and to judge other value systems in that realm.

Is this improvement or anarchy? Will this be permitted to continue?

Probably not what you want to hear but there are a lot of spooks in your definitions. Freedom and reason are both spooks that I would aver don’t have good definitions in principle and thus cannot form a basis for a derived morality.

Hello all, I'm looking for feedback on the definition of morality that I defend in the article. Any questions, comments, or criticisms would be highly appreciated.

Summary: Morality exists as "should" statements resulting from the values of freedom and reason. We can assess the truth of morality claims by determining whether they properly derive from these moral values. Moral principles are therefore those principles that free agents cannot reasonably reject based on public reasons. Under this theory of morality, there are no true moral dilemmas. If a principle can be reasonably rejected by a free party, then it is not a moral principle. Yet if it cannot be, then it is morally binding to agents that value freedom and reason.

Pretty much right on both points, except that historically the 'British' were the Welsh, driven back to this corner of the island by Anglo-Saxons and others. Brythonic Celts is where 'Britain' comes from. What resentment there is gets directed towards the English (which, incidentally, I am) not the British.

Life can be called the greatest bruh moment of all. This is a little insight on the topic.

The concept of "bruh moment" has gained widespread popularity in recent times as a shorthand way to express disappointment, incredulity, or a sense of being let down by life. The phrase has become a common meme in online culture, and it encapsulates a certain kind of existential malaise that many people can relate to. But can life really be reduced to a series of "bruh moments," or is there a deeper philosophical significance to this phrase?

To answer this question, we must first consider the nature of existence itself. From a philosophical perspective, existence can be seen as a kind of absurdity. We are thrown into the world without our consent, forced to grapple with a set of circumstances that we did not choose and may not be able to fully understand. This condition of being is often referred to as "thrownness" or "facticity," and it is a central theme in the work of existentialist philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre.

When we look at life through this lens, it becomes clear that there are many moments that can be described as "bruh moments." These are the times when we are confronted with the arbitrary and sometimes nonsensical aspects of our existence. For example, the death of a loved one, the end of a relationship, or the failure to achieve a desired goal can all be experienced as "bruh moments." They are the moments when we are forced to confront the fact that life is not always fair, just, or predictable.

But why do we experience these moments as "bruh moments"? What is it about them that makes us feel a sense of disappointment, frustration, or even anger? One possible answer is that these moments represent a rupture in our expectations. We have certain beliefs and assumptions about how the world works, and when these beliefs are challenged or contradicted, we experience a kind of cognitive dissonance. This dissonance can lead to feelings of confusion, disillusionment, and even despair.

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of "bruh moments" in our lives is that they are a symptom of the alienation that many people feel in modern society. As we become more isolated and disconnected from one another, it can be difficult to find meaning or purpose in our lives. We may feel like we are adrift in a sea of uncertainty, with no clear path or direction. This sense of aimlessness can contribute to feelings of frustration and hopelessness, leading us to view life as a series of meaningless, arbitrary events.

From a more metaphysical perspective, the concept of a "bruh moment" can be seen as an expression of the fundamental absurdity of existence. In a universe that is indifferent to our desires, hopes, and dreams, it can be difficult to find any kind of transcendent meaning or purpose. We may feel like our lives are a cosmic joke, a cruel prank played by an indifferent universe. This sense of futility and meaninglessness can be overwhelming, leading us to view life as a series of pointless, absurd events.

In conclusion, while the phrase "bruh moment" may seem flippant or lighthearted on the surface, it is actually a reflection of some of the deepest philosophical questions about the nature of existence. Whether we view life as a series of disappointments and setbacks, a symptom of modern alienation, or a cosmic absurdity, there is no denying the fact that there are many moments in our lives that can be described as "bruh moments." While we may not be able to escape these moments entirely, we can take comfort in the knowledge that we are not alone in our struggle to find meaning and purpose in a world that often seems arbitrary and capricious.

I would contend that in a place like Wales, the (comparatively to the US) low cultural diversity and the notion that Welsh cultural survival under British hegemony (at least within the sphere of the UK) is not guaranteed is what brings about that social cohesion. I imagine as well that the social cohesion in Cardiff is less than out in the countryside as well. Then again, I’m not speaking from experience so I might be completely off base

Like most things, Free Will and Determinism are probably extremes of a spectrum and the true nature of any given behaviour is probably between those two points, and is different every time.

In other words, this debate has always felt like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. It continues perpetually because we are trying to force it to one side or the other while no situation is fully deterministic or free/random.

I am not sure why my perspective on this is uncommon. A brief survey of physics implies this pretty clearly to me.

It's all programed like a call of duty match there's NPC's or maybe whoever wanted to kill their human

I agree with this. I’m seeing a lot of arguments and questions lacking vital definitions. I’m not going to get upset if someone has to use more words to make a finer point.

Not only have you failed to properly define what you mean by “simulation” in this sense, you have waffled your way into the realm of bias.

I have one question, which in turn should undo your argument.

“What about people who aren’t guided by intuition and have accidents, sometimes with fatal results?”

ODS

Opinion: That may be a US-centric view. Here in rural Wales it seems to me to be alive and well, though far from universal.

That's what I'd like to ask you too. I'm sure everyone has different definitions and it'll be great to learn how they define "perfect" and "imperfect".

Thank you! I will have to think about that - interesting angle that I have not thought about before. Philosophy (the academic kind, my kind) is slow, though, so it may take a while before I get there. But I appreciate the comment! :)

With "sure of" I mean the precisely meaning accurate of the word. So is wrong: be sure of "know nothing" cause even little, we know something, and one of this things is that we exist, if not you would not writing your comment.

But, what I wanted to achieve here is to see the vision of others about the matter. Even being just a concept that I was thinking about in my mind.

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.

Some people think that philosophy it self is a waste of time, even so we are here.

So you think that even our selves maybe not real? You are not sure that you are real?

are, too...D2.

i dont think anti-natalism is rooted in the fact that life has suffering, i think its more subjective to a persons individual belief that leads to it.

arthur schopenhauer, one of the “OG” anti natalists believed that life is almost entirely just suffering. and that happiness is really just the extremely temporary removal of said suffering.

from a “philosophical anti-natalist” viewpoint, schopenhauer does not believe people should have kids because experiencing life itself is inherently a bad thing.

but from a young person seeing the world burning, society collapsing, another world war approaching, then yes, they would be an anti natalist because they want to prevent their children from experiencing that suffering, not because they believe experiencing consciousness/life is suffering.

the question is - do you think it’s selfish? to say life is not worth living, and then to drive society and all life into death and nothingness because you believe that experience is only bad, and that everyone who believes otherwise is biased, is that not selfish? thats something ive been asking myself. who am i to even answer the question of whether life is worth living?

[deleted]