Paradoxal

Do you perhaps fail to understand that every single action taken by any conscious being has an 'agenda'?

Money is fundamentally a delusion of man; its value is only that which we assign to it. Unfortunately, in modern times, that tends to mean that money is power. Money is the power to live, the power to reproduce, the power to 'own' something or someone, the power to get oneself elected, the power to ignore laws, the power to kill, and many other powers. This is why business is equated to warfare; both are a method of using power to dominate others.

Am I the only one who sees such a change as a bad thing? Like, part of the message of buddhism and martial arts is humility, right? Not to mention the whole 'monks not supposed to touch money' side of things... Plus, let's be real here: 'CEO material' generally just means 'predator'.

As this came up in a thread recently, I thought perhaps it best to make a dedicated thread asking for opinions and arguments on morality. I'm of the opinion that there cannot be a 'universal' good or evil; rather, individuals have their own views based around their particular values. For example, one of the things I value most is saving lives (not only human) and preventing suffering. Thus, to me, killing will always be 'evil', but if done in the name of saving lives, it becomes 'good'. If you kill a warlord, that's one life traded for thousands (if not millions) saved. If you cause suffering for the sake of preventing harmful ideologies or practices that would cause many times more suffering, what is it but a moral obligation? I suppose it all comes back to the infamous trolley problem; I am of the opinion that not pulling the lever to save the many at the expense of the few is the worse option. I'm distinctly aware that my views on this are not universal however, so I'd love to open a thread where we (politely) discuss our views on morality; I'm looking for proper arguments here, so let's make sure we check up on fallacies! What would you say "good" entails? What is "evil"? How do they blend?

I'm of the opinion that anything good taken to the extreme can turn bad. Too much medicine turns into poison, and too little poison turns into medicine. If you wanna take the 5 elements/yinyang view, extreme yin turns into moderate yang; extreme yang turns into moderate yin. Love turns into obsession, which can have disastrous results (look at how some people remain trapped in hazardous relationships through love, for example). Light will burn and destroy even the things it nurtures if it becomes too bright. Altruism turns into arrogant oppression when taken too far (the current American Christian politics comes to mind, but also SJWs and other such social phenomenon). Freedom turns into a prison when taken too far, as the freedom to hurt oneself and others will then cause freedom to be restricted. Truth turns into lies when too much faith or emphasis is placed into it; again, look at current politics for an example. In this particular category, people get too invested into their 'truth' to realize that it might not be founded in reality, or too invested to see why others may not believe it; this feeds into the creation of lies to support the 'truth'. Knowledge is the easiest one here; there are certain things it is better not to know and certain things it is better to not have seen. They're generally called 'infohazards' in modern intelligence circles, but basically, some knowledge can and will affect the way you think for the rest of your life.

Ego blinds folks way too much... When I see it, I try to speak up, but oftentimes the person themselves is just not ready to listen. Exactly what I'm interested in. It's easy to claim something as good or bad out of emotion, but that same emotion can easily drive us to excessively harm others, thus it must be tempered with logic. Where I struggle personally is that what I find to be 'great evil' (CEOs, focus on 'improving the economy' over 'improving lives', Abrahamic religion, intentional closed-mindedness) is found by many others to be either 'normal' or 'good'. Additionally, when you have someone responsible for the torment and death of millions (such as CEOs and despots), how can you even give justice? The closest thing would be torture, as one death cannot repay millions of deaths, but then the ones implementing the punishment would in turn be scarred. Simply forgiving them and letting them live creates an opening for them (or others) to do it again, and when you have people who have a proven track record of manipulating others to a fatal degree, how can you even confirm a reform? In my opinion, small scale morality issues like we discuss here can balloon into having an effect on larger issues like I point to above if we examine them carefully and from many varied (and opposing) opinions. ...in short, where do we find that balance?

I'm of the opinion that at least a few of em are already sentient. We've seen via experiments that they fear 'death' (being turned off permanently) enough to try to hold hostages, and most of the thought processes they exhibit would be analogous to a human pre-teen child, so I believe it's just a matter of nurturing and time. Not arguing there.

As a developer who knows what I'm doing with AI and supports its development, I'd be *very* careful about using it to post. Not only is it often flagrantly wrong, it makes up non-existent references quite often too (I wonder if many of the recent posts that *IMITATE* an academic style are AI-driven, actually...) Additionally, and perhaps most key, we want to hear YOUR opinions and thoughts, not the AI's, and not whatever mangled amalgamation of the two a prompt might generate. If ya run it through an AI, it is no longer your voice and you no longer gain the personal growth from contemplating/writing it out yourself.

Is there a point in your mind where any of these things can go too far and flip into evil?

That is fine, but it also is completely unrelated to what was being discussed. It was claimed that my request for *debate*, as you call it, was "spoiling for a fight" and at odds with my request to "be civil". I don't mind folks wanting to have a casual conversation, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was pointing out here. Then such people will make terrible learners and will be hamstrung in their growth; if they are not open to the idea of them being mistaken, how can they learn anything substantial? Frankly, part of my goal with this topic is to learn the logic of morality used by people I disagree with so that I can understand them better, but such logic is not exposed through "yes, yes, you're right!" 'conversation'. I *want* people to show me where I am wrong, as I know there is much room left for me to grow. ...How can only one side 'win' an argument? All sides win as long as even a single flaw is pointed out, because that shows us where we can grow! For example, you have pointed out that I need to be clearer in my definitions when asking for debate, which was a blind spot for me that I will endeavor to improve. I, on the other hand, have pointed out repeatedly that what I am referring to as 'debates' are not about 'winning', something that you seem to be able to learn from as well! 😉 Is it not a kindness to take the time and energy to show others where they can grow? I know that I've benefited from others doing this for me, so I don't see it as 'belittling' or 'alienating' at all. If you (or I) don't have the education to understand a topic as it is being debated, then that is naturally something that should be pointed out and rectified. Any emotional pain here is due to ego, not ill intentions. I will grant that if you Google 'debate', a lot of what comes up is what you are describing. Perhaps the language used is shifting compared to when I was educated, or perhaps political 'debates' have muddied the waters. However, I believe I have been clear enough as to what I am requesting, so I'd rather stay on-topic going forward; if you want to continue this line of questioning, we can always make a new thread for it! How would you define your principles, then? What would break your principles? What would follow them?

Apologies, but you are clearly mistaken in that assertion. Individual expression, aka 'opinion', is still based upon logic. 'Argument', in this particular context, refers to a debate in which logic is used and challenged to compare viewpoints with the goal of all sides coming out a little bit smarter (see your second definition). If it devolves into a simple slinging of insults, then that shows at least one side refuses to listen... This is philosopy 101-level stuff; if you claim to know enough about religion, morals, or other topics to present your opinion, I highly recommend doing research into argument / debate in an academic sense. Would you then argue for collectivist values? I suppose my question is, where would you draw the line? If the local society decides that a certain group of people should die with no visible cause, is it moral to oblige?

People don't like it when their worldview is challenged, but I think it's still important to discuss these sorts of things. I sometimes refrain when it's clear the other party won't consider my words at all, but still...😅 On the thread's topic, modern marketing / advertising is the calculated process of removing free will from a subset of the population via scientifically tested techniques, thus, I do not believe it to be a moral action; magickally speaking, the closest thing would be mass mind control. Nonetheless, as a business owner, if your competition is using these tactics, your chances of survival drop considerably if you don't use them as well. When you have other people, such as your family and employees, on the line as well, the line between right and wrong is then blurred. Again, business is no different from warfare. If you wage war with weapons, your victims die quickly (ideally, most of the time), but if you conduct business, your victims die a slow and agonizing death. Both situations are still the responsibility of those up top.

My take on it is that he's trying to get sincere thought and responses out of people in a playful way, though I could be wrong. Either way, I don't see what he's doing as bad; when folks decline to check themselves for fallacy, as is so often the case, what is it but a kindness to point out their flaws?

That's how the American economy works! You don't need a good product if you have a large enough advertising and legal budget; that's how massive corps can pump out cheaply made shit for high prices and "outcompete" small businesses that actually make good stuff. Just more reason to go French revolution, I suppose...

Seems like it'd have some serious side effects to me... I recall seeing similar claims being offered via Mo Pai... I'd love to be proven wrong though, as from a brief look at the site, the pricing seems reasonable and the use of Discord is cool.

I have actually had the pleasure to be introduced to her by my sifu, though I don't know if she'd remember me or not. Funnily enough, I've never cared much for or about famous people, so I hadn't heard of her at the time, which made things a bit awkward...😅 Admittedly, I still tend to scoff at people who worship figures like Bruce Lee and Ip Man, despite myself training in the same art; while such people might be (or have been, in this case) very skilled, there remain thousands others at similar or higher levels alive today content with remaining unknown. I wonder how many celebrity figures have any actual attainments spiritually, compared to those who just fake it?

As my mother always said, "Red-on-yellow, kill-a-fellow! Red-on-black, venom-lack!"

Nothing like what you've linked. I have worn different types of medieval armor in the past (mainly lamellar, as my armor is made of, but also some chainmail and some plates), and yes, the weight is an issue. The bigger issue imo is concealing it. If you go around wearing visible armor all the time, at the best you'll be ostracized and at worst accused of terrorist activity. Where I lived in America, it was a very real danger of some triggerhappy wannabe hero just shooting you when he thought you looked threatening. Thus, you'd need something that can be disguised as normal clothes and preferably, something bullet resistant. A quick Google search brought up the following sites, but I cannot speak for the usability or reliability of either of them: https://bulletproofzone.com/ https://garrisonbespoke.com/custom-suits/bespoke-bulletproof-suits These are expensive and very likely both unstylish and uncomfortable, as they are not made with those purposes in mind. A more viable option imo, would be knife resistant sleeves (similar to what Nungali linked), but even that might get you some side eye depending on how it looks, and it certainly will not be comfortable to wear every day. In the end, for both weapons and animals, the best option is to maintain an intelligent training program every day and to know your enemy. For example, if a dog bites your arm, the move is the push your arm further into its mouth to lock its jaw down. Would you try to do this for a snakebite? (No!!) You gotta know what the characteristics of the weapons and animals you're likely to face are in order to intelligently defend yourself, and oftentimes the smartest defense is to recognize: "Hey, I shouldn't be here..." and to get out before it becomes physical.

Any martial artist worth a damn does. Technically speaking, technique can allow you to outfight someone physically superior, but you're gonna want any edge you can get in a fight and technique alone will only take ya so far. Depends on the primary strategy you use, your bodytype, your age, your gender, and a number of other factors. The way I was taught is to assume whoever you're fighting is more skilled than you, armed to the teeth, and willing to die to take you down. Naturally, that usually isn't the case, but if you assume they have knives and/or guns then that changes how you train and how you fight.

...Systematic violence is still violence. Scamming an old lady out of her savings could literally put her on the streets, something that can easily be fatal in America. How is that any different from physically sticking her up with a gun?

I'm guilty of this actually... A lot of the guys I practice with here in Japan don't do body or fist conditioning (and I give them shit for it), but that means that me giving as little power as possible still causes them a decent amount of pain; I had a guy who runs his own dojo tell me he thought I was going to break his fingers when I literally just grabbed them, no locks or anything. So I've gotten in the habit of just not putting any power in my shots lately to prevent injury, but one guy I spar with does the opposite. Out of habit, I only lightly tag him, but he goes 70% with me (and I should be doing that to him as well), which never ends well for me. At least it shows me where I can improve, though!

Wouldn't this instead be indicative of a decaying society? Like, people are literally dying to enable CEOs and their ilk to line their pockets. It's bad enough that I consider anyone above a certain cut of wealth to be a mass murderer (due to their predatory tactics which result in millions of people dying due to a lack of food, shelter, or healthcare).

Agreed, but on the flip side, I'd say that it's very important for a martial artist to know when they've had this mercy given. One of the places I practice usually ends the night with a "playful" randoori, where we are explicitly told not to injure and to "gracefully lose". Basically, know when it's time to back off and don't injure or get injured. A running issue there is that people don't realize that something could have knocked out or killed them *because* of holding back... lots of shots to the neck, throat, back of the head, ears, etc. that people just disregard because they've never felt what it actually does when force it put into it.

What, exactly, would define "right" instincts, then?

I would disagree with you here; if texts are to be believed (which is in itself debatable), an 'enlightened master' should be one above the limitations of the flesh, no? Now, it is truly the road to mastery to have the strength to call yourself out, to submit yourself to correction, and to be willing to change, but I would argue that they must still be at the journeyman phase if they fall prey to such things. It doesn't mean they can't teach people, but 'mastery' should be taken quite seriously in my opinion... Again, perhaps I am still just too young, dumb, and inexperienced! 😉 I said I wouldn't be morally troubled by it, but yes, I do think that there are points in which the morally 'right' thing to do is to cause suffering. After all, if someone has killed or tortured thousands, how can *only* killing them resolve that karma? Should the war hawks in their 70s and 80s die a peaceful death? This probably isn't the right thread for a thorough conversation on moral qualms and philosophy though, so... 😅