The Good Life

[plato85]

How do we live the good life in a wicked world?

This is an ancient conversation that continues. The dilemma is can we live a good life if we stay connected to evil communities, or should we leave? 

From what I've noticed in history, it's usually the craziest people who leave to start their own communes. I think Epicurus did it. The Anabaptists did it. The 1960s counterculture did it.

This was Dagney Taggart's Dilemma in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Stefan Molyneux talks about not letting the evil people into his life. Where do you find the good people to replace the evil people?

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, plato85 said:

Where do you find the good people to replace the evil people?

Isn't Stefan trying to make evil people into good people?

[RichardY]

55 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Isn't Stefan trying to make evil people into good people?

Stefan is not trying to make Evil people good that would be violating individual agency.

[Donnadogsoth]

22 hours ago, RichardY said:

Stefan is not trying to make Evil people good that would be violating individual agency.

So is locking evil people up.

[RichardY]

54 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

So is locking evil people up.

They forfeit a degree of Individual agency when they commit evil acts. Besides "making" Evil people Good(refraining from "Evil Acts", which depend on context) would be violating "freewill". 

[RichardY]

Quote

 

In order to think fairly of morality, we must put two biological notions in its place: the taming of the wild beasts, and the rearing of a particular species.

The priests of all ages have always pretended that they wish to “improve.” … but we, of another persuasion would laugh if a lion-tamer ever wished to speak to us of his “improved” animals. As a rule, the taming of a beast is only achieved by deteriorating it: even the moral man is not a better man; he is rather a weaker man. But he is less harmful.

Will to Power pg 397

Rearing, as I understand it, is a means of husbanding the enormous powers of humanity in such a way that whole generations may build upon the foundations laid by their progenitors – not only outwardly but inwardly, organically, developing from the already existing stem to grow stronger …

But there is an exceptional danger in believing that mankind as a whole is developing and growing stronger if individuals are seen to grow more feeble and more equally mediocre. Humanity – mankind – is an abstract thing

Will to Power pg 398

 

Was listening to Will to Power on Youtube and the passage of the lion tamer came to mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

They forfeit a degree of Individual agency when they commit evil acts. Besides "making" Evil people Good(refraining from "Evil Acts", which depend on context) would be violating "freewill". 

Then when they forfeit their agency when they commit evil acts, society can give them a choice:  either be made good, stay in jail until they die, or be executed.

[Ianua]

What is, is good. Saint Athanasius.

I love this forum.  How do we live good lives in wicked world.  If you have not read it, please look at the quandary presented by LeGuin in her short story " "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"  I humbly submit that the world is not wicked. Man can choose to use his free will to do evil, and frequently does.  Everyday I wake up and don't kill someone, don't steal something, don't force my will on others thru force. The definition of what is good action or evil action is also problematic.   If I feed the hungry, comfort the sick and clothe the naked, am I doing good?  What if the greatest happiness for that hungry person is being hungry?  If I give narcotics to a drug user, doesn't that make them "happy"?   At some point doing good actually devolves into inaction, since any action may increase suffering.  If we only "do good" to those that ask for our help, how do we know that helping them is a good thing, and what form should that good deed take?

I am reminded of the tale (possibly anecdotal) of the Catholic priest during world war 2 that was asked to choose which prisoners to save.  His choice was save some or all would die.  He chose not to participate. The result was everyone was killed.  Perhaps you might fault the hypothetical priest, but what would you do?  Would your choice change if the guard added that you would have to shoot your victims to save the others? 

Perhaps I am overthinking the OP's question.  Perhaps the most diect answer is the correct one.  You live and do no violence to others, except perhaps in self defense.

[Notsuper]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

They forfeit a degree of Individual agency when they commit evil acts. Besides "making" Evil people Good(refraining from "Evil Acts", which depend on context) would be violating "freewill". 

It seems more accurate to say that by committing evil acts (as perceived by you), they give you reason (justification) to suspend their individual agency to some degree. Without getting into whether they consciously agreed to your rules or not (or whether they had any actual choice in the matter to begin with), saying that they forfeit their agency is like saying, 'the glass dropped itself', when in fact, it was dropped by something or someone else. You might say that Stefan does not interfere with individual agency by informing people, so long as he does not force them to listen to him (and he doesn't... as far as I know. Maybe he's secretly got some kids locked up in his basement, forced to listen to his show 24/7 - what he considers a necessary evil to raise a group of super philosophers to lead the next generation) or to take what he says as truth. On the other hand, throwing someone in jail - against their will - directly violates their individual agency.

Of course, we usually assert that they knew what they were getting into - they must have known that we have rules, and by continuing to live here, they agreed to abide by them. So responsibility shifts, from "I/you suspended their agency", to "Their agency was suspended (by the system)", to "They forfeited their individual agency, since they must have known that this would be the result of their breaking the law".

This goes back to the original question, I think. I'm assuming 'living the good life' is living by ones own rules, and 'good people' are like-minded people. Unfortunately, I don't think I can answer the question either, except in the most vague of terms: stick with those who think like you, avoid those who don't.

[plato85]

 

8 hours ago, Ianua said:

I humbly submit that the world is not wicked.

I see evil everywhere. We live in a world where no one looks after their body or their minds. We eat and drink too much. People waste their time on Facebook writing narcissistic things and putting up photos of themselves. They sit in front of the TV mindlessly watching Masterchef every night. They listen to the most retarded music, full of ghetto lyrics. This is an evil world.

Of course we can choose to avoid trash culture, but we're surrounded by people who are consumed by it. We can choose not tear down a historical architectural masterpiece to build an ugly modern apartment block, but we can't stop other people doing it.

[RichardY]

On 4/27/2017 at 11:06 PM, Notsuper said:

It seems more accurate to say that by committing evil acts (as perceived by you), they give you reason (justification) to suspend their individual agency to some degree. Without getting into whether they consciously agreed to your rules or not (or whether they had any actual choice in the matter to begin with), saying that they forfeit their agency is like saying, 'the glass dropped itself', when in fact, it was dropped by something or someone else. 

Of course, we usually assert that they knew what they were getting into - they must have known that we have rules, and by continuing to live here, they agreed to abide by them. So responsibility shifts, from "I/you suspended their agency", to "Their agency was suspended (by the system)", to "They forfeited their individual agency, since they must have known that this would be the result of their breaking the law".

In the case of say someone assaulting you, I would say it gives a reason to suspend their individual agency, both for the person being assaulted and other people. If someone is stealing your property, I would say you have reason to take it back and defend it proportionally. "The glass dropped itself", when in fact, it was dropped by something or someone else. Yes that sounds correct, I say it is partially due to what a person is taught as they grow up and learn through others Or through more overpowering baser instincts.

On 4/27/2017 at 11:06 PM, Notsuper said:

This goes back to the original question, I think. I'm assuming 'living the good life' is living by ones own rules, and 'good people' are like-minded people. Unfortunately, I don't think I can answer the question either, except in the most vague of terms: stick with those who think like you, avoid those who don't.

I think living "The Good Life".(also an old TV series) Is due to not being influenced by or causing corruption.

"Stick with those who think like you, avoid those who don't." I think being with people who have ethics as you do, or are open to Reason and 'crucially' Evidence, is a way to go. I think it is important to talk to people who think differently.

[RichardY]

On 4/28/2017 at 2:03 AM, plato85 said:

 

I see evil everywhere. We live in a world where no one looks after their body or their minds. We eat and drink too much. People waste their time on Facebook writing narcissistic things and putting up photos of themselves. They sit in front of the TV mindlessly watching Masterchef every night. They listen to the most retarded music, full of ghetto lyrics. This is an evil world.

Of course we can choose to avoid trash culture, but we're surrounded by people who are consumed by it. We can choose not tear down a historical architectural masterpiece to build an ugly modern apartment block, but we can't stop other people doing it.

Not Evil, but it is Corruption. Which makes Evil possible.

[plato85]

We need a better lexicon.

[RichardY]

On 4/27/2017 at 6:00 PM, Ianua said:

What is, is good. Saint Athanasius.

I love this forum.  How do we live good lives in wicked world.  If you have not read it, please look at the quandary presented by LeGuin in her short story " "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"  I humbly submit that the world is not wicked. Man can choose to use his free will to do evil, and frequently does.  Everyday I wake up and don't kill someone, don't steal something, don't force my will on others thru force. 

Omelas. Sounds like Omerta, so related to Hombre, something to do with wholeness manliness and virtue?

On 4/27/2017 at 6:00 PM, Ianua said:

The definition of what is good action or evil action is also problematic.   If I feed the hungry, comfort the sick and clothe the naked, am I doing good?  What if the greatest happiness for that hungry person is being hungry?  If I give narcotics to a drug user, doesn't that make them "happy"?   At some point doing good actually devolves into inaction, since any action may increase suffering.  If we only "do good" to those that ask for our help, how do we know that helping them is a good thing, and what form should that good deed take?

I think providing what you do is done willingly and with the aim to alleviate corruption, both in yourself and others i.e Virtue. Maybe you can do some good, or at least increase your consciousness. Narcotics(Sleep inducing)suppress consciousness. So imo they may enter a state of bliss(Hedonism), followed by hell. In contrast the experience of pain, which is one reason virtue is not that prevalent, will tend to increase or suppress consciousness. "Embrace the Suck" Mike Cernovich, quoting Navy Seals. or "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" Nietzsche. "No Pain no Gain" Arnold Schwarzenegger. Red Pill or Blue Pill?

On 4/27/2017 at 6:00 PM, Ianua said:

I am reminded of the tale (possibly anecdotal) of the Catholic priest during world war 2 that was asked to choose which prisoners to save.  His choice was save some or all would die.  He chose not to participate. The result was everyone was killed.  Perhaps you might fault the hypothetical priest, but what would you do?  Would your choice change if the guard added that you would have to shoot your victims to save the others? 

I'm reminded of a Youtube video "Why Tyrion can't be Killed".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMliNd2b2K0 "The thing" is some people freak-out if you bring them, evidence. Flamethrower test scene or "Make friends and Influence people"?

[Ianua]

This is a bit far a field perhaps, but if we attempt to do good acts to combat evil in the world, how much good should we do?  I hope that my argument is not too far out for people to follow.  If the argument is that we should "do good" in order to combat evil, how much is "enough" and who decides?  As an example,  If a person donates 10% of his income to charity to feed the hungry, can he then say he has done enough good?  What about if he buys an older car, lives in a run down house, doesn't install a hot tub or smart phone and takes all that savings and donates, he could do so much MORE good.  Can we fault him because he hasn't done enough?  Would you give up your smart phone to help the refugees in Syria? if you would not , are you doing evil? (I don't have a smartphone btw)

Part of the difficulty in these discussions is that there is a difference between the "perfect" system we all wish we lived in and the reality of the systems in which we do live.

 

[os.motic]

On 4/26/2017 at 5:11 AM, plato85 said:

How do we live the good life in a wicked world?

What do you mean by the good life? What in your opinion is a good life?

[plato85]

The 'good life' is a life full or virtue and free of vice. Living virtuously brings you health, success, good relationships, happiness. So the question is how to live virtuously is a culture that encourages vice.

the answer should be how you remove bad culture from your life. For instance, you might refuse to listen to commercial radio and you listen to philosophy podcasts instead.

[S1988]

3 hours ago, plato85 said:

The 'good life' is a life full or virtue and free of vice.

I'm not sure if it's possible to live a completely vice-free life. Only a complete saint can do that, and I don't know of anyone who's a complete saint. We're all human after all; we're not super beings.

The best way in my view to go about living a virtuous life is to do the best we can, but not beat ourselves up for not being perfect. It's okay to have a few vices such as eating ice cream for breakfast or not brushing your teeth before going to bed on some nights. It's even okay to be "mean" sometimes, such as saying "no" if you don't feel like doing someone a favor. 

In other words, balance is the key. One shouldn't be a bona fide troublemaker. On the other hand, one shouldn't be a self-righteous goody-two-shoes or a pushover either.

[RichardY]

On 4/30/2017 at 7:47 PM, Ianua said:

This is a bit far a field perhaps, but if we attempt to do good acts to combat evil in the world, how much good should we do?  I hope that my argument is not too far out for people to follow.  If the argument is that we should "do good" in order to combat evil, how much is "enough" and who decides?  As an example,  If a person donates 10% of his income to charity to feed the hungry, can he then say he has done enough good?  What about if he buys an older car, lives in a run down house, doesn't install a hot tub or smart phone and takes all that savings and donates, he could do so much MORE good.  Can we fault him because he hasn't done enough?  Would you give up your smart phone to help the refugees in Syria? if you would not , are you doing evil? (I don't have a smartphone btw)

Part of the difficulty in these discussions is that there is a difference between the "perfect" system we all wish we lived in and the reality of the systems in which we do live.

 

I think the best you can do is tackle corruption. How best to go about it, not much of an idea really. Reason and Evidence, perhaps as Stefan often says. You can't really fight Evil directly, only bring people the truth.  

[_LiveFree_]

Like attracts like. A woman who lives virtuously will not be attracted to a man who does not. A cat does not mate with a goat. Nature loves smashing things together. Things that stick together typically have many similarities. Become what it is you want to attract. When two people who are virtuous come together in a romantic relationship, they may decide to procreate, likely creating offspring who will be virtuous. It's really that simple. How do you live virtuously in a world that encourages vice? Find a virtuous partner and sex the hell out of each other. And in the end it's not a black or white thing but degrees. Minimize vice is all you really have to do. Minimizing vice means when you come across something not virtuous in yourself or people close to you, you work on it. Living virtuously is not a state of being but a way of living. Like a landscaper. His way of life is lawn mowing. Why? Because he wants to keep grass short. Lawn mowing for him is not a state of being, but a method or blueprint for how he lives each day. When people see how beautiful his lawn is they will ask him how he does it. If he desires to change the world he will share his knowledge of lawn mowing and help those who wish to become their own landscapers. Yesterday, all the yards were overgrown with weeds. Today, one yard is primly cut. Tomorrow, two yards are looking sharp. Next week, every yard on the street looks beautiful. A month from now its every yard in the neighborhood. A year from now it's every yard within 10 square miles. . . 

Vice (read: violence) spreads like an unconscious cancer. It is a virus of the mind. It requires no act of will because it originates from the base of the brain, overwhelming the neocortex and higher reasoning.

Virtue is purely an act of will.  

How do you get people to want to act virtuously? You put your shiny hook in the water and wait for them to bite. When they do, yank hard. If they make it out of the water they will eventually grow legs and learn to walk, make their own shiny hook and cast it into the water. 

[Tyler H]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:03 PM, plato85 said:

I see evil everywhere. We live in a world where no one looks after their body or their minds. We eat and drink too much. People waste their time on Facebook writing narcissistic things and putting up photos of themselves. They sit in front of the TV mindlessly watching Masterchef every night. They listen to the most retarded music, full of ghetto lyrics. This is an evil world.

What is your definition of evil and how does it apply to these things? And why did you not list the outrageous atrocities committed by warlords, governments, and religions (but I repeat myself)?

[plato85]

It's more of a classical definition the ancient Greeks used. In Aristotle's ethics he talks about how these self defeating traits lead to outrageous atrocities. How people treat others the way they treat themselves. You'll usually find these maniacs also abuse themselves. Decadent behavior is evil, but a lesser degree than an atrocity.

[plato85]

If you've read Ayn Rand she follows his philosophy, all the bad guys hate life in general.

[StevenRichards]

Seems dangerous to divide the world into good people and evil people. Of course, you'll be in the good people category, which I think says an awful lot about that.

Maybe you're struggling with meaning. Jordan B Peterson is all about that, from what I can tell, so listening to his Maps of Meaning lectures might help you. Obviously, being here, you will probably weave the NAP into your value systems, but is that "it"? If so, perhaps check out permaculture (the ethics, specifically), Brene Brown, NVC, and parent effectiveness training.

[plato85]

1 hour ago, StevenRichards said:

Seems dangerous to divide the world into good people and evil people. Of course, you'll be in the good people category, which I think says an awful lot about that.

Maybe you're struggling with meaning. Jordan B Peterson is all about that, from what I can tell, so listening to his Maps of Meaning lectures might help you. Obviously, being here, you will probably weave the NAP into your value systems, but is that "it"? If so, perhaps check out permaculture (the ethics, specifically), Brene Brown, NVC, and parent effectiveness training.

I'm not dividing the world into good people and evil people. I'm saying we all are part good and part evil to different degrees. We all try to be good but the way of evil is easier.

I'm not struggling with meaning in my life. I'm just struggling with defining the meaning of words.

[plato85]

Anyone here who hasn't read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, it's about the most essential philosophy book ever written. It's Ayn Ran's biggest influence and in turn, Rand is Stefan Molyneux's biggest influence.

They say Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book in the US after the bible. Both Jesus and Ayn Rand were influenced by Nichomachean Ethics.

[Tyler H]

10 hours ago, plato85 said:

It's more of a classical definition the ancient Greeks used. In Aristotle's ethics he talks about how these self defeating traits lead to outrageous atrocities. How people treat others the way they treat themselves. You'll usually find these maniacs also abuse themselves. Decadent behavior is evil, but a lesser degree than an atrocity.

I could be obtuse, but I don't see a definition here. 

[plato85]

4 hours ago, Tyler H said:

I could be obtuse, but I don't see a definition here. 

In the Christian faith they say that Jesus died for our sins. If a Christian sins then they're sent to hell. Sinning is evil. Everyone sins. So everyone's life is a struggle between good and evil.

Here's a list of 40 sins that seem innocent enough but send you to hell: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/40SinsThatWillSendYouToHell.html

Doing evil is the same as sinning. Sinning is just choosing a bad way to live. Being too lazy or eating too much, cheating on your wife, stealing etc.

Evil is one of those words that must have completely changed meaning over the last century. Evil used to just be the opposite of virtuous (verb for vice). I don't think I've ever read a philosophy book where evil meant anything worse than bad. I'm not sure where this idea that 'evil' means outrageous atrocities committed by warlords, governments, and religions, comes from. It probably came from the relativists who find it hard to see anything as immoral unless it is atrocities.

[Tyler H]

14 hours ago, plato85 said:

In the Christian faith they say that Jesus died for our sins. If a Christian sins then they're sent to hell. Sinning is evil. Everyone sins. So everyone's life is a struggle between good and evil.

Here's a list of 40 sins that seem innocent enough but send you to hell: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/40SinsThatWillSendYouToHell.html

Doing evil is the same as sinning. Sinning is just choosing a bad way to live. Being too lazy or eating too much, cheating on your wife, stealing etc.

Evil is one of those words that must have completely changed meaning over the last century. Evil used to just be the opposite of virtuous (verb for vice). I don't think I've ever read a philosophy book where evil meant anything worse than bad. I'm not sure where this idea that 'evil' means outrageous atrocities committed by warlords, governments, and religions, comes from. It probably came from the relativists who find it hard to see anything as immoral unless it is atrocities.

I didn't say that evil could only refer to those atrocities, I merely asked why you left them out.  Murder is on that list after all.  

If evil is synonymous with bad then there is no differentiation between the perpetrator of a genocide and some glutton eating too much cake.  I wonder, whom does that serve? 

If your definition of evil is sin, then you are calling me evil.  You're calling all philosophers evil, because any real philosopher following reason and evidence will reject the idea of a deity and that is a sin.  If loving the truth, taking pride in achievements, and having fun are as evil as murder, theft, and rape.... well then now who's the real relativist?

[plato85]

Yes you're right that's my error. Sins are the christians idea of sin but it's not an ultimate list of evil. I was trying to show how evil used to be used.

[mgggb]

On 4/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Notsuper said:

 On the other hand, throwing someone in jail - against their will - directly violates their individual agency. 

No it doesn't. If it is not a victimless crime, a la war on drugs, it is self defence extended to society.

On 4/27/2017 at 9:03 PM, plato85 said:

I see evil everywhere. We live in a world where no one looks after their body or their minds. We eat and drink too much. People waste their time on Facebook writing narcissistic things and putting up photos of themselves. They sit in front of the TV mindlessly watching Masterchef every night. They listen to the most retarded music, full of ghetto lyrics. This is an evil world.

Of course we can choose to avoid trash culture, but we're surrounded by people who are consumed by it. We can choose not tear down a historical architectural masterpiece to build an ugly modern apartment block, but we can't stop other people doing it.

None of those things you listed are evil. At most they're aesthetically negative if you presume to know the best way for people to live their lives. You think if you waved a magic wand and Facebook et al. disappeared tomorrow people would start living virtuous and noble lives? Modern life isn't ruining people, it simply allows them to manifest more totally and visibly what they already are. People don't become obese by over eating, they over eat because they are obese and capable of manifesting as such. 

On 4/26/2017 at 8:11 AM, plato85 said:

How do we live the good life in a wicked world?

This was Dagney Taggart's Dilemma in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Stefan Molyneux talks about not letting the evil people into his life. Where do you find the good people to replace the evil people?

I'm highly ambivalent about this question and have spent a lot of time recently thinking about something similar. What it comes down to is do you think the world deserves to be saved or not. If it does, then to abandoning it would be the epitome of cowardice. If it does not, then not fleeing to a metaphorical galts gulch would not only be foolhardy but suicidal. 

 On the one hand there are the people in the world, so saving it would nessisarily mean saving them. I can only speak for myself, but I have been done plenty of wrong so for their sake I would rather the world not be saved. Clemency to an unrepentant murderer only gives them another opportunity to stab you while your back is turned. Likewise, not letting people suffer the consequences of their actions will make them think actions have no consequences, in regards to welfare, social security, national debts, etc. And that if they try it again they'll get it right this time for sure. 

But then there is myself.  I am a part of the world too, and the most important part to myself since without me perceiving it, the world does not exist for me. Should the world be saved for my sake? I think I would do quite well under both freedom and despotism. If you look at a system as a game instead of something moral or immoral then you just have to use different rules for different games, and smart people tend to do alright whatever game is being played. While I do prefer freedom to tyranny, if it means bringing all those unrepentant mentioned above along for the ride then I'd rather watch the train of civilization derail, since because I can see that the path we are headed on only leads to disaster if unchanged, I can prepare myself for a softer landing, and deal with the wreckage. 

And last there are those who have not been born, who have done nothing wrong to me or anyone, and will in fact have a great deal done wrong to them if the world is not saved. The way I look distainfully at boomers is the same way they will look at us if we do nothing. So, it is a violation of the NAP of the unborn to not do everything within our power to change course. 

So as it pertains to your question, "how do we live the good life in a wicked world?": stop associating with evil people, call them what they are, denounce them vociferously, live as freely as you can, raise healthy children, and teach them philosophy. 

Remember, all these superfluous ones do not have the moral highground. They are leaches that have been sucking your blood since before you were born and will continue to do so to your children and their children until something is done about it. 

[mgggb]

On 4/30/2017 at 2:47 PM, Ianua said:

This is a bit far a field perhaps, but if we attempt to do good acts to combat evil in the world, how much good should we do?  I hope that my argument is not too far out for people to follow.  If the argument is that we should "do good" in order to combat evil, how much is "enough" and who decides?  As an example,  If a person donates 10% of his income to charity to feed the hungry, can he then say he has done enough good?  What about if he buys an older car, lives in a run down house, doesn't install a hot tub or smart phone and takes all that savings and donates, he could do so much MORE good.  Can we fault him because he hasn't done enough?  Would you give up your smart phone to help the refugees in Syria? if you would not , are you doing evil? (I don't have a smartphone btw)

Part of the difficulty in these discussions is that there is a difference between the "perfect" system we all wish we lived in and the reality of the systems in which we do live.

 

Reminded me of the end of Schindler's List.

 

Edit: that was just my first reaction, I've thought about it some more and I think our first responsibility is to make sure our own house is in order. If people did that then I'm confident the atrocities of the nazis would not have happened.  Likewise, if everyone was committed to peaceful parenting the need for charity in society would be almost nonexistent.