on discussing god and religion

Quite true. On the other hand, I have always argued here that my own contribution to the discussion is no less an existential contraption.

This thread was created in order to encourage religious folks to connect the dots between the beahviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.

Clearly, with an extant God [often said to be omniscient and omnipotent], there is unequivocally a deontological font available in order to know the difference between right and wrong behaviors.

But what of the No God world?

What is the font – the criterion – then?

Given that mere mortals are anything but omniscient and omnipotent.

From what I have gathered so far is you too defensive to learn anything.
Note I am not pushing and insisting on you to learn or accept ALL of MY views.

What I had proposed is very positive and generic like, learn how to fish, increase your level of philosophical education, see the pros and cons of various issues and other self-improvement methods.
It is very unfortunate you have very rigid and non-pliable neurons in the learning part of your brain.

I sense your thinking is very perverted from the norm and that is why it is giving you so much problems, dilemma and conundrums.

I am not too sure what this is leading to. Perhaps you can give an example.

Whatever the problems with the above, I would propose we ‘learn how to fish’ as a generic approach to deal with the issues.

Note sure ‘understand what’.

I mentioned the generic solution to life’s problem to tackle whatever the problem, i.e.

  1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
  2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
  3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
  4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

If we let the suffering or problem be X, then we can resolve whatever the problem through the above model.

Don’t be doubtful because it has only 4 lines.
To be adept in the above one need years of knowledge and practices plus continuing attention on it to sustain its effectiveness.

Abstraction??
This is your problem that prevent you from any breakthrough.
As I had stated many times, all knowledge has to start with abstraction from past experiences to progress.
If you dismiss abstraction as ‘clouds’ then you are into trouble.

As stated there is no other way in such a discussion except to start with abstractions, i.e. hypothesis, thesis and various knowledge on the intellectual and theoretical basis.

What on earth am I to make of this?
The onus is on you to look into the Why, What, How, When, Who, and the likes towards knowing and doing.

Note the views of ‘existentialism’ is not mine but that is the general theme.
I believe your invention and understanding of your ‘dasein’ is wrong and out of alignment with the original. This is why you are having so much problems with it.

But the general view with existentialism is it does not provide existentialists with as set of practices to get them out of the problems of life it exposes. Agree?

Note we can deduce from empirical observations and matching with average expectations of what good parenting entails.
As for tennis we can gather evidences [good and bad] from what all the top tennis players and other non-pros has done in their life. This is not difficult at all. Then we can abstract the general norms of what constitute good parenting in relation to playing tennis and other sports.

As for good parenting we can do the same from observations, setting expectations, etc.
We can abstract what are the norms relative to various conditions.
In addition we will note what are the extremes to be avoided and the risks involved.
Again we reduce the above to ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ with a striving for continuous improvements.

Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.

And you are either convinced that others can learn from you to embody rational/progressive behaviors regarding conflicting goods [in a No God world] or you are not.

But:

You will either bring all of this down to earth in order to substantiate your claims or you will not.

But you can’t resist it:

You tell me: Is it even possible to be more abstract?

Yet even in discussing abstraction you fall back on more of it:

Well, if this is true it smacks of determinism. And if determinism is applicable what does it really mean to hold me responsible for whatever I think, feel and do?

The norm? Subtantiate this please. A context. A set of conflicting goods.

Are you telling me you have never encountered others who objected to your behaviors because they violated their own understanding of right and wrong? What on earth then does it mean to “learn to fish” here? How was the dispute “dealt” with to the satisfaction of both of you?

Instead, your argument [to me] is that there is a progressive Middle-Way behavior out here and that in the future both of you will come to embody it if you wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

But only if this is “dealt” with first in an exchange of “general descriptions” of human interactions. You have this “thing” about “generic solutions to life’s problems”. But that doesn’t surprise me at all.

For example this thing:

And then when I ask you to bring this down to earth in order to grapple with an actual suffering human being in an actual context, you don’t see the point of that. Or you claim that [with me or with others] you already have done this.

I’m just not privy [yet] as to where and when.

Either that or we just have to agree to disagree regarding what that exchange entails.

Indeed, that is why folks like de Beauvoir wrote novels in order to situate the general themes out in a particular world that revolved largely around the actual existential lives of herself and those around her.

Even the mother of all Objectivists, Ayn Rand, made that attempt.

No, they suggested that those who insist that “essense precedes existence” [in the is/ought world] acted out of “bad faith”, acted “inauthentically”. Why? Because in order to embrace their doctrinaire, dogmatic and generally authoritarian moral/political prescriptions, they insisted that everyone else had to embrace [b]the same set of practices that they did[/b]. In other words, the psychology of objectivism: one of us vs. one of them.

That you know what is true not what you know is true.

Again, substantively, “what might that entail?” What particular behaviors would be in sync with a “progressive” frame of mind in regards to striking a Middle-Way balance [from day to day to day] between too much tennis and too little tennis?

What would all of the great tennis players agree upon here?

Though I suspect that you [much like me] don’t really have a clue because you [much like me] have never been a parent faced [existentially] with that dilemma. You just know that if one thinks about it in the right way equanimity will prevail.

Theoretically as it were.

I want to repeat the above has nothing to do with ‘objectivist’, it is about dualism and related to Moral Dualism in this case.

I do not believe it is possible for a God to exist as real.
I do not believe objective morality exist ontologically in the non-theistic No-God perspective.

However I believe we humanity can generate the idea of objective morality via the highest possible reason and work them together complementarily with relative morality. In this case it is not an either/or thing.

Note my concept of complementarity neutralize your dualistic either/on concept.

Whenever you encounter a dead-end either/or scenario look at it from the complementary perspective. This is the principle used in Taoism re Yin-Yang and elsewhere to generate optimality and rationality.
Note in Physics as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics

It is very common and normal for me to have disagreements with others.

Here is an example;
Note theists will not agree with my non-theistic views.
I believe there is a Middle-Way out of that chasm, i.e. the theists should learn ‘how to fish’ using the generic problem solving technique;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
like I do which is much more that the theist’s mere belief based on faith.

Thus theists will have to execute [take real action on] right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The theist will have to take real action to understand the issue in the whole perspective to get the right view, i.e. on

Why God is an Impossibility?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

the real solution is found in;
The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697

There is no easy way out, to learn how to fish [beside the above] one will have to learn and research as much as possible and practice whatever is necessary.

If one do not want to learn, research and practice, then it is the end of discussion.

Example;
Generally*, the route to be well rounded in education, one has to go through certain basic phases of educational processes, e.g. attend grade/home school to a PhD program.
But if the person refuse to go through the educational phases, give all sorts of excuses, be defensive and prefer to do nothing about it, then that the end of the discussion on the topic of education.

  • not taking into account the autodidactic.

Do you notice what you say in your response?

You say that other people need to learn things. Other people need to know and do a bunch of “right” stuff. They don’t know how to fish and they don’t know the “right” things, but you do.

If only they knew what you know and if they did the things that you do, then they would also be as good as you.

You don’t seem to be able to acknowledge that other people might know how to fish, they might know what is “right” better than you.

The two links which you provided have had many responses. People have pointed out your errors and yet you simply deny legitimacy of what they have said. You bring up those threads as if they are proof of your claims when in fact, they show how poor your claims are.

I am not expecting every one who knows what I know to be as good as myself. They could be better or lesser.

It depends on the subject matter. I don’t claim to be expert on everything but only in those areas I have expertise.
As far as my discussion with Iambiguous is concern, i.e. his dilemma related to existentialism and digging a hole so deep he cannot get out, I believe I am well equiped in knowledge and practices to address this specific problem.

Note this is a philosophy forum which by default is for people to present their views, the more the better.

In those two links, as far as I am concern I have countered all arguments against my views and there are no outstanding points for me to address and counter in the above two links. If there are outstanding points I will definitely want to address and I cannot leave them hanging and leaving my proposition in doubt.

I believe you have raised the same issues a few times and I have addressed them.
Why don’t you highlight the outstanding points you think I have not addressed in those links, I will definitely appreciate that and will addressed them accordingly.
I am also hoping there will be new counter arguments from different perspectives other than the ones already presented.

I’m not going to waste any more time on those threads.

Note to others:

He believes that he does not believe this. Others, however, believe that they do not believe that he what he believes he does not believe is what a virtuous man or woman ought to believe.

Then what?

What on earth does that mean? You won’t tell us. Why? Because, in my view, you are just one more of Durant’s “epistemologists”.

Either that or it’s a Yin-Yang thing.

Then this thing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics

So, what on earth does that have to do with the secular equivalent of choosing behaviors in a No God world as it relates to your fate after you are dead and gone?

As I had stated this is a separate topic which need to be discussed in a separate thread within the Philosophy of Morality.
I believed I have discussed parts of this in various posts but as usual your memory is failing you. e.g. [a quick search]
viewtopic.php?p=2629864#p2629864

He obviously remembered, he mentioned the Yin Yang thing above in this post you quote, then say his memory is failing him.

Here is the post you link to that you think explains something…

First off, to say that something is resolved by Kant is a mere appeal to authority. It doesn’t demonstrate anything. Kant could have been wrong, for example, which many modern philosophers believe. Your ‘explanation’ in the bolded portion is as mystical as anything from, say, St. Teresa.

I fully understand what I stated re Kant is merely a statement and ultimately my point must be justified.
This is not the place but I am fully prepared to justify my point where appropriate. Note I spent >3 years researching on Kant on a full time basis and I have a reasonable understanding of his philosophies.
It is not easy to understand Kant philosophy and the majority of philosophy do not understand Kant’s philosophy fully. Even those who are Kantian and pro-Kant end up having different interpretations of Kant’s philosophy, e.g. on the concept of the thing-in-itself aka noumenon.

The majority of philosophers understand Kant’s morality as deontological, but this is totally wrong.

That’s precisely why I want to bring all of this down to a particular context. I’m confused regarding your point here. Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying “progressive Middle-Way” behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

In other words, what on earth does this…

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be “moral” and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. - wiki

…have to do with the conflicting goods embedded [here and now] in an issue like abortion?

Conflicting goods will always exists, i.e. Yin -Yang, Black and White, P and -P.

In a No God world in the future, duality will still exists but the human emotional and psychological interaction with such conflicting goods will be different.
Instead of clinging to either one extreme or the other extreme, the future rational men and women with interact with conflicting goods in a complementary Middle-Way.

It is like walking on a tight rope with strong winds blowing.
The effective Middle-Way approach is to tilt up to the maximal right or left as necessary to maintain balance without falling but each time one strive to get back to the middle.
But if one were to merely lean only to the one side at the edge and limit, one is most likely to fall from the tight rope.

Not sure of your point?

As I had stated with an issue of abortion ‘here and now,’ if one do not have the competent skills to deal with its conflicting goods, there is nothing much one can do except to do one’s best based on whatever skill has and accept the associated mental pains.

It is just like a person who is not a skilled tight-rope-walker and being place on a tight rope and forced to walk across, thus wobbling all the way with fears or even fall to death.

Re the case of abortion, the solution in the near future is to develop the psychological skills to deal with it. In the later future humanity will strive for ZERO unwanted pregnancies [via a feasible master plan] so there is no issue related to ‘abortion’ at all.

In the future whilst humanity has solved the abortion issue, Moral Dualism will still exists as I had stated P and -P in other scenarios will always exist to be dealt with. But in the future rational man and woman will not be heavily effected psychological and emotionally by dualism.

For other issues it is not the case that rational/wiser people will always do the right thing in the future, they will still commit wrongs but their acts will be net-positively right plus they have a model and system to continually improve on the wrongs to the minimal.

Okay, if they will always exist in this No God world of the future, then philosophers [using the tools at their disposal] are either able to encompass the optimal behaviors for those who wish to be thought of as rational, or one or another combination of the factors that I note will become embodied [subjectively/subjunctively] in particular [and often conflicting] existential narratives.

Narratives that will necessarily continue to evolve in a world of contingency, chance and change.

Perhaps, but [so far] only in this “world of words” that you construct in your head. You have given us no arguments from which we can imagine/visualize these “complementary Middle-Way” behaviors pertaining to an issue like abortion.

Note to others:

If you believe that he has please note/link them.

I’ll bet it is.

But I repeat myself: What on earth does this mean?

You speak of “competent skills” in a No God world as though this is not based entirely on an objectivist of your ilk persuading a moral nihilist of my ilk that this does indeed revolve around your own list of prescriptive and proscriptive behaviors.

Which you will not focus the beam on in the manner in which I argue is more likely to make your point clearer to, among others, those fierce combatants outside the abortion clinic.

How would a “moral dualist” approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the “psychological skills” needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.

From my own frame of mind [and that’s all it is, an existential prejudice] this simply comes off as yet another “general decription” of words defining and defending other words. It almost seems like psychobabble to me.

This:

Psychobabble: a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility.

But, again, it’s not really connected to anything substantive. There is not an actual context we can turn to in order to test the relevancy or the applicability of the points being made.

I have done so in various posts. I don’t keep a record, so not easy for me to find them in this ‘haystack’.

It is something like centering yourself whenever one tilt to one extreme and to the other.

As humans we are vulnerable to be exposed or engaged in extreme opposites. i.e. conflicting [rival] goods or evil behaviors and thoughts. Thus we need to develop the necessary skills to get back to our center [being the most stable position psychologically].

E.g. if you are walking on tightrope with wind blowing from different sides and one is pushed to one side. Now if you do not make an attempt to adjust to the center line, then you are likely to be pushed to the extreme and fall.
The expert tightrope walker will always adjust him/herself back to the center at the slightest deviation to the side.

This is what will happen when one fail to center in tightrope walking or in living life.

Example:
Say I am within sight of a 10,000++ crowd of abortion protestors and fierce combatants in front of an abortion clinic.
What do you expect me to do?

If would be very stupid of me to get a megaphone and start philosophizing with them or convince each of them of the right thing to do there and then. This is what you expect me to do?

The wiser thing to do are the following;

  1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation
  2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.
  3. Research on the subject of abortion re For versus Against.
  4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.
  5. Proposed solutions to be implemented
  6. Check the results and control with objectives set

The processes of 3, 4 will take some time to arrive at consensus and 5 & 6 will take a longer time.
This is why I have to project my thoughts into the FUTURE and in this case the phases will take us into the future 50, 100 or > years.

In your case your are just ruminating and brooding over the problem and not taking any action nor proposing suggestions to resolve the problem -which can only be done in the FUTURE.
All you can do is to decry and cry - “I am stuck with existentialism.” [I believe you misunderstood the real essence of existentialism]

It is unfortunate you are stuck with psychobabble yourself.

Note I have sufficient philosophical knowledge to deal with any issues and most important is I am taking real actions example phase 1 to 5 of the above 1-6 process to contribute whatever I can to humanity.

What I proposed is not psychobabble because my suggestions are abstracted from real life proven empirical evidences.
There are many examples of results from Eastern spirituality and positive incremental trends real life moral/ethical issues, e.g. Chattel Slavery and others. The limitations is so far these approaches are based on the ‘black-box’ approaches without understanding the internal mechanisms.
However with the present trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, I am very optimistic humanity will be able to understand more details of the inner mechanisms of the black-box and thus be above to improve efficiency.

From my frame of mind, a typical leap from one general description to another. Here and now what would constitute the most stable position psychologically for a woman [Mary] with an unwanted pregnancy who agrues that it is her political right to abort the fetus. As oppose to, say, her boyfriend [the father, John] who argues that the most stable psychological position for the fetus is that it be allowed to come into this world as a newborn baby.

Consider: “in your head” here and now you imagine a future world where abortion ceases to exist. Why? Because in embracing your own rendition of “progressive Middle-Way” behaviors there is simply no need for them.

What I am still confused regarding however is how you would discuss this with John and Mary [who are not living in the future] so as to encourage them to come up with a way of dealing with this unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted only by Mary however.

E.g.? The tightrope walker up on the wire interacts with the elements in an entirely either/or world. He either defeats them or they defeat him.

Morality [in a No God world] is only relevant here when the argument shifts to, say, whether or not his family and loved ones are obligated to talk him out of it. Or whether or not the authorities ought to allow him to do this. Is it his right to risk death in this particular context?

Provide them with an argument able to convince them that while they clearly embrace “rival goods” here and now there is a way to think about abortion such that “in the future” the rival goods will no longer exists; or if they do exist there is a “generic Problem Solving Technique” that allows rational human beings to derive the optimal “progressive Middle-Way” human behaviors.

You have to start somewhere right? I just wish you would start with considerably more substance regarding the actual rival goods that are embraced here and now.

Instead, we get another intellectual contraption:

And then:

Meanwhile here and now the focus is still on either the “natural right” of the baby to be born or the “political right” of the mother to abort it. And the only way that goes away here and now is still in your head.

Let’s at least agree on that.

Or, if not, please advise me of how the “real action” that you are taking above has anything remotely to do with the arguments engaged by those outside the abortion clinic pertaining to the actual abortions unfolding inside the clinic.

Also, let’s get back to this:

[b]How would a “moral dualist” approach the issue of gun control? What would he or she note to the students and the parents at Parkland High School in Florida?

Should they aim more in the direction of banning assault rifles, or, instead, focus their attention on developing the “psychological skills” needed to cope with these tragedies? Or come up with the optimal combination of both.[/b]

What might the optimal combination of both sound like in a philosophical argument?

The assumption always being [between us] that this all unfolds in a No God world.

As I had stated wherever there is a problem we need to view it from various perspectives for the individuals, groups, and humanity in terms of the following;

  1. Past trends
  2. Present situation
  3. Future state

My focus so far is on the groups and for humanity, i.e. based on past trend and present situation, how can we prevent, reduce and eliminate the problem from emerging in the future in time [re being and time].

My focus is not on the individual because I am not personally entangled on the issue, i.e. for or against abortion.
I have personal experiences [some meeting while others do not MY expectations] with my children on other issues -albeit not as critical as the issue of abortion.

In a here and now situation, the following should be noted;

  1. Preferable one should have reasonable state of equanimity.
  2. Know Thyself - do you have the competence to give psychological counselling to another, if not you will need him/her to consult expert[s].
  3. Do your best but do not expect things to meet YOUR expectations.
  4. If the other person is an adult say over 18, if it is not a crime, s/he is entitled to the final decision.
  5. Before engaging the persons involved note their past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials.
  6. … and other necessary steps.

As for John & Mary, there is no way I know their Nature [DNA, etc], past, present historicity [da-sein and being in time] and future potentials, the most efficient approach is for me to propose the above generic systematic procedures.

As what you can do is to DO YOUR BEST re the issues surrounding John and Mary, and if you have done your best that is sufficient [how else??]. Whatever the final decisions and consequences [even if lives and deaths are involved] is up to them to face.

But from what I gathered, it is not so much as John and Mary’s having problems, but it is rather YOU having a problem with Mary’s decision. If you have done your best already, then you should not brood over whatever the consequences which is SPILT MILK.

So your problem SHOULD BE how to deal with Crying over Spilt Milk as the fundamental problem.

If Mary had already done the abortion, why do you cry over spilt milk. If you do, then you have a problem yourself.

The next strategy is to how ensure Mary do not encounter an unwanted pregnancy in the future.
If it is a lack of impulse control, so Mary has to develop impulse control but does Mary’s historicity [deep and complex] give her the potential to improve her impulse control? This do not necessary involve Mary only but also John who has to improve his impulse control re his sex drive and lust.
Note there are a ton of complex variables to deal with re how to ensure Mary do not end up with an unwanted pregnancy in the near future or within her fertile phase of life.

The basic critical requirement for anyone is a state of reasonable equanimity so that the person can be psychological stable to deal with any psychological problems. But for the present, do the person [based on past dasein - historicity] has the potential to develop a state of equanimity?

Note my default approach is always this;
If there is a problem, I will do my best to deal with the present with my present state of equanimity, but the focus is always on the future on how to prevent, reduce or eliminate the problem for the individual, group or humanity depending on the context.

I have mentioned before, I am not interested in a psychological counselling for the individual[s] within a forum like this.

The principle is for whatever problem [tightrope walking as one example] the critical task to get back to the center, i.e. centering and do not let one emotions and other negatives get to the extreme and cannot recover.
As I had mentioned, given a current situation [a combination of da-seins] the most is one must do his/her best based on one’s ability and once done, do not brood nor regret over the consequences even if it end up with death.

For example, if say despite all your advice but your only very beloved son insist on climbing Mt. Everest in a bad season knowing the high risk of death. Unfortunately the statistics of mortality actually strikes and he is dead. There will be grief, but one should get over it as soon as possible and do not brood nor regret one has not done enough.
If one do not know how to get back to the center norm, one’s grief could lead to terrible sadness, depression and subsequently suicide due to self-blaming, etc.

What I proposed above is the most optimal for an individual at present in facing the above problem.

Note counselling one person is already so complex, especially when you don’t have the counselling skill plus your philosophical database is so narrow and shallow.

My question to you is how can you counsel the 10,000++ individuals individually [of complex variables and historicity] to accept your views when their individual historicity is so complex? How??

This is why a rational and wiser person should consider the following;

  1. Let the authorities and the law to take care of the current situation
  2. Observe and listen to what is going on - keep my emotions in check.
  3. Research on the subject of abortion [or any issues] re For versus Against.
  4. Apply the Generic Problem Solving Technique to understand and find solutions.
  5. Proposed solutions to be implemented
  6. Check the results and control with objectives set

What is most critical is for one to stabilize one own beingness [da-sein] within one’s being [action] in time, past, now and future. The essential requirement is a state of reasonable equanimity.

I believe in the above case you are too objective and being an objectivist, i.e. worrying about objects [John, Mary, issue of abortion, etc.] that are external to you and not looking inward to review yourself as the interdependent subject.

Note my principle, one must always complement Yin-Yang, +/-, object with subject and drive spirally [being] within the Middle-Way through the past, present and future.

And you would tell them this:

From my frame of mind, this in no substantive way has anything to do with the fact that Mary had reasons [deemed sufficient to her] for aborting the baby and John had reasons [deemed sufficient to him] for bringing the baby to term.

Now, in your head, they would hear you out and come up with the most appropriate decision. But in their heads [and I was privy to that] your intellectual contraption above would have had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the conflicting existential narratives they pursued at the time.

Of course if the “Middle-Way progressive” behavior revolves around being celibate, then, sure, we can just blame it all of “impulse control”. They could have chosen to become practicing Catholics.

Still, the “spilt milk” back then would have been either the dead baby or Mary being forced to give birth.

Same with the tightrope walker. Getting back to the “center” up on the wire is either/or. Getting back to the center with regard to the moral conflict is is/ought. Didactically you bring the two into sync in your head. But only when you provide me with an argument able to convince me that I too can be in sync here, am I likely to be more understanding of the “intellectual” narrative you provide. Instead, all I grasp is something that you have carefully worked out only in your head.

When someone willingly risks death in a context that they have created themselves it is not only their own existence that is at stake. How much should the fate of others [wives, children, loved ones] be factored in here? How on earth would philosophers go about calculating it?

Again, my problem [and, admittedly, I may well be the problem] is that this seems to bear no substantive value/relevance regarding the conflicting arguments being made “here and now” by those on opposite sides of the gun control issue.

These arguments: gun-control.procon.org/

In the future, sure, there may well be an optimal frame of mind here. But what would that even begin to sound like given the reality of the conflicting goods here and now?

We would seem to be ever and always back to one or another combination of 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise in a democracy sustained by a political tug of war embedded in the rule of law.

My suggestions were;

  1. you do the best you can given the ability and resources you have.
  2. Thereafter do not brood over the consequences
  3. Resolve to find measures to prevent future occurrences

If you are unable to do the above, then you are the one who is having a serious problem and thus will suffer for it.

So the critical problem is not John or Mary, or how it effect others, rather the problem is on you to learn how NOT to have the above attitude [worry to death sort of] so you can avoid sufferings.

Note this video re ‘The Suicide Forest’ which is about a man who go into the forest regularly to advise people who are about to commit suicide.
This is a very wise man who is very concern about the problem of suicides.
You will note the wise man there is did his very best given the circumstances to counsel those in a suicidal state but thereafter just leave the final decision to the person.
He could have used ‘might’ to pull the person out of the forest, but it a likely the very desperate would find other ways to commit suicide.

If the persons in the forest are his own ‘John’ or ‘Mary’ he would have done the same and hope for the best.

I believe it would be the same with other psychologist and psychiatric counsellors, i.e. they can only give the best advice and not be overwhelmed by the thoughts of the consequences.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDSdg09df8[/youtube]

There is nothing much you or I can do about it but do your best and do not be too emotional over the issue of gun-control.

As with the problem of killing of innocent by guns in the case of school-shooting, the critical root causes are these;

[list]1. The evil proneness and mental health of the killer
2. The availability of guns and the ease to own gun(s)
[/list:u]
Gun-control is basically a moral issue because innocent humans are killed.
The moral absolute is ‘No humans can kill another human being’.
(any exceptions to be done within ethics and the judiciary).

If we resolve the two root causes, then there will be NO more deliberate shooting of innocent people.
‘The evil proneness and mental health of the killer’ is a tougher root cause to deal with but nevertheless must be addressed.
Therefore the most optimal solution is to ensure only certain people [not all] are given licence to own or carry guns. This meant getting rid of the 2nd amendments and creating new laws to restrict gun ownership to special people only.

However at present, given the current psychological state of the majority, it is too complex to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
So what we can do is to do our best, i.e. pushing for stricter gun ownership, etc.
What is needed is for those concern to keep striving harder but what is fortunate is the moral drive to greater moral good is inherent in all humans.
Like illegality of “Chattel Slavery” in all Nations, in future gun ownership by private individuals [except very special cases] will be illegal in all nations.

There is already an existing trend of where gun ownership [with exceptions] is illegal in most countries as compared to 50, 100 or 200 years ago.
If I am not mistaken it is only few nations, i.e. the USA, Switzerland,Brazil, Canada and ? which has very permissive firearms policies.

So it is a matter of time [50, 75 or> years] the moral maxim of ‘no killing of another human being’ will prevail to make gun ownership by private individuals illegal [special exceptions] in all nations.

In the meantime, the most efficient stance you can take is do your best and do not be too emotional over the present state.

Your problem is your inability to reconcile reality-as-it-is with your troublesome mental expectations and thus suffers mentally.