r0ckyreed

@Ibgdrgnxxv I am INTP I took the test a few times and I am the Logician personality. Now that I think about it, I think it is kind of interesting that I am Intuitive and Thinking. I would think that Intuition is more in line with Feeling rather than Thinking. But I think the reason why I am Intuitive rather than Sensing is because I think reality is beyond our senses. Intuition is our unconsciousness picking up things that are conscious mind can barely comprehend I guess.

@Leo Gura Okay! Thank you so much man! I wish you a great day! Thanks for your time and videos! I am going get your Life Purpose course for Christmas!

@Leo Gura Thank you! I will continue to work on my introspection, but I still am skeptical about trusting my feelings because they are full of bias. I think examination or observation like you said is our best guide, and this is what I meant by rationality. I think that what I mean by rationality is just critical and truthful examination and observation

@Leo Gura You are right, but aren't feelings also co-opted by ego and selfishness? All I do to verify things is by examining, feeling, and then rationalize in that order. My intuition is beyond my rationality, at least that is how I see it.

@Leo Gura But we have to look at where these rules and regulations come from. Our government is corrupt and controlled by corporations and what George Carlin calls "The Real Owners." Democracy is a lie. The government has always pulled all the strings, and government cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for everyone. Government is easily influenced by corrupt people, and it is controlled by corrupt people. The ideal is to have a better government, but corruption is inevitable when it is run by Devils. @Leo Gura I don't know whether I am libertarian or not, but I distrust the government. We need to have a balance of freedom and responsibility. People need to be free, but also be free enough to consider the freedoms of others. "With great power comes great responsibility." For me, I believe in collective freedom. When I talk about freedom, I mean freedom as in the freedom of the whole. Freedom is the most important thing to me, but not at the cost of exercises my freedoms to enslave others. You could say that is freedom, but deep down, a libertarian would be dumb if they did not include the freedoms of the collective community. It would be a bloodbath. We need to cut down our horseshit self-bias and include everyone as a member of our family. What a family would be is community, not genetics, and I think this is our problem is that selfish Devils wanna inflict their will onto others and enslave the freedoms of others be that it is (1) passing drug laws, targeting Black communities to restrict their voting rights; (2) vaccination ID requirements; (3) loitering; (4) eminent domain; (5) redlining; (6) gentrification; etc. Government is both part of the problem and part of the solution because government is run by Devils with agendas. The good part of government is the order aspect of legislation, enforcement, and judicial system are essential services even though they are corrupt. People cannot be trusted to use their freedoms responsibly, which is why we "need" a government, but we also have to consider that the government does not use their power responsibly either so I guess government is a necessary evil that should not be trusted. The problem of government is who is it the oversees that the government is operating fairly, and who oversees the overseer, and the overseer of the overseer of the government's checks and balances, etc. etc. to infinity. Government is substrate for oversight which as we can see is a problem because a corrupt government will produce more corruption. It just seems like there is no way out of this problem of how do we build a better government because who is to judge and track this process? How do we know when we have a "just" government and system?

So where do you all think Captain America would align politically?

I am recently awed by Captain America. He is virtuous, caring, intelligent, and brave/courageous beyond doubt. I would say Captain America is stage Green or Yellow. Here is the argument scene from Captain America: Civil War. What do you believe are Captain America's views on politics? (What are Stark's?) My Analysis Captain America is the ideal for America. He is humble, kind, and willing to sacrifice his own life for what he believes in. He is also humble and selfless. He only cares about others. Captain America could have lifted Thor's hammer, but chose not to because he did not want to humiliate Thor. Shows that Cap is a hero at heart. Captain America trusts individuals more than systems and organizations and his highest ideal seems to be freedom. Due to his conflict with SHIELD in Winter Soldier, Cap saw how government can easily be corrupted and used to control people and control different facets of government. Cap's experiences lead him to distrust governments because they are led by people with agendas that can change. Government does not always value the lives of individuals, but Cap does. Cap values the one life as much as the many, which I think makes him a deontologist. Cap's political views seem very Liberal to me. In Endgame, there is a scene where he is giving Grief Counseling to a gay man. This scene illustrates that Cap values multiculturalism. I believe that Cap would support government involvement in healthcare, free market, environmental protection, education, etc. Even though I believe Cap would support governmental involvement, he would only support it to the extent that government involvement is used to create more freedom. Without government, people would enslave, destroy the environment, spread diseases, and possibly have no education system. I think Cap knows the importance of government, but Cap just does not favor unchecked governmental power over the collective freedoms. There is a difference between individual freedom and collective freedom. Individual freedom is where each person is absolutely free to do whatever they desire, and as a result, one person's freedom can take away freedom from another. Collective freedom is providing "freedom and justice for all." This means that I will have to sacrifice some freedoms such as owning another person as property, respecting the property and rights of others, safer restrictions on weapons, mandatory masks in public spaces, etc. Freedom must be balanced with responsibility and consequence. I believe Cap is a Liberal who values the collective freedom, but when Cap saw how government was easily corrupted and controlled by Hydra, he saw that surrendering his rights to the government as a bad idea because the agendas of the government can change. I do not believe that Cap supports anarchy, but he just wants the powers of government to be put in check and not to impose their will onto individuals. Cap's perspective on the Sokovia Accords were that they would surrender the Avenger's right to choose and help others in need. They would also have to give up their identities and be subject to governmental authority. They would basically be a puppet or super soldier for the government. Cap values his freedom, which I could see might be Libertarian, but I do believe that deep down, Cap does value a better government, not no government, but the government can change. A better government might mean that the role of government is to promote equality, freedom, and justice. Government is not used to tell others how they should live, but to ensure and uphold the human rights for the collective. But on the other hand, this does sound like Tony Stark's position. The government cannot be trusted to know or decide what the best choices are for each individual, which is the point I think Cap was making. Individual should be free to chose. So I think Cap supports a balance of freedom and consequence. There have to be rules that govern our behavior or our behavior will spiral out of control. I don't know. These are my opinions on what I believe the politics of Cap are. What do you all think?

I don’t think he is blue. He cannot be stage blue if he has surpassed stage Orange. Cap is not a conformist. He does what is right. Cap cares about the environment and the collective. Cap does not care about achieving wealth or fame (stage orange), Cap cares more about people and how to help them. Stage Blue are conformist thinkers is how I took that stage. They believe in following traditions and norms. But Cap realizes after he wakes up that he does not know what is right anymore. He is beyond blue because Cap cares more about building people up. If Cap were a real character today, I would see him supporting psychedelics, marijuana, higher environmental protection laws, etc. Cap fits all the characteristics of Stage Green. He does have some heavily blue values, but it is clear to me that Cap’s mind has moved beyond stage blue (conformist thinking) and stage orange (achievement, fame, money, success). Cap is respectful and considerate of different cultural perspectives which is not something that people strictly in stage blue would accept. Cap’s actions are beyond doubt stage green (higher than other avengers. Cap is considered the moral compass of avengers.). But I do see how some of his patriotic values are stage blue, but as we see him evolve throughout the movies, his Stage Green shines through his character and actions. If Cap is stage Blue, then the rest of the Avengers are stage Red? Cap seems to be in a whole other realm than the other avengers. Stage Green Examples: Love, heart, soul, empathy, intimacy, kindness Compassion, mercy, leniency Humanism, liberalism, social progress Equality: gender, race, economic Everyone is equal Egalitarianism/Democracy Anti-materialist, anti-consumerist, anti-greed Social conscience Supporting humanitarian causes Activism & protests Live-and-let-live attitude Diversity, multiculturalism Cosmopolitanism Flattening hierarchies Cultural relativism Relationships, bonding Pacifism, peace Finding common ground Harmony Human well-being Interpersonal skills Warm interaction, hugs Pleasing everyone Sensitivity Femininity Teamwork Dialoguing Sharing ideas and feelings Mind-altering drugs Exploring altered states of consciousness Spirituality Spiritual but not religious Communal spirituality Environment, ecology Back to nature Sustainability Recycling Human-centered, heart-centered communities Protect the vulnerable, help the downtrodden Redistribution of resources, level playing field Inclusiveness, everyone gets an opportunity Don’t exclude anyone Tolerance Openmindedness Free love, intimate sex Sex education Cooperation vs competition Animals, children, the disabled, minorities Creativity, beauty, art Gurus Bringing people of the world together Socialism Crying, expressing vulnerable emotions Intuition over logic Right brained Health food & exercise

I apologize. I already posted this topic in the wrong section: Meditation, Consciousness, Spirituality. If you have already read that one, then you can stop reading here. Anyways, I have been following Infinite Waters' Youtube channel hosted by Ralph Smart. He was another "spiritual" channel apart from Actualized.org. I have discovered that Ralph Smart's channel has become a toxic cultic environment spreading conspiracy theories and rumors. Ralph Smart is like Jude Law from Contagion (2011), who is profiting off of this pandemic. Ralph Smart says that COVID stands for Certificate of Vaccination ID. The whole country will be a prison planet and we should not be wearing face masks, according to Ralph Smart. He states that only villains wear masks, not heroes. From my perspective, he has completely twisted everything completely around and has gained a lot of followers and serves their ideologies of rebelling to wear face masks and take the vaccinations. These Bill Gates Covid Vaccination conspiracies could be very very toxic and damaging if they are false. They would be psychologically stopping people from getting the vaccinations that we need to keep each other safe. More people may rebel. I have been manipulated by these conspiracy theories so much that it has been hard for me to see the vaccinations in a positive light. My doubt came when his content remained the same: talking about how the government is using Covid as an opportunity for control, vaccinations altering DNA, etc. I started to think that if nobody wore a face masks and if nobody took the vaccine, would this be the "real" prison? Right now, Trump is not doing jack crap about Covid 19. As a result, many people are suffering and dying. If people refused to take the vaccine from Bill Gates conspiracy theories, then this may be another prison because this virus just from how fast it spreads will never go away and we will be kept prisoner. So those of you who are following Ralph Smart, beware because his Libertarian ideology is toxic. He is doing pretty much everything a cult is doing. It blows my mind how easy it is to be bewitched by a cult. Cults attract you with content that you like and then slowly change their teachings and explain logical ways in which they are right. Ralph has a point in that we cannot trust the government because the government is ran by dumbfuc**rs. I would really encourage anybody's support for those of you who have stumbled across his content or any other cult like experiences. I am glad that I am starting to see the bullshit, but I am still not sure if he is right or not, at least about the government being an evil thing trying to control and lock down and take away people's freedoms. I think this argument makes sense from Ralph Smart that our freedoms are being restricted with curfews, required vaccinations, etc. How do you all feel about required vaccinations and curfews? Here is what I am struggling with from Ralph's ideology. I understand that we need to wear face masks to prevent the spread of COVID. If we all just demand for our freedom to not wear a mask, then the hospitals will have a 3 year waitlist for COVID. They would have no room for physicals, etc. But on the other hand, I do think Ralph has a point in that required curfews and required vaccinations might be a little too much. I believe there should be a balance between freedom and safety. I mean how many more regulations are there going to be imposed? Maybe if Ralph is right, people will be required to stay home all day long and can only leave to pick up groceries if you have a Certificate and Vaccination. What is this going to do with our mental health? How can we remain social and distant at the same time? What is this teaching children? To avoid other humans and believe they are dangerous? What is this going to teach children? These are some of Ralph's biggest arguments that seem convincing. I am kind of on the fence but I acknowledge that we cannot just grant freedom like we used to because people will not act responsively, but the safety measures may be too imposing on people who are being responsive. My friend is a masseuse and she got her business shut down during the lockdown, but bars and liquor stores were considered essential business!! She still had to pay rent! I mean our government cannot be making any more of these mistakes. Shutting down businesses during lockdown is creating more problems mentally, physically, and financially for people and their families. Requiring vaccinations and curfews is something I am struggling with. This is the toxicity that government can lead to. The government needs to be liberal, not dictatorship. Please let me know what you think. I am really not sure what to believe anymore.

@Consept yeah! This was what I was talking about! There is something strange about Ralph and should not be trusted. My post here has been about just showing you how easy it is to follow into a YouTube cult. He has persuasive arguments and right now, I don’t know what is true anymore. After you have believed something for a long time and suddenly find out it is false, it is hard to trust any source of information because you don’t want to succumb to your same mistakes and feelings of vulnerability from deception. With this being said, please try to refrain from posting conspiracy theories in here as it is against Actualized.orgs rules. I just wanted to highlight how conspiracy theories and cults are creating another pandemic within this one. A mentor one day can be a cult leader another day. Ralph is literally the Jude Law from the movie Contagion where he is profiting off of the pandemic. But on the other hand, I cannot unhear his arguments which is a mind virus. I am literally in no-mans land right now. I do not know anything which is kind of discomforting, but also empowering at the same time. What research and studies can you trust?? There is no way I can ever trust the government or any other human. Corruption is like the default state of humans. This means that since government is a collection of humans, it is also full of corruption. Sure, government helps with regulation and keeping people in check, protecting the environment, etc. but what is keeping the government in check? If the government is run by the wrong people, which it is, then it will contribute to more corruption. How do we develop a better government that can prevent itself from becoming corrupt? Corporations have so much influence over the government. This makes it harder to trust any news or research. If the government is influenced by corporations, what makes us think our research isn’t? I mean this is the materialistic paradigm and science is highly influenced by economic political and other factors. On the other hand though, humans cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions on their own, which is why government is needed ironically. Regulations and restrictions are put in place to ensure people are wearing a face mask, but the problem with government is that it is influenced by people with agendas and these agendas change. There are a lot of stupid people that run government. The safest hands are still our own.

Yeah I just started watching the Good Place and I remember Chidi talking about Deontology. But even he succumbs to utilitarian philosophy when he is willing to lie in the Bad Place to prevent them from being caught. @DocWatts @Apparition of Jack I think you make a good point. In my experience, I have never encountered a moral situation that required me to act on impulse. I have always had time to weigh the consequences of my actions. Even if I had to act immediately like Spider-Man did when the Green Goblin had Mary Jane's life on the one hand and a box cart of children on the other, I would still do what Spider-Man did and try to act in a way that brought about the best outcome, which is saving both Mary Jane and the children. But then again, I think most moral situations encountered are not always in-the-moment. But if I had no time to think, I am not sure what I would do to be honest, but I would think I would choose the option that I think leads to the best outcome. Isn't that what most people want? The fact that I am concerned about how my actions affect others is a sign of strength to me. A deontologist that is only concerned with their actions and disregards the consequences is more damaging to me because no action is intrinsically right or wrong because it is relative. As a Utilitarian, I have to ask what the best outcome is and would I be okay with everyone acting the way I just did? I don't know. Ethics is tough, but I do believe that the consequences of our actions are what really matter.

So I posted an article on the forum earlier about Why Utilitarianism is Correct. After much thought, I realize that my version of morality and utilitarianism is actually more in line with deontology. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE IF YOU CAN I will get right to the point. The reason why deontology is "correct" relatively speaking is because having a set of principles, rules, and guidelines is what allows societies to flourish. If everybody took on the notion that the "ends justify the means" and that "maximizing happiness and utility is all that matters," then we will be exactly where we are now. Whose definition and view of a "greater world" should we follow? A Libertarian believes maximizing happiness means maximizing freedoms. A liberal might view maximizing happiness as sacrifices freedoms to ensure equality, etc. etc. etc. The problem is that happiness and well-being should not be the defining characteristics of morality. Well-being and happiness are important, but when it comes to morality, the rules by which we live by through our social contracts are what uphold and ensure our happiness, freedom and well-being. However, I do acknowledge that deontology has its limits in that our world is not black and white. Since reality is always changing, our rules and principles should also evolve as well. But I would argue that the standard foundation for deontological ethics consist of the golden rules of society such as "treating others with respect if respect is something I want for myself." Sure, there will be outliers of people who don't follow the golden rule of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you," but deontology also includes Kant's principles of treating living things as an end not as a means. A pop culture example of a brilliant deontologist is Captain America. The life of one person is equal to the lives of millions. We have a duty to serve our community and this comes from a foundational ethical guidelines that a deontological perspective provides. I know the objection that people have about how deontologists support the notion that one should never lie because any exceptions to the rules contradict with the rules anyways. If everyone makes exceptions to the rules, then the rules will not exist anymore. The rules not existing will result in chaos because without rules, people will have the morality of ethical egoism, which is a self-centered utilitarianism only applying to one's self not the community. Breaking the rule of lying to save someone from death is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis of the ends justifying the means. But I also think that as a deontologist, our duty is to respect and treat all living things with kindness, not as a method of using or manipulating them. In the case of Jack and the Bean stock, when the wife of the giant lies to him to protect Jack, she is committed to her duty to protect Jack from further harm. If she were honest, she would have allowed the giant to kill Jack. Honesty is a virtue, but so is courage. It takes mighty courage to lie to someone to protect another even if it costs you your life. Since our foundational rule as deontologists are to "treat others the way we would want to be treated," the wife lying to the giant is totally deontological because if everyone in her situation had the courage to lie in order to save someone else, that would be our utmost duty. If we commit to telling the truth all the time, there comes a point in which radical honesty may become a weakness because if honesty comes at the cost of another's suffering, then we will not be committed to "treating others as an end." Deontologists value life over concepts. If I lie to save a life from a corrupt system, I am fulfilling my duty. But if I commit to honesty because Kant says I can never lie, then my honesty at certain, rare cases may affect others lives. Lying to protect others is standing up for them and valuing their lives in this case. I am advocating more for subjective deontology since morality is relative not black and white. It is similar to the morality of the Jedi. There are guidelines and principles that we live by such as non-attachment, courage, advocacy, selflessness, self-defense, and taking people as prisoners rather than torturing or killing them. These are just a few of the Jedi principles, but since every situation is different, the guidelines and rules we live by may be altered. Captain Barbosa from Pirates of the Caribbean makes a good point in that "The Code is more like guidelines than actual rules." Argument for utilitarianism Another objection I thought of was that since moral situations are very complex, for a deontologist to hold maxims of honesty, bravery, compassion, fairness, duty, etc. certain situations will challenge these maxims and hold them contradictory. For example, in the case of Jack in the Bean stock, the wife lies to the giant to save Jack. Bravery and honesty are in conflict with each other. So which one do we use? This is a good argument for utilitarianism because it shows that everything comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Even the maxims we create, aren't they also based on a cost-benefit to promote a high quality society? Why do we have the golden rule in the first place? Is it because everything boils down to our survival? Let me know what you think. I have changed my mind a bit. I am exploring the deontological perspective, but am also realizing that no matter what maxims or rules we create, it always boils down to survival. Is it safe to say that Deontologists are rigid in moral situations (adhering to guidelines to generalize to all situations) and utilitarians are more flexible, finding different ways to maximize wellbeing and minimizing suffering? Isn't it correct to say that we are creating these rules based on a cost-benefit analysis? For example, wearing face masks. Wearing face masks is a rule that is now established to protect people in our communities, but the only reason why it is a new rule is because wearing face masks are shown to increase wellbeing and reduce suffering. So don't all deontological maxims boil down to utilitarianism since survival is the foundation for why we have morality anyway? Rules and maxims make it easier and more ordered for a society to function healthier than utilitarian societies I assume because if everyone is a vigilante, then there would be no order. Deontology provides us with this solution by have maxims that are universalizable to help keep societies functional. Chaos runs amok when people decide for themselves what's the best for everyone. That is why nothing good ever happens to those who play God. This all might sound confusing, but what I am saying is that deontology is a better way for morality to take place in society, but we must acknowledge its consequentialist roots in survival. All of our rules are based on maximizing happiness for everyone because if our laws or principles marginalize a group, then rioting and chaos will happen. Please let me know what you all think. I am still very openminded about it all so feel free to share your perspectives because I know that this is my belief in how societies should function morally speaking. What do you all think? What would the most enlightened guru say about morality? Would the most enlightened person be aligned more with utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.? If you do not agree with any of the theories on morality, then what do you think is the best system of morality. Here are some examples: Yoda = utilitarian/virtue ethicist Obi-wan Kenobi = utilitarian Gandalf = Deontologist Captain America = Deontologist Dumbledore = Deontologist/utilitarian Luke Skywalker (original series) = deontologist/virtue ethicist, Last Jedi Luke Skywalker = utilitarian Thanos = utilitarian/ethical egoist James Bond = utilitarian Superman = Virtue ethicist/deontologist Batman (Christian Bale) = deontologist Spiderman (Toby McGuire) = deontologist Han Solo = ethical egoist Spock = utilitarian

@DocWatts Yeah I totally agree with Sam Harris there. I think that was one of my points in that utilitarianism, wanting to maximize survival and wellbeing is a foundation of morality. We all want to have a prosperous society and to do that, we have to create rules that will allow people to flourish. A Deontologist system that produces suffering does not make any sense to me. That is why I mentioned that the moral thing for the giants wife to do is to lie to save Jack. Even though the lying is the maxim being violated, assisting in murder is a maxim that outweighs the maxim of lying. Wow. I think I realized that I am a rule utilitarian lol.

So I have been contemplating how we should live morally speaking. I have gained insight that there are no objective moral principles. Morality is relative and invented for survival. Fairness and happiness is something that humans value deeply on average, and the best ways to ensure fairness and happiness is to create a "social contract" known as what we call today, morality. Background on Kantian Ethics To give a little bit of my take on the Kant's Deontology, also known as the Categorical Imperative, rests on the notion that there are objective moral principles, and thus, we should live by rules to live up to these principles. Morality for Kant is found in the rules we live by that are universalizable. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The maxim is our moral actions that we take. The "golden rules" in life are what we should live by according to this idea ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). It is irrational to act against your maxims. For instance, lying is always morally wrong because if I lie, then that means everyone can lie. But you are not really okay with everyone lying. If everyone lies, then it contradicts with the maxim, and thus is irrational according to the Categorical Imperative. Lying cannot be justified, murder cannot be justified, etc. according to Deontology. If you lie, then it allows everyone to lie, but what kind of world would this be? This isn't about well-being, but about rationality according to Kant. But another stipulation of Kantian ethics is to treat life not as a means, but always as an end. This means that we treat all life with respect, dignity, and moral worth and not use life as a "tool" to get an outcome that you desire. I think Kantian ethics is very interesting, but it does have some flaws in it. Kantian ethics only focuses on the actions itself, not on the consequences, which can lead to immense suffering down the road. Background of Utilitarianism Contrast this with Utilitarianism. It is the idea that the moral thing to do is whatever brings about the greatest outcome. Utilitarianism looks at the consequences of their actions. Utilitarians know that there is no objective moral action, but they believe that since we all value happiness, fairness, compassion, empathy, autonomy, well-being, etc. we should do our best to maximize these out in the world. A common critique with utilitarianism is that the "ends justify the means." This means that since morality is relative, the outcomes outweigh the action itself. This means that murder can be justified if it brings about greater virtues and lives for the world. My view So my view is that utilitarianism is the highest moral theory that we can live up to. I understand that it is a theory on morality, and so it is limited and not absolute. But in terms of society and how to best function as a community, utilitarianism seems to be a "better" moral theory than deontology. To me, Utilitarianism is all about how you can give to the world, not what you take from it. It is all about making sacrifices for the community. An example of this is enforcing everyone to wear a face mask in COVID-19 era. Enforcing this sacrifices individual freedoms, but it benefits the community. Contrast this with Kantian ethics, the maxim could be "Take away other's freedoms is immoral." I think if Kant were alive today, he would say that it is our duty to wear a mask because that action is right for it's own sake. But it is not clear whether Kant's ethics could justify forcing people to wear masks despite their resistance, being against their will. For a utilitarian, this is completely moral because it is the best way to serve others and the community. Utilitarianism is a selfless moral approach to life. Virtue ethics has the critique that it is too self-centered on focusing on one's character and living virtuously. But I see the best utilitarian in the world also displaying an overlap of all three main theories: deontology, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism. In my mind, a True utilitarian is one that values the lives of others, but takes the best approaches to increase virtues of wisdom, selflessness and happiness in the world. Maximizing virtues is what will create order in life. A True utilitarian is not concerned about the trolley problems and the medical problem because a True utilitarian understands that a human life = an Ant life. In addition, a True utilitarian understands that we will all die someday, and it is not our job to decide who lives and who dies. If everyone decided to play God and make moral decisions of sacrificing innocents, how will our world be? A true utilitarian keeps in mind the maxims of deontology as well as their duty to maximize well-being. To be virtuous is not just to perfect your own character, but to allow and help others to perfect their own characters. Utilitarians are deeply concerned about the consequences that will take place in life. Life is a big chess game for the utilitarian, there will be sacrifices along the way, but a True utilitarian treats life as the King on the chess board. What sets utilitarians apart from deontologists is that utilitarians are capable of making sacrifices to bring about a better world. Utilitarians are not bound by rules, they see the world as gray, not black and white. Kantian ethics, on the other hand, are bound by rules, which can be rigid. This rigidness prevents them from making sacrifices to make the world a better place. Conclusion So far, I have discussed why utilitarianism is the way to go. I made a crucial distinction between Mill and Bentham's utilitarianism and my version of True utilitarianism, which is all about our duty to live virtuously and to act in ways that will instill virtues out in the world. Life is all about maximizing virtues, not happiness because happiness can be very subjective. The consequences of our actions. How our actions will affect other people is what we should be concerned more about. So our actions do matter but not intrinsically, but instrumentally. There are no correct actions because we live in a relativistic universe in which every situation is different. Focusing on how we can lift others up, serve our communities is the utilitarian way. Utilitarianism is more in line with Liberalism and Deontology seems to be a Libertarian approach. This is what has been in my head. I would really like to hear your objections and your own perspectives. I think it would be great if Actualized.org did a video on "how to live morally -- a discussion about utilitarianism, kantianism, and virtue ethics" Thank you!

I totally agree with your edit! My position is that since there are no moral absolutes, we should still uphold virtues and treat each other with compassion and respect similar with The golden rule, but I also focus on how much actions can affect others. I am playing a chess game to strategize how my actions affect others. I appreciate you sharing your moral views tied to Christianity. I prefer a secular approach away from religion. Sometimes sacrifice is Love. Thanos did what he did out of love, but I don’t agree with him. He could have just doubled all the resources instead and decreasing half of life. Even though Thanos killed life, I still consider it a utilitarian approach but not a True utilitarian approach because of all the suffering it brought on the world. Only living things can suffer. Now I really wanna know Stage Turquoise morality. It seems obvious to me that Leo does not think that utilitarianism is a stage turquoise approach. So my question is what is a stage turquoise moral principle? Deontology?? Can utilitarianism be upgraded to stage turquoise just like consciousness? What if each moral theory has its own stages as well? @Leo Gura

@Apparition of Jack you have decided to play God if you did this. It’s just like Thanos wanting to snap his fingers. How do you know those 10 homeless people will bring about more wellbeing than me? This is an assumption and a straw man. What if I am a mental health therapist who is helping 10 clients with a substance abuse problem or better yet, a doctor or philanthropist? This is why a True utilitarian acknowledges that greater numbers do not guarantee the best outcomes. A True utilitarian has Kantian principles but is not limited by them. @Leo Gura @Artsu I understand that morality is relative and a social contract between others to ensure survival. I’m not for sure if you guys have seen Harry Potter or not, but he is an example of what I am talking about. A Deontologist would obey the rules and not wander around in an invisibility cloak, but Harry understands that if he just follows the rules then huge consequences will happen. So in a way, Harry has a “duty” to break the rules to save Ginny Weasley because if he doesn’t, she will die. When I talk about utilitarianism, my focus is on how my actions affect others. If my actions bring about bad consequences then it is “immoral.” A Deontologist would be the person who never lies even if lying would help save millions of lives. Or torture to get information out of The Joker, etc. Since you say that morality is subjective and an invention, then that means that there are NO intrinsic moral actions, which is in agreement with utilitarians. Kantians believe there are moral absolutes. So, I am trying to understand how utilitarianism is flawed if it is based on serving others and the community? I do acknowledge the dark side of utilitarianism, which is that any action can be justifiable, but what about the dark side of Kantian ethics? The consequences of our actions matter relativistically. The flaw that I see in utilitarianism is that it is self-biased towards human affairs, but the True utilitarianism that I am talking about is concerned more with how our actions affect others rather than the action itself. Life is a chess game that needs to be strategized. One move has an effect on another. That is why sacrificing a human to save more lives is foolish because the utilitarian assumes that more lives is good, but they fail to look at the damage of their actions. This is why I distinguish between True utilitarian and John Stuart Mill utilitarian. The action of killing an innocent person will have extreme consequences because it is a maxim that we have allowed. So there is a little bit of overlap between all three theories with my version of utilitarianism because you cannot truly create a greater world if you yourself do not uphold virtues and principles. What separates a Kantian from a True utilitarian is that the True Utilitarian is not limited by rules that other people invented and they are not concerned only with the action itself (since there are no Intrinsic values) but the ripple effect of their actions. examples of the True Utilitarians I talk about are: Gandalf (In the books he tortured Gollem only as a last resort) Harry Potter (breaks the rules to save lives, although I admit that Harry can be reckless and should think about his actions more) Dumbledore Yoda (yes Yoda is a utilitarian because Yoda wanted to sacrifice Han and Leia) Obi-wan Kenobi All of these people deeply care about the consequences rather than the actions themselves please continue to correct me. I am Just exploring morality with you all to gain a better understanding with how you all see it. I am reinterpreting Mills hedonistic utilitarianism to a more Eudaemonic utilitarianism, which uses Kant’s principle of treating life as an end not a means. Ultimately utilitarians are more flexible in their moral approach. They see it as gray whereas Kantians see morality as absolute black and white. I enjoy this conversation so far. Thanks for all of your responses!

After watching Leo’s Health Situation video on the blog, he shared some powerful insights on empathy that had me rethink what it really is and how it works. His insights were similar to Osho’s when a man was trying to understand englightenment. Osho replied: “how can you understand something that you have never experienced? If you have never tasted sugar, how can you understand what sugar tastes like?” Leo said a similar insight in his video Health Situation at around 1 hr 28 mins. He said “You cannot understand another persons situation unless you have experienced their suffering.” He gives the example of homeless in that we can imagine what it is like, but we do not Actually know what it’s like. What troubles me is that there is a massive contradiction. In Leo’s Implicit Understanding video, he gives the example of how to understand something without experiencing it!! He says that we can understand infinity without experiencing the natural numbers go to infinity. I am lost here. Any help please?

Which side would you take? Would you support sacrificing individual freedoms for the benefit of greater good or would you value freedoms at the cost of greater good? Team Cap or Team Iron man?

I never said the two are mutually exclusive. If there is an either in an or statement then it would be exclusive. But if it is just an or in an or statement, then the answer could be both. But again, if you say both, where do you cherry pick. For example, would you favor governmental control over drugs? For me, no. would you favor governmental involvement over corporations? For me, yes. How did I draw this line? It is based on my belief that people should have freedom to do drugs but people should also be in check to not corporatize and pollute the environment etc. the question is, where do we draw the line between personal freedoms and protection? i do not favor government to have security cameras in bathrooms, but I do favor the government to overwatch terrorism and crime. See how it is paradoxical? Do you all have this similar problem as well? I think I will go for Team Cap because the government cannot be trusted to make all the right choices for its citizens but at the same time, we cannot leave matters in individuals hands because of manipulation. Do you see my problem?

Which Avenger is the most evolved and has the highest evolved moral compass and virtues in alignment to higher consciousness? I think Captain America might be the best but I am still unsure.i think that Cap is stage Green on the spiral. What do you think?

The problem is where do you draw the line in your circle for balance? Notice how the line in yin yang is drawn. How do you draw your own line between freedom and greater good?

I think that the next step for actualized.org is to apply all the lessons and virtues into a discussion about morality. I notice that actualized.org is very metaphysically/epistemically based. Although, I think metaphysics is the highest discussed content on actualized.org with only a couple videos that I know of on morality: 1. Why good and evil don’t exist and 2. Conscious politics. I think that the next step will be to take all of the insights that Leo has developed and go full-circle and bringing it back to discipline and how to apply the insights into life. I think actualized.org could focus on morality in particular virtue ethics or deontology as I think that there is a lot of confusion about what is “moral” these days. Just because morality is relative is imaginary does not mean we should avoid the topic. I think that if actualized.org goes back full circle to tie it back into Value Theory: what is the Good Life and how to live it and Virtue Ethics or Deontology, how to live to moral life, then I think it would be a very interesting step to attract more viewers. Many people who watch your content will not achieve these high states and probably don’t know what you are talking about. It may seem abstract for them. But tying it back into morality/discipline and ways to practically live life purpose then I think it would be a very progressive move for actualized.org because it will empower more and more people to live virtuously and morally high quality lives. Anyways this is what I see that could be changed.

After further contemplation, I came up with the conclusion that Berkeley had it backwards. Instead of to exist is to be perceived, I can up with the conclusion that to be perceived is to exist. in my contemplation, I made my room completely dark, I calmed my mind down, then I spun around to disorient myself and pick up a random object. With my eyes closed, I noticed that my mind immediately tried to conjure a visible image of the object, but I realize that I only have a visual thought of the object because it had been perceived before. I tried to ground myself in actuality and noticed that existence is subjective. A person born blind never experienced a visual reality. Therefore, a visual reality does not exist for him. I noticed that I do not actually perceive a visual image of the object I am holding (with eyes closed) I only feel the object. Without feeling or any other sensations, the object cannot be known to exist. my problem with Berkeleys Esse est percipi is that it seems to me that objects that are NOT perceived can still affect me. I challenged this by reasoning that since I can perceive being affected, the affect and object exist, but this also had problems. One problem is being killed instantly by a car bomb. I didn’t perceive a bomb so it doesn’t exist (at least subjectively?). this is why my conclusion to perceive means to exist. This means that perception is a facet of existence. I can only know what I can perceive through the senses, but there is more to reality than what my senses tell me. Therefore, To perceive is to exist what does reality look like without being filtered through senses? Is there an absolute way for reality to look? what do you all think?

I have been contemplating what existence is and remember reading Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy on idealism. His basic philosophy is that what existence means is that something is perceived. Without an object being perceived, how can it exist? my inquiry goes like this: What is the universe without life? Isn’t the point of creating life is so that the Universe can experience and become aware of itself? If there were no subjects in existence, then how could anything be known to exist? Before I was born, was there any sense of a Big Bang or a planet with human history and life? I find that the idea of the Holocaust, Big Bang, planet Earth all hinges upon subjectivity or life to exist. But more than that, it hinges on my perceptions and the idea of me to exist right? If I did not exist, what would the Universe be like? Would it exist at all? The world I am looking out at now seems like it is my own private universe that is limited by the perceptions of being human. If I was to compare an alien with a different brain, a human being, a bat, and an ant, all of there Universes seem to be vastly different. So does an object depend on me to exist? Is the Universe depended on the mind or independent. If it is independent, then what could we say exists? Can we say that the sun existed before us? Well it seems to me that we define the sun based off of our human perceptions of the sun. If the sun existed before I was born, could I assume that it would be just like how I perceive it now before I was born? In the same way, what is anything without a perceived? Can I assume that what I perceive now is exactly how the world is before I was born? I don’t think so because my perceptions are just a piece of the puzzle. It seems to me that my existence is like a piece to the puzzle, but yet, it also seems like the complete puzzle at the same time. The only thing I know is that which is based in my perception right? I mean I cannot know what the experience of a bat is like no matter how much I think about it. I can only know what’s in my direct experience. Other perspectives are what I am imagining based on my experiences. In fact, isn’t imagination and rationality dependent on the senses? If I cannot experience the world, how can I imagine it and rationalize it? So. This is my inquiry. It is probably full of shit, but I think Berkeley maybe on to something about Esse est percipi. It seems like the Big Bang never existed because it was not perceived. Though, I do struggle with the problem that there are many things that I do NOT perceive that seem to exist. For example, I could get sniper or hit by a car without perceiving it. Does the car or murderer exist? This is my problem with Esse est percipi, but it also seems that the world I perceive is the only world that exists at least to my perspective. It also seems that there is more to reality than what I perceive, but any notion of a different perception is something I am imagining right now? What do you all think? I am also pretty new to this work. I would love to hear your suggestions and perspectives.

My dad showed me this article below after watching Leo’s new video on Learning = Distinction. When political debates arise, it is important to ask, what does it mean to be liberal? What do our policies mean? What do people mean by being liberal? Why is there so much debate? I am quite new to studying politics. I look forward to hearing liberal thought and conservative thought on this article below: “I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines: 1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD. 2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen. 3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. 4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist. 5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. 6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live. 7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine. 8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you. 9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc). 10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation. 11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past. 12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized. 13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine. 14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person? 15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else. 16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be? I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ron-howard-i-am-liberal-essay/