Who decides what "obligations" people have? Not this author.

Agree unreservedly!

Peter – you say that “solving these problems is a dream”. Based on what you have written in this article, it will remain just that, a dream.

Unless you go back and sort out the most basic first principles, you won’t go anywhere with this.

For example, was this world/universe that we live in deliberately created for some particular purpose or did it just unintentionally happen to come into existence by some means such as the big bang?

If you believe the latter to be true, then it is all over for you. If the world is not supposed to be in one particular state rather than another, then any basis for saying that something is right or wrong is gone. That also goes for any claims that we have any obligations or responsibilities to anyone or anything.

Of course you, or anyone else, can make up anything you like about morality and responsibility and shout and write books, but it will mean absolutely nothing. You might as well save your breath.

I am the author... ,The comment ", was this world/universe that we live in deliberately created for some particular purpose or did it just unintentionally happen to come into existence by some means such as the big bang?

If you believe the latter to be true, then it is all over for you. "

This accusation contravenes the beliefs of most scientists in this world, The Big Bang is how it happened, Charles Darwin explains us... God did not create the world,
If you believe he did, he made an almighty mess of it, Read the newspapers

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:...
a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,"
[Ecclesiastes 3:1,7]

This one of the wisest philosophers of all times, deserves a prominent place in your book, Peter.

Peter – Thank-you for responding. I am simply seeking to take up your invitation in the first paragraph of your article to make comments and suggestions on your underlying theses. In my first comment I was not making an “accusation” but just seeking to make a logical point.

Helpfully, you have now made it quite clear that you accept the big bang thesis as the explanation for the origin of the universe.

My point is that, if the big bang is a correct explanation for our origin then everything has come into being unintentionally. No intelligent being planned for the big bang to occur, leading to the existence of the universe, it just somehow happened by itself, and all to no particular end.

I take it that you would agree with that?

If so, if the world is not supposed to be in one state rather than another, then how can we meaningfully say that something can ever be morally wrong? Some might argue that it would be morally wrong to kill all the whales, or to kill all the white people, but if there was never any intention for the world to contain whales or white people (or anything else), then why should it be “wrong” to eliminate all the whales and white people?

Of course you, and anyone else, can decide that you like whales and so you can make up a “moral rule” that killing all the whales, etc, is wrong.

But so what?

Why should anyone care what moral rules you make up? And if some other believer in the big bang makes up a “moral rule” that conflicts with yours, how can it be determined which rule should prevail? After all, neither side can claim that their moral rule reflects the way things “ought” to be, as there are no “oughts” in a universe that just happened into being for no purpose.

You just seem to be left with personal preferences rather than any binding rules.

Being a whistleblower is not an easy task. Look at
Julian Assange and others. Look at Brittany Higgins.
And look at many survivors of child sexual abuse.
Raising concerns within a setting is always a very
sensitive issue especially within a large and powerful
organisation and against influential and powerful people.

It may result in victimisation from them and others,
including even our legal system. However when you see
things being done that are wrong being committed to
doing the right thing outweighs the risks involved.
Especially in the case where children and young people
are involved.

Still, I dare say that many people would either resign or
keep quiet. Few are brave enough to speak up. I worked with
a whistleblower - who lost their job and it took over a
decade for that person to be able to find employment
elsewhere. Their reputation was in tatters.

"Don't rock the boat," seems to be the general attitude for
most people. Either that or leave with your reputation in
tact.

That's why whistleblowers should be supported by
us as much as possible. It takes courage to speak
out. And it deserves our support.

This preamble is almost totally divorced from the heading.

Either change the heading or change the content. Fail.

Yuyutsu

Prominent to the meaning would be a time to cease perpetual wars. Not bloody likely.

Not likely since wars are invariably fraught for gain. Greed.

IE: a time to cease the advantages of greed. Not bloody likely.

Since greed and advantage are behind all States of political systems.

OK, so let us all get behind this authors theory that a one world order will dilute greed and eventuate a peaceful world. Not bloody likely, since the greediest of the greedy will usurp the power of such a altruistic peace loving organisational system for their particular greedy personal gains.

Have we learned nothing from the self interested greed of the many Crusades, over their time period. Very altruistic they were. What better cause than the advance of the Christian hordes advancing the cause of the Catholics; with a side dish of plunder and mayhem along the way.
Another lesser Kingdom and it’s booty there; a few extra slaves captured as a bonus, to be sold on the slave markets.

Why is that any different to the totally discredited UN?

A better Biblical quote would be: “Nothing new under the sun”, Ecclesiastes 1.
you must agree!

There is totally no hope for a world without wars. Why are people so stupid and self deluded to believe otherwise?

Hi Foxy

I agree, while there is value in spelling out the moral logic behind whistle-blowing, it is at least as important to address the reasons why many people fail to do it. Most of us know we should call out bad behaviour. But, as you point out, one of the main reasons people don’t is that the consequences are almost always negative in terms of job prospects, reputation, friendships and even liberty.

Other reasons are corporate culture, loyalty to an organisation or colleagues, wanting to fit in, and sometimes guilt by association.

So maybe a couple of additional sections may be helpful in Peter’s book.

One would be measures that can be taken to make it less damaging to blow the whistle. Especially in government organisations, this could take the form of whistle-blower protection legislation and policies, along with measures to encourage and reward the reporting of wrongdoing.

Another might be advice on how to go about whistle-blowing in ways that are least likely to have negative consequences, and most likely to effect change. I once called out bullying behaviour by the boss of an organisation I worked for and suffered a career deep-freeze as a result. Needless to say, the bullying didn’t stop. In hindsight, I could have handled the issue better and more effectively.

Some people can't distinguish between whistle blowers & crap stirrers !

Peter Bo again: "there are no “oughts” in a universe that just happened into being for no purpose."

I disagree, Even though we are here randomly created, withno designated purpose, we still have to live with each other - not attack each other, as we have been doing since the beginning of time, and help each other. If we do that we collectively and individually benefit. So the ought that we all should live by is "Help those who need help, at least do not harm anybody"
That ought has seen the gradual development of our societies with old age pensions, health care programs, sickness benefits, compulsory schooling

Peter – yes, I should have said, “there are no objective ‘oughts’ in a universe that just happened into being for no purpose”.

You can, as you do here, make subjective assertions that we ought not attack each other and that we ought to help each other. But what would you say to the person who says to you that they do not believe we have any obligation to help others and that, if it is in their own interests, they will even attack others?

Will you say: “Well, I am Peter Bowden and I am saying that you ought to help others and not attack them, and because I say that, you must therefore help and not attack”?

Maybe you would say something like that, but why should the other person pay any attention to you? You are, after all, just another person like them, with, presumably no greater moral authority than them. (If you do think you have greater moral authority than other human beings, please tell us why you do.)

Both of you, as you agree, are living in a universe that just happened into being for no particular purpose. It is true that in such a universe each person can have their preferences about what they choose to call “right” and “wrong”, but that is all they are, personal preferences, not objective moral truths. Yet you seem to think you can tell other people what they ought and ought not do – that seems to be very presumptuous of you.

Dear Dan,

I am not clear why you addressed me here on the topic of wars, but since you asked I will respond from my Hindu perspective:

«There is totally no hope for a world without wars. Why are people so stupid and self deluded to believe otherwise?»

Wars are an inherent feature of the age we live in.
A world without wars will arrive, some 427,000 years from now.
That is the macro picture, but we can still micro-manage whether we live in relatively more peaceful times or otherwise during our lifetimes. Even in this age, it is not unreasonable for people to aspire for the mercy of cease-fires.

Greed is there indeed - kindness too. The war between them is ongoing.

---

The discussion between Peter and JP is hypothetical and moot:
would a universe that just happened into being with no purpose have "oughts" or not...
- well first find me such a universe, then only we could open the discussion about its "oughts".
As the saying goes, "if grandma had wheels then surely she would ought to give me a ride".

War and the preparation for war is the ultimate consumer product. The great powers have no interest in a world without war, just as the Samsung company has no interest in a world without mobile phones. For the United States anything that promotes peace in the world is killing the goose that lays the golden egg, its counter productive. In 2022 the US budgeted for $773 billion on internal expenditure on militarism, at the same time US arms sales topped $300 billion. All this militarism simply transfers wealth from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. Every bomb has not just a human cost in war, it also has an economic value as well.

The Americans spent an estimated $120 billion on the Vietnam War, such a war would cost ten times that amount today, the west has spent more than $200 billion, and Russia $140 billion, thus far on the Ukraine War.

Who do you tell? Certainly not crime stoppers. From my personal experience those scum are in cahoots with corrupt coppers, so they should change their name to criminal protectors. What did the Fitzgerald enquiry achieve? Not much that I can see. What protects us iare the hard won empirical checks and balances of our civilisation. In my experience dobbers don't tend to have a higher motivation.

It is disappointing Peter that you have retreated from the discussion. If you are planning to write a book on these matters, then surely you should be willing to engage with an interested reader who offers a friendly critique.

If you have good answers to the questions I have raised, please share them. If on the other hand you do not have answers, then should you write a book on this subject?