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?