Pretention

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Pretention

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Questions for debate:

Do people sometimes pretend to greater morality than they actually have/practice?

And, more importantly...

Do people sometimes to pretend to morality greater than any which is even possible?

An example I'm pondering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
Inedia (Latin for 'fasting') or breatharianism (/brɛˈθɛəriənɪzəm/) is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food, and in some cases water. It is a deadly pseudoscience and several adherents of these practices have died from starvation or dehydration.[1][2] Multiple cases where this practice was attempted have resulted in failure or death.[2][3][4]
Breatharians claim that food (and sometimes water) is not necessary for survival, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana, the vital life force in Hinduism. According to Ayurveda, sunlight is one of the main sources of prana, and some practitioners believe that it is possible for a person to survive on sunlight alone. The terms breatharianism or inedia may also be used when it is practiced as a lifestyle in place of a usual diet.


This is why my question is tricky. It speaks to whether or not achievable is baked into the concept of morality. Obviously breathairians can't live without any food at all, and maybe because of this, you can't claim that eating no food is more moral than eating, for example, only plants. The question becomes a non-sequitur of sorts because you can't actually do it. The answer to my question could still be yes, they do pretend to greater morality than is possible, but only by also pretending the thing they're doing is actually possible.

Now, we could look up to these breathairians as people at least striving for the highest, which is admirable even if it is not attained. It's also a deeper question about how we should respond when someone tells us, morality is this, and it's something like, don't eat anything at all ever again, or something like, sprout wings and fly, or even some form of achieving a kind of perfection we know doesn't exist, and possibly cannot. It's about whether we ought to look up to the unachievable for at least being perfect, and as an old boss once told me, it doesn't matter if you know you can never achieve perfection, still aim for it, and you'll at least get closer than if you accepted your limitations.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Pretention

Post #2

Post by Miles »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:11 pm Questions for debate:

Do people sometimes pretend to greater morality than they actually have/practice?
Of course.

And, more importantly...

Do people sometimes to pretend to morality greater than any which is even possible?

An example I'm pondering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
Inedia (Latin for 'fasting') or breatharianism (/brɛˈθɛəriənɪzəm/) is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food, and in some cases water. It is a deadly pseudoscience and several adherents of these practices have died from starvation or dehydration.[1][2] Multiple cases where this practice was attempted have resulted in failure or death.[2][3][4]
Breatharians claim that food (and sometimes water) is not necessary for survival, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana, the vital life force in Hinduism. According to Ayurveda, sunlight is one of the main sources of prana, and some practitioners believe that it is possible for a person to survive on sunlight alone. The terms breatharianism or inedia may also be used when it is practiced as a lifestyle in place of a usual diet.
Truthfully, I fail to see how this functions as an example of anyone who sometimes pretends to morality greater than any which is even possible. It doesn't mention morality or any of its principles: right vs wrong, good vs bad. In fact, all the article addresses is "the claimed ability of a person to live without consuming food, and in some cases water;" how fasting is regarded by various practitioners; plus the "scientific assessment" that it's a "deadly pseudoscience." Nothing about morality at all.


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Pretention

Post #3

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:08 amNothing about morality at all.
No, but many vegans do claim morality. So if they wanted to, some breathairians could claim they, by subsisting on nothing at all, are more moral even than vegans who still kill (or at very least, harm) plants.

If some did, would this be something laudable we should all aim for even if we know it's unachievable, because aim as high as you can? Or is setting the bar higher than anyone has ever made it over, a bit too high?

Also, this is the only example I can think of that's not controversial. I was going to bring up how critical race theory sets all whites as racist, yet condemns racism. But many people hate critical race theory so those responses will just be reactive. And many people love critical race theory so they won't be able to examine the issue critically either. The responses would be 50/50 between "It's pure nonsense obviously!" and "You're misrepresenting CRT."

I'm the only one I know of who believes it without being head-over-heels in love with it.

Post Reply