Thanks for that. Feel like consensus on this may not materialize though...

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful. — Harry Hindu

Of course you don't.

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

"An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself."

@Harry Hindu posted the same. Are you both on commission for fallacy posters? :wink:

Basic idea is OK by me if that's what people want. But no pages with commercial links.

Maybe have it in the already pinned post as an addition to what's already pinned there? — Christoffer

We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one.

:lol:



:up:

You are hopelessly befuddled*. Morality is not reducible to biology any more than concepts like 'marriage', 'money' etc, or more to the point, "beauty", "virtue", "the good" and so on. (Speaking of the trivially obvious... )

*Exhibit A in subject(ive)/object(ive) befuddlement:

First, I use "subjective" to refer to mental phenomena, and "objective" to refer to the complement--"nonmental phenomena" so to speak. — Terrapin Station

The complement nonmental phenomena to subjective experiences are brain states, which are physical configurations of a biological brain. i.e. We can observe/measure brain states with instruments. They are in that sense part of the 'objective' realm.

But:

Ok, so what you're looking for is the 'that' in 'that's morality', right? And for you, it's what? A brain state? — Baden

Yes, it's a brain state — Terrapin Station

And:

Morality doesn't occur elsewhere, in the objective realm. — Terrapin Station

Not to mention:

In other words, "It is morally wrong to murder," ontologically, is a brain state. — Terrapin Station

(!)

I'll try a poem next time. Anything to alleviate the boredom of watching a bunch of folks make desperate efforts to not think in a remotely interesting way.

It's at least amusing that the two criticisms of the idea of problematizing the subject(ive)/object(ive) distinction re morality are:

1) That's ridiculous!
2) That's trivially obvious!

Nice diagram. — Banno

Cheers, I thought we might have some visual learners among the critics here, but...

And in your conception, is a brain state a subject or an object?

What you should be more worried about is a decreasing population and a demographic shift to the aged. Already happening. (And not just in the US but across developed countries).

"The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1 — enough to renew the population — is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US."

"The fertility rate is an important measure of a country’s well-being. When it’s too low, countries worry that in the long term they may not have enough healthy, young workers to keep productivity up and the economy humming."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women

And net migration to the US is moderate. Less than about a dozen European countries along with Australia and Canada.



https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=27

Ok, so what you're looking for is the 'that' in 'that's morality', right? And for you, it's what? A brain state? — Baden

Yes, it's a brain state. — Terrapin Station

would you say brain states can be moral / immoral? — Baden

I'd not call them moral/immoral. — Terrapin Station

So, the brain state is morality but there is no moral / immoral to brain states? Where can you find the moral / immoral then?

Just trying to clarify here.

Yes, it's a brain state. — Terrapin Station

Ok, and the 'that' in 'that's morality' for me would consist in interactions / behaviours.

In other words, if an alien came to earth and asked me what morality is, I would point to instances of moral behaviours / interactions rather than brain states to explain it.

So, there's a fundamental difference of approach. Going a little further, would you say brain states can be moral / immoral?

@Terrapin Station

Ok, so what you're looking for is the 'that' in 'that's morality', right? And for you, it's what? A brain state? Can you be very specific in pointing to the 'that' you think is morality and then maybe we can get to the bottom of our difference.

I've had over a dozen replies in an hour and I'm eating lunch. But believe me, I always follow through. :halo:

Note though that others, while they might not agree, are actually engaging. I hate to say it, but I think you're being a tad... unreasonable. :wink:

We're off-topic now. I'll get round to elaborating with individuals when and if I think it will be useful. But my effort here is just to support my contention that @Banno is justified in problematizing the subject/object distinction, not to claim that everyone else's position is completely wrong, but that that element causes issues which drive moral views that are not actually that dissimilar in substance away from each other. It's polarising.

And I drew a picture, for which you should be eternally grateful.

I'm going to speak bluntly and reply that I don't particularly care about what you're saying, — S

I'm not asking you to care. I suppose you replied to my post by accident. Keep your fingers under better control next time.

so you're saying that if we took one person and every other person but that one were to die or disappear, that one person would no longer exist? — Terrapin Station

Of course not, because they would have already been constituted socially before you removed the others. Isn't that obvious? But if you took a human newborn out of all social relations not only would it not become a person, it would almost certainly die.

You're both talking past me. Have a look at the schema and go from there. Where is the error? Let me put it this way, I'm claiming there are only social relations, which when packaged in individual bodies, we call 'persons' or 'subjects'. And there is no moral agency, no persons or subjects, without this constitution. So, I'm not just saying this or that, I'm saying the whole binary approach is wrongheaded and prevents a full view of where and how morality obtains. That doesn't mean the subject/object distinction is useless in every field but it's much more useful for scientific enquiry than philosophic / moral enquiry.

I think it boils down more to finding a better way to talk about morality than fundamental disagreements about what it is.

The last point that we got to was trying to make sense of his assertion that the objective/subjective dichotomy "fails" — S

Not trying to speak for @Banno, but absolutely agree with him it fails. If the moral subject is both constituted of/by social relations and embedded in social relations, and the term 'objective' in terms of morality is that which applies equally to all moral subjects i.e. the complete world, or set of worlds, of social relations then the dichotomy fails. The 'objective' is in the 'subjective' as much as the 'subjective' is in the 'objective'. i.e. For the subject to function as moral agent, it is necessarily a socially constituted entity, in some sense both 'objective' and 'subjective'.

Yes. My view is something like the first schema. I see @Terrapin Station's as something like the second. I don't think his works.

I could have gotten ice-cream later, but I want it now: Ergo National Emergency!

But then my question is really, can he get away with it (can the court's really stop him)? Or is it just he's been reading Breitbart and realized he'd lose about half his base if he didn't make like he really wanted to deliver on the wall at all costs (even though he knows he can't)?

:up:

Not as much as I should be. If you have a particular recommendation, PM me. Cheers.

Yes, without problematizing notions like 'subjective' and 'objective' we get nowhere. And you get folks running back and forth to Wikipedia and quoting theoretical buzzwords polluted by the same issues in a frantic effort to be self-consistent. Without actually thinking.

So, re morality as properly understood, beyond the intersubjective, there is no pure 'objective' and beyond social relations as constituted by human experience, there is no pure 'subjective'. And looking for, or demanding, 'evidence' of morality at either extreme of the spectrum is futile and self-defeating.

@Terrapin Station Any theory that puts you in a position of not being able to count should cause you pause.

Not a big fan of the term 'scientism' but certainly the very human need to neatly box up concepts to make them more understandable. Unfortunately, in this case, it makes a coherent position on morality impossible.

Or does this juxtaposition of objective and subjective fall on analysis? — Banno

Could moral statements... also be somewhere between objective and subjective? — Banno

Pity most folks don't understand the importance of this due to their misleadingly reductive definitions of each term. As if a human subject is not constituted of a bunch of social relations (an intersubjectivity) which notions of morality are dependent on.

The road of reason navigates a landscape of values. Different landscapes, different roads. Though it's true some are stuck in ideological potholes, trolls are more interested in bridges, and the logically illiterate never passed their driving tests.

Predictions on how the emergency declaration will play out? (Especially from a legal/constitutional point of view). @Hanover? @Ciceronianus the White?

Interesting. It always struck me that a good intro into the differences between American and British culture would be to contrast Captain America with Dennis the Menace.

:cool:

Then they let this happen. Hypocrites.

Reminds me of that time when the commies built that fence in Berlin. The Dems were all for that too.

So, this is going about as well as expected.

No, among other unsubstantiated claims, you said the Dems support "open borders". Sources/evidence? (Except you can't because it's not true).

how did the Dems get from the Secure Fence Act accompanied by strong anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

[My bolding]

I believe the worst the right says about the left... — fishfry

Instead of repeating those lies here, try doing some actual research.

and the worst the left says about the right. — fishfry

Same deal. Do your own research and quote it, and your posts might have some substance instead of sounding like partisan screeds.

(It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems were hypocritical in some way (I agree they are not to be trusted), but they didn't want a "wall" before and they don't want "open borders" now.)

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong. — Hanover

Well, you're not getting a wall with the Dems in power in the house. So, what kind of war are you predicting and when?

...to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

So, your claim now is that the Dems went from supporting a wall and gassing and caging immigrants just as much as (or more than) Trump did, to being in favour of no border security at all, i.e. just opening the border and letting everyone in. Because they don't like Trump...

Again, interesting theory. So, sources, evidence? You can start with the Democrat policy platform and show where it calls for an open border.

So, the argument now is not that Dems want open borders (the usual right-wing line), but actually that they are just as strong on border security as Trump and really want a wall, but covered it up in advance by pretending they only wanted a fence, so they could prevent a wall when Trump came to power because they knew he'd want one and that would give them a great opportunity to not get what they really wanted all along.

Interesting theory. :chin: