No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. That is a fact of human nature. From that fact it follows that whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community flourishing (in the sense of general emotional well-being) is moral and whatever individual and collective acts contribute to a community languishing (in the sense of general emotional dissatisfaction and suffering) is immoral. — Janus

No, even if your premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow, as a simple matter of logic.

As an example, gambling is immoral on account of the suffering and social problems it causes. Murder, rape, theft, assault etc. are obviously immoral for the same reason. — Janus

An example of a moral judgement.

I'm saying the default, objective, impartial, and empirical definition... — Marzipanmaddox

This is getting boring. Just because you can string those adjectives together, that doesn't mean they actually apply.

It seems kind of mad or childish, like declaring that my left foot is the strongest, most pretty, slim, muscular, outstanding, beautiful, and mesmerising.

I say Definition 3 of Turtle is "a bag of 7 rocks", then I say, "a turtle (definition 3), contains 7 rocks". You then argue "That's false, a turtle is an animal." According to the contextual definition, this turtle is a bag of rocks, despite the fact that the most commonly accepted definition of the word turtle is an animal. I'm not talking about the animal, I'm talking about the bag of rocks. — Marzipanmaddox

Alright, well have fun talking about a bag of rocks with other people, but I think it's stupid to define "turtle" that way.

Everything is made of consciousness
— Marzipanmaddox

That's not an opinion, it's a factual claim. — Terrapin Station

It's also bonkers.

So, now who is exaggerating for effect? Again, why are you picking up this shit-pile of a reasoning. So life is just doing dishes only then? Also, EVEN washing dishes "zen-like" doesn't negate my initial claim that life is oriented for "dealing with". — schopenhauer1

I'm not even disagreeing with you that life is oriented for dealing with things. That's obvious and either not a problem at all, or at least not a problem that can't itself be dealt with. My criticism is that here, as in your other discussions, you're just making a fuss about mundane things which are part and parcel of life as though you have something deep and meaningful to say. Underneath the rhetoric, there isn't much depth.

I advocate antinatalism, yes. — schopenhauer1

Oh, you do? I had no idea. Have you considered creating a discussion on the topic?

I believe it is not right to put others in "dealing with" situations, when they don't need to be.. even, gasp, doing the dishes! Other courses of action- there is none. Another reason against it. A lot of these problems are simply structural or too big to change. — schopenhauer1

I don't really care that you believe that it's not right. I don't agree with you, obviously. And if nothing can be done about it (not true), then I say put up and shut up.

Would you subscribe to a compatibilist version of it? I don't believe that compatibilism is coherent. — Terrapin Station

Maybe. My position on this issue isn't developed enough for me to say whether it is determinism or compatiblism or perhaps something else, but clearly it isn't whatever position you're advocating - that much I know for sure. Your position isn't credible and seems extreme. Though that shouldn't come as a surprise.

So you don't buy free will. — Terrapin Station

I certainly don't buy your interpretation of it.

Decisions don't have causal antecedents. — Terrapin Station

That's absurd.

I'm arguing that collectivism, by default, is the definition of morality. — Marzipanmaddox

But it isn't. The default is what you can find in a dictionary, not your favoured normative stance in ethics.

Morality allows multiple humans to function as a collective, this collective is more powerful than the individual. This is why moral societies were able to overpower any individual who sought to contest them.

Objective here, meaning, impartial, subject to nothing but the data, nothing but the correlation between the data, having no influence of human opinion or human sentiment. That's what I mean by objective.

To bring up ethics seems out of place, ethics, in this sense, is defined by the same manner as morality. The objective benefit of an ethical society, the measurable and quantifiable result that is produced by an ethical society, is once again this increased production, increased power, increased survival, and increased yield from said society.

I'm just looking at the quantifiable results from quantifiable actions. I'm arguing that these things like morality, and now ethics, can be quantified in a manner that explains them in a way that is entirely free from the subjective human experience such as feelings, ideals, opinions, sentiments, and sensations.

I argue that ethical and moral arguments should not be in any way dependent upon any sort of opinionation. The trajectory of a rock that you throw into the air is not subject to opinionation. Hopefully we can agree upon that. — Marzipanmaddox

That's not objective morality, or even morality at all. That's just social science.

The moment that you begin to make any moral judgement, say, that the ideal society would be a productive society, and that that should therefore be a top priority, is the moment that you have entered the realm of ethics and of subjectivity.

A human being, essentially a meat rock that throws itself, made of the same chemicals as any rock, as any breeze, as any river. How is it that this combination of elements is somehow now "beyond science", this is like reorganizing a large set of finite numbers, yet somehow arriving to the conclusion that the result of this organization is infinite, beyond quantification, beyond science.

When the original set of numbers you have, the raw chemicals that comprise the human body, are all known to be explicitly and invariably quantifiable and finite, how is it that you can rearrange these chemicals, doing nothing more than simple addition, yet argue the result is somehow infinite? The commutative property and the associative property of addition clearly disprove this argument. — Marzipanmaddox

What the...? What are you talking about and how is any of that relevant?

I think you write way too much. Write less and stick to point.

The issue is that the common definition of morality relies explicitly upon entirely subjective and opinionated arguments. — Marzipanmaddox

No it doesn't. The broadest and most readily understood definition of morality is that it's what's right and wrong. That has no implications whatsoever of either objectivity or subjectivity, which would be a matter open to debate.

My definition there, is what I would say that morality would be defined as if it were not convoluted with any arguments that are in any way dependent upon the subjective human experience and relied only on impartial, non-opinionated metrics to create that definition. — Marzipanmaddox

Well don't kid yourself. There's nothing impartial or objective about your definition.

The only possible objective basis for morality, as far as we could ever determine, is the flourishing or languishing of the community. — Janus

What counts as the flourishing or languishing of a community is far from objective, nor the only possible basis for objective morality. That's but one of many suggested. And there's nothing set in stone to say that the flourishing of a community is good and the languishing of it is bad, by the way.

It's fine if you personally want to advocate a community focussed ethics, but don't try to make out that it's something that it's not.

Immorality, in this sense, is the individual doing something that is contrary to this qualification. — Marzipanmaddox

That's just immorality as defined by collectivism. The title of this discussion seems misleading. Is it a normative ethical discussion where you argue in favour of collectivism against individualism, or a meta-ethical discussion about objective morality vs. subjective morality?

I remember there being a lot of spam before the filter was in use. — Purple Pond

I don't. And you know how much time I spent on here around that period. And spam never seemed to be a problem throughout my duration as a moderator.

Does it? It makes sense in theory, but how often are you getting the real deal, and how often are you getting false positives?

By my ken, morality is simple. It is a collective of people mutually sacrificing their natural freedoms in order to empower the collective. — Marzipanmaddox

No, that's not morality. That's a description of something which you judge to be moral. If you want to know what morality is, then consult a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.

Maybe scrap the spam filter? How effective is it anyway? It seems to cause more problems than it solves.

I am not advancing that the State plays no role in whatever it is that goes down. To do so would be absurd. — thewonder

But you've said that you're an anarchist.

It's not unreasonable if he wants me to believe that speech can be causal to actions. — Terrapin Station

It is unreasonable for him to do as you ask as it is both impractical and unnecessary. If it is necessary for you to be convinced, then you yourself are being unreasonable. You're committing the continuum fallacy by rejecting the claim on the basis that it is not as precise as you would like it to be.

The main thing we'd have to show is that the people in question do not have free will in the situations in question. I don't know how we'd show that, though. — Terrapin Station

That's not necessary either. Where did you get that idea from? You've clearly gone wrong somewhere in your reasoning to think that.

Sounds like it is a possibility? I get they don't typically think about it, but once asked directly, they would have to acknowledge the possibility that is inherent in "I don't know". — ZhouBoTong

What possibility would that be? And how is it inherent?

"I don't know" just means I don't know, not that it's possible. Some people seem to be reading that into it.

If asked whether there exists a circle which is square, and I reply that I do not know, how am I logically implying that I think that it is possible? That's neither what I mean nor follows from what I've said. I haven't ruled out that it is an impossibility by simply stating my lack of knowledge.

So does the word agnostic tell us anything about the person other than they believe (hehe) that atheists and theists are wrong? I don't get why "I don't know" doesn't leave the possibility of god's existence open? — ZhouBoTong

It leaves both the possibility and impossibility of God's existence open. It isn't a stance about that, it's simply a stance about the lack of knowledge in relation to the existence or nonexistence of God.

I don't know what else you think that could tell us about the agnostic. No, it won't give away what football team they support or what their favourite flavour of crisps is. It doesn't give much, if anything, away at all, besides the obvious.

Boring. Yes, we deal with things. And? No, wait, let me guess: this is terrible! Oh my god! The dishes! What a nightmare! We should all just kill ourselves on the spot! But no, like your namesake, you don't advocate the most logical course of action if life really was that bad. You just complain more, exaggerate more, because that's your thing.

The concept of the State is useful, hence it hasn't fallen out of use. No alternative concept is necessary, and alternative political theories where the State plays no role would just lead to disorder, which is not exactly my idea of a utopia.

NOS4A2 is full of contradictions and so should not be taken too seriously. Elsewhere on the forum he said the following, which clearly undermines his argument here, and in the other discussion about Trump where he said something along the lines that words are powerless:

Yes, I think the political division is a media-induced hysteria, mostly for reasons of profit, and Trump is the scapegoat for what they’ve caused — NOS4A2

So the media induces hysteria in people, yet words are powerless, the idea that words can induce strong emotions like hatred is magical thinking, etc.? :brow:

But you’re not much of a manipulator if they know your skills and can see your con from a mile away. Your magical powers are negated. — NOS4A2

It is really silly to call what I'm talking about "magical powers", and yes, of course one can learn how to spot what's going on and to resist it, if it doesn't come naturally. That doesn't refute my point in any way. People are different, and some are more easily manipulated than others. And that's why your earlier point was ill considered. The laws on hate speech are not there because of people like you or I. They are there to protect people like you or I from those who are the kind of people who are the prime target of incitements to hate crime.

They are there to protect citizens against the Jihadi Jacks of the world. Jihadi Jack is the name that was given to Jack Letts, and his case is a good example (though I'm sure there are plenty of others) of why hate speech should be banned. He has been interviewed on camera, spoken of his experience, and expressed deep regrets for his actions.

It seems obvious that those who believe words carry some force of power must believe they themselves can exert that power, and as a corollary, that it can be used on them. — NOS4A2

Of course they can, silly. It's called manipulation, and it's a skill, although it comes more naturally to some than others. It is a fundamental part of my job role as a salesperson. I am required, as part of my job, to use language to my advantage, in order to increase profit. A good salesperson will know exactly what to say and how to say it, and will be conscious of body language, tone of voice, facial expression, how to direct the conversation, add on sales, how to overcome objections, and so on.

As I've requested many times, specify all of the causal factors/the causal chain. — Terrapin Station

It's unreasonable to ask him to list them all, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what that list would include. It would include things like being of the right mindset, such as being vulnerable and easily influenced, perhaps having a propensity for violence, or having formed a prejudice against the target of the hate speech. One's environment, interests, reading materials, upbringing, what one watches, religion, and politics, can all affect one's beliefs and actions, and it is just not a credible position to take to deny that this is the case.

Who said anything about the causal connection being about hate speech on its own? If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, lead to violence, why would that have any bearing on whether we should legislate against it? — Isaac

Indeed, and obviously it should not. I suspect the whole basis for those on the other side of this debate reaching the conclusion they do is similarly flawed. I think this error in reasoning was best conveyed by Baden in his satirical reply early on, where he takes it to even more extreme lengths to highlight the absurdity.

↪S

I wouldn’t mind debating the topic. I think free speech is very important and debating it helps me clarify my thoughts, Can we start over? — NOS4A2

No.

Yeah, yeah. You have an answer for everything, right? You're somehow never wrong, even when caught red handed.

I can tell why you're a fan of Trump.

Wait! I've just noticed that you inadvertently refuted your own stance! :rofl:

But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning. — NOS4A2

Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

That’s false. It was a question, not an argument. — NOS4A2

The following is not a question:

Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

It is a clear appeal to your own personal experience. And your question was either rhetorical or suggestive, appealing to the experience of others, though you'll probably deny that because you're trying your best to backtrack and wriggle your way out of my criticism.

There is no point in equivocating between hate crimes and hate speech. One is not the topic, the other is. — NOS4A2

Just because you apparently lack the intelligence to pick up on how what I'm saying links to the topic, that doesn't mean that it is off topic. How about you ask what the connection is before jumping to that conclusion? The connection should be obvious, but then this is you we're talking about, and you seem like the kind of person who would deny that the sky is blue if it suited your position in a debate.

But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning. — NOS4A2

A point with no valid support that I've seen from you, and which flies in the face of a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to see my arguments as to why hate speech should be allowed, we can talk about the rest of the arguments you suspiciously refused to quote. — NOS4A2

You're letting your imagination get the better of you. I haven't "refused" to quote anything.

Or if Trump had tweeted "That's absurd", you'd be criticising him? — Baden

Ha!

Stop trolling. In the context, it was about what is motivating the action. That's all I am getting at. — schopenhauer1

How is that trolling? The answer is still obvious, clarification not withstanding. So the real question is why you're asking stupid questions.

Discomfort, dissatisfaction of some kind. To take the argument that cleaning the dishes is no big deal, thus life has no big deals is a red herring and you know it. However, I was reversing this argument and saying, even mild dissatisfactions add up. So there. — schopenhauer1

The dishes are being cleaned for good hygiene, obviously.

Yes, mild dissatisfactions add up. But that still doesn't justify your ridiculous conclusions.

I never said my contrary reaction meant hate speech should be allowed. A straw man. — NOS4A2

I never said you said so, so there's no straw man. There was an "if" in my last reply that you seem to have missed. That was one possible interpretation, and it fits, given the context. But even if it wasn't a hasty generalisation, then it was nevertheless a fallacy of relevance, more broadly.

I was making the point that the theory that hate speech incites hatred against the victims of hate speech can be falsified. — NOS4A2

It can't, and it most certainly can't by merely appealing to the experience of you or I, as you did in your original comment, as that would obviously be too small a sample group, and would fail to account for more relevant cases where people have actually been convicted of hate crimes.

But please, what is the reason you are washing the dishes? — schopenhauer1

Is this a joke? Are you pretending to be someone from another planet?

On some level I think that ignosticism can be considered to be more atheist than atheism itself. — thewonder

Not really. In practice, it's absorbed into atheism, hence why hardly anyone generally identifies their broader position with that term.

Calling her "nasty" is yet another low in the Trump presidency. — Relativist

Yes, and extremely hypocritical.

Through the Feedback category or by contacting forum staff. The forum categories can be found via the menu on the home page.

It’s difficult to formulate, so thanks for the good faith. I might have to express it in more formal logic for it to make any sense, which I will do in time. But for now the argument is yours. — NOS4A2

It won't make any difference. If you don't know whether or not it's possible that God exists, it simply doesn't follow that you think that it's possible that it's possible that God exists, nor does it mean that you'd be inconsistent if you did not think that it was possible that it's possible that God exists, and there are a number of possible explanations if this were the case.

↪S

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

What? No, it’s like this: if someone don’t know whether it is possible whether a god exists, then he thinks it is possible that it is possible that a god exists, and so on to infinity. — NOS4A2

No, that's just an assumption on your part. It's an understandable assumption, but it's not necessarily the case. Your logic is invalid.

What was the fault in my reasoning? — NOS4A2

It was a fallacy of relevance, and more specifically a hasty generalisation if you were suggesting that the fact that hate speech such as Hitler’s speeches do not incite you to hatred or violence, but rather incite you to the opposite, meaning to the hatred of Hitler, is sufficient grounds for concluding that hate speech should therefore be allowed.

I should not have had to spell that out. You should work on your critical thinking skills.