Wallow wallow...

Yes, the ship is sunk.

Wallow wallow... — Wallows

Good to know my torpedoes are in working order.

Too busy wallowing...

Wallow wallow. :blush: — Wallows

That's alright, you carry on. I'll save the day as usual. No need for alarm, it's only a sinking ship.

And no, you can forget "women and children first". It's every man for himself. Of course, by save the day, I meant save myself. Same difference as far as I'm concerned.

How's that? Convinced yet? — Isaac

No, he's not, because he is just playing a role to make a point which is actually trivial, which is why I'm glad I didn't go all out by throwing myself into a role like he wanted me to. The trivial point is that some people won't be convinced, no matter what. And the illogical connection is that moral objectivism somehow magically has the answer.

In real life, the role that he is playing is only a reflection of some, but not all, cases. In other cases, people are persuaded to change their mind. And again, this has nothing to do with moral subjectivism or moral objectivism.

I hope he's actually listening and absorbing this, instead of doing his "okay, whatever, have a nice day" thing.

(and of course - hope it does not need to be said that IRL I know Hitler was an abominably immoral man) — Rank Amateur

Indeed, it still doesn't need to be said, and yet you've now said it on two separate occasions. Relax, no one thinks that you're a supporter of Hitler. We understand what role play is.

I am not Moses, but I AM Noah, father of humankind. — Noah Te Stroete

Ah, but you are not just Noah, father of humankind. You are Noah Te Stroete, father of humankind who spends all day rolling around in a marsh. :snicker:

How I wish I was still fourteen-and-a-half. But if anyone in this forum thinks they can move their case forward by quoting edicts from a dead philosopher rather than by advancing cogent arguments, they are in the wrong place. These are not the foothills of Mount Sinai, and no-one here is Moses. — Herg

Alright then, fourteen-and-three-quarters. I had already made several related points. That quote just puts it in a way that hits home for many people. That's why it stands out amongst his writings. It has utility.

Your reply, on the other hand, only stood out for the wrong reasons.

Working on pithy.

Meaning is shared only insofar as the context demands. Even words that seemed to create shared meaning in one context may, when used in a different context, demonstrate that the meaning was never shared to begin with.

Yelling "slab" may get a house built, but it could just be that in the context of a construction site, it was sufficient for the yeller to mean "hand me what is next on the pile" and the receiver to have understood the word to mean "hand me the hard rock thing cut into a manageable shape."

I suck at pithy. — xzJoel

Nice post, and welcome back. Long time, no see.

Meaning isn't a thing. So it's not shared.
— Banno

Well thanks for sharing that opinion, but why can we only share things? People talk about shared responsibility; is communion not shared? I think the thought police are over-stepping their remit here. — unenlightened

Indeed. Not to mention that he's undermining his own "meaning is use" here! All he's really telling us is how he is using the word "thing". Do we all use the word in your way, @Banno?

Early Wittgenstein used "thing" in a way whereby it both makes sense and is true to say that we don't share things through expression in language, we share their names.

Each one is contradictory in its own right. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which really only says that it's contradictory as a result of his interpretation, which is his never-ending problem. And the obvious solution? Don't interpret it that way! Remove the blinkers. I think that they call this the principle of charity.

They might be, or they might only be as different as two slices of a shared pizza. Some philosophers claim that a meal is only shared if the mouths connect to the same stomach, but I think they are mistaken. — unenlightened

Yes! And yet some people have said that analogies about meaning mislead. No, they can do, but then some people mislead themselves and blame it on the analogy. I caught your shared meaning, and I agree with your point.

But now I really want pizza.

Rwy'n rhannu rhai geiriau gyda chi, ond oni bai eich bod eisoes yn gyfarwydd â'r Gymraeg, ni fyddwch yn deall yr hyn sy'n cael ei ddweud.

As I'm sure you all agree. But perhaps you do not know that you agree? — unenlightened

And therefore shared meaning does not require understanding. He just shared his meaning through the expression of it in language, and yet I do not understand what he meant.

So it seems safe enough to say that shared meaning requires a plurality of language users. — creativesoul

Requires them in what sense, and for what? I hate problematic ambiguity like that. Especially when I've pointed out the problem before.

What is it, and what does it take? — creativesoul

Meaning is use. And the way that I use the word "meaning" doesn't logically imply that a bunch of language users need to be standing around at the time doing a bunch of stuff.

I find my usage useful for a number of reasons which I've spoken about at length. I find your usage problematic, again, for reasons I've mentioned before, and elsewhere.

And when I say that meaning is use, funnily enough, I don't mean that meaning is necessarily literal use at the time by language users. I don't think that Wittgenstein meant that either. But whether he did or didn't is a digression. The interpretation that I go by is a better interpretation than the linguistic idealist's interpretation.

It takes being set through the creation of a language rule, which can be implicit or explicit.

For it to be shared is for it to be made public, like publishing a newly coined meaning. I can do that using language through a medium such as this forum. Think of social media: as soon as I click the "share" button, lo and behold, it has been shared.

In my language, which I call Sapientish, the word "shlebab" is to mean "a large horse-like creature, only with fluffy fur and claws".

Now that I've shared, you either play the language game or you don't, and it's as simple as that.

Piss pot Toby jug! — Baden

Sorry Baden, but real men don't apologise. Bollocks cunt Play-Doh nipples.

Apologies — Baden

:vomit:

And I think many who take up arms against political correctness probably feel the same way. Makes me wonder sometimes where the points of disagreement actually lie. Do we just define things differently? — Baden

Probably. That's what much of this philosophy stuff seems to boil down to. It's what I like to call the horse-cat problem. That is, when you're talking about something, but then all of a sudden you're attacked out of nowhere by a creature that is half horse, half cat. Or a "hat" as I call them.

Damn, I should start charging people for these gems.

You may have a point there. I still don't think the overall critique of political correctness is very powerful though. Attacks on it almost always tend to go for soft targets.

For example, I don't think it's appropriate to call children who have learning disabilities, 'mongoloids' or 'retards'. I, like most people, prefer PC terms. The children in question and their parents prefer it and I lose nothing by being PC. So, there's a harder target for you to attack. — Baden

I'm not making an outright attack on political correctness, but rather what I take to be where it goes wrong. I am against it when it is excessive or not the right response. Believe it or not, I don't actually go around calling children with learning disabilities "retards" or black people "wogs" like some people I know, and who I am practically forced to associate with on a regular basis. I've got to earn a living somehow, even if some of the people I work with act like re--

ok - no worries - enjoy the rest of the day — Rank Amateur

And there they are! I was just waiting for those words. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist.

goodness gracious of course i don't - you just couldn't resist one last ad hominem could you. Did that really add any philosophic significance? Just don't understand the motivation for such comments. — Rank Amateur

Whoosh.

I clearly wasn't accusing you of actually having that view.

I don’t know S personally, but maybe he’s bad at sports and was always picked last in gym class. Philosophy is his forum for defeating others and winning. At least in his mind. — Noah Te Stroete

And of course, you have to get in on the act as well. I didn't go to sports. I bunked off and smoked weed and played videogames with friends. But apparently I'm not allowed to talk about how much of a cool rebel I am. @Baden

Ok, well, I have no sympathy for her considering her background whatever his motives were. But it doesn't seem a very good illustration of why political correctness is a bad thing. I would say the principle of etiquette that frowns upon people shouting "nigger" for fun is pretty sensible. — Baden

It's not supposed to be a categorical bloody imperative.

It wasn't just for fun. He was making a good point, and sometimes that requires being unconventional. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

Would you judge Stewart Lee because what you take from his comedy is that we should all go around calling each other things like a Toby jug filled with hot piss? Good idea, Stewart, I think I'll call my nan that when she's on her deathbed, and my boss at work when my next review comes around.

"Nan?"

"Yes, my dear? Speak up, I can't hear very well in my old age".

"I just wanted to tell you..."

"Go on, my dear."

"I just wanted to tell you that you're a Toby jug filled with hot piss".

Where did I say I disapprove of the prank? — Baden

I'm just trying to make sense of how you reached your conclusion.

He embarrassed her for being a racist not for being politically correct. It makes zero sense otherwise. Don't you know the background? — Baden

Better than you, it seems. That was only part of it. He has criticised her for saying that you shouldn't say "the n-word" - not even in a context which seems acceptable. She has actually said that context doesn't matter in those exact words. Aren't you a fan of Stewart Lee? You should appreciate that point.

It's not just that she's a massive hypocrite for a number of things, it's that she's a dumb, politically correct hypocrite, who exaggerates and overreacts and makes really bad arguments and terrible excuses which don't stand up to intelligent scrutiny. She's an easy target, and he called her the most predictable person on the planet.

Have you not watched his video on her?

The video has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with embarrassing a minor celebrity who has made past racist comments. — Baden

It is both. That it is also how you describe it in the second part of what you say above is not at all that it has nothing to do with political correctness. Are you just using the term "political correctness" in a way which fits your own approval and disapproval?

You disapprove of the prank, so obviously it must have nothing to do with political correctness? The unintelligent ethics which she espouses very much fits the category of politically correct.

I will leave here subjectively believing what I darn well please and there is nothing subjectively you can say to change my mind :) — Rank Amateur

I can deal with that. It's not an uncommon experience for someone to have. No technique is guaranteed to succeed, and that is completely irrelevant as Terrapin rightly argued. But remember that in your task, you're the one who believes that Hitler did nothing morally wrong. I wouldn't even want to associate with you if that was really your view.

Well, but isn't it clear to you that no matter what we do, whatever we believe about meta-ethics, we're left with people with diametrically opposed moral stances? That's hardly a new situation, and it's hardly the result of there being a bunch of meta-ethical subjectivists or relativists.

If we're all objectivists we don't magically arrive at a scenario wherein we all have the same moral stances. We just believe that the folks with other stances are incorrect, that they're unreasonable, etc. That doesn't help change anyone's mind.

My meta-ethical views are not not supposed to be a solution to everyone having the same moral stances. It's just aiming to get right what's really going on ontologically when it comes to morality. — Terrapin Station

Exactly. There are so many common misconceptions in this topic. I've seen this one before, and I'm sure you have.

we are good - as soon as you acknowledged, as you did that there needs to be some degree of objective view in comparing moral judgments - i am fine - I have no need to find where exactly that line is. — Rank Amateur

That's fine, so long as you don't twist what I say and walk away with a misunderstanding which you perhaps don't even realise is a misunderstanding. That some degree of objectivity is required to make sense of morality is completely irrelevant. Moral subjectivists are not solipsists. It would be foolish to treat them as though they were, by interrogating them about the objectivity involved which no reasonable person would deny.

If we truly agree, then fine. But I object to fake or illusory agreement.

and now we enter semantics - and ad hominem - seems the discussion is nearing an end — Rank Amateur

It's very relevant that you seem to be feigning ignorance in order to get me to do something which I judge to be unnecessary. It is no fallacy for me to point that problem out. You are choosing not to progress past this problem by returning sensibly to what we were talking about. You have a bad habit of blaming other people when a discussion doesn't go your way. I make no apology for refusing to let you wrap me around your finger.

If it's all becoming a bit too much for you, then you're free to do what you usually do. The door is over there.

getting closer - my view is there is no such thing as either absolutely subjective or absolutely objective morality - it is a continuum and we place ourselves somewhere on that continuum. — Rank Amateur

No one, as far as I'm aware, has claimed that there's an absolute subjective morality. Moral subjectivism can acknowledge aspects of objectivity relating to morality, but these aspects are not of any logical significance in the broader context of what the debate is about. You can't kick a puppy if there is no puppy. That there is a puppy is factual, objective. But that's insignificant in proper context.

that is a non answer to a direct question - — Rank Amateur

You didn't ask me a question, you gave me a challenge which I refused on the basis that it isn't necessary. Don't pretend to be unintelligent.

maybe this is a better way of me making my point.

My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.

Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong

Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur

Are you like a child who has just snatched a toy out of the hand of another child? No, I don't believe that you are, so no argument from me is necessary. I've already explained what I would try to do. You don't need to see me act it out with you. You are more intelligent than that.

no issue at all with that - that is my point - as long as the basis of every argument you make is your own subjective judgement. Any plea to anything else adds some degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

Some degree of objectivity doesn't make any real difference. That I feel a certain way about something is itself factual, not opinion. That's a degree of objectivity. That still doesn't mean that morality is objective. There is no objective standard, as feelings differ. We don't accept that different beliefs about the moon indicate an objective standard. The moon can't both be made out of cheese and not made out of cheese, and relativism doesn't help here. Morality isn't like that. It's different. And relativism is useful for making sense of it.

What is your argument than to person b who has a different subjective judgement that he is incorrect, other than - "in my opinion" any other argument you chose must be adding a degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

Opinion, if you call it that (I prefer the term "moral judgement" as it conveys the importance better), is all I have. It is founded on moral feelings. I would try to get him to empathise with my feelings on the matter. This can and does work in some cases. It is very evident when a child realises that they've behaved badly by, for example, snatching a toy out of another child's hand. At first, they judge that what they did was morally acceptable, but then you get them to empathise with the victim.

If all judgments are subjective - than all judgments are subjectively correct - I see no way around this — Rank Amateur

Relative to those individual subjects. Relativists are relativists, remember? Not absolutists.

So what? This is not a problem in itself. It is not a problem for me. There is no internal contradiction. The only logical error here is your own. It is a problem for you. (It's ironic when this happens, because it's the same sort of error in not understanding moral relativism).

I don't understand what you're thinking here.

Say that my view is that it's not okay to rape others.

I run into someone who thinks that it's okay to rape others.

Per what you're saying above, I can't subjectively compare "not okay to rape others" and "okay to rape others," But I don't know why. It seems like it would be easy to compare them, especially since I already have a view about it, that view being "It's not okay to rape others." When I consider "It's okay to rape others" I reject that, because I don't agree with it. — Terrapin Station

It's not logical. It must be psychological. His drive for objectivity is psychological, and it is of such force that it overrides logic for him. This makes even more sense when you consider his background: his desire that there be a god.

subjectively you are both right — Rank Amateur

Right relative to our respective subjective standards, yes.

if you do not allow some level of objectivity into the judgment you can not compare them, other than saying they are different — Rank Amateur

What you're saying is illogical. I don't need to go outside of myself for any reason, and I cannot do so anyway. My own judgement is all I have, and all I need. He is wrong in this way - the only way that matters as far as I'm concerned. He should change his judgement.

Even if there was an objective standard, it wouldn't matter to me. If we somehow discovered that boiling babies is objectively right, do you think that I'd change my judgement and behaviour accordingly? Hell no! Would you? :brow:

There's that scary link between notions of an objective moral standard and divide command theory. Is it good because god willed it? Genocide is good? Saying that genocide is good for some guy and his bad judgement is no where near as scary. It's very much not good for the rest of us. The rest of us do not accept his judgement in any normative sense. We accept that it is his judgement. It is not our judgement. Our judgement is that it is wrong.

It's not the moral relativists you should be worried about, in spite of the negative propaganda.

Is it a coincidence that Noah is a Christian? Is it a coincidence that you are also a theist, if I'm not mistaken? Perhaps there's a correlation. Religious and theological thinking can infect thinking on other matters. The best solution is to kill it at the roots.

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'.
— Pattern-chaser

People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around. — Terrapin Station

This is a good point. It can be a worrying way of thinking, as my example involving racism conveys. Good luck trying to tackle institutional racism by talking about the racists being right, and me being wrong.

this is the issue i am struggling with - happy to be schooled on my errors -

If morality is completely subjective to the individual, than it is equally subjective for all other individuals as well.

for any action - X

person A - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is moral
person B - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is immoral

They are both subjectively right in their individual judgments.
So both must admit the others subjective judgement is correct or

give up the position that all moral judgments are subjective. — Rank Amateur

The part in bold is the problem. Who has committed to an absolute sense of correctness in this context? Is the relativist a relativist, or an absolutist?

If the relativist is a relativist, which he obviously is, then there is no internal contradiction, and your criticism is therefore ineffective. Both are correct in a way which does not violate the law of noncontradiction, nor logically imply a normative acceptance of the others moral judgement.

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. Unless you think there's some kind of natural law that defines racism to be wrong? — Pattern-chaser

Wow. Really? You think that it's either cultural relativism or natural law? The funny thing is, I accept cultural relativism, but I don't accept that it is the whole story when it comes to morality. Yes, I'm wrong relative to them. But they're wrong relative to me, and my morality is better. And yes, better in accordance with my own standard on what's better and worse, obviously. Not in accordance with an imaginary absolute moral standard which makes no sense, and for which there is zero evidence.

I may have been a smart ass before you were born. How old are you? — Bitter Crank

Very, very old. I am a reincarnation of wisdom itself, which is very old indeed.

I got over it, like I did of your selfish, egotistical, and highly immature comments. Hah! :blush: — Wallows

You see overcoming prejudice in that way? Gosh.

I'd like to disagree. Soberness is the quality of not being drunk, so it's just a negation. — unforeseen

You're free to disagree, but if you do so on that basis, then your disagreement is unreasonable. It is true of people before the discovery of what alcohol can do when enough of it is consumed that they were not drunk from alcohol. Denying that suggests otherwise, and good luck explaining that one!

Before alcohol was invented nobody was drunk... — unforeseen

Then they were sober by your own definition! :lol:

Just like you wouldn't say ancient Egyptians were anti-vaxxers, because vaccination was not even a thing back then let alone it's negation. — unforeseen

That only makes sense because we think of anti-vaxxers as being against vaccination.

If you take that away, then you're simply wrong. It is true that they were not in favour of vaccination, that they were not fans of Elvis, were not drunk on alcohol before that was discovered, and so on and so forth.

Oh, I thought we had reached a realisation that we had no significant disagreement here. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

If we did, then your reply before the one quoted above appears to have changed that. You could of course make that clear by simply saying whether or not you agree with what I just said in my last reply to you.

Fair enough. That a tool is available doesn't mean you have to use it. Maybe you don't have the sort of questions that religion might answer? It doesn't matter. Like I said, religion isn't compulsory. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

That an inferior tool is available doesn't mean that I have to use it. I do have many of the questions that religion fails to answer well. And I definitely am not suggesting that religion is compulsory, though thank god it isn't where I'm from. You seem to be missing the point by a country mile.

Baden, stop making bad jokes, or I'll close the discussion. We're trying to do serious philosophy here.