My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule. — universeness

How is this not subjectivism?

The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community. — universeness

Yes, IMO, in your opinion. You're just asserting your subjective morality, which you acknowledge here isn't universally accepted, as there certainly are "nasty individualists."

Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. — universeness

Nothing precludes the consideration of hypotheticals when judging someone on a case by case basis.

A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes? — universeness

Why are you asking me this? I don't recall offering support for a biblically based court. I also don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of comparing various secular courts with various religious based courts. That is, why do you suggest a Chinese court would be more just than a beth din, for example.

In any event, I prefer the American court system, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. — universeness

I've indicated that I am a theist who believes as theists to, that there is a creator and that creator has a plan and purpose. That I don't subscribe to a particular theistic set of doctrines isn't a requirement to be theistic.

? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)? — universeness

What I need is to understand why my opinion is correct that I value my children. Not everyone values children and many do assert that their murder is justified. I believe they are wrong. I believe that if the world were composed entirely of those who believed in the murder of children, then murder would still be wrong. That is, morality is not relative to time or person or individual opinion. It is absolute, which distinguishes it from the relative or subjective.

Unless I am willing to accept that a standard exists outside of humanity that determines right and wrong, then that standard will be dependent upon whatever state humanity happens to be at the time and place.

Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet. — universeness

And so we have a dispute. I say capitalism is morally correct, leading to the greatest advancements humankind has ever known and that you are morally corrupt. What to do? We have no standard to apply.

Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister. — universeness

It's not absurd or sinister to suggest someone has moral beliefs that vary from your own. It's just true. My question is how do you tell the rapist they are wrong no matter how many believe the way they do?

it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. — Tom Storm

I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist.

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?

I like the smell of a kindle. Something about being able to touch the pixelated screen, getting funny colors when you smash your fingers against the letters, the glow in the dark room that helps you find your way to the bathroom. All those things.

That's how people are going to romanticize ebooks in 50 years when the technology will entail injecting the words into our retinas.

Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible. — 180 Proof

I appreciate the effort in grounding the ethical in the empirically measurable because that would seem a logical approach for someone who desires a scientifically based ethic, but it would seem to fail on a couple of grounds.

First, it over prioritizes the moral significance of personal behaviors that have typically been falling out of favor to be considered of moral value in Western culture. Things like drug use, sexual freedoms, risk taking behavior and the like are generally well accepted as moral, and considered immoral to restrain, despite many of those decisions being obviously unhealthy.

Second, I'm not convinced that an unjust decision must result in reduced societal flourishing. It's a nice thought to think, for example, that brutal honesty will lend itself to greater happiness, but it doesn't always seem the case. We can hypothesize that in the end things will be better if we're moral, but such takes a certain amount of faith.

As a rabbi joked with me, he told me that in the end, everything will work out, so if things are bad, be happy it's not yet the end.

False dichotomy. — 180 Proof

My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy.

Anyway, as I discern it, answering a mystery with a greater mystery actually isn't intelligible. — 180 Proof

What then makes ethical realism intelligible? Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.” — universeness

This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect?

This seems an attack on the doctrine of original sin and the concept of eternal damnation. It's not applicable against theism generally, but just certain religious belief systems.

But maybe Hitchens' quote here is better elaborated upon contextually to whatever else he was saying because this seems so obviously incorrect as a general comment.

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness

And upon what basis don't you support it, and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. Why is your basis applicable to me?

By way of example, the tree is either there or not. My opinion is irrelevant. Is the true for the immorality of the rapist?

Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will. — universeness

This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. Whether a tree, for example, would exist if the world denied it, isn't meaningfully answered by denying such ever occurred, but it is answered by recognizing that an object's existence isn't dependent upon a person's admission it exists.

No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent. — universeness

This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants?

Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, — universeness

Why?

No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct. — universeness

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day. — universeness

They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes.

The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear. — universeness

But it doesn't.

Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. — universeness

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral?

We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders — universeness

What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being?

There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis. — universeness

Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree?

Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. — universeness

That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory?

and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis? — universeness

Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. It's sometimes appropriate and other times not. You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. You need some ability to assert a moral realism in order to avoid having to admit to a subjective morality. A morality that exists without human beings is per se violative of secular humanity. That is, you cannot tell me rape is wrong if we all agree it is. That is the problem.

can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe???? — universeness

How is it meaningless if you just defined it?

without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent. — universeness

How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise?

think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational. — universeness

You didn't ask the details of my theism and I didn't ask the details of your epistemology. You asked which God I believed in and I asked which truth you believed in. Your question implies there are multiple gods and my question implies there are multiple truths. Our questions are similar in that they both inaccurately describe the other's position.

Your assumptions are imbedded in your posts, as if you have a list of gods, like the Muslim God, the Christian God, the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, etc and you want to know which I pick. This isn't a debate over religion. It's a debate over theism.

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism.

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position.

Which one? — universeness

This question is as coherent as mine to your question.

The truth is important to me — universeness

Which truth do you believe in?

Being Jewish does not mean you follow Judaism and the words in the Torah and Talmud, does it?
I know atheists who still call themselves Jewish. — universeness

Different Jews have different definitions.

my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. — universeness

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason.

So why not just be a secular humanist, who have a similar goal of creating a better existence for humans on Earth — universeness

Because I believe in the existence of God.

Why don't you become a theist so that you'll have an underlying reason to promote humanity?

Wow! But I thought you considered yourself a Christian — universeness

Why did you think that?

I only said I was a theist. A thousand times I said I was Jewish as well.

Far as I'm concerned the vast majority of disagreements on this thread would simply dissolve if we all recognised that the term "incel" signals a specific ideology of hatred and misogyny that goes beyond a difficulty establishing romantic relationships. I don't know how more evident this needs to be or why it's such a block. — Baden

"Much of the knowledge of incel ideology has been derived from observational analysis of online forums which may not represent all or even most incels. There is a question around which posts should be considered and filtering based on popularity and effect compounded by prevalence of deliberately posting for controversy. Some researchers have tried selecting posts for a period of time rather than based on popularity. The attitudes of those who post in forums and those who read but do not participate can be different. In in-person interviews with a female interviewer, incels were found to be more interested in discussing their lived experiences than in discussing anti-feminist
ideology.[75]: "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

It's like you're the definition police that says your definition must control even when others tell you they're using a different definition.

We'll call your icels "Aincels" and mine "Bincels."

I sympathize with Bincels, not Aincels. Does that make us all happy?

It's not as if there is an International Incel Foundation that sets forth a mission statement and clearly defines their ideology. An incel at his base is an involuntary celibate, meaning someone who desires female interaction, but does not receive it.

It is undeniable that many in that group are extereme misogynists. It does not appear though that all those malicious attributes are essential for an incel to exist. Some may just be sad sacks, worthy of some degree of sympathy.

The steelman position here is in defending the incel who lacks the malicious attributes and seeing just the lonely socially incompetent person as someone who might do better if the dating system and relationship rules du jour were different.

I am not convinced that today's online swiping system is the best we've got.

As to the meta conversations about what sympathy ought be afforded the devil, I break the tension with a musical interlude:

I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF. — BC

I saw this video by Jordan Peterson, who I'm not terribly a fan of, but his videos have become ubiquitous and I stumbled upon it the other day. It got me to thinking that perhaps these guys we've scoffed off as losers might be suffering more than we considered. I'm not talking about those who are attacking women and are horrible people, but I'm referring to those who have personality flaws that interfere with their happiness to such a degree.

I just think what I take for granted, the ability to form and keep relationships, and the central role that plays in my life, to have an inability to do that. And even worse, to have an instinct to react in a way that makes the formation of those relationships all the more unlikely.

Probably the most succinct way I can put it is that sympathising with incels--in their developed online form--is akin to sympathising with white supremacists because black people won't be their slaves or with neo-Nazis because they can't put Jews in concentration camps. There is a point where compassion is not the appropriate response. — Baden

I really wasn't aware of the organized effort of this group in celebrating their failures and then blaming it on women, but I took the term "incel" to more so identify with the disenfrachised male. I researched it some to learn they are more a malicious group than I realized. To the extent an incel is the group identified more formally, fuck them. To the extent they are more just a group of disenfranchised males unable to find a partner, that's what my posts are meant to reference.

My Internal Twitter is screaming at you for this.

Ensure success? What, like women finding partners is a matter of men performing a role? Where is their agency and choice! Male entitlement belongs in the dustbin of history, this is not a good look.

I don't believe my Internal Twitter. My only reason for telling you what it says is to highlight what happens if you say things like that in public. You get uncharitably shat on... — fdrake

Incels demand vaginas like wheelchair users demand ramps, and parents of infants demand changing facilities, and black people demand fair policing. If one felt great sympathy with this deprived group, one might suggest state funded sexual social workers, to fill their needs. No one seems to have suggested that here , though. — unenlightened

@BC

Heterosexual men are of course not entitled to women, but, for the vast majority of men, they do require relationships with women for more meaningful, fulfilled lives. That is both a social and biological reality. The question then is how to best structure society for that to occur.

The flip side, not being discussed because this is a thread about the incel, a male creature, is what women may need for happiness, which is the matter for another thread. But, I will say that women tend to be more emotionally expressive toward other women than men are to men and they may feel less isolated because of that, but I'll wisely defer to women to speak for women.

Dating is a social construction that is obviously informed by biology, but the human mating dance isn't like the peacock's in that it is all biology, but it is also a social construct. What that means is that we can look at different cultures over different times and see how dating has occurred and then we can ask ourselves which has been most effective. These social constructions are not created as @unenlightened points out through state sponsered committees, but they emerge through different means.

How they date in traditional Indian society versus how they date in the rain forest versus how they dated in middle America in the 1950s versus how Muslims, Mormons, Jews, the royal family, the underclass, etc. varies greatly, and it constantly changes. What we're used to in secular Western culture has also seen great change recently. A dating culture typical in my lifetime involved finding a large room that could house available men and women, playing rhythmic music, and dousing it with alcohol. Compare that to what the Southern Baptists might have been doing in their planning an ice-cream social, certain Indian cultures in employing a match-maker, or even those that might purely arrange a marriage.

In Western society, in the past not so many years, we've moved to an online dating culture, which likely advantages some and disadvantages others. In the catalog dating world, you can be assessed on black and white credentials, which helps some and others not. This swipe right / swipe left world may not be the best one in terms of assisting the greatest number in finding happiness.

It is an interesting phenomenon that you can have literally tens of thousands of men and women
ostensibly looking for the same thing, yet so many are unable to find what they seek. That points to a poorly constructed dating culture at least for some.

This isn't to suggest that we should blame the women for not just being more willing to satisfy men because the women are no more to blame for the social constructs than the men. This is just to point out that dating culture is a social creation, and it may just be we're in a particularly challenging time for many men to succeed in it. My expectation is that some creative soul will arrive at a way to assist the incel in their pursuit of happiness. Typically when there is a demand, someone arrives at a way to fill it.

But, sure, an incel doesn't have the right to be a dick to women for his failures, and a woman has nothing to apologize about for in rejecting these men, but I do think there might be a systemic problem if there is a growing number of guys who are stuck in what they feel to be an impenetrable (unintended double entendre) lonliness.

guess there's something latent there. Like you and others, I've been through periods without sex and had the common sense to blame myself for it. — Baden

I think any heterosexual male who's being honest will admit to the frustrations, challenges, pressures, and stresses of all sorts with interacting with women.

Some sympathy must lie with those who can't seem to figure it out or who are missing the ingredient for success. The consequences are significant. The difference between being single and having a family is tremendous .

The healthy way to deal with that lack of success is to try harder, seek help from friends and professionals, join social groups and other such things. But many aren't healthy and many lash out.

I can't sympathize with those who victimize others, but I do see a not entirely healthy structure in place to assure greater happiness on the relationship front. Some religious subcultures condemn the secular methods used for mate seeking and present their own, but their methods aren't always exactly wonderful substitutes.

But to the question as to why the incels? It's because our system doesn't assure success for too many people.

Incorrect. Definitions are of course constructed by human subjective observation of reality, but for them to be of most use, they must be able to be objectively used. For example, if I define a tree as a "Thing with branches and leaves", its not very useful for details in a world with brushes and shrubs. A botanist wouldn't hold to such a definition because clarity and accuracy of definitions are important when discerning between plants as a profession. — Philosophim

There can be disputes as to what constitutes what, including what objective criteria are to be used for that determination. Whether Pluto is a planet or not is one such question. Obviously nothing ontologically changed about Pluto over time, but that it one day was considered a planet and another day not is based upon convention and whatever purposes the people using the term are trying to fulfill.

If a Reform Jew and Orthodox Jew have definitions for their own branch of Judaism, that is fine. But then this needs to be objectively matched to the definitions to say, "That person is a Reform Jew, and not an Orthodox". — Philosophim

If they live in isolation from one another, then there is no pragmatic effect for their distinct uses of the term Jew, but where it matters is when the term "Jew" (or in your case "woman") is afforded certain rights in the community at large. So, if the rule is that "Jews" have the right to instantly become citizens should they immigrate to Israel, then a decision as to who is a Jew becomes important. Who gets to decide that question is one of politics and authority. If the Orthodox control the Knesset, then certain people the Reform would allow in would be excluded. That would then result in a political dispute by those disenfranchised.

Now turning toward the question of what is a woman. If women are permitted to play on certain sports teams, use certain pronouns, and use certain bathrooms, the question then becomes who gets to decide who is a woman and be afforded those right, and that is a political dispute. I'm not suggesting I disagree with the decision to disallow transsexual woman the right to play sports with biologically born women, but I am saying that there is no absolute right one way or the other dictated by biology. What value society wishes to afford biological distinctions is up to the society.

What I am saying is if you have a definition of gender, and a definition of sex, gender does not change your sex. Vice-versa, sex does not change your gender. Thus if we separate people according to sex, and the limitations of the body that sex entails, saying you identify with a gender that matches another sex does not entail you entry into areas divided by sex. — Philosophim

It's obvious that one's mental state does not change their biological state. It is also obvious that it is the accepted orthodoxy that we seperate men and women on the basis of sex (not gender). It is also obvious that there is a notable group of people arguing against that orthodoxy and demanding that seperation occur on the basis of gender not sex.

What this means is that you're not making an argument. You're simply restating the accepting orthodoxy and stating it shouldn't be challenged. That is, you're just telling me that we've traditionally separated men and women on the basis of sex, not gender identification, so we can't start changing things just because someone has changed their gender identification. My point is, says who? Why is that a dicate of reality that things be done tomorrow the way they were done yesterday?

"I identify as a Reform Jew, even though I don't meet your birth criteria for it." This is not a battle over authority. This is a battle over people trying to say that gender equates to sex. — Philosophim

It's entirely a battle of authority. The Reform Jew isn't saying that his mother is Jewish even when she's not and so therefore he's Jewish. He's saying his mother is Christian, but he's insisting that he's still Jewish because parental religion is irrelevant to his analysis. It's directly analogous to what we're talking about here. A MtF transsexual isn't saying she was actually born a biological female so she's therefore a woman. She's saying she was born a biological man, but identifies as a woman, so she is a woman to be afforded all priviledges afforded women, and she doesn't care about your definition of what a woman is and how it relates to sex.

Objective considerations trump subjective considerations. The desire for subjective considerations to take precedence over objective considerations results in prejudice or sexism. — Philosophim

All ideological identities are subjective because they relate to thought processes and they will only correlate to objective criteria if the subjective ideology requires it.

For example, an Orthodox Jew defines a Jew as having a mother who is Jewish and he defines Judaism as a very specific set of beliefs and behaviors.

A Reform Jew allows that a Jew be the child of a Jewish mother or father and he defines Judaism quite differently than the Orthodox Jew.

Should the Orthodox Jew be required to accept the way the Reform define Jews and Judaism? No, but neither should he have the authority to deny the Reform Jew his right to call who he wants a Jew.

Let us then add another problem, which makes this analogy all the more apt. Suppose "Jews" have certain rights to citizenship in Israel that non-Jews don't? Who gets to decide who receives these rights, the Orthodox Jew or the Reform Jew. This debate over terms now has political consequences and the two sides will have to fight over authority.

Back to transsexuals. If gender, as you define it, is a subjective belief, isn't it also a subjective belief that that belief must correlate to an objective criterion like sex? Why do you get the authority to demand that gender must correlate to biology anymore than an Orthodox Jew has the authority to demand that religious affiliation correlate to biological factors?

This battle you define is therefore one over authority, meaning it is a political battle between the progressives and the orthodox (lower case), but it is not, as you claim, just a foolish error by the transexuals in not appreciating the old rule that sex and gender correlate. They wish to overthrow that old rule

I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. — Varnaj42

Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. — Varnaj42

I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home — Varnaj42

You say three things here:

1. Climate change poses no threats to humanity.
2. Climate change occurs as part of a natural process.
3. Even if #2 is false and humans cause climate change, you're doing what you can to stem it by choosing non carbon based sources of energy.

My questions:

1. If climate change poses no threats, then why bother playing junior scientist and hazard an opinion as to its cause? Whether it's caused by humans or sun spots, you've just declared it no big deal, so why worry about what's causing it? Why this need to protect the reputation of humans?

2. If carbon based emissions are not the cause of climate change, why are you telling us about the cost savings measures you've found for your energy needs? Are you just giving us wise consumer advice?

Generalizing even further, philosophy is—or is part of—enlightenment, a means by which humans are freed from domination, whether by nature, myth, religion, governments, whatever it happens to be: — Jamal

So I watched the video, and my thoughts were as yours to the extent one could continually pull back the focus to greater generalizations, to where we don't just say philosophy is the tool to challenge "religion" as we define that term specifically, but as to any prevailing ideology. If, for example, the ideology du jour is wokeness, we use philosophy to challenge that to assure ourselves of its validity.

Consistent with this was his 2nd reason for why philosophy is of value, and that was it coined concepts. This would therefore allow for some timeless truth to emerge, as in whatever it is that we learn from realizing that wokeness, for example, had certain negative characteristics, that could now exist as a newly understood concept we could use elsewhere.

The problem I see is that he is defining the value of philosophy in terms of philosophy. That is, he explains, perhaps without realizing, not how philosophy is used as a tool on other disciplines, but how it internally works.

That is, wokeness (our example) isn't something outside philosophy that philosophy subjects to criticism, but wokeness is itself a philosophy. Being a philosophy, it must adhere to philosophical challenges, like coherence, logic, empirical testing, etc. That is to say, was the video really just saying that ideologies of whatever particularity are fundamentally belief systems founded in human rationality, and if they can't survive intellectual challenge, they necessarily fail in their attempt to be a philosophy in the first place?

This is bad news because exploitation discourages future cooperation, destroys those potential benefits, and eventually, everybody loses. — Mark S

I'm not entirely following this. In legal parlance, we refer to cooperation within a criminal enterprise as "conspiracy," something no one would suggest is moral simply because teamwork was involved.

In your Nazi example, do you suggest the cooperation among Nazis was immoral because it would not result in return cooperation from the Jews? I think it would, albeit involuntary (coercive) cooperation. Draconian laws typically result in compliance.

It would seem we must identify a moral end worth achieving if we wish to judge the morality of the means. The way I've read your OP, you seem to be judging the pragmatic efficacy of the cooperative effort in yielding future cooperation as your basis for morality.

Are you suggesting that cooperative murder would be moral if it enhanced future cooperative efforts, or do you refuse to entertain that hypothetical because you think it logically impossible that murder could enhance future cooperation? If so, why?

Or have I gotten lost in misunderstanding here?

Not really responsive to the body of the OP, but responsive to the question posted:

In politicians, voters consider truthfulness the highest valued trait:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/voters-value-honesty-in-their-politicians-above-all-else-new-study-175589

However, lying is more successful than truthfulness in getting one elected:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/politician-liar-reelected-160719974.html

So, we want truth, but do love us a good lie.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-santos-lies-republicans-resign-b2264739.html

I think he is the victim here and my bias is evident. But so is everyone else’s. — NOS4A2

If you admit to bias, then how do you others are biased?

Is this just a general philosophical claim about the lack of objectivity in all things, or are you saying you're so biased that you're not in a position to judge? If the latter, then the appropriate response would be not to judge.

I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise. — NOS4A2

Why would it be a bonkers justice system if he did in fact sexually assault her? Wouldn't that give rise to a lawsuit and shouldn't there be an award against him?

Neither of us were obviously there when the allegations supposedly occurred, nor did we watch the trial from beginning to end, so this certainty you're attempting to espouse is based on a whole lot of nothing other than your confirmation bias, where you say Trump must be getting a raw deal because the world is against him.

I truly don't care about the outcome of that case or what happens or doesn't happen to Trump, but my inclination is to believe he did what he is said to have done because I have a general trust in the system in deciphering truth. My general trust isn't absolute, so I wouldn't be surprised if some new evidence arrived and that proved his innocence with certainty. But right now, it seems like he did it.

What I can say is that your posts questioning his liability here just smack of someone who can't see Trump as anything but a victim.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial, meaning she only needed to prove her claims were more likely than not.

Choosing not to show up is an important piece of evidence that the jury was able to consider. That was his strategy and his choice. That blame is on him.

You'll have to explain to me the specific limitations other than not knowing the jurors' names that occurred during the voir dire process. Not knowing their names and addresses isn't a very significant limitation, especially if it has to be balanced against the jurors being intimidated by external influences.

In my cases, I learn of the jurors names when they walk into the courtroom, and those names and addresses give me no important information.

My understanding is that anonymous jurors are also used in criminal cases, particularly those involving organized crime.

What are we theorizing occurred that wouldn't have occurred if we knew their names and addresses and how do we theorize that was helpful to the Plaintiff and not the Defendant? It seems we're going a long way to invalidate a verdict against a rapist.

One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions. — NOS4A2

Wouldn't all that have been argued to the jury? Apparently they rejected it.

Why did they wait so long? — RogueAI

I'm not a NY lawyer, but from the little research I did, the statute of limitations on personal injury matters is 3 years. Whether it's less than that for intentional torts like rape, I don't know, but we can assume the statute intially expired in the late 1990s because the incident occurred allegedly in 1996.

In 2022, New York created a 1 year look back statute for adults who allege they were previously raped but did not bring their actions within the applicable period back when it occurred. I suppose the reasoning is that it is felt that in years past society was not as receptive to such claims and women were intimidated from bringing them, but in today's society women feel more empowered to bring these claims.

So, this answers two questions:

1. This claim was not brought outside the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations was extended in 2022 to allow these sorts of actions.

2. She waited to bring the claim because she was fearful of bringing her claim in the mid 1990s and she then was not provided a second chance to bring her claim until 2022 when the new law was passed.

As to whether the extension of the statute of limitations is "unfair" is something you can argue, but why? The criminal rape statute of limitaitons is unlimited, so I'm not sure why when it comes to depriving someone of their liberty there is no statute of limitaitons, but there should be one when it comes to seeking money damages isn't clear.

M&B, "moving goal posts", and "no true Scotsman" may have distinctions among them, but they're all of a shared genus. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And it's also a confirmation bias issue, assuming it's being submitted in good faith. In the legal context, it has the used car salesman feel, where, no matter the objection, they've got a response because their goal is talk your money out of your pocket.

But assuming good faith, where I sincerely believe what I'm arguing, if I am conclusion based, meaning I insist upon reaching the same conclusion regardless of the evidence, that points to a confirmation bias.

And that is where the MB issue is most frustrating, especially when charlatans encounter the gullible because some are sincere while others disingenuous.

"The election was stolen" was "proven" by successively weaker and weaker claims (from the voting machines being hacked, to the ballot boxes being stuffed, to just saying that maybe someone accessed a drop box). Tucker Carlson, for example, said it but didn't believe it, so he was disingenuous, but many sincerely did believe it, meaning theysuffered from from extreme confirmation bias.

It looks to me, my lords, as if the motte is the ideal place from which to attack the bailey. — unenlightened

The Mottians and Bailiians are on the same team, so that's why they don't attack one another, but I suspect a surprise attack from the motte would devastate the bailey.

By the same token, if the motte were defeated, but the bailey still stood, I do agree with you, it's survival would only be momentary. Whatever it was that destroyed the motte would crush the bailey.

Or is it the motte itself that is your real target, and you are attacking that, by way of first taking the bailey? In that case the dissimulation is on your own side. — unenlightened

The fallacy is in suggesting you've destroyed the motte by destroying the bailey.

In a court of law, everything is sophistry anyway, therefore there are no fallacies. — Jamal

In a court of law, there is a clear winner and loser, unlike in a debate or in an academic context. A fallacy in this courtroom pragmatic context is measured therefore on the result of the jury, not on an academic measure of whose arguments were most sound.

Where I disagree though is in the suggestion that there is no correlation between the two (i.e. (1) logic and reason and (2) juror decisions), as if jurors don't recognize the sounder of the arguments and rule accordingly.

As in my example, my counter to A's arguments was to show empirical counter evidence and then to call them on their logical error of shifting their arguments to meet the contradictory evidence.

This isn't to suggest that logic and reason alway prevail in the jury room, but it is to question the notion that logic and reason aren't part of the process. I do think an important part of B's argument was to point out the fallacy to the jury you've identified in this thread. Had B failed to do that, it would have been poor advocacy on B's behalf.

I’m interested in both the abstract and the concrete, and how they relate. — Jamal

In the concrete.

Typical lawsuit I deal with:

A sues B for B having crashed his car into hers. In her suit, A argues the herniated spinal disk found on her MRI was caused by the collision. The radiologist however presents testimony the herniation pre-existed the collision. A then argues the herniation might have preexisted the collision, but the pain is new, so the collision caused the herniation to be symptomatic. Prior medical records are then shown to reveal similar symptoms before the collision. A then argues there still are some decipherable distinctions between the pre and post collision symptoms.

The argument though always remains: "This collision damaged me terribly." Regardless of whether the stronger claims (the collision caused objective, measurable injury) to the weaker claims (the collision caused subjective vague change) prevail, she still fights from the motte position of having extreme compensable injury.

In a courtroom, this is easy enough to combat. You point out to Group C, the neutral jury, that A doesn't seek the truth (i.e. justice), but just seeks a preferred outcome regardless of the facts and is therefore not to be trusted.

In real life, we have very few Cs, but just have those cheering in either camp A or B. For that reason, when you hear disingenuous arguments where a Group A refuses to admit their stronger claim has failed and that their position is admittedly objectively weaker, there isn't the proper repercussion where a controlling Group C meaningfully condemns them. Instead, Group A just grows stronger, each member proud of their group's shameless advocacy of a desired outcome.

My observation here then is that this is less a fallacy than a strategy in getting a desired outcome.

This predates Descartes. Exodus 3:14

As to the question: "Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other?"

ChatGPT says: "Yes, the doctrine you are referring to is called religious exclusivism. Religious exclusivism is the belief that one's own religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are false. This belief can manifest in different ways, such as the belief that only those who believe in a certain religion will attain salvation, or the belief that other religions are based on false beliefs or worship false gods. Religious exclusivism stands in contrast to religious pluralism, which holds that multiple religions can be true or valid, and that different paths or ways of understanding the divine can coexist."

And if ChatGPT doesn't know everything, ask Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_exclusivism

But it was the same kind of challenge, namely that of radical students who tried to enforce the party line on a member of the academic staff, to prevent him from lecturing if he didn’t show support (and express regret for his previous unsupportive actions), and to stage direct action against the institution if it didn’t comply with their demands. — Jamal

But such is politics isn't it? I don't like that my local school board has decided to change the bus schedules, so the neighbors and I get a bunch of signs and scream and yell and call for the outster of them all. We can substitute "change the bus schedules" to whatever issue du jour is before the community, but to think I should be limited in some way from fighting for what I want else be accused of trying to cancel someone doesn't seem fair.

A director has to be able to deal with angry students. If Arono is the sort that wants only to be bothered with the academic part of his job, then that's what he needs to limit himself to. He just seems like a really weak director.

But I guess I could snipe at the example you've provided all day long. What I'll accept is that there are plenty of examples of professors and administrators being denied promotions and success based upon their ideologies and not academic abilities. That is, the very concept of being free to say whatever you want without reprisal (the tenure system basically) is being misued to only allow those club members in that pass a certain belief litmus test.

That is a problem. It is the politicalization of every nook and cranny in society, from what beer we are to drink to which professor gets which appointment. It's not the wokeness. It's the Element O. I do think it forms the stated basis for why DeSantis did what he did when he re-organized the school. Whether his intent really went beyond just wanting to slap the left is very doubtful though.

The left Element O is more interesting to me because it concerns the problems of left politics, whereas the conservative version is just conservatism doing what it does, and my opposition to the imposition of the conservative belief system is just obvious, easy, and boring. Woke politics, by which I mean left Element O, is a more complex, difficult, and profound phenomenon, I think. — Jamal

I don’t want to do battle over who is more open-minded, left or right. The question is too abstract and ahistorical. Sometimes it’s the left, sometimes the right. — Jamal

This is why I went down the path of comparing the right and the left's wokeness. It's because you were asserting there was something distinguishing in the left's wokeness that is alarming but not the right's, which I take to be that you always thought the right had a morally failed position, but not so for the left. I was only trying to point out that they've both always been morally flawed to some degree, so your belief that one prevailed over the other was just bias.

A provocative response from me here, or at least one I intend to be, is to point out that your problem is not that you're now learning both the left and the right suffer equally from Element O. We all knew that. We needn't look very far to find leftist, Marxist actors heavy in Element O.

Your problem, I'd submit, is that you are having trouble understanding your anti-wokeness instinct that your brothers and sisters well to the right of you are openly embracing when those to the left of you are rejecting it. You don't sit often in the right isle, and it feels a bit uncomfortable nodding your head when you hear some of the anti-trans talk (for example). So, the question is whether the left really has to accept the consequences of what were once considered reductio ad absurdum arguments to remain on the left.

The answer, as the ideologies grow more developed, are made more logically consistent, and become less pragmatic, appears to be yes. You're left in these polarized positions where you have to accept some degree of nonsense because it flowed from your first principles.

Woke politics, by which I mean left Element O, is a more complex, difficult, and profound phenomenon, I think. — Jamal

Perhaps the bias arises from the idea that the left is supposed to be open-minded, but it's not, whereas the right is supposed to be close-minded, so who cares when it is?

But that is a leftist idea from the outset. The right has always thought themselves the leaders of liberty and the left oppressive.

To argue that printing books is less a form of social control than is burning books, probably just means your comrades own a printing press and not a match.

Is wokeness not just the left's wake up call that the left doesn't stand for open-mindedness and perhaps never did?

presenting these in such a balanced way you obscure the fact that they’re not balanced. The first is a nationwide phenomenon and the second is due to the eccentricities of Ron DeSantis and his conservative board of trustees at a tiny and atypical university. — Jamal

The offensive element (Element O) of wokeness isn't just that some find discrimination under every nook and cranny, but it's generically the imposition of a debatable belief system upon others and the expectation that others must adhere to that standard in order to be ethical.

That is, I am not woke because I have a heightened concern for transsexuals, but I am if I condemn you for not.

So, to be balanced, I must condemn Element O in all its forms, both liberal and conservative. You claim my DeSantis example is not a good example of conservative Element O, which may or may not be true, but that's just an example of a weak example, but not of me being unbalanced (obvious joke here, so just move on).

So what does American Conservativism consist of?

I vomit forth this:

"American conservatives tend to support Christian values,[5] moral absolutism,[6] traditional family values,[7] and American exceptionalism,[8] while opposing abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights.[9] They tend to favor economic liberalism and neoliberalism,[10][11] and are generally pro-business and pro-capitalism,[12][13] while opposing communism and labor unions.[14][15][16] They often advocate for a strong national defense, gun rights, capital punishment, and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by both communism[17] and moral relativism.[18] 21st-century American conservatives tend to question epidemiology, climate science, and evolution more frequently than moderates or liberals.[19][20][21]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Any conservative organization that enforces these sorts of beliefs upon others and ostracizes the opposition is the moral equivalent of the woke. Such would be balanced in their Element O composition.

And there you have it