I just don't see things this way and find it quite hard to put myself in a position to see it that way.
The 'culture wars' are certainly not a 'tool' of any kind. They spring up out of the the tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing. Its certainly cyclical, and has some hallmarks of a 'game', but that seems patently not what's happening.

People get fired up because its hte future of their country they're debating. Not sure this needs any further justification or explanation. Males in female bathrooms was always something that people got upset about until around 2015 when things got weird (take that negative or positive, doesn't matter to my point). Because more males started being in female bathrooms, for whatever reason. Doesn't need any further to understand why people care..

It is a correlation. You can read the study, though, surely.

If this were true one would discover what a good therapy for liver cancer is solely by investigating people's opinions instead of by studying livers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I haven't read the the rest of this, because I want you to not make this same mistake over, and over, leading me to ignore: This is the not the same assessment as what one ought to do. This is a different consideration, based on the essentially arbitrary goal of 'curing liver cancer' or whatever you want to be done, in the abstract. Whether or not one should do X is not hte same as whether X would achieve such and such a goal. This is why it already seemed obvious to me we're not talking about hte same 'good' and I do not take yours as 'ethical'. I may well come back to the rest of that as I can see Leontiskos has replied also, so might feel the need to put somethign in. But it seems your basis is off from the way I see things (and this seems, to me, patent, not subtle). Its very hard to go through making the same criticism at each point.

The subjectivist (you, perhaps?) — J

Fairly committed emotivist, so yes.

Fwiw, I am aware of that line between O and S ethics. I am discussing it.

Better to say, "It was wrong; I shouldn't have done it." — J

Which expresses that person's personal, internal assessment of their behaviour. There is nothing close to objective about even the assessment mechanism here. This is why these uses of value words are misleading imo, not just inapt.

Perhaps there's a better pair of words to use that reflects the distinction — J

There must be, as I am not seeing a distinction in your elucidations. I see different uses of two words to mean the same thing in disparate circumstances. No worries with that, but it, to me, reflects an emotivist bent. That's fine, I suppose.

I'd be interested to know whether you think this sort of distinction can be preserved from an ethical-subjectivist point of view — J

That would seem somewhat contradictory. Choices and preferences are distinct. They don't need compartmentalizing.

I pointed out that a primary reason people call food "good" is because it is necessary for survival. — Leontiskos

Which tells us nothing ethical. I have tried to be extremely clear, but for some reason both you and Timothy seem to think "This is good, because X" is the same as "This is good". You're either subtly rejecting objectivist ethics, or you're wildly confused from where I'm standing...

hey are the living continuation of families and cultures. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fwiw, this was my only thought throughout your entire post, so i'm glad this was the conclusion lol. I actually take Singer's point, and as a pro-choicer I have some version of "babies aren't self-aware" going on in my set of takes on the various sticking points. But this, above, notion is far, far more important morally than a single baby's life imo. Or even many baby's lives. It's what they would become, in the round - not individually.

Its in the specific section i've quoted. The conclusion that 'design' is involved is a non sequitur. Banno also noticed this.

I think you may have misread the sentence, or that instead of "reject" you read "accept." — Leontiskos

I didn't, but reading back I can see exactly hot it comes across that way. Just had more to say about it, because a rejection would intimate i accepted the premise. Which was a bit shaky. Sorry for that. Should've been much clearer in what I was tryign to convey. I reject it.

This is meant to demonstrate that even if we are concerned with our time, we are still judging others as causes and deciding which causes of dialogue or information are time-worthy. — Leontiskos

I think I'm judging myself in making that decision. What do my values purport to press me into? If I value the Hard Problem over the problem of Infinite Regress, I may go to speaker 2's lecture because I think my existing levels of value are secure and worth maintaining (i'm sure the implicature is clear here). That's a judgement on my own notions of what's worth my time.
Lecture 1 may have pushed me out of that, by being more interesting that my existing judgement and thus creating a new judgement about only that speaker (well, their speaking rather than the speaker). I'm not convinced this is right. But it gets me around the idea that I actually care what either speaker is doing in their respective rooms. I already care about X or Y in varying degrees. The efficient cause might be the literal speaking, but the final cause of any decision of that kind is one about myself, I think. Where I want to be, and what do I want to be doing?

At this point has your "time-worthiness" judgment of the "cause" become moral without ceasing in any way to be a judgment of time-worthiness? — Leontiskos

No. Whether or not I like Comedian A better than Comedian B is not moral (I do, for argument sake). So far, so good. My existing preference is the reason for the choice, not an active judgement. Now you've entered the issue of conflicting elements of these comedians. Interesting...
But I still am under the impression my existing preference for a Comedian who can do such things is probably already built into my preference for Comedian A. I'm not gaining any new position on either comedian in making that decision. It's based on an assessment as against a rubric, and so I'm not actually making any judgement. Just looking at whether it fits the rubric. A does, B doesn't.

I get the distinct feeling this is missing your point though. Either way, I agree its less clear. I currently am comfortable with the above, but its an immature response to your TE so I might realise its nonsense.

Now the experiential angle. — Leontiskos

I am married. We often say this to each other. It is almost always a way to end a conversation without hard feelings. "I don't blame you personally, but this isn't getting anywhere. Lets try again another time" or some such. Perhaps we are weird.
The moral judgement you're talking about I think is just misplaced but it is moral. I think what a person in that scenario means is one of a few possible things that aren't just a complaint about time. It's possible I am somewhat unique in not using the phrase that way.
Some possibilities for an underlying implication could be:

- You are not adequately hearing me;
- You are are wilfully misinterpreting me; or
- You do not care about what I am saying.

Recently rereading Grice's Logic and Conversation recently I might just be being pedantic on how people use their expressions. But, it seems to me, no one could rightly be implying you're literally not listening in those situations. Therefore, the moral judgement (which seems to be there, i admit) is certainly not about it being a waste of time. It clearly isn't, if the complaint is that you're not being listened to. In my case, when i'm not being listened to (properly, rather than implying something else) I disengage. It isn't practically helpful (i.e productive). Again, not entirely sure here but it looks like there is a moral judgement which is not about time-wasting.

That is lamentable, but it does not represent a liberal attitude—quite the reverse. — Janus

Yes, for sure. I think that's the problem - they claim liberalism (which I take as a practical movement. The ideology itself was abandoned decades ago). Unfortunately, I am increasingly not convinced the average (self-professed) liberal can tell the difference between freedom and hate. This seems particularly true of self-professed Liberals in the sense that all manner of extremely socially unacceptable behaviour (racism, sexism, violent threats, actual violence etc...) are played out in the name of the ideology. People thinknig "i'm a Liberal, which means my ends are 'righteous' and justify what means I may pursue". Usually, the means are the result of internalized anger and frustration about one's station in life, and not any consideration of what a 'liberal' might actually do in any given scenario. That may or may not be a legitimate thought but to me, the corresponding up-ending of the apple cart, lets say, is not. It's toddler stuff. Safe to say, i'm far more jaded on this one that you are haha.

What would be the motivation for wanting to do that if not some kind of desire to vilify? — Janus

Because its factually incorrect (disagree, or agree...whatever i'm just giving you the reason). I'll add a second though: Why do we tell children they're not actually Firefighters? Because it will be extremely difficult to go through life believing you are, but at every turn, shown that you're not. I feel this is the case for most trans people. Their mental states at large, and their reports of same, seem to indicate this. I don't think this is society doing anything wrong. They want to be something they aren't, and that hurts. I am not the greatest singer in the world, and it irks me. I love singing and I really wish I was good enough to make something of it. But i'm not, and I don't pretend that i am. I have a huge, rather debilitating sympathy for the mindstate of trans people. But I do not have sympathy for trying to force the world to conform to your internal self-image. Not to mention some of the more controversial issues hereabouts (the overwhelming tendency toward sex crime for trans ID'd males, for instance.... big discussion. I pray you simply laugh and gloss over this if its got your back up. I'm simply laying more points out to show that there are arguments).

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified — Janus

I disagree. But in any case, that isn't in issue. The fact that opinion is not socially acceptable is the problem. You might have a good argument. It's just not for this exact moment to be fleshed out. Same goes for the above trans issue, but there was a lot more meat there.

unless someone wishes to impose their views on us — Janus

Liberals, overwhelmingly, do to the point of justifying abuse and violence. This is simply not arguable in the wake of things like BLM, Occupy, assassination attempts etc.. etc.. (this is not to claim other ideologies don't lead here too. It's to say that the claim of 'Liberal' tends this way, currently)

why should that not be the case? — Janus

I'm sorry, but why should it? If they're seen as injured parties, that means precisely nothing for policy. Even if they are (which, in a general sense, i usually am more than happy to accept on the facts) it cannot be a "sins of the father" situation. Which it is. In almost every case. I also have much better options in mind to deal with that issue (that I, again, for clarity, fully accept in most cases is truly in play).

Mill both predicted, and lamented this situation in On Liberty 165 years ago. Social restriction of opinion being the absolute bane of a civilised society. And it is.

I don't think you're quite framing it fairly. These aren't necessarily considerations of what I can and can't do - I can speak about whatever the fuck I want to. But If i were to, for instance, offer an opinion piece, speak publicly, publish etc.. in a way that received some public review there are several which would result (almost invariably does) in abuse, possible violent abuse, attempts to mar my family, friends and colleagues for associating with me, attempts to end my employment (this one has happened to me twice) among other possible outcomes that are chilling on freedoms to speak):

- trans women are not women;
- Indigenous thinking is not superior to any other kind of thinking;
- You can be objectively wrong about your beliefs;
- That the Treaty of Waitangi needs some serious legal definition;
- That separate rights for indigenous groups and others is wrong;
- That separate standards of assessment for white people and other groups is wrong;
- That the government is doing good (I don't actually hold this view, but its one which has resulted (before my own eyes) in multiple violent responses);
- Prison is a decent response to recidivist offenders;
- That violent Islamic activity is reprehensible and we should be allowed to assess for it;
- That sexual preferences are in fact, preferences, and I need not care what anyone else thinks;
- Thinking the pronoun debate is ridiculous**

Could be worth looking through some of what our Free Speech Union works on for the larger picture:

Police illegally logging - the concept amounts to "If someone is unhappy with what you said, it is hateful".
Professionals increasingly at risk of losing their licenses for personal views
A Mayor silencing political criticism by using a badly-written Act
That our conservative (its actually very much centrist) government has had to table legislation to protect academic freedom in the face of increasing calls for opinions of University workers to be considered disqualifying
And even in the case of lower school teachers, that opinions relayed in private capacities (i.e as a private citizen.. not in private) can be disqualifying, despite being common views.

Obviiously I'm marginally dramatizing a lot of those articles, but the basic notions I've outlined are correct, in my view. It is also possible you do not see these, after looking into them, as curtailing one's freedom of speech. I respectfully disagree and would then thing we are maybe not talking about hte same thing. Probably worth noting, I have increasingly had to stop giving my opinions on these sorts of matters to protect my job, my children and my wife. This is absolutely unacceptable under the head "liberalism".

** I happen to work in a truly liberal law firm. We all have differing views, and we accept them. However, if a disgruntled colleague reported me to a statutory body for at least a few of the points noted above, I would be hauled before a conduct committee and basically have no recourse to defend myself because "the other person was hurt" is the criterion. But more directly to the point linked to, I am aware of several larger law firms who ostracize or even shadow-punish lawyers and executives for not including pronouns in their bio subsequent to a demand from on high via internal email. No, I cannot prove this, but at least one friend has left their firm for this reason and I have seen the email which was sent. It was in no uncertain terms.

For them liberalism is an abomination; becasue it allows difference of opinion — Banno

This is not what it does in practice. It allows a certain range of opinion. And that, increasingly small.

If you're now (it seems you are) making a physics argument, I have to just say you're wrong. This is a physics concept that is widely understood as extant and helpful to physicists. If your gripe is with the use of hte word 'instantaneous' fine, but that's not how the word is used in that phrase. It is a proper name, for all intents and purposes, and so your reading is simply inapt. In any case, the term 'instant' does not mean "zero time" unless you're using a rather unsophisticated colloquial definition. "a very short period of time" is the better way to think of the word, and solves your usage issue regardless of your disagreement with the facts of the matter (i.e that instantaneous velocity is a real, measurable thing which physicists use every day).

"This non-dairy ice cream is worthy of my choice because it's especially creamy and gooey and that's what I like." Or we might say, "You betrayed your partner. That was not a worthy choice, and you shouldn't have made it." — J

Hmm. While I think I'm following your intent, these aren't different claims for our purposes. The latter requires the addition of "because I disapprove" to support the obvious disapproval therein. You think it wasn't choice-worthy and in this case for someone else so there's a second level of preference involved there. But nothing but hte person's opinion makes their disapproval hold any water, I'd think. I don't think we can find examples that support both interpretations. A preference is, definitionally, something subjectively preferred. Not something 'chosen'. That may be why you're seeing a cross-reading available where I do not.

Ah. Perhaps I was a little too charitable then..

I think we have to understand "worthy" simply to mean "ought to be chosen." — J

I have a pretty serious issue with this (and this might relate to your later comment on ordinary language). I cannot understand "choice-worthy" as anything other than an expression of preference. Nothing besides seems to arbitrate what would and wouldn't come under that head.

This does paint me into a partial corner though: I should, really, be committed to accepting the phrase as ethical, while maintaining that ethical statements are emotional ones. Perhaps that the right resolution for someone of my bent.

So the laws of nature for a given possible world are designed. — A Christian Philosophy

Total non sequitur.



I think the point he's driving for is that for a philosopher, the term is ridiculous. It's a totally reasonable and real physics thing though. I suggest his point is irrelevant anyhow, But this seemed to me the crossed purpose there. "instantaneous" doesn't hold it's standard meaning in that phrase.

If everybody agrees on something, there isn't much discussion then, is there? — ssu

Ah yeah I see what you're getting at. Weirdly, I get about 50/50 left/right content. Commentary seems very much skewed - But again, I don't know everything so i put this entirely to the side for now.

Talk of an overreaction. — ssu

I think, possibly, the Biden-era mouthpieces constantly contradicting earlier policies (including Obama's) was an overreaction to Trump doing similar things to Obama (and prior liberals). I think your example is a good one in terms of "point and laugh", but not a great one in terms of consequence. I think politicians lying about their academic career is worse, for example.

I'm unsure I can accept the leap from "choice-worthy" (based on??) to "ought to be chosen" which amounts to "ought to be done". Can you perhaps make clearer what that connection is?

Can't quite grasp your views, but I found this further reading fun https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2295&context=law_faculty_scholarship

Remember the algorithms, what makes a debate. It's not those who agree — ssu

I maybe either too dumb or too tired to know what you're saying here?

Yes. There wasn't much from the moderates about hte abysmal Biden era, though. I think there's an imbalance in this sense. Its more acceptable to talk shit about "right wing" concepts and people. Same as there is no issue, whatever, with publicly saying something like "What the fuck is wrong with white people?" But if you switched any other ethnicity in.. you're in hot water.

Extremely, risibly misleading. This is not the result of 'poverty' and this barely gets a decent connection between the policies in question and the results. It even brings in COVID considerations. And we're talking about "poverty" deaths? Hehehe.

That's a whole other question. — J

GEnerally agreed they don't follow. But you can't get to the idea of an arbiter of good and bad from the fact that some actions are "choice-worthy" because good and bad don't come into that, prima facie.

Thanks! — Leontiskos

Very welcome!

the situation where you dismiss someone based on a moral judgment of their own actions or behavior — Leontiskos

I think this is the right way to think of a 'moral' judgement in this context.

In your head are you saying to them, "I am dismissing you because you are clearly not listening, and I would do so even if I had ample time to engage you"? — Leontiskos

This probably happens, but in terms of habit, no, this isn't the case. What I'm thinking internally is "I have other things to be getting on with, and this is not satisfying enough to overturn my commitment to the other things" or something similar. I often engage in hilariously dumb conversations when I have the time (I find it relaxing, in some way, so there's no sort of sacrifice happening there).

I think it would be worthwhile to explore the idea that we dismiss someone who is clearly not listening to us. — Leontiskos

To be fair, I think its a dismissal of the event, not the person. I think this is a crucial difference between some practical constraint, and some psychological constraint (the oft-repeated "I just can't..." among younger socio-political commentators). Leading to...

From this it sounds like you would reject the idea that a material position is sufficient grounds for dismissal. — Leontiskos

This one is a bit more complicated. What do we mean by "dismissal"? Are you dismissing the person, as a whole, from your entire worldly purview? Are you dismissing that view of theirs? Are you dismissing their expertise on a topic they're woefully unqualified to profess on?
In the case, that i take from you OP, that we're wanting to morally condemn the person in a way that means something like "they are a bad person, and I won't engage with them", then no. No, I don't think I've had that happen in the last decade at least. Views are views. People are people. People hold views but do not become them.

Up front, Stanley has proved himself one of the least-respectable thinkers of hte last 20 years with his constant tirades against reality over the last while - mainly on Twitter, where his a misogynistic dickhead who cannot, if his life depended on it, shut up and listen to a woman.

That said, I think you're right lmao. If everyone know the 'truth' as such, about Trump, it would far, far, far harder to take him seriously and thus vote for him.

His support of Israel equals Hitler. — Athena

This is utterly insane though, sorry.

Sex is factually binary and gender doesn't need to be, but clearly does not vary independently. That seems to be what actually happens, and the 'theoretical' case.

The UK has got it right, I think. And they've been very clear about the fact that this doesn't pose any risk to trans people. But it does remove the risk from biological females (i prefer the term women, ftr, but that's nto important here).

Nice post - I think its possible you're still perhaps uneasy with some of hte more confronting issues. One might be that junk is not relevant to whether one is one sex or not. Klinefelters shows us that males can have "female" breast development to a certain degree. Or Swyer syndrome giving (some) males a vulva. Unfortuantely, even the literature that gets published makes this mistake
Under the heading "Sex Determination" we get the following:

"The pioneering experiments of fetal sexual differentiation carried out by Alfred Jost in the 1940’s clearly established that the existence of the testes determines the sexually dimorphic fate of the internal and external genitalia (Fig. 2) (58, 59). Irrespective of their chromosomal constitution, when the gonadal primordia differentiate into testes, all internal and external genitalia develop following the male pathway. When no testes are present, the genitalia develop along the female pathway. The existence of ovaries has no effect on fetal differentiation of the genitalia. The paramount importance of testicular differentiation for fetal sex development has prompted the use of the expression “sex determination” to refer to the differentiation of the bipotential or primitive gonads into testes."

These are phenotypic considerations and are about Sex Differentiation, not determination (not to mention that's also misleading - the sexually dimorphic 'fate' is tied to fertility). The activation (or not) of the SRY gene is what determines the above set of possible carry-throughs. The above pathways overlap/go awry when there is a genetic aberration after sex has been determined, in terms of form and function. SRY is the determinate of sex. It is misleading to claim that odd chromosomal situations, or ambiguous/unexpected phenotypes are determinative of sex (I do not think this is what you were saying, but this is my first post in the thread so making more of it than you need care about).

What "woman" and "man" mean, socially, has not determinate imo. Use them how you see fit. Just don't pretend you're talking about sex, and everything is generally a-ok.

showing hundreds of thousands dying from poverty — Down The Rabbit Hole

In the UK? heh.

This strikes me as a defense similar to those Randians who defend NAP where it makes absolutely no sense to do so, and they end up in knots.

THe questions being asked in the OP are not ones which have answers, generally. Nor could they. The explication cannot support much of anything.

Brilliant and vulnerable OP. Good stuff. I'll have a think and say something deeper, but this struck me:

"

But now I look back and don't see a bold radical, but rather a brat, childishly excited by grand projects and noble causes, to the extent that I was willing to brush aside the suffering that I thought necessary to bring about a great future. — Jamal

Well. fucking. done. If more could see this, we would be much better off IMO.

It's not failing; it's being beaten down by more aggressive forces. — Vera Mont

This attitude is why it's failing. Leontiskos (and, in my view, the OP) makes the point very well.
Pretending that you're "right" and it must be something else is the single biggest driver of being a dick, failing and not getting better at things.

Liberalism suffers all three, in the modern world. That doesn't mean the principle is hollow or unhelpful. It means the ideology exemplified by Vera's post and much of OPs explication is what's being criticised. It's possible Banno made that mistake too, but I've not read past this first page so ...

You did.
But putting that to one side, nothing in that comment gives me any reason to take "random" seriously in it. You not knowing why something occurs doesn't make it random.

Again, what you in fact claimed: — javra

So, totally not at all what you said I did. This is getting bizarre my guy.

Rationally then, your affirmations entail that in the absence of a non-egalitarian, hence authoritarian leadership which "oversees", societies will have ample "abuse" ingroup — javra

That is not rational. That is you making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Forgive me for skimming the rest of this. You're clearly not here to engage in anything but a pissing match.

Can you then, instead, reference tribes wherein abuse is rampant ingroup due to not having authoritarian leadersphip? — javra

No idea what you're talking about anymore. You're contradicting your claim, reversing hte question you've posed to me, and in any case i've given ample reason to dismiss these quibbles.

Might as well be calling me a porcupine. Name-calling, while it might have its political advantages amongst some, is not something that validates affirmations, though. — javra

Or for fucks sake. Take care mate.

If "good" is taken to mean "choice-worthy," — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's never been explained that way in any ethics (or morality) courses i've taken or seen. It is always described as "right" and "wrong" action. "Good" and "bad" are noted to be arbiters of that. But arbiters of 'good' and 'bad' are literally nowhere to be seen, except within agreements between people. Is this clearer?

I think @J is on the right track.

Ethics is not coherent. But that doesn't make it not useful. Flippant Eg: Virtue Ethics is an absolutely ridiculous concept. "Do what improves your character" is one of the dumbest, vaguest and unhelpful concepts society could instantiate.
But, nevertheless, it is a very effective way for people to review their actions and views with some circumspection. We can't really expect more from humans without God, so "As far as it goes" virtue ethics is successful. It just doesn't go far, because it can't do what Ethics, proper, wants: Arbitrate between "right" and "Wrong" actions.

Perhaps we just understand what's going on differently. Seems a common thing among "ethicists". For people on a forum throwing pseudo-essays around, it's almost assuredly some of hte issue.

NB: I do think these types of discussions are the dead-end of Ethics. They can be fun, but they are the inevitable result of cordially disagreeing about what should be done. There is, usually, no answer which isn't goal-oriented. The goal, itself, can't be assessed in the same way.

It wasn't intended as an objection, exactly. — Ludwig V

Totally fair enough.

how does emotivism distinguish between emotions that are reactions to judgements of taste and emotions that are reactions to judgements of ethical value? — Ludwig V

I may not understand the question, but this strikes me as "How does one delineate between water from a spring, and water from a lake?" Well, you don't. You delineate their sources. AS you've done, fairly clearly. There's no reason to go further. However...

The trouble is that the border country between actions that affect other people and those that don't is hotly contested. — Ludwig V

is certainly true. I think this is where people decide to be "hard line" in their ethical view. Usually, without actually examining it. Such is life.

Should I distinguish between ethics and morality? If not, how to these two questions fit together? — Ludwig V

I think so. Ethics is the study of moral views, as far as I understand. So ethics is assessing action, and morality is the basis for the actions in the first place. An ethical view would necessarily inform your moral views. I can see a clear difference, but I have also understood arguments that they are not actually distinct. Such is life, lol.

One thing to note, that I think its a truism, applied to any and all exchanges i'm having here"

Not "good" is not at all the same as "not good". I do not think this is being noticed.

Actually many people are disgusted about both sides. — ssu

If that's the case, I've definitely missed it being more than a small, almost fringe, group. Though it may just be that these people are not commentators.

Fixed it for you — Benkei

Not all men.

Do any people push back against insanity in these environments, or is that beyond the pale? — Jeremy Murray

Its hard to know how this works. I am fairly constantly pushing back, and it seems fairly successful when it's done in an academic fashion.
The course I'm in currently has a module on slurs. In that module, we will be allowed to say whatever we want in service of discussion of Phil of Language. I imagine that would bring up both the weak "I don't like opinions" people and the "Finally, some real meat" types. Will be fun to see in a few weeks when it comes up.

But I would point out that people call food good in part because it is necessary to survive — Leontiskos

Sure. Something I think is misguided. But I understand that this doesn't sit perfectly.

Both are true at the same time. — Leontiskos

You've done nothing to support this. It is necessary (as we both know, empirically). That htis is good is totally arbitrary. Unless you've made some claim before entering the discussion, which means "good" is to be interpreted as "that which is necessary for survival" or something similar. Have you?

You are avoiding answering the question. — Leontiskos

No. I'm telling you it was non sequitur. Feel how you want to about that. But it was loaded and I wanted clarification as to what you had loaded into it. If you don't want to give it, that's fine. I wont engage.

And I think we both know that the correct answer to (3) is, "No." — Leontiskos

I don't even know quite what you were getting at mate. Perhaps read my comments in better faith. I wanted clarification, and I do not take anything you've said here on board because its jumping hte gun something fierce.

Is there an arbiter of true and false? — Leontiskos

Not in the strict sense of those words. We have theories that apply to different facets of life, and in some of them we get T and F values. In some we don't. Logic (pure logic, so not applicable to most things in the world) has a convenient status here, but real life isn't that simple. Heck, language can't even account for Truth and Falsity correctly or consistently.

Do we need an arbiter before we can see that 2+2=4? — Leontiskos

I'm sorry, are you trying to suggest that Ethics is a mathematical function? If so we have no basis for discussion. Otherwise, I can't tell what you're getting at in this reply.

why would it be needed in ethics? — Leontiskos

It isn't. But if you want 'good' and 'bad' to mean much of anything, you need one. I don't claim they do, so I don't need one.

Autonomous Morality and the Idea of the Noble," — Leontiskos

In the first section, he outlines almost exactly what I've suggested Ethics functions 'as'.

"The prudential ‘ought’ rests for its force on the facts about the contingent desires and interests people have, and just tells one what one ought to do if one is to satisfy them."

I find nothing further on which would counter this position. It's arbitrary. Obviously. If you'd like to point me somewhere in the article, more than happy to review and adjust.

Really cool thread.

I don't think there's a good answer other than "I have limited time" for non-theists. Most theists have a weak argument, anyway. I don't think there is anything but a rational justification for dismissing one on the basis of what they're saying. Is it a waste of your time? Fair enough. But you can't use morality to justify your own morality, which is what must be informing your actions. Its just instrumental rationality that would have you not 'waste time' or some such.

But unfortunately, that says absolutely nothing about the other person, and only about you and your views. I don't think many people front to that. Therefore, most people interpret their dismissiveness/discontinuance in such circumstances as morally justified. In some sense, it is. Their moral views justified the action. But it seems to me this is, prima facie, just toddler-like over-emotional behaviour. It isn't moral. It's "I'm right, you're wrong". So we're left with the practical consideration of whether or not its helpful/beneficial/worth it to continue the exchange/relationship.

For me, the only time I genuinely feel justified in dismissing someone is when they clearly are not listening. Their views never make me feel justified in shutting them down.
My views do, though, at times, because I think practical considerations are in play and not moral ones.

You did not respond to the claim that food is (deemed) good by all. — Leontiskos

It was an unreasonable claim in teh discussion. That is simply not how food is characterized. It is necessary to survive. Colloquially referring to this as 'good' is a psychological trick and not an ethical claim. Come on now.

I assume you agree — Leontiskos

Yessir - I wasn't purposefully dodging it. My response was tactical and addressing that wasn't needed.

3. If so, are those rhymes and reasons altogether different than those which guide other people's acts — Leontiskos

Bit of a non sequitur going on here. I would want to know your motivation from 2 to 3 there - or perhaps, what you would expect one to say and what you think that might mean.

The good is arbitrary. There is no arbiter. There are things people like, and things people don't like. The pervasiveness of any given view doesn't lend it any supremacy in a meta conversation about it's worth. It works. That doesn't say anything about its rightness. It should be clear from my babblings on any of these sorts of threads that I'm not entirely comfortable emotionally/intuitively with this. I'm much closer to wanting somethign in the realm of waht I feel you're failing to support. But, intellectually it's pretty simple to me - there is no arbiter of good and bad. For htis reason, either we need to change the conversation into something more subjective but still somehow measurable (i.e something like individual desire divided by the general harm/good it would do for the chosen cultural goals of that time and place in question) to talk ab out how best to act in given times and palces or to simply accept that ethics is properly a conversation about how conflicting views of good and bad must cooperate.

It's not even a pseudo science. It's not at all a science, of any kind. Its whirling and whistling.

Nothing in your second post does anything but elucidate, in apparently sober terms, the emotional valence of ethical considerations.

You've leapfrogged hte entire problem, and gone with accepting "good" and "bad" as they are, where they lie. Not doing ethics, anyway, as whether something is good or bad has nothing to do with whether that should arbitrate our actions.

It's hard to think that one is posing a serious question when they issue the challenge, "But how do you know that it is good to not be in pain?" — Leontiskos

It seems clear that the latter is more secure — Leontiskos

Err nope. There's no relationship between the two, but habit. If you want to invoke some kind of causation between an act and ipso facto good and bad (bare, not for some particular goal i.e not having your eyes burned out) then you've got your entire task still in front of you. I'm waiting.

They aren't strawmen, because they are actual behaviours of leftists. Again, that you are not aware isn't an excuse. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt on that.
If you're not aware, you're not aware. But you can still not be an absolute idiot and respond in such a childish, ignorant way.

Everything i said is outright, 100% true. BLM riots= justified. Luigi Mangione(murder) = justified. Defrauding hte IRS (Patrisse Cullors) = justified. Abusing, assaulting and literally 'hate speech'ing your political opponents = justified. Property damage (lets just use the moment, and think Tesla) = justified.
Censorship (COVID, Biden laptop etc..)=justified.

If you disagree with all the above, its rich calling yourself leftist. Not even aware of what the label captures.

And before you do something supremely ignorant, what the Right do is utterly irrelevant to this exchange. I even noted that at least when the right do similar things, its openly hypocritical. Leftists just move the goal post and then insult you when you point it out (as you do, constantly - so maybe I was wrong).

So, yeah. If you don't know what you're talking about it's best not to talk.

To begin with, can you provide references evidencing that modern hunter-gather societies - or at least some such - are of an authoritarian leadership which so 'oversees' all others in the tribe so as to preserve social cohesion? — javra

No, because I didn't claim this. I sense some bristling in this response, so forgive me for being pretty lack luster in mine. I don't care for bristles. I talked about hte subjection of women. So, yeah, i'll be answering to that. I've also noted how self-defeating many of your bristles are. Not looking good for future exchanges, I have to say.

ve previously given references to my affirmations — javra

You gave me a Wikipedia list? No facts involved, my man.

It was also one which you can just click on each of those pages, and check their social organisation: in almost all cases, men hunt and build and marriage/sex is patriarchal - even in the cases where this is, supposedly, not the case, the article contradicts itself, The very first one:

"In the Aka community, despite a sexual division of labor where women primarily serve as caregivers, male and female roles are highly flexible and interchangeable. Women hunt while men care for children, and vice versa, without stigma or loss of status. Women are not only as likely as men to hunt but can even be more proficient hunters."

If you're not seeing a problem, I can't say I care to explain it. Next, we get:

"leadership roles such as kombeti (leader), tuma (elephant hunter), and nganga (top healer) are consistently held by men in a community studied by anthropologist Barry Hewlett.[7]"

And, as I suspected in my earlier post/s, the article also very vaguely points out that colonialism changed their behaviours. No mention of the social changes, though you could simply go looking:

"Resulting changes in Aka social organization are difficult if not impossible to reconstruct for this early period. "
Given that other groups lost their strict women-subjecting culture upon colonisation (an example below) this isn't a stretch to say "I think someone's avoiding something"

Another random click:

the Moriori, in their attempts to get rid of gendered violence institutionalized it

"...because men get angry and during such anger feel the will to strike, that so they may, but only with a rod the thickness of a thumb, and one stretch of the arms length, and thrash away, but that on an abrasion of the hide, or first sign of blood, all should consider honour satisfied.

— Oral tradition[30]"

Another:

"The Ket was incorporated into the Russian state in the 17th century. Their efforts to resist were unsuccessful as the Russians deported them to different places in an attempt to break up their resistance. This broke up their strictly organized patriarchal social system and their way of life disintegrated."

And one more:

"The Bambuti tend to follow a patrilineal descent system, and their residences after marriage are patrilocal..... The only type of group seen amongst the Bambuti is the nuclear family."

"Sister exchange is the common form of marriage. Based on reciprocal exchange, men from other bands exchange sisters or other females to whom they have ties.[9]"

Clearly not egalitarian, despite the claim (not referenced) in the following paragraph, that they are.

I also spent about eight years looking in to and speaking with members of Amazonian tribes (for different reasons) and it was patently obvious all of those groups (Jivaro, Shipibo, Ashaninka etc..) are patriarchal through endless books, conversations and papers - I can't pull out some specific reference without carrying out some actual research, which this thread doesn't call for.

Further, this concept of hte 'noble savage" or some weird idea that indigenous societies were more just than ours needs to stop. They were mostly brutal and unforgiving.

You just named their cause.

I've never seen anything uncaused. I have no reason to think that would fail prior to the big bang. Maybe a better thing would be to say "I want to know why the singularity existed".