1. The purpose of discussions like these is for your interlocutors to spot flaws in your argument, either for sport, for genuine persuasion (for those that think such a thing might work), or to simply act as editors and proofreaders to help hone argumentative skills.

2. Moral arguments such as the ones of yours I used as examples, are not isolated arbitrary policy opinions. They are connected by rational inference to other feelings, concepts etc. Therefore one of the flaws that can be spotted is something claiming to be a rational inference which is not, or one which is poorly expressed.

3. It is impractical (maybe even impossible) for a person to lay out their whole Web of beliefs prior, or even during, a discussion like this.

Therefore, to carry out 1 in a moral discussion, where the only errors are rational inferences between ideas, it makes sense to assume a relatively broad 'normal' range of beliefs at 2 because of the impracticality at 3. Especially as one is very likely to be broadly right in such an assumption.

The alternative is that discussion like this get dominated by teasing out the whole Web from one oddball, or we don't really have anything to discuss. — Isaac

Instead of picking apart all of the issues this has in my opinion, could you give at least a fictional example of how you think this would work for usefulness?

What would be a moral argument where it would be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity, and then give an example of how the discussion would proceed so that the assumption was useful. If you can give a good example, maybe you'll persuade me.

:up:

f you don't even understand what's wrong with allowing a proposition like, "All crimes beginning with 'm' should be legalised", to pass through your moral system, — S

See, this is a good example. You're not capable of articulating what you think is wrong with it in any detail. Saying things like "you should know already," "it's absurd," "it's not sensible/it's contrary to common sense," "it's cuckoo," etc. don't count as articulating what you think is wrong with it in any detail.

I have no Idea why you'd think that. — S

Because to me, it's what you seem to be doing. It's partially because you can't articulate what your actual views are very well, at least in any detail.

That was a lot of writing to not even answer the question you quoted at the start of it.

You said mentioned the "usefulness in discussion" of "assuming the likelihood of broad conformity."

I asked, "So just what is the usefulness in discussion of assuming that? Is it supposed to imply something? What?"

I'd be interested in you answering that. Going off on a big tangent about my comments, my motivations for posting what/how I post on boards like this, etc. does nothing to answer the question I asked about something you said.

So, assuming the likelihood of broad conformity is useful in discussions like this in your opinion because of what? What's the usefulness?

Yeah, whatever. I'm gradually learning I feel much better about my involvement here if I just stop responding when it gets to this kind of crap. "You don't know what you're talking about" is kind of a red flag. Happy to resume when you've calmed down, otherwise not. — Isaac

Nothing uncalm about it. Just honest. I'm not going to indulge something ignorant just because you said it.

Simple. Its neither 'weight' nor 'importance' of consensus, its the liklihood of broad confirmity and the usefulness in discussion of assuming it. — Isaac

So just what is the usefulness in discussion of assuming that? Is it supposed to imply something? What?

Like I said, thats a different issue. — DingoJones

But what's the different issue they're getting at? Just announcing that there are things that are more statistically common, as if I'm not aware of that? What would be the point of announcing that there are things that are more statistically common?

Well, so I agree that there are widespread standards for some things, and individuals can choose to acquiesce to them, but the problem arrives in thinking that the standard in question has any sort of normative weight simply for being common.

Haha, I love that old Woody Allen stuff.

By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, the lack of which causes disrespect to life. Also, political, economic, and social power that technologies allow to accumulate and the following inequality, based on the ideology of technological supremacy, or technofascism. — lepriçok

Even given that, he asked what it would follow from. You just clarified a definition. You didn't at all address what it would follow from.

You're the best candidate around here for an interpreter, so to speak, but I don't know how successful you can be at that.

I'm not going to be able to get why they're so drawn to consensuses, to a point where they think they're correct/incorrect and have normative weight (at least when it suits them (in S's case)), and why they can't see that the latter part of that is fallacious, and they're not going to get why I'm "perversely" denying the normative importance of consensuses.

As I said, it's not 'impossible' to ride a neutrino, — Isaac

Yeah, you said that because you don't know what the fnck you're talking about.

Holy moley. You go on with all of this Aspieish crap, and you don't answer one friggin question.

Obviously we're talking about moral values.

And I've been saying OVER AND OVER that I'm talking about whether it's physically possible for there to be something not "able" to be either positively or negatively valued.

I asked you why you were bringing up the idea of "healthy"/"undamaged" (I know why, but I want you to address the crap you're trying to "sneak in"), and you first responded with some oblique nonsense without answering the question, and here you bring it up again.

Most people, by the way, would say that an "inch" is more or less "what the ruler says it is."

Well, here's one report on the variances in rulers:

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/MSCProceedings94.pdf

You of all people should know that knowledge claims are not based on absolute proof, come on! — Isaac

I'm being sarcastic. There's no way to know that no one has ever had an idea for an alternate measurement standard (again, ignoring that we already know the history of this where it's not the case that there haven't been alternate, sometimes simultaneous measurement standards).

Again, this is rather disingenuous considering your usual attention to detail. — Isaac

You literally wrote, in support of there only being one measurement standard that no one ever has proposed a different measurement standard.

And actually, something else that you're overlooking is the fact that not all rulers, measuring tapes, etc. use 127/500 of the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second for calibration. So it's not at all the case that there's a universal length for an inch anyway. (I'd bet anything that many ruler manufacturers aren't even aware of the official standard that an inch is 127/500 of the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. They probably just use some sort of template they have on hand.)

Again, you're ignoring my argument re moral foundational principles vs moral 'views'. Abstenence from sex before marriage is a moral view with normative weight, but no one (and I mean no one) is simply born, or grows up with a gut feeling that they should abstain from sex before marriage. The position derives from more foundational ones (we should seek to follow the Bible, we should resist carnal temptation as a virtue, we should not cause harm to others - presuming such an act would result in harm, etc...). Even some of those will be based on even more foundational beliefs. — Isaac

I'm not a foundationalist, first off. Not just for ethics, but also for epistemology in general, I more or less buy Quine's "web of beliefs" view. When I talk about foundational view, I'm talking about that in a relative context, where it's something serving as a foundation in a particular instance. That's how I believe we reason. With "moveable 'foundations'" in a complex web of beliefs/stances. ("Moveable 'foundations'" are a bit like "moveable 'do'" in solfege if you're familiar with that.)

No moral stance has to "grow out of" or be based on any other moral stance, especially in a given instance.

The foundational view is another big gaffe that grows out of mathematics fetishism.

So when we discuss normative moral positions we make an assumption about shared foundational beliefs — Isaac

All that it means to discuss normative moral positions is to talk about what we feel should or ought to be the case. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharing anything. Sharing anything has no normative weight. In other words, normatives (shoulds, oughts) don't actually have anything at all to do with statistical norms. Or, another way to say that is that statistical norms (or you could say sharing, including proportionate to how widespread it is) in no way imply, suggest, etc. anything about what should or ought to be the case, or what is correct/incorrect, in the sense of what you ought to or should do.

This is too long already, I've already said most of this stuff, and we're getting nowhere, so I'm leaving it off at that for now. I don't like ignoring parts of posts, but don't drone on and on.

So what would be something that you believe it would be physically impossible to positively or negatively value?

Expression = speech.

Not all actions are speech. Stabbing someone isn't speech, for example.

A reason to use "expression" instead of "speech" in a comment is that "speech" is often read with a connotation that it's only referring to natural language utterances, and sometimes it's read with a connotation that it's only referring to talking, as opposed to writing. "Expression" is more readily read with a broader connotation, where it includes things like artworks, too.

Meaning anarchy. — Shamshir

Not all actions are speech.

Yeah. It's very unusual to go by any interpretation which means that people can't get matters like we've been talking about right or wrong. — S

What you seem to be doing is trying to figure out how to interpret normal folks so that per the exact language they happen to use, they don't have any either bollocksed or unanalyzed beliefs. (Although for some reason you don't really seem to do that when it comes to religion.)

Yes. I want to live in a world where anyone can express anything whatsoever, in any context.

The same kind of justification. The elevator example is a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion. What's the problem? Could it, perchance, be my interpretation? — S

What you wrote is "in a sense that I'm making up" as if I were appealing to some unusual sense of the terms.

Use those eyes for once and read before you reply. — Shamshir

If someone just comes up to you and says "Kill yourself," the way you know their intent is?

Again, read before replying. — Shamshir

"Kill yourself' would be what's expressed, not intent, right? Intent and what's expressed are not the same.

But I'm using the same kind of justification as you are, — S

The justification I'm using is that "correct/incorrect" have a normative connotation, but commonality or consensus do not make normatives obtain. Is that the same justification you're using?

Why ever say 'I love you' when 'Kill yourself' with loving intent works the same, is that it? — Shamshir

Again, intent, what's expressed, and how it's taken are not the same things.

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" . . . God is seen as foreign to the creation of women — Bridget Eagles

Ummmm . . .

But that's like saying that elevators don't go up or down, — S

No, it's not, because that wouldn't be a category error.

I don't see how loving intent produces a threat, — Shamshir

It would simply be a case of someone thinking something different than what they're saying. There are a number of different ways to do that, including saying something facetiously, but you can just simply do it to do it, too.

Ah, you conceded. About time! — S

Well, don't forget that I'd add that it's not incorrect, either. Correct/incorrect are a category error for this stuff.

How absurd do things have to get until we begin to think, "Hold on a minute, if this counts as philosophy, maybe I should find another hobby". Or is philosophy really all about someone saying ludicrous things, whilst others point out funny logical consequences, and have a good old laugh? — S

Bertrand Russell once said, "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to not seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.”

I don't feel very loved when I'm threatened, so no - it couldn't. — Shamshir

You don't see the difference between someone's intent, someone's action, and your reaction?

You do, though. I'm not reaching that conclusion from the rationalisations you're coming out with. — S

I have no problem accepting that you don't believe me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That should have been clear from the post you're responding to. I don't expect you to believe it, because it's too far beyond the scope of what you can imagine.

You don't think that free speech absolutism is right? Could've fooled me. Why are we arguing over it then? — S

It's my preference. It's not correct. Why are we arguing over it? People like to argue. At first, Wittgenstein thought maybe I wasn't considering "difficult cases." So he presented one. I clarified my view in the context of such difficult cases. He brought up "cause and effect." I stated my view about causality in this context, and then people wanted to argue about causality. I made it clear that what I care about in this regard is force, but folks wanted to keep arguing.

Presumably someone like you wants to argue about it because you're not comfortable with people being too different from yourself and what you consider to be the norm.

Go ahead and threaten me with loving intent. — Shamshir

Any random threat could be an example.

They're clearly malicious. — Shamshir

You mean re intent? Someone could say any utterance with any conceivable intent.

I didn't say that was vague. I said that "harm" is. "Harm" is as bad as "suffering." If you go to the current antinatalist thread, you can find someone who has a moral problem with "suffering" even when the person who is "suffering" has absolutely no issues with the states in question. For example, normal hunger is classified as suffering, even when someone has no negative assessment of being hungry so that they get off the couch and open the refrigerator to get something to eat.

And you don't see the harm in that? — Shamshir

I don't consider it to be anything that is morally wrong or that should be legislated against. "Harm" is too vague to make generalizations about. Certainly some people are psychologically harmed by words--certainly some people are psychologically harmed by all sorts of things. I don't base any moral or legislative stances merely on the concept of "harm."

Again, as I've made clear numerous times in this thread, I'd require that we can demonstrate that words force any particular action for me to have the opinion that words are harmful in a way that I'd consider morally problematic or necessary to prohibit.

You don't use that word, and you're oh so humble as a result — S

It's not that I don't use that word. I do not believe that my preferences are correct just because I have them. You're so far up your own derriere that you can't comprehend how that could be the case, though, I suppose.

No, I mean that you stubbornly think that you're right about your free speech fundamentalism in the face of much criticism. — S

Not in the slightest. It's not something that one can be correct or incorrect about. It's simply my disposition, my preferences about it. That should underscore why criticism is of little use. Criticism of someone's preferences isn't likely to make them change their preferences. If you love the taste of grapefruit, no amount of criticism that people can lob at you about that is going to result in you not loving the taste of grapefruit. Hopefully, you wouldn't think that your love of grapefruit is "correct," so that people who don't like the taste of grapefruit are "incorrect," but who knows.

So you don't maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective, then. You just said, "Yes, of course", which means, "No, of course not". — S

As if meaning were the same as the observable aspect of word usage.

Yes of course. If I weren't, I wouldn't be able to say that I'm in favor of there being no speech prohibitions, would I?

I'm not saying you can't invent them. I'm saying it's hugely significant to the process of normative discussions (like the one this thread is about) that no one ever has. — Isaac

Aside from the fact that you're claiming to know everything anyone has ever proposed, which obviously you'd not know, you're aware that the measurement standards, per widespread acceptance, have not only changed over time, but there have been competing standards in effect simultaneously at various historical times, right?

it is of huge significance that there is not one single functioning alternative to the agreement about what length an inch is. — Isaac

Huge significance for what re anything at all that's relevant to my comments?

It means that for normative discussions (say, teaching a child to measure, or how long we should make some timber component) we need not at all go into the fact that the length of an 'inch' is arbitrary. It would be a foolish sideline. — Isaac

Although if anyone is thinking it's not subjectively devised, "arbitrary" in that sense, and/or "correct" simply by virtue of being common, I think we should go into that fact.

If you just wanted to have a discussion about what the common views are, as if you were doing a bit of descriptive cultural anthropology, then yeah, you'd be less likely to talk about arbitrariness, etc.--or at least that would be a big sidebar for it.

Hopefully you'd not be of a view that a cultural norm amounts to a normative, because it doesn't.