Phenomenon b, which is the brain state that helps regulate our respiration. That is autonomic and not mental. Thus that state is objective (and necessarily not subjective). — Terrapin Station

“Automatic and not mental” doesnt seem accurate here. What is the difference between the brain states that makes one “mental” and the other not? Are you going to say its about consciousness, or simply being aware of the brain state? Presumably you intend that anything one has knowledge of is “mental” and that which we do not have knowledge of (regardless of it being a brain state of a kind as well) is not “mental”. Is that right?

To the OP:

I think there is indeed a culture of victimhood and outrage on the left, a PC culture that hides behind social justice and equal rights. I think it is also true that these are a fringe minority and its an error to attribute the actions/veiws of all sociel justice movements to this fringe element. Actual good comes out of Metoo and people striving for equality and social justice, even though those things are co-opted by the fringe in service of an authoritarian, virtue signaling and facist agenda.
The people who loudly and aggressively attack anyone who doesnt conform to their leftist views are just that, loud and aggressive. They arent numerous, they do not represent the majority left and they only have power in so much as others on the left, the media and corporations worried about losing profits from a dirtied public image give to them.

I didnt intend to connect my question to anything Terrapin was saying.
It seems a very strict use of the word, that if you experience any doubt or know of any substantive/rational reason why your position MIGHT be in error then you cannot be convinced of the position. It seemed like you had a specific utility for that use and indeed you do, trying to lock down what you consider Terrapins slippery usuage of language.
As I just noticed aletheist has pointed out, there is another state of being “unconvinced” that softens the strictness of the usage of that word, which I think is correct in general.

Why do you want to lock down the use of “convinced” in this way? What purpose does that serve?

It depends on how exactly you mean, but in general, sure. Why not? If genetic tinkering can make the lives of humans or animals better then I see no reason not to.

Lol, im trying to understand what YOU are saying.
I may not understand what you are intending by the word “being”, so I wanted to know in what sense you are intending the term. Do you understand what I mean by the two senses of the word “being”? “Being” as in ”a state of existing” or “being” as in “an entity”?

Ok, when you say “necassary being”, are you talking about an entity, or a first cause? Do you mean “being” as in existing, or “being” as in “a being”?

An objective claim is not the same thing as an objective view.

I dont think that gives us an objective view, I think it gives us an objective standard. An objective view is not possible when the viewer is a subjectve experiencer, while the objective standard (or “measure” if you prefer) is something the experiencer has set up to be referenced as a tool in precisely the way you described.

Indeed, that is why I tried making the distinction between first cause and a “being”.
People often try to masquerade the first cuase as a theistic argument when it actually is no more than a deistic argument.

Common definitions of "being" include simply "the quality or state of having existence" or "something that actually exists." — Terrapin Station

I didnt get a notification for this, for some reason.
Im aware of that usuage, but it seems pretty clear that Rank was using it differently. “A necessary being” was how he put it. That is different that even just “necessary being”, which would be more in line with the usuage you pointed out but still (imo) a pretty strong implication that he was talking about a being with some kind of personage.

Having a subjective basis for morality is separate from how your normative ethics work. I can agree that at the metaethcal level, moral values are completely subjective. But going a level above that (normative and applied ethics), it doesn't become subjective. One can base their ethics on whatever the law dictates.

Metaethics: I feel it is right to base your morals on the law. (subjective)

Normative ethics: What is morally right is what is legal. What is morally wrong is what is illegal. (descriptive)

Applied ethics: It is wrong to steal, because it is illegal. — chatterbears

Have you seriously considered that you do not know what you are talking about? You are clearly philosophically ignorant, and unlike Terrapin I simply do not have the patience to educate someone who thinks they know what they are talking about but do not.

Ya, I agree.

Ok, I understand the way YOU view those instances but that isnt what you said, you said “everyone” whether they “realize/admit it or not”. I think you can say that about morality being based on some kind of subjectivity/feelings, but it is erroneous to apply that to everyone in all moral instances. As we just discussed, some people are not actually doing that.
It is a substantive distinction there, and people will have trouble with your stances if you do not make it even if they can’t articulate why.
Anyway, I don’t suppose your all that interested and I DID just sorta butt in on a discussion you were having so unless you think Ive made annerror in my assessment Ill go back to observing.

Well when you said “how I feel about the behavior in question.” I took that to be your feeling in the moment, rather than your feeling when you decide the foundations of your ethics.

When they reference a moral code rather than their feelings. Yes, the code has its basis in feelings essentially but thats not necessarily whats directly being referenced in the specific instance.

Im not sure I understand, you want an example of a moral instance? Why would you need a specific example? It applies to all moral instances...well potentially, obviously someone like you yourself uses feelings in each instance. Not everyone has to in order to be consistent with your/our premiss of feelings being the foundation of morality. Reason and logic alone can inform those instances.

I understand that feelings are at the root of morality and ethics, I think we agree there. That doesnt mean feelings inform all instances of morality though, that is what I think is erroneous. The implication of what you said is that someone couldnt be relying on logic and reason to take moral stances on a specific instance, which doesnt directly follow from the “feelings” foundation.

This is the point I have been trying to address with Terrapin for a while now. He seems to be only addressing ethics from a meta perspective, without even acknowledging the normative or applied ethical realm, which is also very important and does in fact matter. — chatterbears

It isnt very important to him, nor does it in fact matter to him. His moral views preclude your inclusion of them, and your attempts to hold him (or anyone else with such views) to those standards are doomed to fail. Im not sure why you fail to understand this considering you have admitted a subjective basis for morality already. His subjective basis is different than yours, and his measures are therefore different as well.

I didnt suggest you should, just that you shouldnt make an erroneous claim about the mechanism “everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not”. The fact that reason can be at play rather than someone's feelings in a specific moral case/behaviour is a direct contradiction to the case by case claims you make any time you are “discussing” morality on this forum (in my observation anyway, im still relatively new).

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not. — Terrapin Station

Not everyone uses that mechanism for “the behaviour in question”. One could adhere to a principal that they dont particularly feel like adhering to at this time but do so out of a dedication to their principals in general. Yes, you will argue that the “feelings” are still the basis for the dedication to the principal in the first place, but that isnt the same thing as their feelings on each behaviour/morals.

No apology needed, I was just interested in hearing how that might work! Lol

Ah, I see. I would have called that subjective, relative sounds like they change depending on there position to one another....

How do you mean “relative”?

I agree, I think the focus on the action in morality/ethics leads to inconsistency, and consistency is one of if not the main basis for ethics.
It doesnt matter WHAT you think is moral so much as WHY.

Im not asking you to discuss cause vs being. You said a case can be made for being, Im asking you to explain it. Typically a person who says they can make a case for something is willing to do it. Well, alright, carry on with whatever you were doing I guess.

Im

Yes, in asking why.

It is definitely not just a semantic point. “Being” is very different in its meanings and implications.

I understand your point, I just dont understand why you use “being” or “entity” rather than “cause” or simething similar.

Right, but how do you get to a being or entity?

How could we possibly know if the first cause is a being?

Also faith has no explanatory power, it isnt a good reason for believing in anything. Its the answer people give when they have no reason, and then act like they have given a good reason.

A first cause maybe, but being not so much.

Including gods existence itself.

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that...

Non-theistic is precisely what Atheism is. It is not a claim that god doesnt exist. On atheism alone you aren’t walking around claiming god doesnt exist, that would be some sort of anti-theism. Many atheist are antitheists as well, and thats where people get confused. If I come to you with an idea about a new god, you are an atheist about that god until you become convinced my new god is real. If you are not convinced and you feel a conflict with something you know or accept as true then you might want to make the assertion that my new god does not exist, you would be some varaiation of an Anti-New God-ist.
These distinctions are the philosophical and common sense uses.

You are still making a category error. The law of identity doesnt apply to “music” and “the song of Kashmir”, music is a universal and Kashmir song a particular. It does not violate the law.

Trees and matter are the same catagory error, even though you are trying to make a separate point.

Music is not a particular, it is a universal, or type. It is a catagory error for you to use the Law of Identity in the way you did, there has been no violation.