It's fairly simple to do an analysis in terms of Article 8 or the ECHR. I'm not sure what the septics have in terms of HR law.

Article 8 is the right to a private life. It's a qualified right, not an absolute right (the right to life is an example of an absolute right). That means it can be restricted under certain circumstances in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. Here it is in full:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. — ECHR

I've highlighted the relevant legitimate aim in bold.

Any restriction of a qualified right must be proportional and reasonable. That's why, in the UK at least, if someone has a medical reason that wearing a mask is difficult, or they have sensory issues that makes wearing a mask very uncomfortable, they don't have to wear one. Also, no one has to wear a mask if they go for a walk outside, as long as they socially distance. This is all reasonable and proportional to the risks and discomfort involved. People are not being asked to wear masks in an unreasonable way under any circumstances whatever. This is not a civil liberties issue. It's well within the law that covers people's right to a private life. As soon as the pandemic is over, the requirement to wear a mask will be lifted. It if isn't, for no good reason, than that might breach Article 8. But at present, it doesn't.

Tell me how many of the 500,000+ dead, my family members among those we lost, would still be alive if President Hillary Clinton had been chosen. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Probably less, and that's all that matters. Requesting a specific number is silly. It's possible some of your family and friends who died would still be alive.

Every guidance on mask wearing I’ve read stipulates that mask wearing alone cannot prevent the spread of the virus. So alone, it is an unreasonable way to prevent transmission. And if preventing transmission is the sole purpose, we might as well do what China did and weld people into their dwellings. — NOS4A2

This would be a good post to analyse in a critical thinking class. No need on this forum of course.

Are we to propose our various ethical theories, which are in some senses arbitrary? — Philguy

I think arbitrariness is the defining feature of the good. What is good just is what we will.

If we are to take “reality” and “truth” to mean something related to the world as it seems that it is to our senses, all of our senses not just any one person’s, then (verifiable) disagreement with (anyone’s) empirical experience is another reason to disfavor some “is” claims versus others. That leaves us with a framework of critical empirical realism in which to work out the details of what is real.

And if we are to take “morality” and “goodness” to mean something related to the world as it seems that it ought to be to our appetites, all of our appetites not just any one person’s, then (verifiable) disagreement with (anyone’s) hedonic experience is another reason to disfavor some “ought” claims versus others. That leaves us with a framework of liberal hedonic altruism in which to work out the details of what is moral. — Pfhorrest

This is extremely interesting and I've been wanting to dig into this properly for ages. I still don't have time unfortunately. I buy the first paragraph but not the second, although I'm not completely sure.

The difference is, I think, that with morality and goodness, the individual appetite reasserts itself even after the abstraction for everyone's appetites has occurred. It has the last word. As a recipe for determining public policy though, I think your account it's fine. But as an analysis of what goodness actually is, it's wrong. I want what's good for everyone, sure. As long as I get a bit more without anyone else knowing. That would be even better. The good just is what is willed, for that agent. And there's nothing in that to say we have to abstract for everyone, although we might want to (or not - depending on what we will).

EDIT: with truth, the abstraction is what we want. The view from nowhere. With goodness, the abstraction is ultimately irrelevant, what is good remains what I want, even after considering others.

Imagine that 3-D scanning and 3-D printing become so sophisticated that you could step into a machine that scanned the exact position and nature of every particle in your body and then send that information to a printer that could reconstitute a body with the same types of particles in the same positions within the body. Assume that the technology is 100% reliable, but part of the process is the destruction and recycling of the original body. Is there any reason to deny that the person who steps out of the machine at the other end is the person who steps into it. Would it matter if it wasn't the same person as long as they were convinced they were? — Aoife Jones

In practice it would be terribly easy to know which one was you.

You would be the one whose eyes you can't see.
You would be the one who experienced the world from the inside out, not the one you experience from the outside in.
You would be the one you experienced now, not the one you experienced at a slight time delay
You would be the one whose voice was moderated by bones in the skull, not the one whose voice was conditioned only by the column of air in the throat
etc etc
There is an incredibly clear asymmetry which would leave you in absolutely no doubt which one you were. Even if, to a third person, you were qualitatively identical.

fdrake missed out rivers and the nitrogen cycle

Rich & famous (for the talent of marrying up) colored lady got her feelings hurt, so then fucks off in a huff back to where she came from? And I'm suppose to have more than zero fucks to give about that? Because, y'know, everyday peeps - colored or whatever - don't get treated like that (or usually worse)? Bollocks, mate! Sorry. Pinched-off my daily MegXit this morning, feeling less full of it and quite relieved on that account.

For fuck's sake. :brow:

[How you like my drive-by quasi-Jonathan Pie rant?] — 180 Proof

It is quite Pie-esque

Traveling helps, being exposed to other forms of prejudice than the one at home, which we tend to internalize and be blind to. — Olivier5

I expect you are right. I've been exposed to very little cultural variety. I shock myself sometimes when my internalized attitudes come out unexpectedly.

Assertive Masturbation: Self Worth Through Self Knowledge, Jeremy Fornby

You're talking about types.

A pain is not an analogue of a token. It is a token of pain. An instance of a universal. A token of a type.

I'll just point out that there is nothing in, say, the SEP article on tokens to support your contention that they are private. — Banno

Well fuck the SEP then. Instances of pain are obviously private in the sense that when I feel a pain you don't. OK, lets test this. Which finger did I just stab with a toothpick?

What are you talking abut, Bert? Tokens or pains? If tokens, where is the token in stubbing your toe?

And if I see you stub your toe, I might indeed say "ouch!". — Banno

Tokens. The toe stubbing I did on Tuesday is the same type of toe-stubbing that I did on Wednesday, but they are different tokens.

You might say 'ouch' but in sympathy only. Your toe wouldn't hurt.

It's private in the sense that when I stub my toe, you don't say 'ouch'.

The first one I think.

If that were the case then talk of shared pain would not make sense.

And yet, as the very discussion here shows, we can talk of pains that are the same - both from time to time and place to place in one's own body, and also in the bodies of other people. — Banno

Isn't this confusing quantitative and qualitative identity? Tokens are private. Types are shared.

Of course life has no point. If it had, man would not be free. — 180 Proof

Is that supposed to imply a modus tollens:

If life has a point, then man is not free.
Man is free.
Therefore life has no point.

Do you think that is sound? Or was it just a drive by interesting quote?

Isn't the distinction obviously one of direction of fit? An "is" statement will be felicitous if what is said were modified to match what is the case. An "ought" statement will be felicitous if what is the case is modified to match what was said. — Banno

That's very interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that.

I've been wanting to think this issue through since Pfhorrest started making this point. I'm unsure of the subject.

I voted for the third option but only because I'm a panpsychist and I think the way the world is is possibly the result of a negotiation between subjects. But I could have voted for any option - each has its argument.

In favour of the first option, I have been wondering if the fact that I am me and not another one (or no one in particular) makes a difference. In matters of fact, it does not matter who is making the scientific observation. The whole idea of science is that it doesn't matter who does it. We should get the same result. Whereas in matters of ethics it (arguably) does matter. From a God's eye view, everyone's suffering is of equal importance. But for me, one person's suffering is of massive significance compared to all the others. That one is bert1. So there's an asymmetry that doesn't exist (does it?) with the descriptive stuff. I can think of some rebuttals to this, so I could be wrong. I'm undecided on the subject.

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak? — Darkneos

For me, because I would feel ashamed with myself I think. However foolish the game may be, it affords one an opportunity one would not otherwise have. Namely, to learn the rules and prove to oneself that one is, if not competent, then capable of a little improvement. If someone says they don't value improvement, and they feel no shame at all in the refusal to take part, there is no reddening of the cheeks as they refuse the relationship, then so be it. I'm not sure I would believe them.

EDIT: This is one of my more pompous posts. A fine display.

The rule is big muscles and/or big wallet. Romance is nice and flattering, but a girl has to be practical. — unenlightened

I more or less concur. Weird and good looking works for teens. Then things get awfully practical. Fit and healthy, strong, lots of money.

EDIT: there are somewhat different rules for specialist groups.

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. — Thinking

But this isn't true. Many problems have been solved by philosophers, but there is no consensus on which ones, and there is no method we can use to settle the matter. Scientific questions are different, we have a method to settle disagreements.

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos

I'm not sure and it's a good question. For me the possibility and actuality of relationships keep me going, I think. And I am most despairing when I find myself unable to relate to others well. Maybe separation creates the possibility of value, but then if relationships don't work well, or others are uncooperative, there is a tendency to want to take one's ball home, permanently. That'll show the buggers. I know I feel it quite a lot.

Do you notice an awkwardness in your thinking? Awkwardness almost to the the point of an inability to think the words at all? — Ken Edwards

A little, yes.

This guy feels the same as you..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjYQUmNtwt0&list=PLCdW3jMJiDFAYG5-VFQy0eLyHqdGnstnB

Skip to about 31 mins.

And physically, everyone is the centre of the universe.

Hitting bottom is not a pleasant perspective to look forward to. — Nikolas

Mmmm.

I will never understand the thinking of the masses of defending the consumption of something that is toxic to their own existence. — Gus Lamarch

I'm not defending the consumption of anything. I'm saying its irrelevant to the merit of an idea.

I don't agree but in any case, the insight has stayed with Ori after he has sobered up. It's very odd to stipulate conditions which must obtain before philosophy can be done, even odder to not consider a view because of what state the person conceived it in.

Do you also wonder why number two is number two instead of, say, number three? — litewave

I suspect not, as that is an entirely different issue.

What do you mean? You're not allowed to have insights when drunk?

Why is one lump of clay a brick, and another lump a vase? — unenlightened

That's a different question and much more easily answerable. There can be an explanation in terms of prior causes, a historical story.

EDIT: Whereas if we tell Ori's historical story, he can just say "But why am I this historical story and not another one?"

This is not philosophy, but the delusion of someone under the influence of drugs... — Gus Lamarch

It is philosophy and it's not a delusion.

Are you asking why you exist? — Bartricks

No he isn't. He's asking why he is this one rather than some other one.

Your question is perhaps another angle on the classic one, who am I? — Jack Cummins

He's not asking that one either I don't think.

I'd do a story in which something subtle didn't happen, call that thing Q. I didn't notice it at first. But it made me feel uneasy. Maybe I notice its absence again. Eventually it hits me. If Q didn't happen, that means that P, an incredibly important thing that would definitely result in Q can't have happened either! What a shocker!

Modus tollens:

If P then Q
Not-Q
Therefore not-P

Yeah, maybe. To be honest I don't know what it is. It struck me as the sort of thing a philosopher might say.

Actually I suppose there is a sort of point. You can make generalisations, and in doing so you create a group that that generalisation holds true for. But the act of generalising precedes the group. Or does it?

EDIT: I also find the cunt/wanker distinction interesting. These are undefined empty insults on the face of it, but they have an intuitive sense to me. There was a RHLSTP episode which included a brief discussion about it with Mark Steel.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_lst_podcast/rhlstp_182_mark_steel/

I think removing the desire to attribute characteristics to entire groups as if the group itself was an individual is a good place to start. — NOS4A2

That's all very well. But take the group of cunts. They're all cunts aren't they? They just are. Same with wankers, there's no non-wankers among them.

"What Its Legitimacy" was a way of demonstrating that the legitimacy of something - even the vocabulary that we deem to be the "standard" - can be completely revealed to be empty by the simple misplacement of some letters, for it needs the subjective statement of others, and how the realization of the same can raise the fear of many when their truths are pointed out as wrong.

And I proved to be correct when they decided to "re-legitimize" their views on the vocabulary's own legitimacy, by changing the title without any respect for the discussion and my freedom of expression. — Gus Lamarch

Hah! I think that's a legitimate win for Gus.

What it's the title supposing to means?

Sages of yore — Thinking

I'm one of those I reckon. I'll make up some shit about panpsychism and causes in a bit if I get the time. Basically forces are wills, maybe.

If you don't care because you are, as you say, selfish, you are looking in the wrong place: Your regard for others doesn't matter. — Constance

You mean my regard for others is ethically irrelevant? And which person I am is ethically irrelevant? If we divorce ethics from particular interests and a point of view, doesn't it just become irrelevant to that person? I mean I need a reason to do the right thing that is consistent with what I want. If x y and z are ethically correct, but I don't give a shit about them, I'm not sure where we go from there. Objective ethics are irrelevant ethics. They don't connect to anything.

EDIT: convergent intersubjective ethics are quite different from objective ethics. They are still wholly relativist.