I'm just trying to give a type of an example. — schopenhauer1

So a

fallacy of Appeal to Extremes — schopenhauer1

then?

So where seems to be the problem? — baker

Obviously lost in the labyrinthine discussion we seem to be having.

@Pfhorrest posts an OP which identifies groups of dissenters (from one's own view of what's right), people generally chime in criticising the idea that any group might be treated as 'wrong', or having 'bad' ideas. I'm arguing that opposing ideas are either trivial (disagreement doesn't matter), or non-trivial, in which case there's a moral dimension to holding any given view. When people act outside of our moral code we usually express some opposition. It seems odd to me that there would be such an resistance to doing so with the holding of ideas which have a moral consequence.

Another way of putting it might be that ideas are either meaningless or they affect the world. If the former, then what's the point in resolving disagreement? If the latter then it's no less morally relevant to hold an idea that it is to act.

We dismiss, ostracise, even fight with people whose behaviour is in opposition to our moral codes. Why do ideas get treated differently?

It's when people don't know yet how to properly formulate a syllogism, when they don't know much about informal fallacies, and so on. So they express their thoughts and their concerns in a pre-philosophical way. Hence all the "it seems to me" mixed with all those expressions of certainty.


A person could rightfully be accused of the conceit you mention if they also demonstrate that they are able to think and write philosophically, but that in some instances, they characteristically refuse to. — baker

I can't make out what you're trying to say here. My point was that philosophical agreements are either trivial or they have moral connotations (with all that's incumbent). I can't quite see how the issue of skill at analysing arguments plays in.

I don't think the UK's medicine regulators would agree with you that they took a gamble.. — Tim3003

Really. So you think they considered there to be a zero chance that an increase in the amount of time they took would have yielded anything. What reason can you suggest as to why, on purely scientific grounds, the regulators in Britain seemed to be of this view whilst the regulators from the continent not so. Is it something in the water perhaps? Something affecting the continental brain that they can't see scientific certainty of this kind?

I don't understand where you're getting with this. — baker

I was countering your view that "most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them." Were that the case disagreement over the status of X would be irrelevant since one would have no reason to think its relevance to oneself might need to be corroborated by relevance to another.

People do not simply passionately declare that X us relevant to them. They passionately declare that X seems to them to be the case in such a way as to imply that such a property renders X necessary, in some way.

This is the conceit we adopt when we imagine the 'polite debate', respecting the views of either side.

Either it doesn't matter at all what your interlocutors think (in which case, by extension, it doesn't matter to them what you think) - rendering the exercise trivial at best. Or, it does matter what they think (it affects society in some way) - in which case their thinking it has a moral dimension with all the potential judgement and ostracism associated with that.

He immediately answered the Covid-19 pandemic and, as a 12-year old, was happy that he had experience something really historic in his lifetime. — ssu

Bit morbid, but since there's been a pandemic of greater than 1 million fatality about every fifty years since at least early nineteenth century, this is going to be the case for almost everyone.

...Oh no, I forgot. This came completely out of the blue, without precedent and there's nothing whatsoever we could have done in preparation. All those previous pandemics must have been something else.

The point was that something's seeming to you to be the case is not contradictory to that thing's seeming to someone else not to be. And yet the bulk of disagreement seems to be on that very issue.

I think most of the conversations at forums like this are about people, ie. the people directly involved and the way some particular idea is relevant or irrelevant to them. — baker

You may read a different range of posts to me. The overwhelming majority of threads I read are of the form...

"it seems to me that X is the case".

"X cannot be the case because it seems to me that Y is the case and that Y contradicts X",

"but Y cannot be the case, because, as you have just admitted, it contradicts X and yet it seems to me that X is the case"...

...and so on.

Like I've been saying all along, but your not payng attention, you can only claim what us right or wrong for yourself. Are you saying it is right for you to infringe on other peoples rights? — Harry Hindu

Yeah, pig-headedly refusing to address an issue doesn't make the issue go away. We're talking about moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are almost exclusively social which means that any answer cannot be individually tailored. There can only be a single right answer and it must apply to everyone sharing the common interest that isvthe subject of the dilemma.

Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? — Harry Hindu

No.

That everyone has a different idea about what is the 'right' solution to any given moral dilemma, and that we cannot adjudicate between those opinions is moral relativism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of to whom one's 'right' solution applies.

I suppose it comes down to how much education a person has and how much reading and thinking they've done so far, so considerable differences among individuals are to be expected because of that. — baker

True, although I think a topic like philosophy is perhaps a little unusual in this regard. Unless the subject being discussed is what some philosopher said (or was likely to have meant - exegesis), then there is no body of knowledge that's relevant to the question. Particularly true in ethics.

So, often an idea might be expressed even more doggedly by someone invested in that framing than it might be by a layman, but the idea itself does not gain anything by repetition, whether by expert or layman.

Given that the EU has taken a month longer to come to the same approval of the Covid drugs as the UK did, they have probably allowed thousands more deaths than if they had started vaccinating when the UK did... — Tim3003

Obviously. But it's only possible to say that in hindsight, so it's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the action was right or not. Had there been a severe reaction, putting pressure on hospital services just at a time when they're already overstretched, it may have been the other way around and we'd be condemning the recklessness of the UK.

It's daft to judge the rightness of an approach which we all know was a gamble on the basis of whether that gamble paid off.

If I sent a load of people over an unsafe bridge to save money would my actions suddenly become right if, by chance, they all made it across OK?

Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere? — baker

I was talking about the point at which engagement stops, rather than the nature of the action to take. It goes back to what I said right at the beginning, most of these ideas are not new, and those that are become old very quickly. Most of what people consider 'not engaging with the ideas' is more properly "I've hard these ideas before, they were daft then and they're not any less daft in their new clothes".

To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest

Good principles.

Unfortunately those from whom you could learn are those to whom you think you should teach, and those whom you could teach think the same about you.

I'm talking about social harmony on the local scale. Anything that privileges some over others, any impositions on individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others, is obviously antisocial and not supportive of social harmony. — Janus

I'm aware of that. What I'm struggling to see is how you can pretend there's not still massive disagreements about which policies best meet these criteria in the real world.

The idea of...

individual autonomy and freedom to do whatever does not impinge on the freedom of others — Janus

...is one with which I doubt anyone would disagree, ideologues included, but surely you can see it intrinsically sets up a balance (how much must my actions impinge on the freedom of others in order to outweigh my autonomy?). It is that balance over which most such disagreements are fought.

'Freedom' is not something which can be easily measured, it is something which different people measure differently, as is privilege. There are an insignificantly small group who would actually disagree with such nebulous notions as freedom, autonomy and equality. The disputes are over what those terms actually mean.

The slow, bureaucratic - and now bitter - efforts of the EU have made the UK's quick regulatory approval of the vaccines and swift ordering look very impressive. — Tim3003

Why is speed approving a new drug an "impressive" thing? I could approve anything with tremendous speed by just rubber-stamping it, would you be impressed?

There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get personal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode. — schopenhauer1

So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race.

Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?

To my way of thinking an ideology is an overarching formulation of how everything should be. — Janus

You mean like...

social harmony — Janus

principles which are held for their own sakes — Janus

...rather than, for example...

because they are based on the ideas of freedom and equality — Janus

promoted not for any consequentialist reasons — Janus

...other than the consequentialist reason that they...

are necessary for social harmony — Janus

Any strong consequentialist motivations are based on mere speculation because no one knows the future, or is able to understand the human situation adequately due to its complexity. — Janus

So how then do you determine which ideas are necessary for social harmony if you cannot make a claim that X will promote or disrupt social harmony because of complexity of the human situation?

Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue. — baker

So for all practical purposes you couldn't actually tell the difference, in any given discussion because it's extremely unlikely you're going to know you interlocutor's past sufficiently to know if they have ever given any ideas a fair shake - ie you'll never know if they're dismissing your idea out of hand because they decided to do so on that occasion (philosopher) or because they always do so (idealogue).

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like. — baker

OK - have at it then.

Living is going to happen anyway. It neither requires, nor asks for, a reason. You'll breathe, eat when you're hungry, avoid dangers...all without so much as a passing glance at your 'reasons'. All the matters is lacking a reason to die.

You can't have true premises and a false conclusion. — emancipate

1. If Bob is a bachelor, then he is unmarried
2. Bob is a bachelor
3. Therefore: Bob is married

There you go. Turns out you can.

It's not the same as Benatar's argument. — Bartricks

It is the same as Benatar's argument.

Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. — David Benatar - Better Never To Have Been

Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality). — Harry Hindu

There's more than one person in a country. You know that, right?

Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me. — Harry Hindu

Where? Quote me doing that....literally anywhere on this site.

My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go. — Harry Hindu

Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was.

Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? — Harry Hindu

Where did I say it did?

Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. — Harry Hindu

But I thought you said...

How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? — Harry Hindu

So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access?


Anyway, since you seem more happy arguing with a simulacrum than taking any notice of what I've actually written, I'll leave you to it. Do drop me a line every once in a while though, just to let me know all the things I'm saying, it's nice to be kept in the loop.

It's just that the identity of man isn't given by the presence of the biological state of a penis (as seen in all those expectations who pretend don't have relevance), but rather through the identity itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is something that's too often skated over in these discussions. 'Man', 'male', 'he', and 'him' are just words, nothing more. The job they do is determined by the community of language users who maintain their meaning. Their use is not determined by some external authority, it's determined by us, the community using them.

The fact that, as you say, there exists only a spectrum of body-types, behaviours, feelings, even chromosomes is undeniable. The fact also that there exist patterns in these spectra (they do not evenly and homogeneously transform from one extreme to the other, but rather cluster in groups) is also undeniable.

Neither of these facts has the slightest thing to do with the choice of a language community to use words to loosely refer to any one of those clusters they can vaguely identify, and it is only these choices that are clashing.

There's not some god-given rule which states that the word 'man' can't be used to pick out a vague clustering of body-types and behaviours on those two spectra. The fact that body-type and behaviour are not discrete is irrelevant ('green' is not discrete either but blends seamlessly from yellow to blue, doesn't mean we can't have a word for it). The fact that the clusters of body-type and behaviour don't always align on their respective spectra is also irrelevant ('builder may refer to someone whose job it is to build or someone who is actually building - the two often, but not always coincide, the word causes no problems).

What the movement to change the way we use these words wants to do is just that. Change the clusters the words are used to pick out. Change them away from body-type, a bit more toward behaviour, and a lot more toward feelings. There's nothing wrong with that at all, the use of words is arbitrary and determined by the community using them. What is not right is the accompanying claim that the previous use was somehow wrong. There's nothing 'wrong' with a word picking out a loose clustering of properties along a spectrum - we do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with a word picking out a conjoined set of properties which do not always conjoin - again, we do this all the time.

There's one, and only one, relevant argument here. The terms we use (picking out the clusters and coincidences they do) leave some people feeling upset because, not falling into one of those clusters and coincidences, they feel the use of those terms somehow misrepresents them, and that's potentially a deeply unpleasant experience. Surely we have not become so monstrous as a society that something's being a deeply unpleasant experience for many is now insufficient an argument to change that thing? This move to tie oneself up in knots to make the other side somehow logically wrong (instead of just morally wrong) is making the problem worse and just builds bigger walls between opposing groups.

even if they did, that would only operate to exaggerate the badness of the suffering they undergo, for the better one behaves, the more unjust it becomes that one suffers. — Bartricks

Right. So if their life was full of 'deserved' please (because they're morally good people), or if their life is full of undeserved pleasure (because they're not), make no difference at all to the extent to which birth is justified - it's unjustified either way.

So why bring it up at all? You've just wasted three pages which could have been summed up by saying "I agree with Benetar's asymmetry argument" which you claimed to have read.

The only conclusion you're drawing here is that birth is unjustified because it causes an amount of suffering which no amount of pleasure in life is sufficient to justify.

It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependet upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously.

Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? — Harry Hindu

So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide?

To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...

The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each.

you are confusing the distinction between carring a weapon and using one on innocent, unarmed people. — Harry Hindu

No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns?

If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? — Harry Hindu

You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each.

That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume. — Harry Hindu

I didn't ask for the answers people would give. I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't.

Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person? — Harry Hindu

Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone.

Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. — baker

I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise.

Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?

The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion.

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual?

Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. — baker

How is that different from them being "willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when [they] decides to do so"? 'Never' is just the 'if and when' that they decide upon.

A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so. — baker

Who isn't?

There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.

It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them. — baker

Yes, I find that too.

So, you're suggesting that it could be arguable that consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, taking over responsibility for other people's lives, not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, imposing all these solutions 'from above', ignoring corruption, and not codifying values which support social harmony are examples of measures based on pragmatics, common sense and decency? — Janus

Yeah, easily.

consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on - makes businesses profitable which leads to more jobs and more prosperity, and anyway, all that unnecessary shit is stuff we want, that's why we buy it so it would be against values of autonomy to discourage people from doing so.

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances.

Why? — Isaac


Because most people do not live morally superlative lives (nor ought they, of course). Kind of obvious. — Bartricks

Most people are not grade 8 pianists either, but one could almost guarantee one's children would be if one were to train them from birth. That most people are not something does not in any way lead to the conclusion that it's not possible to ensure one's children are that thing.

Why not? — Isaac


I explained. It's the wordy bit that followed-on from that quote. — Bartricks

The bit I wanted explaining was ...

it's not going to tip the balance in any particular case. — Bartricks

So what I'd need was not your further opinion of what the balance might be but an explanation of why it could not be any other way.

You simply declared that...

the goodness of a deserved pleasure is greater than that of a non-deserved pleasure, it is not going to be better than not having suffered the undeserved suffering — Bartricks

...without support, and then went on to say that all this showed...

why knowingly creating undeserved suffering that deserved pleasure may come of it is wrong, at least in most of the cases I can conceive of. — Bartricks

Yet the statement in want of explanation was not about making future pleasure deserved, it was about balancing suffering with pleasures.

All you have here is bog standard antinatalism. — Isaac


How? — Bartricks

I explained. It's the wordy bit above the conclusion.

they are not based on ideology but on pragmatics — Janus

Yeah. And your political opponents wouldn't say exactly the same about their positions?

it is unreasonable to suppose that one's offspring will live morally superlative lives. — Bartricks

Why?

That may well operate to make many of their subsequent pleasures deserved (though not necessarily - desert is not a simple matter), but it's not going to tip the balance in any particular case. — Bartricks

Why not?

knowingly creating undeserved suffering that deserved pleasure may come of it is wrong, at least in most of the cases I can conceive of. — Bartricks

So why the whole song and dance about deserved pleasure, it's completely irrelevant to your case, which, it turns out, is just standard antinatalism. It's wrong to cause suffering even if it also causes pleasure, so don't have children. Nothing 'new' at all. If no amount of later pleasure justifies the suffering, then it's utterly irrelevant whether that pleasure is deserved or not.

All you have here is bog standard antinatalism.

If everyone refused to consume the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, that action by itself would bring immense change. — Janus

's really up the individual to take responsibility for their own lives — Janus

common decency and compassion dictate that we should also take care of those who are unable to care of themselves. — Janus

Nothing imposed from "above" is ever going to solve the problems we face — Janus

the imposers are always prone to corruption. — Janus

the law should codify values which support social harmony — Janus

They sure sound like a list of strong opinions. Are you prepared to actually give the alternatives to all those positions a 'fair shake'?

Let's try them. I propose, for a five year period (one parlimentary term), we consume all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, take over responsibility for other people's lives, not take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, impose all these solutions 'from above', ignore corruption, and not codify values which support social harmony. Are you prepared to give that a shot?

I seriously doubt it. So why do none of them qualify as "strong opinions"?

People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all (non-dogmatic, non-ideological) ideas a fair shake:the critical thinkers, the fair-minded, the realists, the anti-idealogues. Cleave to them, for they are the only hope for humanity. — Janus

How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life.

Relative to my current state of knowledge and understanding. — baker

And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake?

If you were at a concert, yes. — Pantagruel

This seems exceedingly odd. If you're at a concert, the most objective way of determining the pitch of a note is not to use a spectrum analyser, but to ask the crowd? This is an extremely heterodox use of the term.

what if he was "objectively" out of tune, but so was the entire band, uniformly? Then he would be objectively in tune. — Pantagruel

Maybe, but I wasn't talking about being in tune, I was talking about pitch (an absolute measure, not a relative one). I didn't just pick the example at random.

its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" — Pantagruel

So if I found myself in a group of Rolling Stones fans, a more 'objective' view of whether Mick Jagger hit the right note would be obtained, not by analysing the recording, but by adjusting my belief thereby gained to be more consistent with that of his fan base, regardless of the spectrum analyser.

I don't have a study to support this, but it seems to me that this sketches out best an explanation for why people are the way they are when they are together and how they can take their joint pursuits seriously. — baker

So how are you judging it to be 'the best' explanation?

if "being objective" means adopting a certain type of perspective oriented towards agreement with others, then a lack of objectivity certainly has to, at the very least, limit the extent to which commonality can be realized. — Pantagruel

True. But since that's not what "being objective" typically means, I'm not sure I see the relevance.