@Brett

Ok, so we are not reading to learn good morals, but to see how wacky the morals of the past were?

I remember a lecturer telling me about a student who said he didn’t like Shakespeare “Because it’s full of cliches”. The lecturer replied that, “Its full of cliches now.” — Brett

haha, that is pretty good. But my point would be that related to morality, Shakespeare is not cliche, but just outdated and wrong. Yes portions are cliche (ie revenge killing is wrong) - but that does not suggest that Shakespeare had some brilliant moral ideas that became so common they are now cliche. That IS what he did with language, where he WAS a genius (I don't like any of his works, but even I can admit that). But not so much with morality.

After reading your next response I realize you are more concerned with "human nature", which I would say includes morality but is not limited to morality. Sure, most works of fiction (even many modern ones) should somewhat inform about the human condition. I guess my only question is why is Shakespeare's discussion of human nature more informative than "Breaking Bad"?

First, @Mww, this is interesting to me, so I hopefully I am not too annoying :grimace:

Depends on your philosophical preference. It is usually considered irrational to claim a truth that is technically merely a possibility. — Mww

Even if the possibility is far north of 99.99%?

Outside of philosophy circles, it is usually considered irrational to say "the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a possibility." Most people upon being asked, "are you sure" would then respond with, "well, yeah, sure it's possible, but it's a bit ridiculous." Now obviously your opinion on the subject is far more informed and therefor carries more weight, but I think that your use of "irrational" seems biased. Don't the Christians think we are all irrational?

Depending on your philosophical preference, couldn't somebody view everything as mere possibility?
Even math, for example: 2 + 2 =4
Well then how come 2 kilograms + 2 grams does not equal 4 kilograms or 4 grams? Isn't that one possibility of how one could interpret 2+2=4?

Heck, I just spent a whole thread arguing that definitions can be counted as objective facts. So they would have argued that this

We have knowledge our sun is a star, stars are known to supernova — Mww

is subjective and can't be known for certain. Luckily, you don't have to convince me.

To say an event will occur implies the negation is impossible. — Mww

Not in common language? "I am going to the store tomorrow." " I will be there at 5pm." "See you later." Not once, not one single time, have I ever been corrected for one of these phrases, and not once did someone say I broke a promise (in case you want to say those count as promises not a statement that an event will occur). I am not saying you don't have a point, but I am very confused as to how it matters?

In relation to us all being in the matrix (or something) you said,

My position is, it doesn’t matter. If we are, we always were, so nothing’s any different than we’ve already seen. If we suddenly discovered we were, that’s a whole different story. — Mww

THIS SEEMS IMPORTANT. What you stated above, I agree with. And I am fairly sure that @S has admitted that is fine also. So what are we all disagreeing about? We (I think we) acknowledge your position is possible, just meaningless. For me it seems similar to the free will argument. I find there are important implications attached to admitting it is possible we do not have free will. But, how often does it come up that we actually need to consider whether we acted out of free will or not?

We know from the past what it’s like out there without humans, so speculation about the future without humans can be reasonable. — Mww

Hasn't S been arguing the whole time that life after humans will be the same as life before?

All future thought, that is, thinking in the future, is indeed meaningless to us in the present, yes.
As I said, THAT I will think tomorrow, all else being equal, is most probable, but it is impossible to claim as true WHAT I will think tomorrow. — Mww

I think I see our problem. I think every time you use the word "true", you mean something like "it can only be that way 100% of the time in any situation that anyone can conceive of" which I will think rarely occurs (I would say definitions and math is about it - language itself creates ambiguities, and even witnessed events go through an interpreting agent). However, when S or I (or most people out there that do not know the philosophical word idealist) use the word, we just mean "true enough for all practical purposes."

I guess, my question would be, what are the possible harms that could be caused by us summarizing the "truth" in this way?

And apologies to @S if I misrepresented your view in any way.

Actually, according to the Bible, God is the ONLY judge, but, being omniscient, he judged us BEFORE time. The problem with God, or, rather, our attempt to comprehend him is that we can't because, assuming that God is omniscient, and that we are not even close to that, we can't reconcile Him or his thoughts in our minds. It's either a cop out or a fact. — StaggeringBlow

Makes sense. I definitely understand that every Christian is entitled to their own interpretation of the bible. I probably spent too much time hearing the Seventh Day Adventists' view.

Are you still in the process of formulating your views? (If you were thinking me, I'm a guy rapidly approaching 60, and a lot of my views have been the same for four decades or so) — Terrapin Station

Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith in my own memory to know that my view today is the same as yesterday. Each new thing I learn changes things, but also each time I forget a previously well understood argument, my view may slightly change.

I am approaching 40, so perhaps I just need time. I agree that on major things I am unlikely to change, and in that sense, you are probably right. However, I do not feel that I have talked to many people in life that put the amount of time and effort into thinking about these topics, as many of you have. So, since I am new to actually discussing these topics (I have been reading you all for years), perhaps my mind will change. But, more than likely, you are right.

My brain is strange, it demands that I disagree adamantly with the views I disagree with, but then expects me to find common ground with everyone...hopefully I will get over that and be a bit more comfortable disagreeing.

This doesn't sit well with the notion that morality is objective, because Dostoevsky's morality - which is essentially deontological and divine-command-based - is a thousand miles from that of Homer, which is that of an honour society where bravery meant everything and compassion nothing. And neither of them would agree with the secular, compassion-based morality that we see in Steinbeck, and that imbues most of Western culture, when it can be bothered to be moral. — andrewk

Thank you for that bit. I was hoping someone would point that out :smile:

Homer, Shakespeare, Doestoevsky. — Brett

This may be a bit of a tangent, but can someone please list a few of the positive (worthwhile? still valuable?) morals that can be learned from Homer or Shakespeare (I have not read much Doestoevsky)? Please leave off anything that has been generally accepted as true throughout most of human history (ie: it is wrong for feuding families to kill each other due to some long forgotten grudge).

As far as I can tell Michael Bay presents as much quality moral discussion in a Transformers movie as I would find in the Odyssey. I am sure the Odyssey has more moral discussion, but surely Odysseus is not a moral icon in the modern age - are we all striving to be the archetypal (Jung) Greek hero? Penelope is the only consistently "good" character by modern standards, but "a wife should be loyal to her husband" is not exactly profound (I think it would actually be far more profound during Homer's time to ask "why should a wife be loyal to her husband?").

Morals in fiction can only be as meaningful as their author's understanding (and even that would require a good writer that can synthesize their philosophy into a work of fiction). So works of fiction by Plato would likely contain far more useful philosophy than anything by Homer (to be fair, we know so little about Homer, that he may have been the most brilliant philosopher who ever lived, but it certainly didn't transfer to the Odyssey or the Iliad).

Shakespeare for morals? Really? I have actually tutored a little shakespeare (high school level - I don't know crap, as is probably obvious in this post), and it is blowing my mind to think that students were supposed to be learning morals. So we learn how not to act if we might be king? I would also note that a play like Romeo and Juliet will potentially teach a very different set of morals depending on whether the reader is 15 or 55 years old.

I think fiction is good for introducing people to complicated moral ideas. After the initial introduction, actually engaging with the philosophical topics themselves will be far more informative.

ZBT

so it's down to the righteous judgement. — kill jepetto

So God would say some people are better than others? That seems to directly go against the idea that "god loves all of his children". I am not religious, but I thought that people go to hell as a result of sin, not God's judgement (yes I know potato, potaato), but I have had many Christians argue that God does not judge us. Faith in him allows humans to escape the consequences of sin.

This is not to say I don't have my own ideas of right and wrong. I do. But I don't view myself as better than anyone else (overall). But that is just ME.

So, my short, concise answer to your question is: NO (to all of them) — StaggeringBlow

I cannot say if there is an actual "right" answer for this. But you answered exactly as I would have, so huzzah!

The purpose (According to whom? Purposes are alwaysto someone) of language is to pretend that value judgments/evaluative utterances are objective in some contexts? :joke: — Terrapin Station

Haha. Darn right. I actually just meant "to communicate" but I think you got that. I do believe we have taken this about as far as it can go...maybe in a couple years we can have the conversation again and see if anything has changed :smile:

How about a write-in for optimistic and hopeful?

Nah, just playing. I will go with "poked in the eye with a sharp stick"

Interesting topic. Before the neuro-scientists (I hope they exist here and do answer some of these questions) jump in, here are my thoughts

I believe we are all experiencing some sort of emotion at all times. Similar to personality traits, I think we experience each emotion as a spectrum or range of possible feelings. Also, we can (typically are) be feeling multiple emotions at the same time to some degree.

I think you are talking about controlling the expression of emotion. Whether this over-expression comes across as crying hysterically or screaming at somebody in public, or it is an internal over-ride of productive thought (externally one may appear calm but internally they are in chaos).

I view it as a good thing to be able to somewhat control one's emotions so you feel what you want. Obviously we can never completely master this, but we can make progress. I have found similar to @Thesailor123 that "control" of my emotions seems to just be a removal of the extremes. As I gain control, I am less often ecstatically happy, but almost never depressed. I would also point out, that I am naturally fairly stoic, so this is easy for me to work on. For those with more manic personalities, I would imagine this would be very difficult.

However, Thesailor123 seemed to go beyond that to suggest that they are actually "not feeling" anything. This may be relatively possible (compared to the hurricane of emotion that many people seem to live with, you or I may seem emotionless), but I am not sure there is anyone existing with no emotion at all - I am really struggling to consider what that would even look like...would that person ever get out of bed? Why?

some speculation is irrational and leads to absurdities — Mww

So, "the sun will rise tomorrow is an absurdity"? Isn't it more absurd to call that statement absurd? (I will be quick to admit this is not fascinating, nor will it lead to great discoveries; but if I went through life assuming it was true, what would be the problem?)

Aren't you (any sort of strong idealism) just pointing out that we all might be living in The Matrix (or any other related extreme)? I can agree that we might be, but to actually live like that was true is unlikely to be productive.

if there are no rational agents then we can't even begin to speculate on anything?
— ZhouBoTong

Yep. Notice the lack of philosobabble on my part. Pretty cool, ain’t I?

Doesn't this reduce any and all speculation about the future to meaningless nonsense?
— ZhouBoTong

Nope. We humans speculate about the future all the time whether we’re included in it or not. — Mww

Maybe we need more philosobabble (but don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort :grin: )? Your statements seem to contradict. I get that you were being literal with "no rational agents so we can't begin to speculate" but there was a very strong implication in that statement that there are rational agents alive now who can speculate on life after rational agents; because as you said,

We humans speculate about the future all the time whether we’re included in it or not. — Mww

.

So aren't you saying we can speculate on a future with no rational agents, but it would be meaningless?

Well since we can't know for sure there will be rational agents tomorrow, it seems all future thought is just meaningless speculation?

I wasn't disagreeing with you as such, I was emphasising that we don't even need an "even if", given that it clearly isn't. — S

Gotcha. Fair enough.

I have always been a bit worried about jumping into the middle of a thread (even if I read the whole thing) as misunderstandings can occur.

In any case, thanks for making the argument you are making. Not sure if I even knew the exact difference between realist and idealist before this thread (still a bit confused), but your side seemed to fit the universe that I think I exist in, better.

Nonetheless, if we were herein engaged in common meanings, we would be writing newspaper articles instead of delving into metaphysical particulars. — Mww

That is certainly fair.

But sufficient reason is not proof, sufficient reason here being gravity, or the mass of the pencil, but that doesn’t say what gravity is or why it acts on objects the way it does. — Mww

I am a little confused here. So knowledge that something will happen does not make it "true"? It also requires sufficient reason? I understand (I think) what you are saying in relation to science and in-depth philosophy in that we do not truly understand something until we completely understand it; but I am not sure that is exactly what S is trying to address.

No rational agent can deny the existence of real objects — Mww

But if there are no rational agents (S's hypothetical) then no real objects? I am not sure if this is your position, but it has certainly been argued in this thread. - ignore this, you answered below

So it isn’t so much about the negation of existence as it is about the negation of the observer with respect to existence. It’s the same error as defining a word and using the word being defined in the definition. — Mww

Ok, so your position is (again, I think), if there are no rational agents then we can't even begin to speculate on anything? because there will be no agents to do the speculating? Doesn't this reduce any and all speculation about the future to meaningless nonsense? "The sun will rise tomorrow." We don't even know if any of us will exist tomorrow, and if we don't, then no (known) rational agents, so...?

My philosophy is obviously very amateur-ish. So I am happy to be corrected (or guided in a different direction) on any of these thoughts.

But it very clearly isn't. — S

Indeed. Which part of my post suggests that I disagree with that?

Unconfirmed truth is a contradiction in terms. No truth is unconfirmed and that which is either rationally or empirically unconfirmed cannot be a truth. That which is true now and will be under congruent circumstance is a necessary truth empirically, or a logical truth rationally. Substantiated hypotheticals can lead to reasonable predictions, but truths absolutely must meet the criteria of knowledge. — Mww

Using common meaning, wouldn't an unconfirmed truth just be any prediction that was "always" (relative to humans) true in the past. "The sun will rise tomorrow." It is possible that statement is "not true" but for the sake of everyone's sanity we can take the shortcut and just assume it will continue to be true. I get that science and philosophy regularly delve beyond the apparent, but "unconfirmed truth" will only seem a contradiction in terms to the types that like to over-analyze language (which I do sometimes).

To the layman, if I say "it is an unconfirmed truth that when I let go of this pencil it will fall to the floor" (I am holding my arm out to my side holding a pencil), most would say "true" as opposed to "false". Yes, I get it is far more complicated than just true or false, but that is only a problem for Philosophy (and occasionally science), it does not mean that language loses its common meaning.

And just to make the point for S, even if "unconfirmed truth" is a contradiction in terms, we all know what he meant, and calling it a contradiction of terms does not refute the more general point he was making.

After 10 pages, I am not sure I 100% agree with @S, but I don't think that I have any trouble understanding his points.

I would vie for the title of "worst epistemological realist" but I can't even figure out what the idealist position is; it seems to range from, "well there is more than just objective facts {mind has an influence}" to "without an observer, nothing exists". I view the former as certainly true, but as discussions move toward the latter option, I feel like we have left practicality behind along with reality and I lose interest.

What do we mean by ''we ought to do x''? It's a directive to follow a certain course of action and it needs a justification. I can't simply say ''we ought not steal'' or ''we ought to give money to the poor''. People will ask ''why?'' That query, the ''why?'', is another way of asking whether the basis of a moral injunction is objective or not. I guess I'm saying that the objectivity of an ought is simply the objectivity of its basis and that I've stated is the undeniable fact of suffering-joy. — TheMadFool

Ok, this sounds like part of the creation process for the Categorical Imperative. As you might expect, Kant never sold me on its objectiveness. However, I may have mentioned in this thread somewhere that I am open to objective morality if we had an infinite (sounds impossible) series of if-then statements that covered EVERY hypothetical statement ever, then I would be comfortable with objective morality. But to say that since we all have "reason" we can objectively base morality on our shared use of "reason" implies that we all have similar reasoning or reasoning abilities...and that seems ridiculous. For example, here is an example from some college:

"The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.

The Horny Martin Example

Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a nice dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And...

Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself, with disastrous consequences.

Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent. ""
-http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm

For me, rather than showing the Golden Rule to be silly, it shows objective (as in shared or universal) reasoning to be a silly concept. If Martin is incapable of understanding that "he would not want to raped in some situations" (the correct application of golden rule vs some over-literal word play nonsense) then what likelihood does he have of correctly using reason to create or understand categorical imperatives?

I may have just called Kant's reasoning "silly", which suggests I may be missing something, but I am sticking with it :)

What's the difference between fact and opinion? — TheMadFool

I am very interested here (because it is a bit of a struggle). I THINK facts are "what are", opinions are what agents think about that. Well that was a crappy attempt...

Personally speaking, a fact is true whether you believe it or not. An opinion doesn't have to be true but may be held as a belief. — TheMadFool

Yes, the above works for me.

Don't you see any facts to ground morality on?

Isn't suffering-joy a fact. People may deny it but still feel pain at the loss of a loved one and joy when winning a lottery. — TheMadFool

I agree these are the facts we base our morality on. But I don't see how to get past morality (how we ought to live) as subjective.

Our wants boil down to dislike of suffering and like of happiness. Right? So, it seems to me that moral oughts have an objective basis right there. — TheMadFool

But there are people (I agree not many, and most we would question there sanity), who would disagree with this moral framework, or at the very least have varying priorities of suffering and happiness (some are far more focused on reducing suffering, with increasing happiness being almost irrelevant).

I like to think this question will help, but is probably just some reducto absurdo (haha, my best attempt at latin), anyway: If our morality is objective, why does it apply to animals far differently than it applies to humans? Is it a fact that animals are inferior to humans?

And as far as the mention of hedonism goes, I am not saying we cannot condemn certain behaviors, we should just be aware that we are just saying that we collectively THINK this is wrong (and that is enough to act on - but not to make it objectively correct - it is not a fact).

I kind of rushed this, so I will go back and re-read your posts when I get the chance.

I am distinguishing between facts and the interpretation of facts. — Judaka

And there is no such thing as a fact that could never be interpreted differently? Can't we just be more specific with our words?

"If I place my naked hand palm down onto a wood table, and then I take a hammer and hit my hand as hard as I can (I am not an invalid), then I will suffer some sort of injury."

How is that statement in any way debatable? Unless we say words have no REAL meaning?

Are we going to argue over what injury means? Any basic understanding of the word will suffice in this case.

How about "the chemical symbol for water is H20" ? or "water is wet"? What are the various interpreted meanings for these statements?

If you disagree then which part? You believe meaning is not subjective or that rules have special properties which elevate them from being arguments with contestable premises and conclusions? — Judaka

I am afraid we can't see the same planet on this issue. I can agree that the word "better" may always be subjective because it has a terribly vague definition (it might be subjective by definition). But generally, if we care to take the time, I think we can use language and math (and therefor rules of games) in an objective fashion.

Your main concern seems to be about the subjective/objective nature of morality. — TheMadFool

Nailed it.

I proposed a paradigm for objective morality grounded on the universality of suffering/happiness. Do you think suffering and happiness are subjective? Why? — TheMadFool

I think the existence of happiness and suffering is objective. The idea that reducing suffering is good, I would count as subjective (I whole-heartedly support this as a good starting point for morality - analyzing the facts as objectively as possible leads me to BELIEVE that is as good a starting point as any), but isn't morality by definition, "how one ought to live"? Doesn't the ought make it subjective?

So, tell us what you mean by ''subjective'' and ''objective''. — TheMadFool

Well this thread has caused me to question this a little. In the past, I just went with facts are objective, opinions are subjective. But as you have clarified, BEING objective is more about being impartial and letting facts speak for themselves...but as I type this I think my original definition still makes sense. So maybe I should wait for your thoughts...

I will stick with, facts are objective, opinions are subjective.

Gotta run for the night, thanks for the input.

No you can't. It entirely depends on what an individual counts as "better running" — Terrapin Station

Cool. But once we take it to this extreme, language has lost its purpose. Hmmm, this may be what @TheMadFool and @Bitter Crank were saying I was doing. I think by the time I am done with this thread, I will be entirely confused on subjectivity/objectivity.

Thanks for the contribution to my indecision :grin:

@Judaka

I am definitely still not getting something that you are trying to say. Maybe this will help me:

Is math objective? Why not?

Are you just saying that ALL information must be interpreted by an agent, so it is all subjective? So does that mean if life disappears then everything vanishes because there are no agents to interpret?

Sorry, I am taking it to extremes to try to understand.

Suffering-happiness seems an objective fact. We could build our moral edifice on that. That's just my opinion. Yours may differ. — TheMadFool

Now this I can go with. Suffering and happiness exists. We should (ought) base our morality on that. It is still subjective, but as good a starting point as I can think of.

Objectivity entails certainty? Well, I think it's the converse. Certainty entails objectivity. — TheMadFool

Entirely fair...I was struggling to word that portion (and that was why I even added "the potential for certainty" because I was sure it was somewhat wrong).

However, if one wants certainty, a 100% assurance on claims, we have to get rid of our biases i.e. be objective. — TheMadFool

Hmmm, I think I messed up somewhere. I feel like EVERYONE in this thread has a slightly different idea of what they mean by "subjective/objective" and this is leading to much of the disagreement. In fact, the longer it goes, the more I am questioning myself as to what exactly I mean by those words. I am usually thinking more along the lines of "facts are objective, opinions are subjective", but that is at least incomplete, at worst someone else could have an entirely different meaning (heck, on a philosophy site, I am sure there are plenty of people that question whether there are objective facts).

We could start a thread like this with definitions, but that is likely to derail the discussion before it starts...maybe that is just the nature of philosophical discussions?

I am trying to distinguish between facts and interpretations of facts. — Judaka

Well then, wasn't I just creating facts with everything I was trying to label as objective? Are definitions of words facts?

"We measure who's better at stacking cups by seeing how many cups they can stack in 30 seconds, whoever stacked the most is the best". We've created objectivity! — Judaka

But this was not exactly how I said it. I described a game. The rules of the game are that whoever stacks the most cups in 10 seconds is the winner (best), whoever stacks the second most cups gets second place (2nd best, but better than 3rd) and so on. According to these rules there are objectively (by definition) better cup stackers. They are defined as better based on the rules...and if you are following different rules then you are not playing the same game. What am I missing? Maybe I cannot call 1st place best? But they were the "best" based on the rules of the game?

Sorry got to run for the night, but thank you for your thoughts.

@Christoffer
Thank you for the unique and interesting approach to this topic. However, my mind has been so focused on subjective vs objective in this thread that I am not sure how to address this one. I see an occasional point that my compulsive side just wants to yell, "well that is subjective"; but that was not the focus of your post, so who cares? You have laid out a nice framework, and if everyone operated based on that, it would be a world I would be happy to live in.

But just a couple of points, I am not clear on:

To "win", or be "better than someone else" at something can lead to master/slave-situations — Christoffer

I am a bit confused, while sports are not the only thing that can be "won", they are likely one of the first examples that spring to mind when one hears, "win"; so how do sports lead to slavery?

There are no winners and losers in the end — Christoffer

You mean because we are all dead? If so, I am with you. If not, I need more clarification.

no one is better than anyone else because identity and performance always flow and change. — Christoffer

Here I agree with the first half -"no one is better than anyone else" - but disagree with the second. Things do change, but surely we can admit some extremes...No paraplegic will ever be better than Messi is right now at soccer (without a rules change), and a Field's Medal winner is better at math than most people with down syndrome. These are obviously trivial examples, but is there any question the statements are 100% true? So in general, I agree, no one is better than anyone else. But you have not convinced me that qualifiers do not change this. For example, "no one is better than anyone else at math" seems obviously wrong to anyone that has carefully observed a room full of people doing math.

But striving for these axioms is pretty much guaranteed to make you a better person, ignoring them pretty much guarantees you to be a worse person. — Christoffer

Again, I like the sound of this. But I worry we will not all agree on the axioms.

And again, this post felt different so I may have butchered your position a bit. Feel free to straighten me out.

It's not something anyone can be wrong or right about. We're just talking about persons' individual feelings/dispositions. — Terrapin Station

I agree with the overall spirit of your post, and view your words as true enough to live by; but this is a discussion forum where we over-analyze things that most of the world has no interest in :grin: .

I had a small disagreement with your final lines. If we are specific with our words, there are times where definitions create objectivity (or definite right vs wrong). For example, if I were to say, "at age 30, Hussein Bolt was a better runner than Stephen Hawking was at that same age", I can only be right. While "better" is often vague, in this case the difference between the two things being compared is so vast, that even a vague descriptor like "better" must be true...or am I missing something?

Certain subjective frameworks are less contentious than others. — Judaka

Agreed, and in my mind, the more qualifiers or stipulations we add, the less contentious (more objective...but not objective) it becomes.

I think this characterisation is necessarily subjective because it's an interpretation of the facts. — Judaka

I am a little confused here. If Susie can stack 30 cups in 10 seconds, and Billie can stack 20 cups in 10 seconds, Suzie is objectively better (the rules of the game include the objective of stacking more cups in the same amount of time - no I don't rules exactly, but needless to say they exist). Yes humans invented the rules, so they were created subjectively; but the game does not exist without the rules so once established, they are objective (yes still subject to interpretation, but surely we can both name plenty of games where there is little to no fear of interpretation {tic-tac-toe}. Maybe I missed what you were getting at?

Has universal agreement on particular standards for measuring something made the characterisation less subjective or more valid? — Judaka

The standards themselves are still subjective. However, once the standards are created, assuming they are comprehensive, they can be followed objectively, can't they? Since you are the only one so far to say that I am labeling too much as objective, I am rather interested in your thoughts.

You've distinguished between "One can be better AT something than another but one can't be better than another at nothing ". — Judaka

Yes, nailed it. That is exactly what I was trying to do. It seems so obvious when you phrase it simply like that...and yet I get the sense that you have a problem with that statement...please be specific and I will try to address it, but I am not exactly sure where the problem is.

I would say that one can be better "at something" because many "somethings" have stated goals For example, the hundred meter dash has the goal of running 100 meters in less time than anyone else. So, while it may be subjective to say Suzie is better at running than James, it could be objective to say Suzie is better at the 100 meter dash, because, by definition of 100 meter dash, "better" is completing the same distance {100m} in less time.

I disagree with this distinction, you've selected non-contentious comparisons which can be easily tested and there is a lack of variety of interpretations. It's a spectrum, I'm sure you will agree. If I went around saying "I am better at philosophy than Mr X" you'd be approaching that with the same perspective as if I said "Mr X, I'm better than you". — Judaka

This just sounds like I need to be more specific. As per my example above, I cannot say "A is better than B at any random thing". But as soon as I am specific with my words, I can easily makes objective statements. Obviously it will be difficult to say "A is better than B at philosophy" because what the heck do you mean by the word "philosophy"? But as soon as I put in specific words, it works fine; "A is better than B at chess" - Now if we compare to 2 mediocre, two poor, and two genius chess player, my statement does not hold up (still subjective), but if we are comparing Bobby Fisher and an average 8 year old, I don't need any additional qualifiers to accept this as objectively true. Under what circumstances could it NOT be true?

It's a spectrum, I'm sure you will agree. — Judaka

After taking all that time to say the above, I re-read your post. I do agree it is a spectrum of more or less objective/subjective. But I do think that definitions, once created, can create a type of objectivity.

I think not valuing your subjective framework as a 100% subjectivist leads down the rabbit hole of dark nihilism, where a lack of objective meaning means no worthwhile meaning at all. — Judaka

Well I think we are good here. My lack of belief in objectivism (not Rand - but i don't like that objectivism either) has lead to certain amounts of nihilism, but eventually I just decided to TRY to make my subjective opinions as well-supported (yes VERY subjective words there) as possible and run with it. I am still a bit of an objective nihilist...basically amounts to "well nothing REALLY matters, but I decide that I like x, y, and z so I should work toward those ends, because I want to."

Dang, @TheMadFool, you gave a nice concise response that I thought I could quickly respond to. Instead, I was typically long winded. I am enjoying our back and forth, but I understand you may have had this discussion before, and I may just be boring you. Respond to anything you find interesting :grin:

That rational is good and irrational is bad is not subjective. There are reasons for being rational and not irrational e.g. not getting killed by thinking that gravity doesn't apply to you or that cyanide is good for the bones. — TheMadFool

First, once there are goals (your "reasons" above I think), then there can certainly be objective "best" methods of reaching that goal. But the goal itself is still subjective. Isn't this just the is/ought problem (any goal is suggesting what society ought to be)?

I've always had trouble distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity. After all objectivity seems to be just consensus of subjective observations. — TheMadFool

While I agree with the difficulty of distinguishing between the two, in my mind, consensus just suggests that our subjective thoughts might be (the more consensus, the more likely) objective. I can even accept "objective enough for all intents and purposes", but objectivity would entail certainty (or at least the potential), and I don't see how that could happen.

It seems that when an observation is consistent over time, space and person the probability of consensus of views increase. This perhaps is objectivity. — TheMadFool

I would say that it is tending toward objectivity, but just like infinity, it can never actually be reached. But notice that the concept of infinity has still proved useful despite no evidence that anything real is infinite (plenty of concepts, but for example we do not "know" that matter is infinitely divisible, but in theory, anything that can be labeled 1, can be called half of that one).

Hmmm, I think I just combined math and philosophy in a way that is probably abusing some principle just to make my point. Feel free to destroy the above, I was just trying to clarify my thinking.

So, my views and yours, alone, would be subjective but that of an entire community or people is probably not subjective but rather objective. — TheMadFool

So is the objective Christian community right, or the objective Muslim community? Sorry, couldn't help myself, and I get that was not fair to your position. But which views of an entire community actually align? Murder is bad. Fair (but by definition, so consensus is not needed). So you get life in prison? An intensive 10 year rehab program? The death sentence? No consensus there. I think the issues that there would actually be a solid consensus on, would be so vague as to be meaningless (ie stealing is bad)... are there a couple of good examples of specific objective items (one type of example would be laws and their corresponding penalties)? And just to prepare for one type of objection; abortion laws may appear objective if we look at several different communities (countries) that all end up with the same abortion laws...so those laws must be objective? That doesn't make sense, as the laws are just a compromise between the all of the various subjective opinions that real people actually have...I don't see how we can call that objective?

Another view of objectivity is when it relates to being rational i.e. demanding evidence for a belief. We only believe in well-supported claims. This too is being objective, right? — TheMadFool

This to me sounds like a subjective agent striving toward objectivity, which is great; but I would say it is the best we can ever hope for. Don't we all have varying standards of what we count as "well-supported"? Aren't scientists' "well-supported" claims more objective than religious fundamentalists' "well-supported" claims? As long as we describe things as "more" or "less" objective, we are surely still describing things subjectively, right?

Objectivity, ergo, requires being rational about beliefs and consensus/consistency of observations. — TheMadFool

Some chunk of our disagreement seems to just be some combination of word usage, semantics, or definitions.

Thanks
ZBT

...I owe 2-3 more responses to other posters. I will get to those.

The answer to whether something is "better" than something else is the result of interpretation which is necessarily subjective. A subjective framework can make coherent rules for defining what makes one better than another but ultimately it's subjective. We can only say that someone is better at performing a particular action or achieving a certain goal. — Judaka

Ok, this is interesting, because I thought I was being the ultimate subjectivist, and clearly you understood me as saying something else. In any case, I agree with this at least 99% (probably 100%, but clearly there was some misunderstanding).

You said we can say "I am better at soccer than you" but is that really an objective truth? I could say Messi is better than Ronaldo and give me reasoning but there are still many who would disagree with that. Just how much better does one need to be at soccer until we can say that person is better at soccer and it's no longer subjective? — Judaka

Good point. My point was that "Messi is better than Ronaldo at soccer" is at least somewhat measurable. It is at least certain that "Messi is better than me at soccer." However, what about the phrase "Messi is better than Ronaldo" minus the "at soccer" qualifier? See how that is an even bigger abuse than what you were referring too? That was the problem I was trying to address.

Can someone be better than someone else? Yes but this can only be asserted by something subjective and so how much the claim matters is entirely subjective also. — Judaka

Agreed. And I actually thought that is what I was saying...oops.

...and you touched on a bit of a sensitive subject, everything is subjective to me except for the objective fact that Messi is better than Ronaldo at soccer, hehe.

Moral principles seem to converge with time. If I'm right to assume that moral ''progress'' is correlated with the progress of rationality, it would imply that the convergence of moral principles (all cultures agreeing on what is good or bad) is caused by heeding good arguments either for or against a given moral tenet. This is objective isn't it because rationality is, by definition, objective, right? — TheMadFool

So I was going to respond: "rational = good / irrational = bad is subjective"

But I do believe I have passed the point of utility in this argument. Your description above is good enough to be "objective" for practical purposes. Perhaps I should accept that as good enough...I think that may have been @Bitter Crank's point as well.

I think the underlying foundation for it is the happiness-suffering paradigm that is universal. — TheMadFool

Again, close enough to objective for practical purposes.

You emphasize the importance of modifiers and context. If two executives of a frozen food company are discussing products, they might agree that "Pizza is better than hamburgers" as a product that can be frozen, reheated, and still appeal to consumers. If, on the other hand, two people are in the food court, the one who likes Italian-type flavorings might say that "pizza is better than hamburgers". On the other hand, the lactose intolerant person is likely to think that "hamburgers are better than pizza". — Bitter Crank

The above is exactly my point with the word "better". Similar to the word "love", it has enough different meanings to be a near worthless word without contextual clues (or additional words that clarify meaning).

I agree that language is generally sufficient, but it often fails when describing complicated topics (and regularly will fail if one is trying to describe complicated topics and they are not careful with words). I also understand that I am over-analyzing things...but isn't MOST of philosophy over-analysis of some topic?

Finally, I got a couple good laughs out of that post, thanks.

Sorry, re-do:

I suggested that gender neutrality issues were ideological issues, and like socialism (another such example), should not be taught from an advocacy perspective

- @Hanover

But it is safe to assume that it is OK to teach capitalism and proper gender roles from an advocacy perspective, right? If not, then nearly all of my teachers would be in trouble. See the problem? You did not think your teachers were advocating for anything, but that is only because you were in favor of what was being advocated. I believe that unenlightened can go a little too far sometimes, but surely they have some valid points.

@darthbarracuda@Bitter Crank@TheMadFool

First off, thank you all. Your latest responses suggest my thoughts were at least mostly understandable. You each gave me things to think about, and there is not much to argue (but that is what I do, so there will be a little bit). Also, I am new here...I responded to all 3 in one post. If it is preferred to split up each individual response, just let me know.

But if we do actually define it, then presumably we have reasons for why we think this way.

@darthbarracuda

In practice, I think this is how I operate. Use the available info to come to the best possible conclusion, and go with it (and that seems reasonable on a societal level as well). But I will always be aware I may be wrong, and even if I am right, it doesn't make me "better" than anybody.

But this is getting into the heart of meta-ethics, specifically error theory and the anti-realist camps.

@darthbarracuda

Thank you. I knew I was getting into some sort of Descartes "how do I know this table is really a table, or even here at all?" type stuff, but my formal philosophy is rather limited.

Ants are fine in their place as long as they don't get too big and move in with me.

@Bitter Crank

Too funny. I have this thought nearly word-for-word every time I kill an ant (or any bug) inside my house.

better than, larger than, hotter than, faster than

@Bitter Crank

As this is part of my dilemma, I need (want) to point out that one of those adjectives does not fit with the other 3. I could say something is "better" because it is "hotter" or "larger" or "faster". But the other words have far more specific meanings. Very few things will fit "hotter" because it is "larger" or "faster" because it is "hotter". I get that Jupiter (or any star) fits the first example and gases (all matter) basically fit the second, but "better" can be applied to anything for any reason. So it feels wrong (pointless?, worthless?) to say that one whole entity is better than a whole different entity...without a relative description it is meaningless.

we can say that Gandhi is good, Hitler is bad

@Bitter Crank

We can, and I do :grin: But what value does that statement have to anyone over 11? A child has limited cognitive abilities so simplifying things into good and bad is a neat shortcut. But for adults, can't we just lay out the things that they each did? Then relative to our ideas of what life / society / a person should be, we can see which action were most beneficial or most harmful...never-mind, that sounds like way too much work to expect that to happen with any regularity, oh well.

It's possible to get all tied up in word games

@Bitter Crank

Yes, and as one that does tend to get tied down in semantics, I apologize for now and anytime in the future where I keep coming back to the usage of a specific word - but it is almost obsessive-compulsive at times (I expect that I can be annoying, so if anyone needs to tell me to go take a long walk off a short pier, I will understand).

For my money, good food is better than bad food. Bigger is better. People who are honest, decent, kind, and loving are better than people who are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels.

@Bitter Crank

Since I apologized, now I have free reign to attack word usage, right? I mostly agree with the opinions, but I prefer to express them as "I like good food more than bad." "I think bigger is better" (I may disagree with that some portion of the time, but I just realized that I am speaking with someone who prefers the company of men and this may have a loaded meaning). "I prefer to spend time with people who are kind, decent, etc." Yes, I get this is just semantics, and if someone on the street says to me "pizza is better than hamburgers" I assume they mean "I like pizza more than hamburgers" but when these shortcuts become so ingrained that people are comfortable saying, "I am better than you" or "Men are worse/better than women" or "English is better than Scottish" or "Americans are better than everyone" and certainly "Christians are better than non-Christians" there is a problem. And one solution (perhaps the most annoying possible) would be to challenge people every time they use the word in a way that requires more reasoning...for example:

yes, people are better than ants

@Bitter Crank

Oh yeah, how so? No need to answer :grin: I know the reasons you would say, and you know I would say "so why does that make them better" and that could go on forever. People into philosophy already analyze everything to the nth degree, so I am not worried about you making bald unjustifiable assertions, but everyone who does not spend ANY significant time thinking about this stuff in depth, might be harmed by being allowed to take the same shortcuts.

And no, hahaha, I am not preparing for any imminent incoming NOVAS, or quasars, or any of the other things they show me in those astronomy shows that could wipe us all out.

If I understand you correctly, do you mean that moral theories and norms derived thereof are better or worse in a narrow sense, applying only to certain aspects and not as a whole?

@TheMadFool

Yes, that is dead on - or at least a BIG part of it. I have always thought the only way I could buy into an objective morality (besides the type of subjectively-objective Darthbarracuda and BitterCrank were discussing) I felt made sense, would be a series of if-then statements that cover every possible scenario a moral agent could ever encounter (seems unlikely).

Does it mean, however, that morality is subjective? I don't know. Subjectivism seems a way out, the easy way out. Subjectivism explains the situation if we consider morality as static - like a photograph. Yet, when we follow the history of morality (video), it seems we're arriving at some kind of objectivity. For instance, there was a time when slavery wasn't immoral. Now it is, and is universally so, save for a few regions that haven't experienced the effects of globalization or the like.

@TheMadFool

This is the subjective-objective thing I mentioned above. And I am cool with that (in practice I feel I operate that way), but when I am dealing in theory or principles I have to acknowledge to myself that those things are "right" or "better" because I (and hopefully a much larger consensus) believe they are. If we establish goals, then we can be more objective...but how can the goals themselves be objective?

Thanks all,
ZBT

Thanks for thoughts.

@darthbarracuda
I feel this "Telos" is adding a subjective qualifier. You may define it one way, while I define it another. Then we are basing "better" or "worse" relative to our invented ideas of what completes (sorry if wrong word usage) that person.

@TheMadFool
I think you have attacked the semantic component I was worried about. I get that when someone says "I am better than you", they are likely meaning that in a specific way: "I am better at soccer", or "I am stronger, etc." But I am addressing the way laws and norms are created based on the idea that whole entities are "worse" than others (for example, the ease with which I can crush an ant, and have no guilty feelings {although the more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should feel bad}, implies that I view ants as "worse" than people).

Perhaps the below scenario will clarify a bit of what I am TRYING (struggling) to get at:

I view morals subjectively. However, I am happy to view societies and decide that certain morals are more conducive to a successful community and therefor make rules that people are required to follow. That being said, I only "think" my chosen morals are "better". No one is "worse" for not following the rules. If a random supernova destroys planet earth tomorrow, everything is identical to how it would be if either Hitler or Gandhi did not exist. So why is Gandhi "better"? I would say, "because Gandhi reduced suffering while Hitler increased it." But that is just a moral opinion. Why is it better to reduce suffering?

Maybe I am just whining about objectivists?

@TogetherTurtle

They are not interested in the how, but they are certainly the what. That was my point. If they didn't exist we wouldn't have a culture to study.

@TogetherTurtle

Haha, yep I somehow missed that entirely. No arguing with that.

How do people develop an interest? If we know that, can we make people interested in everything?

- @TogetherTurtle

Well if we can answer the first question, then we will at least know whether it is possible to create omni-interested humans. Dang, it sure would be cool to be interested in everything (but if it doesn't come with more time, it might just be frustrating, haha).

I like to think of the fun as payment, and the help as work. I would live for both, or at least that's what I think now. Any future version of me is subject to their own development.

- @TogetherTurtle

I like the sound of this. It seems there is a well thought out balance to your life. But just one thing to point out here, if I am truly interested in something then the "work" is fun. But I think your point is, that you are happy to sacrifice a little fun, in order to improve the world (which I suppose could lead to heightened "fun" in the future?).

I think they would have a strange equivalence to pets. We give them everything they need, and in exchange, we get to watch and study. I don't think they would even need class structure unless they choose to have one. It would be as if New York was lifted off the face of the earth, hooked up with all of the facilities it would need, and then was studied. Whether or not they know what is happening has to do with the experiments we are running and the consent of the subjects. If they wish to ascend, they can do that as well.

- @TogetherTurtle

First, I entirely think that you genuinely would do the above with zero consideration that you were "better" than the subjects being studied. However, I do not view that as possible for most people. I think the situation described would precisely create an underclass. In fact, it may describe a situation where some of us have evolved (whether naturally or using technology) into a new species; but it is still interesting to study the lowly homo sapien. Similar to humans studying chimpanzees today (again I don't think Jane Goodall thought she was "better" than the chimps, but it is hard for a third party to not view this as a "superior" group studying an "inferior"). Hmmmmm, I am thinking this is MY problem not yours or Jane Goodall's. Shouldn't I assume you/she/they have the best of intentions rather the worst? Hard to get past appearances of impropriety, but they are just appearances.

I think that in a world where those things aren't able to be implanted via advanced science, it does make them better. However, in a world that does have those things, I imagine everyone who chooses to will have them.

- @TogetherTurtle

Well if I get comfortable enough, I may have to start a thread on this whole "better" thing.

@TogetherTurtle
Well no one seemed to be worried, so I will just post it here...and in re-reading, you at least have one comment per post that is on topic, so we are not way off topic.

Individualism and communalism, a dichotomy for sure. But I've noticed something about dichotomies, that even though the two sides are portrayed as complete opposites, as two faces of a coin, the distance between those two faces, in reality,is tiny.

- @TogetherTurtle

I agreed with pretty much everything in this paragraph. In my experience, however, most communalists do acknowledge the existent of individuals…whereas many individualists seem to act like “community” is some sort of Marxist conspiracy that doesn’t actually exist, which makes for unproductive discussion. I like to think of myself as neither, but a brief reading of anything I have ever posted, suggests I am more of a communalist; at least I can recognize some of my bias :grimace: .

Essentially, bystander apathy is what happens when you drive by a wreck on the road, and you decide not to call it in because "someone else will do it". So, how do I think that these two things connect? Well, if someone thinks that they see a fire in a theatre, (of course you would have to be pretty stupid to just think and not know that there was a fire, but you have already said you don't think most people are very smart, so I don't think this is too much of a stretch.) but they aren't sure, they have two reasons now not to yell "fire!". The first is that they think someone else will do it, and the other is that in the event they are wrong, they face legal repercussions. You will, of course, have a lunatic that tries to get everyone out of the theatre for any kind of nefarious reason, but laws don't stop crazy people, and they can't get tried until after the event. Essentially, they don't care about laws and they have plenty of time to do what they want with those people before the police arrive, so outlawing speech like that is not only useless but harmful.

- @TogetherTurtle

Thanks for bringing us back closer to the thread topic :grin: . First off, I have not heard of “bystander apathy”, but I am fairly certain that I suffer from it on some level. I have struggled with motivation for most of my life, and I have certainly expressed the idea that, “there is not much that NEEDS doing, because if I don’t do it, someone else will.”
Your discussion of “fire” in a theatre and bystander apathy is helpful for me in understanding my own position. I think that any rule can have problems and exceptions. And I would argue that the idea of absolute free speech is another rule that surely has exceptions. I think societies’ rules or rights are designed to benefit most people, most of the time. I was about to say, we should just drop the whole idea of free speech and evaluate each incident on a case by case basis (Was harm caused? What are acceptable/unacceptable levels of harm?). But I think concepts like rights (invented concepts as far as I am concerned), may be beneficial for most people, most of the time. Hmmmm, so I am stuck again.

I think a more effective approach to making theatres safe is to study and help the lunatics who would use their rights to hurt people, rather than making everyone suffer.

- @TogetherTurtle

Crazy people is a whole ‘nother can of worms. If we know we can “fix” their “crazy” by giving them medication from age 5, should we? Sure, they can now live a “productive” life, but they certainly did not have much choice. I am still leaning toward, “yes we should”, but there are issues. Hopefully, the future will provide brain solutions along the lines of things you have discussed earlier in this thread, and then I agree…if we can help or educate people so that restrictions on speech are just unnecessary, let’s do that.

As for discussing people, I think that it is limiting, but much in the same way as only discussing events or theory crafting. There is only so much to discuss. Theories are more applicable to the real world, but I can't imagine a future where leisure is a thing of the past. We can modify ourselves to not need amenities, but I don't think that we will ever remove the desire for amenities simply because we wish to enjoy the fruits of our labor per se. So as we make strides in knowledge of the natural world and how to apply that to make our lives better, they are studying things that aren't necessarily important to the improvement of the human race as a whole but are important to us culturally. Essentially it is my belief that culture is as equally important as science because the two need each other to push forward. If there were no stories of far off worlds colonized for the glory of humanity, would we even have the idea to do that? If there were no televisions or radios or the internet, would we hear of those stories even if they existed?

- @TogetherTurtle

I agree with most everything in this paragraph, but it has somewhat dodged the point I was trying to make (or at least I think it does). Yes we need people who are interested in all aspects of life. Improvements in culture are certainly important too. My point was, all those who people whose interests I summarized as just “people”, are not going to make contributions to culture. That would require an interest in culture. Maybe instead of “people”, I should have said “persons”? Still not right. What I mean is that they are interested in the lives of individuals. Whether that is friends, family, or some random celebrity, they care about the individual lives of these people. They are much less interested (not at all?) in how all of these lives interact to create things called culture or society. I am not sure I am making my point clearly…maybe this helps: If we wanted these people to “study”, they would go to People Magazine, not some serious academic Sociological journal. By the way, I am not trying to say these people are in any way “less” than you or I. I am just saying that their interests (or lack there-of) mean they are not interested in discussing, researching, debating, etc any of this stuff. They would be happy to talk about, say, the relationship between Pete Davidson and Kate Beckingsale (just took one of the headlines from bing homepage), and good for them, but I will be bored. Notice that I am "bored" by their topic, and they are "bored" by some of mine. I am not better than them because my interest are slightly more respected in academic circles, nor are they better than me because talking football gains more friends than talking free will vs determinism. I was just pointing that said people should not be expected to contribute to philosophy, any more than I should be expected to hold up my end of the conversation on celebrity couples.

I wonder if practice could be thrown aside by infallible memory banks holding information for centuries. Even with modern information storage formats, you can lose some quality over time, but remembering a lecture 20 years from now like it happened yesterday (or in fact, better than that) is a huge step up.

- @TogetherTurtle

Sign me up :up: And I think you are right, doesn’t practice just create shortcuts in neuron paths? (huge apologies to any neuroscientists that actually understand this stuff) So if we can replicate those shortcuts, then we could not only increase knowledge capacity but skills also (mental or physical – physical may require strength/agility but the “muscle memory” could be cheated).

This reminds me of an interesting mystery that never hit me until I saw it written out. Will we reach the end of science? Does the universe have a set number of secrets or will we run out one day in the far off future? Right now, the trend seems to be the number of questions increasing, but could that change?

- @TogetherTurtle

I hope that part of what makes us human (some of us? Hehe) is that desire to keep looking beyond the horizon. Even if we transform ourselves into eternal techno-energy super beings who can just will things in and out of existence, I like to think that some people would still be striving for the next stage (whatever that might be). I think Star Trek covered this with the Q. They had the powers of a god, but no desire to grow any further. This made them interested in humans, who always sought to improve themselves (yes a bit of a contradiction in there, if they were interested in humans' need to grow, then couldn't it be said that they had an interest in growing?).

As for me, I would like it if there were always mysteries. It may be a bit selfish, but if I can, I would like to extend my life for the sole purpose of assisting humanity in discovering these. Whether this means mind uploading, biological life extensions or cybernetic implants don't really matter to me. As long as some part of me is off doing its part then I can rest peacefully even if my consciousness doesn't transfer on with it. That's a whole other discussion though.

- @TogetherTurtle

You are more noble than I. I also would like to continue to be around for millennia, but more for my own curiosity, than to help humanity (despite my fairly pessimistic attitude about people in general, I actually believe humanity will progress as long as there are not complete societal collapses – unfortunately history suggests these collapses are inevitable, but the modern world has changed enough to be almost unrecognizable to earlier societies, maybe the massive amount of digital storage will allow knowledge to be retained, limiting collapses to partial vs complete). Besides watching human progress, I also just want to witness some of the cool galactic events: like watching the sun grow until it encompasses the earth, or when the milky way collides with the Andromeda galaxy, but that is all just for fun.

As I said earlier, I'm not an economist and could probably use some more reading on the subject, but I do know that the resources to actually do these things are out there. Whether or not distributing them equally enough to do this is feasible in current or even hypothetical social and economic structures is unknown to me. As for the people who don't wish to advance themselves, I think they are necessary for two reasons. One, I typically believe that a society has to have dissidents. If everyone agreed, then there would be no direction for society to go in because it would already be there. That leads to stagnation and in my observation death of a group as a result. Two, I think that having a group of unaugmented humans would be good as a safety net in case we do something to ourselves that does damage or we wish to be reversed. They could also be good for studying the human mind as it originally was, as well as research into social structures and many other things. They may not have a place in the debates we discussed, but they are certainly welcome. The only thing stopping them from coming is them.

- @TogetherTurtle

I agree that the resources do exist. I was more concerned with who gets the benefit, but you addressed that here (admittedly we do not have a solution, but for me just acknowledging that the resources will NOT be equally distributed, allows for the mitigation of many of the harms that would result). I like your thoughts on the un-augmented. Clever idea to have them around, just in case. I just hope that we can avoid creating an under-class. As long as everyone agrees that the un-augmented are equal in value to the augmented (ie, just because someone is smarter, or stronger, or funnier, of kinder, does not necessarily make them a “better” person. Now if I am trying to accomplish a goal, then I may prefer a smarter or stronger person. But life does not have goals, aside from the ones given to it by humans).

@Drek

I have read at least 10 people on this site that know better answers, but since no one has responded, here is my attempt:

Possibly Keynes? John Maynard Keynes I think (I always hear the term Keynesian economics). He is long dead but I think he championed the idea that government should spend during economic downturns (I am sure he is famous for more than that, but my brain can only take in so much economics).

After that it gets tricky because Liberals are far more divided on many issues (based on my experience anyway?). I could say Chomsky, but I think socially he is more libertarian...but I think many liberals fit that description, so maybe he is good. Also, I am thinking of conservative vs liberal from a modern American perspective. I am not sure that exactly aligns with liberal / conservative in Europe; and I know that some of yesterday's liberal views can become today's conservative views.

I just realized, if Ron Paul counts on conservative side, can't we just say Bernie Sanders or Barrack Obama as representing liberal positions? Notice Obama and Sanders are examples of liberals being somewhat different.

For constitutional interpretations, just look up supreme court cases you are familiar with. You will get both the majority ruling and the dissidents reports (there is a specific name for the losing side's rebuttal, but I am drawing a blank). Then you can decide which views are liberal or conservative (or even better, just view the individual ideas based on their merits and choose your stance on each issue - if we look at every issue are any of us purely conservative or liberal?)

Hope there is something useful in there somewhere, but I only named very famous people...sorry if not much help.

ZBT

@TogetherTurtle

After my last post, I realized that I wasn't really addressing the thread topic. And your response has followed my lead. As I am new and don't want to already be labelled as a thread-thief, I will get all of my responses together (may take a while) and send them to you in private message (assuming I can figure out how to do that, hehe). I would try creating a new thread, but our ideas seem to encompass too many aspects of society - not sure what the thread would actually focus on?

If I find a point or two that is still connected to "free speech vs harmful speech", then I will post it here.

Thanks for the additional thoughts.

While a child can't understand quantum physics, once they are old enough to learn, they can keep that knowledge their entire lives barring any kind of neurological degeneration.

@TogetherTurtle

I was going to comment on the "level playing field" but you actually address my problems in your Sci-Fi solutions so I will mention it then. For this quote I just want to add, "they can keep that knowledge their entire lives barring any kind of neurological degeneration and given that they use the information they learned on a regular basis." If I learn something, then don't continue engage with that information in some fashion, my brain will forget it (and most people are similar). Also, how long I remember something depends on how well I learned it in the first place. I am one of those that fairly regularly laments about the amount of information that I once new (I definitely know more now that at previous points in my life, but I probably know less than 10% of everything that I once knew).

It may seem unreasonably small, but one connection made in your brain while you were out playing alone one day could have made it easier for you to understand your father's methods, and from there it would just increase. At least in my experience, small things don't matter often, but when they do, they matter significantly

@TogetherTurtle

If the nearly imperceptible differences between my upbringing and my brother's result in such noticeable differences in mental ability, then I worry that we are a LONG way from any ability to interpret these differences into an educational experience.

So, I have a bit of an opportunity to talk about my crazy sci-fi ideas it seems

@TogetherTurtle

Well they may be a little crazy in that it may take humans a while to figure out all that (maybe the A.I. can help us along), but otherwise, I like it. It actually describes a "level playing field." Some of what you describe goes beyond just guiding evolution, but I am still on board. Now, it does assume that all humans have access to the technology. Also, what about the 40% of people (pulled that number out of my @**), that will view genetic engineering, etc as wrong/evil/or just no. Don't they fall behind? I get that I am getting very deep into an imaginary hypothetical, but the problem is still there.

I do think this is funny, but perhaps we were both wrong.

@TogetherTurtle

For sure. When I was saying we are both right, I was trying (and failing on a re-read) to imply that we must be missing something if the same logic led to opposite conclusions - which is exactly what you go on to suggest in this paragraph.

Maybe we can relate to them more if we change ourselves to enjoy their interests as well.

@TogetherTurtle

Interesting thought, but here is my problem with most other people's interests, they are entirely focused on one topic. You mentioned your family does not have the same interests as you, well what are their interests? If they are like most people I know, their interests can be summarized in one word: people. What is the first thing a family member or friend says after a long absence, "so how is life going? how is your job? are you dating anyone? etc." Every question has to do with our lives, because that is what they are interested in. Now as someone who hates talking about my or your life (unless it relates to a larger concept or idea), I get this is all social convention. But it is also more than that. These social conventions ARE what people like to talk/think about. Even seeming interests, like sports, end up being more about people...anyone who is huge baseball fan, but ONLY watches the Atlanta Braves is NOT a huge baseball fan. They are a Braves fan. They enjoy talking about last night's game with people at work. They like cheering and saying my team beat your team, but they do not have a great interest in actual baseball (to be fair I assume some percent of baseball fans truly like baseball, but I would guess less than 50% - and football, soccer, etc is the same). So I like the idea of shared interests, but you can see I am a bit pessimistic about the possibilities.


Dang, I am out of time for today. I think you had a couple of other important points, and I will try to get those tomorrow. (and I did not even proof-read this so sorry for any problematic errors).

@TogetherTurtle

Dang TogetherTurtle, you don’t mess about. I thought I wrote a lot. Know that I read everything, but since I agree with a lot of it, I am just going to pick a few points of contention (still rather long):

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the underlying idea of democracy is that power should be distributed. I never implied that the power would disappear, simply that it would be spread among the populous as equally as possible. Maybe that was the part you took out of context.
- @TogetherTurtle

I definitely took that part out of context. But it is still pertinent. In this case, what if everyone votes to limit harmful speech? I get that calling it a “right” places it outside the whims of democracy; but we already limited this “right” by declaring you cannot yell “fire” in a theatre along with a few other similar examples. If it is not an absolute “right”, then we can debate its applicable extent. (and I apologize, I may have been traumatized by too many weak libertarian/min-archist arguments where all government power is a bad thing – so I may have taken that bit in a seemingly strange direction).

I entirely agree with your thoughts on physical violence. However, once there is no physical violence, does that mean that there is no coercion, oppression, subjugation, etc? Well I guess if we actually eliminate all physical violence, I will be so busy celebrating that I would not be worried about those other problems But after a few years I will get bored and start looking for a way to improve society again. Hmmmm, my boredom probably should not lead to me forcing my viewpoint on others…but certainly enough for me to consider the possibility.

On physical combat vs mental combat:

I don’t disagree with too much but feel the need to point out (as you seem to view people as far more equal in capabilities than I do) that just as some have genetic (nature) and upbringing (nurture) advantages for physical activities, others will have genetic and upbringing advantages when it comes to mental strengths. In your next paragraph I see that you agree for physical aspects…why does this change when we start talking mental capabilities? – I think that you are saying that once a certain mental level is reached, then they will be capable of defending their thoughts; but how would they defend them from someone who has reached a much higher level? I still do not consider myself immune to sophistry (I like to think I am, but probably not) and I have put a huge amount of time and effort into honing my thoughts, relative to the average person. This may be a bit of a tangent. Am I talking about defending ideas while you were really discussing self-esteem(“I made it out and Suzie will too” – TT)?

“I think it's generally safe to say that while some people are significantly more physically strong than others and hold more potential for that, most people have the same capacity for thought. It may not be as developed due to neglect as others, but that potential is still there. Of course, there are people with learning disabilities, but no one is born with an inferior "brain type" (in parallel with a body type) that judges whether they will be able to do math or English or art better. You could make parallels between learning disabilities and physical weakness, but learning disabilities are generally seen as an illness and a lanky body type is generally seen as just a result of the genetic lottery.”
- @TogetherTurtle

Well based on what I said before, I obviously disagree with this to an extent. All brains have the same capacity? Am I correct to use the word potential in place of capacity? I get they don’t mean the exact same thing, but it helps me to understand. I STRONGLY disagree that all brains are born with the same potential / capacity. Ignoring learning disabilities and upbringing factors, there still seem to be as many varieties of mental capability as there are physical. As someone in education, it blows my mind to think that the difference between two 10-year old students is all due to Nurture. It goes against experience. I would argue that brains are also part of the genetic lottery. Anecdotal example: When I was in elementary school, my dad used to ask my brother and I math questions on percentages. He taught me shortcuts that made math easier, and I still use some of them to this day. However, my brother will struggle today with the same percentage questions that were easy for me by age 9 (my brother has no learning disabilities or anything, he always scored right around the 50th percentile – I am not extremely bright, but way ahead of my brother – in any way that is measurable anyway). Weren’t our upbringings as similar as possible? I get that as close as possible, still leaves a lot of wiggle room, but I think there are as many mental “gifts” as physical “gifts”.

You said that 49% can't defend themselves, and I think that sounds accurate.- @TogetherTurtle

I was actually saying that 49% of adults that DO NOT have learning disabilities, will struggle to defend themselves. Perhaps this will make my point, 90% will also struggle to defend themselves from the top 1%. The mental equivalent of all pro soccer players vs. Messi and Ronaldo. Sure, they have developed their skills to a very high level. Generally speaking, they can defend themselves very well, but when they come up against the champ (not me) – that person who has been reading Kant since age 12 (and for some reason enjoyed it), and it just made sense – they will not be able to keep up (by the way, I count myself as part of that 90% mentally. I can see that I get things quicker than most, but every now and then I meet a really smart person and think there is a bigger gap between they and I, than between me and the average 10 year old).

But what makes us different from them? It can't be biological because both of my parents and my sibling are like that (hilarious, I used the same logic to say the difference can’t be due to upbringing – hmmm, I think we are both right). It could be a mutation but I don't think evolution works that fast. I think it has to do with our situations. I have no idea what would cause such a thing, but throughout history, people have risen against the tide to question everything and have made great strides in their fields. I wonder what makes us this way? I think it merits study.
- @TogetherTurtle

Agreed. So far, my experience suggests that INTEREST is the single greatest factor in achieving a high mental level in any field. Natural ability matters. Access to resources and upbringing matters. But interest is what separates the all-time greats from the rest of us. I am very interested in our discussion – but notice I am not interested enough to put in 5-6 hours of research so that I can cite studies that support my view of mental capabilities varying just like physical abilities (obviously I would ignore any studies that supported your side, hehe). Interest creates opportunity. Time and effort are the key to excelling at anything (although without natural talent you will be limited), and interest makes the time and effort easy and fun.

On the other hand, we could be the strong ones, and it's up to us to build the future responsibly…One mistake I see often is appearing as a savior or hero.
– @TogetherTurtle

Well you don’t have to worry about that from me. I am here because I am interested. The unreachable goal is that I have tested my thoughts and no longer have any “incorrect” ideas (or that all my ideas are the “best” of the known options). If someone wants to read our thoughts and take the next step to implement them, that is their business (I will be happy to get involved if they can show that it is reasonably likely to succeed).

You seem too intelligent for that, however. – @TogetherTurtle

Well I am still new here, give me time and you may change your mind :grimace:

I would recommend trying to level with others, showing them they don't have to be a super genius to understand at least a little of the world around them. – @TogetherTurtle

I agree, they just need to be interested. Are they?

We are more or less the same after all, we all are, the only place we really differ wildly is in our minds. Let us build up those as our ancestors built up their finger strength and agility, however, instead of going one generation at a time, we can go much, much faster.
- @TogetherTurtle

I hope you are right, but I fear individualism will prevent people from coming together to accomplish great things. Can we act as a group without a massively powerful entity (like government) leading the way?

Please let me know if you feel there were any important points that I did not address.
Thanks
ZBT

@TogetherTurtle@DingoJones

I tried to respond to a few specifics to reduce the length. I may have taken things out of context and deserve to be soundly corrected if so (to prepare I know the first quote is out of context, but I feel it helps to show where our views clash).

Also, I am not sold on imposing speech regulations, but I am responding with some of my thoughts that cause me to lean that way.

that is a huge amount of power you are putting in already untrustworthy people.
@TogetherTurtle

I think it important to remember that this "power" does not disappear if we do not give it to government. I prefer to choose to give that "power" to a selected group (that could very well include, dumb or shady people), rather than continue to the play the game of winner take all (until Adam Smith winner take all was accomplished by military power, more recently economic power is the best way to take over) and hope the winner is benevolent.

Violence should not be tolerated under any circumstances
- @TogetherTurtle

Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence? Not all definitions of violence include physical force. How about if I call Susie a doo-doo head? Safe to say that people should not be harmed by words, but equally safe to say that people regularly are harmed by words. Is harm violence?

If you can't defend yourself on an even playing field then you deserve to lose.
@TogetherTurtle

I disagree here. I am NOT going to use words like intelligence in this case, because that is a whole 'nother mess. However, if we were to measure all humans by there ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field", 49% would be below average and therefor they likely DO NOT have the ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field" (those who are above average would be better at defending themselves). What about children? Or varying levels of upbringing and education? Is a level playing field even remotely possible? - I just noticed you did address the level playing field thing, so just ignore those last couple questions

I understand that we don't always have an even playing field, but perhaps that should be a goal we strive for.
- @TogetherTurtle
Indeed, while reaching it may be impossible, simply striving will have great benefits.

For the sake of everything we hold to be true, we need to challenge everything we hold to be true, because if those ideas don't hold up when they are really challenged, we get to die with them.

- @TogetherTurtle

I really like the sound of that. A bit poetic, but still, well said.

However, we are on a philosophy forum. That is who we are. How many of this type of conversation have you had with "normal" people? (sorry on the use of "normal", I can't think of the right word for the 99% of people who can't be bothered to put 5 minutes of thought into this sort of thing) You can see they are actually in pain as their ideas are challenged.
Personally, I only have 1 friend that enjoys critically analyzing their own worldview. Everyone else is just waiting for Fox News, or MSNBC, to validate their opinion. Sorry, bit of a rant. But hopefully the point is made that the vast majority of the population is very unlikely to "challenge everything they hold true."

ZBT