No, I think morality has to be coercive and unrealistic, and even if we could change it, there are many advantages to it being this way, it's not clear at all that a change would be desirable.

No, I don't think it changed.

The word "morality", as with many other complex English words, is bloated, filled with concepts that are distinct from each other, but also applicable in the same contexts. I distinguish between three separate concepts labelled as "morality".

The first is the evolutionary basis, that we are concerned about fairness, justice, and rules and think in terms of loyalty, betrayal and revenge. Could throw in the aversion to incest, perhaps some gender norms, it's debatable. The key features here are the emotional and psychological responses.

Secondly, there is a discussion about morality, which deals with the interpretation of what should or can be considered fair, reasonable or just. The evolutionary basis of morality just seems to entail a hatred of unfairness, but how something is interpreted to be fair or not is quite flexible. It could range from stoning someone to death over a minor offence to viewing violent responses as universally unjustified.

Thirdly, there's the morality that I'd call "philosophies of morality", which are not purely based on emotion or psychology and don't have to be at all. They can be completely divorced, and even a critique of the evolutionary basis of morality, such as emphasising logical and unbiased thinking. This might overlap with the second in providing an outline for understanding moral concepts such as fairness and justice.

There are many, including on this forum, who just define morality as something ridiculous like "reducing harm". This is a convenient definition that aims to invalidate opposing views, it is politically motivated. A good example would be incels, there is no group better defined by their strong moral feelings. They bemoan how unfair and unreasonable their circumstances are. Feeling betrayed by society, and desiring revenge, they feel hatred towards those they view themselves as being wronged by.

Our society has largely decided that "morality" only includes ideas that we agree with. So, the incels aren't motivated by moral outrage at all, they're just nasty, bitter fools, as if those things are even mutually exclusive? If we exclude these politically motivated, convenient definitions of morality, then no, it's always been the same.

How much of performed morality do you think arises in adversarial contexts vs collaborative ones? — fdrake

I think there is a lot of performed morality in both adversarial and collaborative contexts, but if I had to choose, then I would say it's more common in collaborative contexts. Since people feel more comfortable sharing their opinions with like-minded people, it is done recreationally as opposed to in an adversarial context where it might be done out of necessity. One risks straining a relationship with frequent critiques, and thus one might feel it'd be better to keep that kind of thing to a minimum. My answer might change if I had specific circumstances in mind, but generally, I'd go with collaborative contexts.

Group membership can be viewed in so many different ways, and one is in so many different groups, that reducing morality to it being coercion by a group becomes a meaningless exercise except when adjudication is involved — ToothyMaw

It wasn't my intention to characterise morality as the result of coercion by groups, and I'm not claiming that the groups one belong to are doing the coercion. My statement was about the nature of moral thinking, the "group" is set up by the context, and not by one's circumstances. We could even discuss a moral dilemma where we're not part of any of the groups, such as discussing the conditions of another country. However, that's still just a setup, my main argument isn't in the first paragraph.

The "group" is just an abstraction, and you can pick whatever you like. For example, if you include animals to talk about what is "fair" and "just" then perhaps you arrive at veganism. Most non-vegans aren't really dealing with this "group", instead, the animals are excluded entirely. So, "People should be able to eat meat if they want, or not, it's a personal choice" is a tenable position. It's only possible when you exclude what is fair or just for the animals, one might argue. Although I'm not even a vegan, comparing this process to the unravelling of racist policies seems pretty apt to me. Those policies were doomed the moment non-blacks started seeing black people as normal people whose conditions mattered.

For instance, most people only care about their loved ones, when really if they applied their principles universally - which I would argue is the ultimate goal of any successful morality - they would care more about children dying halfway across the world from starvation than about their dog. — ToothyMaw

This is very relevant to my OP because one's personal love for their dog is an example of something that probably wouldn't fit into a moral perspective. Why would one care about their dog more than a starving child across the sea? Isn't it because of love? This is why I say in my first paragraph that moral thinking is where one considers the group's interests, as one of the group. One's personal love for one's dog can't fit into that perspective, because they are disregarding the group's interests, and they aren't acting as just "a member" of the group, but taking into account their personal interests and desires.

What you may say in pursuit of this "ultimate goal", I call coercion, because essentially, the loyal dog owner is being compelled to provide a moral justification for his beliefs, even if there really isn't one. He simply loves and cherishes his dog, but because one such as you might act horrified and appalled by him saying "Screw starving children, I love my dog more" and because that doesn't actually work as a justification for him caring more about his dog than starving children, he's compelled to make something up. Forgive the overly dramatic representation here, we could go over a more serious topic if you prefer.

The result of the coercion means that his justification for why it's okay for him to prioritise his dog over starving children might be his real feelings, but considering the coercive environment, you can't really be sure. If it was never an option to just say "Screw you, I understand it might be immoral to value my dog more, but I'll do it anyway" (honestly, in this case, that answer would probably fly for most but w/e) then we can't trust his answer.

My OP is saying that first, we can't expect people to tell the truth due to the coercive environment, and therefore you can't ever be sure whether someone is telling their true feelings or not. Secondly, when their position was non-moral at first, and moral later, meaning, they've been forced to retrospectively deal with the moral question, one should consider lying. By acknowledging the environment is coercive and unrealistic, one should consider just internally acknowledging their lie, instead of actually trying to create a legitimate moral justification, provided one is going down the route of defending their actions.

Are you saying those things don't factor into one's moral perspective? — ToothyMaw

They might or might not, it depends, but certainly, some won't fit as I've explained already.

Perhaps this is partially true, but those positions can be justified with reasoning given some first principles one might naturally espouse, so the moral position could be viewed as somewhat natural given the cognitive faculties humans have. — ToothyMaw

Morality must come from a group perspective, and as you've already made clear, we can't select our group. You said we can't select our "family and friends", and that morality should be universal. Is the natural way of thinking so uninterested in one's self and one's loved ones? Do all of your ideas, thoughts, and values prioritise their application universally? How's that natural?

The breaking of a promise seems relatively straightforward, especially without giving any reasoning that could be used to defend it.

Fairness and reasonableness are pivotal to my understanding of what morality is, so, perhaps we're just using the word differently.


There are many cases where admitting you are in the wrong is advantageous, especially to people close to you. I agree, and often the stakes of these cases are fairly low, so one can afford to be honest.

In my view, morality doesn't involve groups. It involves interactions between moral agents (individuals), which could perhaps even include interactions with oneself. — Tzeentch

Even if your thought was that everyone should decide for themselves what to do, and nobody should be able to tell anyone else otherwise, you'd still be dictating to the group how the group dynamics should be.

It's very difficult to talk about morality without a group as a context because the group's motivations and values are critical. For example, what's fair and reasonable within the context of a competitive soccer team will be different from a casual kids' soccer team. Whereas the competitive team might think it's fair to let the best players have the most field time and ball possession because of everyone's desire to win, it might seem fair to allow all the kids an equal chance to play in the casual kids' team.

It's not possible to simply assert one's own values and goals. To talk about what is "fair" and "just" one must consider the circumstances of the group, right? If one's reasoning applies only to them and not the group, such as that it is just a personal belief, then I suppose my OP wouldn't be very relevant.

I think it's better to own doing something you know is wrong, and own the moral certainty that's needed in justifying your actions post hoc. — fdrake

What are you saying makes it better? I admire one who acts like this, and I sometimes think people are overly frightened of giving even an inch. Won't tolerate the slightest admission of guilt in any regard, and thus, refuse to "own" any wrongdoing. The entire process of moral judgement seems fixed upon this initial wrongdoing, the attempt to characterise something, for instance, as malicious or deserved makes up the dispute. Ultimately, to do as you suggest can only work so long as one doesn't instantly lose control of the narrative by admitting any guilt. While I admire it, isn't it generally smarter to obfuscate or contest instead? Surely, one should at least calculate the chances of whether their reasoning will be accepted? There are no assurances against the repercussions one would want to avoid after providing a justification. Success might just depend on an ability to be convincing.

How often is morality just a sales pitch for one's ideas? Or a crucial necessity to avoid blame? If one's character, worldview, ideas, and actions, are to be judged through the lens of morality, then it's natural to pursue any reasoning that will be compelling.

I talk the way I do about the influence that trans activists have had because I believe that we are talking about an extreme minority of people, with neither wealth nor power. To have even a moderate influence on how sporting associations rule on trans athletes is an astonishing feat.

It defies common sense to permit the things that have happened, such as athletes who transitioned long after puberty, in some cases just a year or so before competing. To influence these powerful sporting associations to act so irrationally and irresponsibly, despite the actions being unpopular with ordinary fans, is quite something.

So, I am not hyperbolising, rather, I feel to accurately account for what has happened, the explanations must be somewhat dramatic. It is a nuanced and complex matter, and all I can say is that rarely is anything ever so simple as x causing y. I definitely don't think what I said was wrong, but if your main point is just saying it's not the whole truth, then sure, I agree, not even close.

Its not interpretation. Its using the definitions provided in the OP which the transgender community accepts to come to a conclusion. Hopefully a logical conclusion, but that's what debate is for. — Philosophim

Definitions aren't enough, even if the "transgender community" accepted them, that doesn't mean they would accept your conclusions using these definitions. That is the case with most words, but especially one as complex as gender. The devil is in the detail, as they say, a one-sentence definition just serves as the fence to generally indicate what is being talked about. You've been challenged on your interpretations by many posters throughout this thread, and that's unsurprising given the context.

I generally think that you've taken logic & objectivity wrongly, though I have issues with both these words. In so far as we agree, it is really just common sense. We've separated sports by sex because it's unfair and unsafe otherwise, we can't make exceptions based on gender. It's a simple, but intellectually and emotionally compelling argument, and that should suffice. It would've probably would've been if people weren't afraid to speak against this movement, or if the people who did weren't so successfully demonised and slandered. That is the real problem here, not that, for instance, people are actually too stupid to realise that it's absurd to allow a biological man to compete in women's sports regardless of gender.

There is wisdom in that, but if I wanted to discuss politics or try to change the political world, I wouldn't be on a philosophy forum — Philosophim

Hmm, is it that simple though? I think you would like to change the political world, and you are indeed discussing politics, but philosophy as a recreational activity is a lot more fun. That describes how it is for me at least, I don't want to spend my time in politics, but I'm far from indifferent in my preference towards political outcomes. Nonetheless, my aim was to provide an explanation for why political discourse has strayed so far from how we might wish people would act, I hope you continue to conduct yourself as you have.

In the context of philosophy, both sides should be making logical arguments, that's just a pre-requisite for reasonable discussion. You've interpreted gender as overriding sex, which it might be based on your perspective on gender & sex, what you think these words mean and based on what you consider "overriding" but that's where the subjectivity is.

I don't think political disputes are resolved by peaceful discussion, and I'd wager your position is mostly a moral one. In politics, "Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent". The worst thing you can try to do is change the minds of those who staunchly disagree with you, a lot of effort with no payoff. Instead, convince people on the fence, or those who were slightly on your side to fully commit.

It's kind of funny honestly, those who claim to care about logic try so hard to act morally, and the despicable screeching harpies they hate are punching so far above their weight class in terms of accomplishing their political goals. Who's really being pragmatic here? A minority of trans supporters have changed a civilisation with their methods, and the diplomatic, logical types have just had to sit on the sidelines watching it happen.

The politics on this issue are the result of the differing philosophical views of opposing parties, your view clearly shows which side you are on, there is no transcending this. The problem with focusing on the "logic of the language" is that language, generally, but especially with the word "gender" is deeply influenced by one's views on the matter. To the extent that the way one defines the word gender is likely to strongly indicate their stance on this issue.

Even if that wasn't true, how a word is defined shouldn't compel anyone to think in any specific way. If the language around sex or gender didn't fit the logic that I thought was accurate or best, then I would simply use the words in the way I wanted instead, and that's 100% common practice. Just as I'm sure when you say "philosophy", your use of this word entails your personal feelings on what philosophy is and isn't.

You aren't even remotely neutral here, your political views are included in your interpretation of these concepts and ideas, and I say that as someone who pretty much agrees with you.

Though for me, the reason why separation by sex shouldn't be overridden by gender is that the reasons for separating people by sex are primarily physical and have nothing to do with gender. Most of my problems with transgender issues are in the handling, and the reason the handling is so bad is that common sense safety measures are considered bigotry.

The barrier of entry to transitioning is so low, and how you self-identify is the priority, a trans person could mean anything from not passing whatsoever to someone who lives and passes as the opposite gender. We're also in such a rush, there's no caution in anything here, and we're no longer even accommodating transgender people, we're straight up promoting transitioning in every way we can, it's crazy.

The transgender view of gender is a consequence of gender being a social construct. Just as two citizens of a nation could debate whether music or food is a more important aspect of their culture, two individuals can argue about what gender norms should be, what qualifies one to be a gender, whether it is a spectrum or binary, and whatever else. The lie about gender is that, unlike culture, there is scientific truth to gender, to the extent that people will try to defer to the science on the matter.

Essentially, there is nothing unscientific about rejecting the idea that gender is a spectrum, or that one's gender shouldn't be tied to one's sex, many different options are possible, we're just making it up after all. What should be based on gender versus sex? We need to evaluate the choices based on merit and our values, and hopefully some common sense.

The reason why we do stupid shit like allowing biologically male athletes into female sports competitions, in my view, is primarily due to political correctness, and the notion that putting forward contradictory ideas on gender is intolerant and hateful. Unsurprisingly, gender isn't alone, concepts such as culture, race, sexism, racism, nationality, class and so on are in the same situation.

Even if one's view on gender isn't ill-intentioned or hateful, the consequences of your definition can lead to it being interpreted as hate speech. So long as this is okay, any view of gender that doesn't accommodate trans people can be considered immoral.

The transgender view of gender is clearly optimising to allow the transition to be as complete as possible. The goal is to reduce the differences between what it means to be a biological man/woman and being a man/woman by gender as much as humanly possible. Any reason to treat people according to sex over gender will be opposed wherever possible.

The more socially constructed being a man/woman is, the more a person can transition from being a biological male/female to a male/female in terms of gender. However, it's also possible to argue that trans people are born with brains more similar to the other gender, so then a transition in appearance from the male/female sex to the opposite male/female gender can be complete even while acknowledging fundamental non-physical differences between sexes. It's not a coincidence that these two entirely contradictory views that both conveniently facilitate more effective transitions are prevalent among trans supporters.

The "science" is just people doing whatever they can to prove ideas true that would be useful in this aim of validating as complete of a transition as possible. The issue is that gender and gender-based ideas are being changed to accommodate the concept of transition, without any actual care as to the larger consequences, and any attempt to speak against this is very successfully silenced as hate speech.

If we had the capability for you to change, I wouldn't be against allowing it. I have autism and I wouldn't change given the choice, but I have things I would change if I could. Autism can be a negative for some, and it isn't for others, but that applies to most characteristics. I think the backlash you get is partly due to your usage of terms like "cure" and how you express your disdain for autism rather than making it clear that you hate "your autism" for personal reasons. I wouldn't be able to listen to you talk about autism without becoming sick of it pretty quickly.

However, I do sympathise with how people will address what you could do, rather than acknowledging your difficulties. There is a prevalent mentality of toxic pragmatism, where unless your situation is accepted as completely unavoidable, all focus will be put on your failure to handle things better. Autism can make one's life much more difficult, and it's cruel to downplay that difficulty by emphasising possible solutions. The intention is to be helpful, but the effect is that it can make it seem like you're being blamed for your misfortune and that nobody is appreciating the hardships you've faced.

The state of all human morality can be summed up in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't.
— Kurt Tucholsky

Immoral acts are disproportional. For example, a single person running a scam might effectively scam dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people. Only a comparatively small number of offenders are necessary to create the feeling that we live in a society where you can't trust anyone because scamming is so prevalent.

Also, even if the scammer does no wrongdoing in any other scenario, he's still not living a moral life. There's no prize in morality for being 99% compliant, and we judge people mostly by their violations.

As for "We ought to, but we don't - well most people do, in fact, this conclusion is a result of our perception.

The other thing I'd add is that morality is a specific context and doesn't take into account real-life circumstances. For example, in terms of a police officer taking bribes - it's immoral. For 99% of the population, they don't benefit from having a corrupt police force and they're not police officers themselves. So, it's pretty simple when it's a 100% loss situation for 99% of the population, then it's going to be viewed as immoral. That 99% can't even be corrupt police officers, since most won't be police officers at all, it's an unrealistic perspective.

The straightforward conclusion of something being 100% morally wrong, only applies from an unrealistic perspective. For the actual police officer who maybe isn't being paid enough, sees everyone else doing it, wants to make a better life for his family and so on, it may be more morally complex. The moral choice may come at the expense of other important considerations - even other moral considerations.

Morality refers to minimising harm. — Benj96

By defining morality as solely minimising harm, you're ignoring the role of other vital concepts within morality - the application of which may justify harmful acts. Morality justifies harmful acts and characterises them as necessary and reasonable. If I give examples of justifications for harm that fall within your moral framework, you will likely protest and tell me that these are absurd examples because they are necessary and overall good, and lead to moral outcomes. If I give examples for justifications of harm that fall outside of your moral framework, then you will call them absurd and clearly wrong. Based on your values and interpretation, you will consider a situation harmful while others won't. "Harm" is thus itself a part of a moral framework and not an objective and measurable thing that morality aims to reduce.

Language & morality are intertwined. If an act is morally wrong, it will be described using the appropriate language to convey it. So, we could agree that child abuse is evil, but the agreement is moot. Since it'd be inappropriate to label a reasonable way of treating a child as "child abuse", one would only use that label to describe what is in one's view an unreasonable and immoral way of treating a child.

There is no question that Nazism contained a strong moral element to it. Devout Nazis saw themselves as righteous defenders of the German homeland and German people through the lens of their racist ideology. Defining morality through the lens of one's own moral framework will only lead to unreasonableness and prevent potentially rewarding introspection. If we only view morality through the lens of our own moral framework, the result will be unrealistically rosy and agreeable. Instead, we should learn from the past and act proactively against the potential dangers of our own moral frameworks.


Morality evolved within the context of tribes, and where morality involves cooperation, it was not designed to be species-wide. Nazis did collaborate as a group against other groups, it's that simple. You're interpreting things in the way that suits you, while totally ignoring the perspective of the people you're talking about. You seem to really struggle with the subjectivity of language. The "problems" they're cooperating to solve are defined by them, the "problems" they created are being defined by you. You're describing two completely different things using the same word and mistakenly comparing them as though "problems" exist and can be defined objectively.

Every one of your threads just completely misses how language is a form of personal expression. It is 100% part of a moral framework to determine what things are "problems" and what things aren't by defining good and evil, justified and wrong, fair and unfair and so on. Every single one of us can agree "Problems are bad, we should solve all problems" - it's just a completely meaningless agreement, why don't you get that? Perspective is critical, you can't just pretend like it doesn't exist to unify everyone.

You could look at it like this.

Every moment or so we are faced with information in our experiences and have to decide what to do with it.

So the requirement for truth in this scenario is to be able to act on some basis, to be motivated to make reasoned decisions.

But we don't have to question everything all at once to act. We probably have a distinct manageable set of input to assess the truth of.

we live in societies with ongoing shifting narratives, values and paradigms we need to assess. — Andrew4Handel

I think this is a good take and works as a strong starting framework for how to view truth. I'd add a few things. Even if something is true, that doesn't mean that incorporating it into your decision-making is pragmatic. One must carefully select the inputs to be used in their perspective. It's very easy to make a logical argument using true premises that result in an undesirable outcome. The pros and cons of a perspective and the relevant outcomes are crucial.

Also, a perspective should be viewed as dependent upon the context and defined by the context in which it was given or formed. For example, even if there were "moral truths", they are formed within the context of moral philosophy. Arguing that something is of personal benefit to you doesn't work as moral justification, but it could be personally compelling. You could recognise that an act is morally wrong but personally beneficial, by including/excluding different truths and prioritising, interpreting and narrativizing accordingly. As for which perspective should be prioritised, there is no truth value to that, it's a choice.

By focusing on the truths you care about, you can construe another's actions as indifference towards the truth, but that's probably not what it is. They are just working with different truths, and arranging these truths in a specific fashion, to arrive at their perspective.

Really? In that case, I name you Ruby Tuesday, and from this day forward, that is your name, by the conventions of naming and ownership -- oh, by the way, I just bought you for 300 shekels. You'd better be worth it! — Vera Mont

Thanks for buying me and giving me a sweet name, though I am arguing the exact opposite of this. It's because the rules and conventions for naming exist that we can't just make up whatever rules we want. You or I or anyone can technically invent their own rules for naming and ownership and have them be equally valid in so far as neither are "in accordance with reality" since these are just made-up rules. However, the standard rules and conventions have legal authority, and cultural recognition, are socially enforced, are part of the language, and are embraced by the vast majority of people.

A lot of things may be. But the Earth was never flat, and late-comer apes, however many conventions they invent, or wilful ignorance, or self-delusion can't turn an uniformed guess into a fact. — Vera Mont

Of course. My feelings about the word "truth" aren't representative of my views about reality, I am only talking about semantics, concepts, and convention. Honestly, I don't know if you really interpreted our discussion to always be set in the context of scientific facts, especially considering this thread is about relativism and skepticism, but I didn't.

In so far as accurately describing reality is concerned, and staying within the confines of a reasonable and scientific view of reality, and in so far as truth pertains only to "the state of being in accordance with reality" to the exclusion of manmade concepts, then convention is meaningless. Anyway, somehow this became a discussion where I'm trying to convince someone I'm not crazy, I hope I got through but I'll end my involvement in this thread here.

I don't agree that facts are controlled by public opinion. — Vera Mont

Well it is. For example. the world was indeed flat until people decided it wasn't, and their decision was what bent the Earth into the shape of a sphere. I can send you a 100-page document I wrote about it proving this to be the case if you're interested.

It is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). — Vera Mont

No, it's true by convention. Your opinion and your argument about the dog needing to comply to the owner calling its name is just something you made up. I'm not saying you can't have your own opinion, and your view seems reasonable to me. It's not just the definition of words that is defined by convention, but a lot of things. I will leave it there though since you seem uninterested in the semantics.

In what way do you agree? It seems that you are unwilling to label things as true when they're true by convention or manmade rules. If I name my dog Mark, is it true that his name is Mark? Anyway, I do appreciate that the context is essential, and while we may disagree on why it is that laws of mathematics are different from the rules of chess, I think our conclusions are the same.

Of course. As a claim, it can be disputed, tested, verified and proven....
.... within the confines of its context.
Obviously, you can move a pawn backwards; it's just that the rules of chess forbid you do it during a game. If anyone doubts that - and they can - you show them the rule book — Vera Mont

Of course. I was saying that truth is determined by rules and conventions and can be contested by ignoring those rules and conventions. There is a clear difference between the rules of chess and the way in which we establish mathematical or scientific truths and a difference between the truth value of pawns being unable to move backwards and that 2 +2 = 4. However, each truth value is indisputable. I think this is because of the relationship between the rules and conventions with the claim, as well as the cultural attitude towards these rules and conventions. Do you agree? I'm not saying the laws of mathematics and the rules of chess are on the same level, but as far as truth is concerned, it's not about that.

It's indisputable, because there is nothing in it to dispute: it's not a claim; it's a definition. — Vera Mont

The original designation of three-sided polygons as "triangles" has no truth value, since it was an act, but It is true that a triangle has three sides because, by definition, a triangle is a shape with three sides. You could view it as a contraction of "within English, a triangle is a shape with three sides" which anyone would who speaks English would agree is true. Without that English would cease to function as a language. Another example would be that the creation of the rules of chess had no truth value, but that, for example, you can't move your pawns backwards is a rule in chess, there is a truth value, and if there wasn't, then there would be no rules in chess at all.

I did add to my argument. In my first comment, I didn't provide any argument to dispute the claim about a triangle having three sides, but the idea is that the claim is "indisputable" and that's why it's brought up, to prove that truth more generally also has this quality of being indisputable. That is why I made a post talking about why this claim was indisputable due to convention and not because of the nature of truth. The substance of my argument wasn't what you quoted, that was just an example for the sake of illustration. If you agree that these statements are true by convention then we agree, but I can't tell by your reply what you're trying to say.

You've refuted a lot of claims that I didn't make and I can't see how anything you said is related to my argument. My argument is that truth status is determined by rules and conventions, and that "the truth" of the dog's name or the definition of a triangle is determined by the rules and conventions of culture and language respectively.

To me, truth is an affirming property that can be attached to something, maybe that something could be simplified to being a claim. We create rules in different contexts for how a claim can qualify for this affirming property of truth. The claim, the rules and the process of applying those rules are done by people. "A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle", aren't much different from giving your dog the name "Mark" and insisting that it is true that your dog's name is Mark.

It is true that your dog's name is Mark, but it's not written into the fabric of reality, it's just, by convention, the owner is the one to name their dog, and so if you say the dog's name is Mark then it's Mark. I could nonetheless ignore this convention and insist that your dog's name is Billy. I will call your dog Billy and you will say "No... His name is Mark, why are you calling him Billy? Are you an idiot?" and almost any reasonable person would agree with you.

If there's a difference, it's that the convention stopping me from disputing what a triangle is comes from language, and the convention stopping me from renaming your dog is cultural. I don't agree that "the definition of anything is true of all examples of that thing". Yet, whether it is or isn't the case, would depend on the conventions of English. Though I'm not saying that means the conventions of English are arbitrary, the role of language is multifaceted and so are the reasons for rules or conventions.

"Undeniable" truths are only undeniable when you lock in the claim, rules and conventions that make them undeniable. I can refute "triangles have three sides", but to do that, I must undermine important logical, practical conventions, and I imagine this would be brought up against me if I tried. Do you agree with my analysis?

When trying to demonstrate the importance of truth, often the most simple of examples and arguments are made. Things like "triangles have three sides, for instance. The simple example seems powerful because it's impossible to reasonably refute, but the reason that the simple example works doesn't extend to anything beyond that. It ONLY works on the most simple example, and when complexity is introduced, then relativism starts to take shape.

What leads to relativism isn't that there's no truth, it's that there's too much truth. The volume of truth is incomprehensibly immense. It's not just things that are true, but the validity of logic can be true, feelings can be true, stories, ideas, rules, the existence of cultural norms, the existence of societal norms, the existence of religious ideas, manners, the existence of morals, the existence of laws, the existence of values, different ways of defining words and the list goes on, you can add to it as you like.

Yet, It's not practical for a perspective to contain more than a handful of truths. One is forced to choose which truths to include or to ignore. Even then, these truths will be used subjectively, they will be used to mean something, to justify something, to explain something or some other purpose. This is a practical reality that one can never overcome.

Your OP is a highly specific collection of ideas, interpretations and arguments, their truth value is important but it doesn't change that this OP, and all things you express, are the result of your choices.

Your perspective will only ever contain truths, it can never be "the" truth.

The means do not need to "reflect" the goal, they need to accomplish the goal.

Since you're unconvinced by what I've already said, I daresay it's pointless for me to argue any further.

Identities are not mutually exclusive, and someone who is trans doesn't necessarily have "being trans" as an "overarching social identity" and may perceive their other identities as equally important. Trans does have to be an identity, yes, even if trans people themselves didn't want it to be. Consider situations like dating or sports, where being upfront about being trans mightn't be done out of self-interest, but out of consideration for others.

Although transgenderism is more of a symptom of the direction in which society is evolving, in that any and all groups will aspire to a special social status. In essence, if you don't belong to a recognized and approved subculture, you will be at a disadvantage, as you lack that voice of advocacy. — Pantagruel

The "direction" society is evolving in is recognising that tolerance and treating people equally isn't sufficient. Some groups have special needs, and refusing to meet these needs has negative consequences for that group. Just as tolerating people in wheelchairs doesn't make them not need ramps.

The reality is that trans people are far from a privileged group, and any group which envies the position of trans people must be in a really sorry state. Are they some super social class that everyone else needs to bow down and accommodate? No, that's not even close to the truth. Yes, some groups that need as much help as trans people don't get as much attention, but the solution is for that group to receive the help they need, not for trans people to be as deprived of help as these neglected groups are.

It's not about treating groups identically, but the exact opposite, some groups need more assistance than others. Groups who don't have any special needs can work with just tolerance because they are largely self-sufficient and don't require special treatment. Also, trans people are disadvantaged in many ways, and rather than construing their special treatment as advantaging them, the aim could be better thought of as just increasing inclusivity and equality by allowing trans people to have their needs met. As compared to other groups, who are already having their needs met, because they don't have any special requirements.

This has nothing to do with the "statistical reality" because I am not advocating for any position on public toilets*. I am simply addressing your comparison between identities, and your construing of trans people having more needs as some kind of perverse entitlement for better treatment. If your position was to acknowledge that trans people aren't like other groups because they have special needs, but to say that despite this, meeting their needs can sometimes be impractical, that's fine, you could be right. As I said, I don't agree with many of the measures being taken to accommodate trans people either.

I think it's important to recognise that transgender as an identity is more comparable to the disabled, women, children, the mentally ill and others, whose needs require societal change. Calling for toilets that accommodate trans people might be comparable to calling for ramps to increase accessibility for people in wheelchairs. It's not that people in wheelchairs are demanding special consideration because they feel entitled to it, but that as a practical consideration, they need ramps. Identities that don't "need" anything, so, there's no special entitlement for them to ask for.

That doesn't mean that everything people are asking for trans people to have is justified, or that everything labelled "transphobia" is reasonable, in fact, I have a lot of issues as well. However, it's not reasonable to construe changes accommodating trans people as a result of a special privilege, compared to other identities. Those other identities don't have any needs that aren't being met, it's completely different. It's a unique circumstance, with unique issues.

@Fooloso4 sums it up well. Plenty of well-informed and rational people disagree with you, it's that simple, and labelling anyone who disagrees with you as misinformed or irrational isn't helpful.

Your conditional ought just serves to exclude the opinions of those who don't agree with your point of view. I think it's better to be open-minded and inclusive, try to understand the perspective of others, and aim to minimise the destructive politics and tribalism that are guaranteed to occur.

Moral imperatives are already conditional. For example, "theft is wrong" seems absolute, but what is and isn't theft is an integral part of a moral system and legal system. "Oppression" is wrong but generally, one won't describe something as oppression unless they think it's wrong. Someone who views the employer/employee relationship as immoral might label it "oppressive", but someone who thinks it's a good idea won't describe it that way.

Also, moral systems are complex, and an act can often be interpreted as morally complex. For example, "killing" is wrong, but whether that makes abortion wrong is unclear. "Killing" is wrong, but all kinds of mitigating factors could be invoked. While on the surface moral systems can seem rigid and absolute, because they are complex, and rely on interpretation, ultimately, it's very difficult for a moral system to be rigid, and in the real world, I don't think any such moral system exists.

In your OP, you describe a "well-educated, rational person" but you're not even attempting to hide your bias here. It's not that a well-educated, rational person will share your views on the purpose of morality, it's that people who share your views on morality might get to be considered well-educated and rational. That's how language is, one's feelings are embedded into how one interprets, emphasises, characterises and selects words, and it works that way in morality just like everything else.

"The truth is true and that's the truth", that's a good argument, I hadn't thought of that, thanks for enlightening me.

"Truth" conceptually is a mess, but I think generally, the idea is that by calling something true, you are asserting it is independent of the context of the speaker, and not that it is context-independent. The logic for why it's independent of the speaker is based on rules, such as the rules of a language. "It is true that the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised in English", for example. Or based on agreed-upon rules for measuring something, like "It is true that Messi is an accomplished soccer player". There is no such thing as "accomplishment", it's a man-made concept, but it's so apparent that Messi should be by any person's account considered accomplished as a soccer player, that one could call it a truth.

"Truth" is an entirely man-made concept, in reality, "truth" doesn't exist, things simply are, I suppose. There aren't necessarily any agreed-upon rules for this, just a test that an individual or group made up. Whether that actually makes this subjective or not, is the thing that's context-dependent, I'd say.

You're right. In hindsight, I should've anticipated more people paying more attention to my title than my OP, I lazily wrote some random title without considering it too much.

I will define "big government" as a government with greater power, control, and authority to oversee a country's economic and social aspects. Generally, we already accept that a government will be entirely responsible for foreign politics, the military, law enforcement, and many other areas. So, this term is usually just referring to the government's economic and social policies, that's how I see it.

Often, the alternative to the government solving a problem, especially in the West, would either be that the community solves it or that the market (capitalism) will solve it.

My thoughts are that the community doesn't have that kind of power, it can only do so much and is not a realistic option when you consider the scale of many of the problems facing society. It's totally unrealistic and thus absurd to look to the community to police big businesses or solve massive social/economic issues.

Capitalism is relatively good at some things, as the concept of profit has proven to be quite effective compared to the other models that have been seriously attempted. However, that profit motive only applies to the company itself, and definitely not the workers or society more generally. Businesses will pursue profit and expansion, and big businesses are exceptionally powerful, many consequences that will be devastating for our society aren't priorities, and private citizens can do nothing about that.

Frankly, the idea of "small government" is ludicrous. The problem is that if not the government, then who? One can argue "government is inefficient" and so on all they like, there's literally nobody else but the government, the alternative is just to leave things unregulated and essentially do nothing.

Countries that do not embrace "big government" are going (or will continue) to fall behind in terms of the quality of life of their citizens. As automation gets better, the need for "big government" will get worse, and automation is getting better very quickly. Only the government can address this issue of distributing wealth to the people, businesses will endeavour to deliver profits for their shareholders, at the expense of everyone else. This problem has been apparent for decades now, and the inevitability of automation should be obvious to all.

Besides automation, there's just nobody with the power & will to solve societal issues of scale, and if the government is too small to do anything about these issues, then they simply fester. There are many great examples of how lacking in humanity businesses with a profit motive can be. You allow businesses to run prisons, or have them reduce homelessness, and they naturally go find ways to abuse powerless people for profit. The government doesn't have that profit motive, and by the way, when they DO have a profit motive, they're just as terrible, that's why corruption is so devastatingly bad.

I don't know what kind of problems "big government" can even be argued to cause, but I think the bigger the better, and that big government is a prerequisite to a positive future.

You can't properly understand words if you just look at the literal definition. The term "Sangokujin" is written 三国人 which literally translates to third-country person or third-world person. It's clearly not a nice way to refer to a Korean living in Japan, and I can understand why people would take offence. In Japanese, you can refer to foreigners as 外人 or 外国人 which translate pretty much the same, but the latter is a more formal and respectful term, and the former is a bit disrespectful. The idea of having formal and informal words is a core part of that language, and there are many ways of saying the same thing which have very different meanings due to the level of formality.

Many racial slurs have no meaning whatsoever, they simply refer to a person's belonging to a race. But the term is known to be offensive, and someone would only use a slur to be offensive, and so the meaning is very clear. Many words are like that. One word says "you are this thing" and the other says "you are this thing and being that thing is bad and I'm insulting you" and that's commonly understood by native speakers.

This is just normal practice in language, and it'd actually get you into a lot of trouble if you tried to enforce the neutrality of words.

Of course, I don’t really believe it has an essential character or even that we wouldn’t replace it with similarly double-sided words if it did go mainstream, but I think this may indeed identify different classes of words. — Jamal

I wonder if you'd agree that it's quite easy to use words with positive connotations negatively than vice versa? By using sarcasm, tone or context. I would say "comedian" is a word with positive connotations, people like comedians and being funny is generally seen very positively. But imagine a teacher addressing a student as a "comedian" in a stern tone when they've been disruptive, the connotation is clearly negative.

It's much harder to make words with negative connotations sound positive, as you'd never describe the behaviour using that negative word if you wanted to make it seem positive, and so it's jarring to be praised for something bad. For instance, If someone ran away from a fight, you'd call them a coward if you disapproved and smart if you approved, simple as that really. You can't say "I'm so proud of your cowardice" or something, it's just impossible in most cases.

I also think it's important to remember that we don't need to rely on a single word's connotations. Saying "you're a pathetic nerd" would make it clear that the word "nerd" here isn't being used as praise, regardless of the positive connotations the word might have.

I agree that more words have negative connotations than positive ones, but I think that's generally because the level of specificity when describing something negatively is generally higher. Often because the stakes are higher, and there are more severe implications for the word's use. It may also be due to human's natural tendency to be interested in the negatives over the positives, not sure.

I don't think language should be neutral. Its purpose is not to merely convey information, we must convey feelings and intent, and our word use has implications far beyond just information sharing. I don't think there's a problem with words being mostly negative either, why do you think so?

I guess this is not the solution either. Skipping the use of a word needs a lot of tasks to do. It is necessary to change all the culture of society. I think it would be easier to be cautious of using them. — javi2541997

I think it's unavoidable because English has a limited number of words, and sometimes the connotation can't be challenged. For example, "racism" being bad is unchallengeable, no matter what, one can never think racism is fine. If one defines racism to mean "not liking other cultures" or something silly, you can't say "Okay, well by your definition, I support that kind of racism". As it just sounds so wrong and absurd to ever say "I support racism". You need to instead argue on the basis of the definition, that they're wrong to say racism means disliking other cultures. The term "racism" is too important to give up on, the word has too much moral and political capital, and to say, "Okay, racism can mean that, I'll just make a new word" is unthinkable. Therefore, one simply has no choice but to have a debate about what is or isn't racism, even if that means disregarding the historical meaning of the word.


I live in Australia and growing up, "gay" didn't just mean homosexual. Gay was basically a substitute for "lame", and one could say a rule or place was gay, and if one was called gay, it just means "you suck". I don't know where it came from or when it started, but it was very common to hear the word used this way when I was growing up, and I'm pretty sure it was this way across the entire country.


Okay then, I would definitely say "buffoon" is purely negative, I don't think I've ever heard it used in any other way, but my mistake for assuming this was your position as well.

I'm with Jamal that the word "buffoon" has negative connotations, usually meaning someone who makes a fool of themselves or an idiot. When someone hears a word being used negatively 99.9% of the time it's used, even if the word doesn't seem offensive, then one will naturally view the word as carrying hostile intent. Honestly, "clown" isn't much better.

Some words like "nerd" 15 years ago, would've automatically been considered an insult without the right context. Nowadays, since being into nerdy things or spending a lot of time on computers is standard practice, it'd be a little jarring to hear someone use "nerd" as a legitimate insult. When I was growing up, "gay" was a common insult, but now it isn't, or at least I'm pretty sure it isn't. So, it's not necessarily the word itself but the common usage of the word and the culture in which it is being used.

However, there are many words that are just outright negative, such as hysteria, delusion, manipulation, cowardice, oppression, gluttony, narcissism, bigot unloyal, traitor, brainwashing and many more. For many such words, even if you try to use them completely neutrally, they wouldn't be taken neutrally.

For these kinds of words, people may instead try to argue against the application of the word instead. Such as arguing that an act isn't cowardice, but smart. But what isn't much of an option is trying to argue that cowardice itself is smart, people have their own ideas and may not accept our intended meaning. A culture can change from seeing an act as cowardly to later seeing that same act as brave or smart, but we'll never call an act we approve of cowardly. The very fact someone chose to use the word cowardly instead of some other word strongly indicates their negative feelings.

I'm okay with intelligence having many applications in different contexts. What bothers me here is that calling an idea or person intelligent is intended to mean the same thing, but it also can't mean the same thing. A human being's intelligence has to do with their brain, whereas an idea being intelligent has to do with its logic, accuracy or a host of other characteristics one might choose to focus on.

The ability to produce intelligent ideas is a sign of intelligence - but whether an idea is intelligent is determined by a different set of criteria. Isn't that misleading? Some ways of determining an idea to be intelligent might work to predict a person's intelligence, but they don't have to. The existence of intelligence might be a pre-requisite for an intelligent idea or it might not be.

It's smart to bring water when going on a long walk, but an idiot could bring one and a genius could forget. If one forgets to bring their water bottle when going on a long walk, it's actually stupid to blame intelligence. The solution to this problem definitely isn't an increase in IQ. But it's not always that obvious, and this creates confusion. I'm not insisting this is always the case, but can you think of examples where maybe it has confused and misled people, or am I overblowing the issue?

I can understand how my use of "English" could give off the impression that I'm approaching this topic as a non-native speaker who thinks English has a unique problem, but I'm not. I'm a native English speaker. I'm not fluent in Japanese but I know enough to say that it has the same feature and I assume all or most languages do. In Japanese, words meaning wise, intelligent, and lazy - can all be applied to people, ideas, plans, systems and so on. There are some differences but the general idea is the same.

Your thesis seems to be that the structure of the language imposes judgment, when it seems more likely that the language is representing the already existing judgment. — Hanover

I don't think that the structure of language imposes judgement, that's too strong of a word.

That is, I call the crime and the criminal stupid because I think criminals are indeed stupid. It's not that I a priori separated the crime from the criminal but my language forced me into a judgment that changed my opinion. — Hanover

I made a thread about selective word use some months ago, where because we hate criminals, we're going to use negative language to describe them, regardless of whether it fits or not. Our motivation to insult the criminal, and to promote law-abiding behaviour is the top priority. I wonder if you are calling the criminal stupid in this way and that if I presented you with a criminal, for example, someone jailed for protesting the war in Ukraine, then you'd perhaps shower that individual with praise instead.

I'm 100% sure that's not a language issue though.

The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does. — Hanover

That's definitely part of it. An intelligent person might do something stupid for a variety of reasons, such as lack of information, lack of experience, lack of judgement, emotional influences or mental illness. Making good decisions isn't solely a product of intelligence. Experience, character, wisdom, skills, education and many other factors are involved.

The role played by language is that it seems intuitive for stupid acts to be done by stupid people, and perception is created by the word "stupid" being applicable to both acts and people with the exact same meaning. When in reality, it's not possible for an act and a person to be stupid in the same way or for the same reasons, and a stupid act isn't one done due to a lack of intelligence.

anyway, I am so used to all this, that I wonder if you can convey to me how sensible languages deal with all this? — unenlightened

As I said, English is my first language, sorry to disappoint, I don't know if any language is completely without this problem, but I'm doubtful.

The reason I recommend confirmation bias is that I evaluate perspectives by what they produce, I do not recommend using "truth" and logic as measuring sticks for the value of a perspective. By your account, your belief in solipsism is making you miserable, for me, that is all I need to hear to judge your belief. If your belief is based on truth, is logical, and causes you to be miserable, then it is garbage. I thought you might be closer to agreeing with this, since you made a thread, looking for solipsism to be wrong, but instead, you present yourself as a slave to truth, you're trapped by solipsism being true and you only wish it wasn't.

What did you gain by being "correct" about solipsism? What's so good about your refusal to use confirmation bias to stop being "correct" about solipsism? Who decided it was good? If solipsism was the truth, but believing it made me miserable, I would use dishonest thinking to disprove it, so I could be happy. It makes no sense to me why you've got such a loyalty to truth.

That being said... many of my own views are dangerously close to solipsism, only, it does not cause any sadness in me. I too see no merit in accomplishing anything in this world, I don't think anything has any value beyond what a person asserts, and I self-describe as a nihilist. Unlike you, I start with where I want to be, such as, I want to be happy and confident, and I build my perspective to achieve that. You say "only stupid people believe what makes them happy", and I'm shocked, a solipsist who regards truth as the highest good? As a solipsist, you're attacking the very heart of truth, how can you then regard confirmation bias as wrong? It baffles me.

Your "math one" is aiming to prove a consistent internal logic to solipsism.

2. More generally, there can be no deductive refutation of this solipsism
employing only premises a committed solipsist would accept: all logically
correct derivations from solipsistically true premises lead to conclusions
that are solipsistically true as well. Any route to a successful refutation of
solipsism must travel via nondeductive inferential paths

That might well be right, but then, the author would likely then agree, that by employing premises that a committed solipsist wouldn't accept, solipsism mightn't survive. I am not arguing that solipsism can't have a consistent and valid logic to it. Even if solipsism contains irrefutable premises that necessarily lead to the stated conclusion, even that wouldn't be enough. One could simply argue that another set of premises is more important, and more crucial to look at, or simply by insisting that some premise has been ignored and must be considered.

Anyway, I don't know why I bothered to respond, I didn't ask you to send me some arguments you googled or whatever. I wanted to hear it explained in your own words. Why is a solipsist even giving me the arguments of others... The ones you think aren't real? Your entire position is so all over the place.

I'm convinced now, you didn't come to be a solipsist by introspection, it's something else. I'm called a solipsist because I attack the concepts of truth and reality, I emphasise the importance of the perception of the individual. And they talk about reality, truth, and logic and scoff at me for daring to think these concepts unimportant. You're a solipsist who prizes truth above all else, who proclaims things "objectively true", who prides himself on thinking in a way best suited to arriving at truth, and who detests ways of thinking that lead to inaccuracies. That is the exact opposite of solipsism, this is someone who has absolute faith in the foundations of reality and embraces and believes in a standard set of epistemological tools.

No offence, but I think others have hit this on the head, this is the result of some obsession of yours, it is not a logically consistent system of thought. I see a complete disconnect between how you think and what you value, and how that can conclude in solipsism. The only thing I can think of is that for some reason, you've been mesmerised by the idea and you're stuck. I realise that you won't accept that answer and that it's not an answer appropriate to a debate, but it's what I think all the same.

I'm not interested in going through a 50-page essay and reporting to you about it, as much as you hate confirmation bias, if I'm right, then you are looking for essays like this that prove solipsism. I doubt the essay even represents your opinion, it is what you searched for to justify your conclusion. Everything about the way you've conducted yourself on this thread is telling me that you are not going to change your mind on this.

Maybe you'll remember my words someday and make them work for you, maybe not of course, but it's clear to me that you're not ready to change right now. That I'm far from the first to conclude and thus shouldn't be overlooked, I imagine most posters will end up thinking the same as me if they don't already.