That surprises me; I would have thought you would value people being less easily triggered and more polite... — Banno

Lol, that’s what I meant.

No surprise you’d be the one to catch it, with your acute obsession attention to language. :joke:

I don’t consider myself a longtime member. I was at the old site for maybe a year or so. I left shortly after the server incident that erased a couple months worth of threads/comments. But my departure was due to lack of internet access at the time.

Anyway, what I really miss from that site was the debate section. It was full of seemingly knowledgeable participants on several different topics. And the structure kept all the BS comments at bay. I learned a lot from those debates. I think people now are more easily triggered, and less polite, which is something I value. However, I think the most valuable posters are probably ones that were at the old site as well. And I’m sure in all that time their knowledge/understanding has increased. So they’re probably making even better posts now than they were.

Here’s one for the antinatalists…

And that, according to you, is unrelated to the actual intent and result? I.e. it's always the same blame, regardless of your reasons and the result? — Echarmion

If I understand you correctly, no. I think intent and result both matter. For example, someone that is starving to death and steals bread should be treated differently than a CEO that funnels millions of dollars illegally into an offshore account. The former act is understandable, maybe even justifiable, whereas the latter is not.

Well one obvious reason here is that it's the victim we're talking about. — Echarmion

But can’t the Manson family be viewed as victims of Manson’s brainwashing? Isn’t that the logic used to make him culpable in the first place?

Is empathy genetic? — frank

I’m sure it plays a role. Not saying that one cannot become more or less empathetic, but I think our capacities differ due to our genes. I think males accounting for such a large percentage of psychopaths (of which lack of empathy is a defining feature) bears this out.

But your capacity for it will likely come back to your experiences, right? — frank

And/or genetics.

A non-empathetic person may just need to live more life. — frank

Or have different DNA.

An elderly person who has no empathy is probably a lost cause. No? — frank

Aren’t all elderly people lost causes? :rofl:

but, I'm coming from a POV where there's nothing wrong with being more empathetic, or is there? — Shawn

Well, that depends on a lot of different things, but as I interpret your meaning, I will say yes there is. An extremely empathetic person will spend the majority of their day in tears, as all of the sadness and suffering and injustices of the world will simply overwhelm them emotionally. Every story about some kid with cancer, or some other tragedy will result in emotional pain by the empathic person.

Also, this may be going beyond just empathy but I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, the overly empathetic person will probably end up broke, homeless, and/or starving because they will feel compelled to give their money, possessions, etc. to every charlatan the encounter.

Everything can be taken too far, I think.

To be honest, I am not familiar with TAK. Is it a theory in epistemology? What it is that I'm trying to say is not so much that moral declarations are facts of the world but rather that moral declarations are representations of our moral beliefs and it is a fact that we hold such beliefs. For example, let's say I have a friend named Lindsay who believes that Earth is flat. I'm not saying that her believing that the earth is flat makes her statements that the earth is flat true or factual, but that it is (at least it seems to be) a fact that she holds a belief that the Earth is flat. Does that not get me anywhere? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes. TAK is generally accepted in epistemology, but has some definite issues. So rejecting it completely isn’t unheard of, that’s why I asked.

I understand what you’re saying. I’m asking how can Lindsay justify the claim that she believes the Earth is flat? There’s no verifiable way of determining what exactly it is she believes. People lie all the time, so just taking her word for it doesn’t do much in the way of justifying her claim.

I think of facts such as mathematical facts, logical facts, aesthetic facts, etc, and I think that some facts must represent abstract entities as well as entities that exist in physical reality. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I agree, but the difference with these facts and beliefs are that there are verifiable ways to determine them. There’s established rules of math and logic that can can be consulted. Beliefs aren’t like that. There’s no brain scan that can inform me of your thoughts.

I guess it really depends on which theory of truth we are considering, too. A correspondence theory would impose the sort of existence conditions to truth that you are extending to facts as well. I have read much less about facts than I have about truth, which has not been enough to really grasp what it is and what it can be applied to. I'd like to hear your thoughts on both. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I haven’t read much about this either, it’s all basically just my own thoughts. But, I think facts necessarily have to be true, so they are a subset of truth. But I don’t think all truths are facts. The difference seems to be that facts are objective. There’s definitive solutions to math problems and things of that nature. I don’t really know if facts have to correspond to reality, because it depends on what you consider reality to be, but the have to correspond to something, right? A question about how a chess piece can move is answered by consulting a chess rule book. So whatever the solution is must correspond to whatever is in the rule book. But are some contrived rules written in a book part of reality? I’m don’t really know.

FWIW, I consider myself a moral nihilist, but it doesn’t have much to do with error theory. The inability to bridge the is-ought gap is enough for me to conclude that moral statements, judgements, commands, whatever term you prefer, cannot be logically justified. Additionally, I don’t even think logic or reason have any place in ethics. They’re rooted firmly in our feelings, and therefore irrational. I think our emotional reaction to certain acts is what convinces us that those acts are good/bad. And honestly, I think that’s all there is to it. There’s nothing more to understand. But anyway, your posts indicate a much deeper knowledge than I have, so I figured I’d ask about the things I didn’t understand/agree with and see if I end up learning something.

But that doesn't mean me putting the gun to your head is somehow irrelevant to the question of responsibility / blame for the result. — Echarmion

Right. That’s why putting a gun to someone’s head is illegal/blameworthy.

Aside from the name, what's the difference? — Echarmion

Being blamed for someone else’s actions vs. being blamed for your own.

But someone else's free will isn't a barrier that somehow shields one from consequences. — Echarmion

Not sure what you mean here…

Yeah but what is that difference? How does it matter from a moral standpoint? — Echarmion

Consider the tendency some have of blaming the victim. Is a woman to blame, in any way, for the actions of the rapist? Feel free to imagine whatever scenario you like; she was coming on to him, was dressed provocatively, etc.

If we’re going to blame someone for someone else’s actions, then we have to contend with examples like this one. If she’s not to blame, why not? I have a feeling whatever argument you use to justify not blaming her can also be used to justify not blaming Manson for murder.

This may seem out of nowhere, but do you ascribe to the traditional analysis of knowledge? That of justified, true belief?

If so, then I’m not seeing how moral declarations can be considered facts. How are they justified? It seems self-evident that facts must be true in order to be facts. So, if one is to proclaim a specific statement as fact, it also stands to reason that this fact must be believed/known. And if you agree with TAK, then in order for it to be known, it must also be justified. So it seems any moral declaration (boo lying) must be true in order to be factual, and justified in order to be known.

:up: Love ZZ Top. Probably the band that got me into rock. Growing up, all I ever heard was country. Literally. Then my dad started playing his old (by my standards) cassette tapes. I used to fall asleep to Eliminator, etc. every night when I was ~11. Good times.

I indeed am weary of the accuracy of psychological testing, particularly IQ tests, but I won’t try to make the argument that their specific tests were inaccurate. However, given that these accuracy debates are still occurring, and that these tests were conducted roughly 40 years ago it’s likely that they weren’t as accurate as they may be today. So I think having some suspicion is warranted, but nonetheless I’m sure this testing was the best we could do at the time. At the very least I think it would be safe to say they were prone to delusional thinking, which could have had something to do with all the LSD they were taking, among other things.

I suppose the chances of getting the wrong idea is proportional to the rhetoric in a speech/text which makes the speaker/writer liable to some degree for the effects of faer words. — TheMadFool

I don’t think it can be that cut and dry. Culture has a lot to do with it too. Mark Twain used a racial slur quite often in his writings. Does that mean he was racist? That’s a rhetorical question, but it would be easy to see how a reader may come to the conclusion that he was. Especially if they’re not informed about the author or when the book was written. But it’s ridiculous to expect Mark Twain to have the foresight to know how the word “nigger” would be interpreted 100 years after the fact.

My assumption, and this will probably come across as a gross generalization, is that people who are “gullible” enough to consider Manson a god are probably mentally ill. And Manson can’t be held responsible for someone’s mental illness.

Actually, I think something similar to this argument is used to absolve the Beatle’s song “Heltor Skeltor” from blame for Manson’s actions. Due to Manson’s most likely mental illness he interpreted this song as a sort of prophecy about an impending race war. The song obviously was no such thing, nor was it intended to be.

This also brings up the other issue of interpretation. If someone doesn’t realize or recognize hyperbole, and then goes on to commit horrendous acts due to this misinterpretation, who’s to blame? Should the speaker have been more responsible, and chosen his words better or made it more clear it was hyperbole? Or is the actor to blame for not interpreting correctly? Or I guess a third option would be to say neither is to blame?

Not exactly what I was getting at in the OP, but I agree. I think the act of assigning blame is really where morality starts. So I think if we’re ever going to have a consistent ethics, we need to assign blame consistently.

It's weird to claim that responsibility for the effects of your actions is an "exception to free will". — Echarmion

I’m claiming the opposite. Typically free will is assumed, but when Manson is blamed for a murder someone else committed, it implies that person did not have free will, or at least was not capable of exercising it. So in this case we make an exception, and blame Manson instead of the person who’s actions actually resulted in death.

I don't see why "inability to resist" should be the criterion. If I offer 5 million for someone's death, would-be assassins aren't "unable to resist" this offer, but it'd be ludicrous to argue I had nothing to do with the eventual death of the person. — Echarmion

I’m separating the two incidents. You would bear blame for hiring an assassin, but the assassin would be to blame for the actual murder. So, I’m fine with blaming Manson for whatever it is he actually did (which basically amounts to preaching as far as I understand it), but he isn’t a murderer.

Speech literally is an action. — Echarmion

Yeah, that’s true, but speech alone isn’t capable of forcing someone to do something, effectively eliminating their free will. It’s the difference between telling you to raise your hand, and forcibly grabbing your hand and raising it.

More than one person can bear the blame for a result, it isn't split between actors. — Echarmion

I guess you can make the case that this is true collectively. Sports would be an example of this; no one person is responsible for winning/losing, but each individual is still only responsible for their actions. The QB isn’t responsible for the wide receiver dropping the pass, for example.

Was Donald Trump "guilty", "blame-worthy", or "responsible" for the capitol riot? His role was clearly provocative, without being literally responsible--the way a general may be responsible for a failed defense. Provocation, though, establishes a connection between the provocateur and the agents. While DT didn't lead the charge into the capitol building, he also did nothing (at the critical time) to prevent continued rioting. So yes, he is blame worthy. — Bitter Crank

In hindsight, I think Trump was a bad example to use. He was blameworthy for his actions. I’m more interested in how people are blamed for things they didn’t do. It would be like blaming Trump for murder if the rioters had killed someone. That’s what I have a hard time getting on board with.

We are both self-responsible agents and can often be swayed to act against our better judgment. There is, after all, a large industry (marketing) bent on swaying our behavior toward buying stuff we do not need or even want. Some people tend to be highly influenced by other people. Others are not. — Bitter Crank

That’s obviously true, but it’s unfair to blame McDonald’s for the obesity epidemic. We’re all influenced to greater or lesser degrees, but are expected to use good judgement when we choose to act. There’s an assumption of free will that we as a society endorse in most cases, so I don’t understand why in other cases we make exceptions. Was Manson so extraordinary that others were unable to resist his persuasions? I understand making exceptions for severely mentally ill or disabled individuals and for children. These are people who aren’t deemed capable of comprehending the consequences of their actions. Medical and psychological explanations can account for those type of cases.

There was a case a few years back where a woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for texting her suicidal boyfriend that he should just get on with it. After her seemingly loving encouragement he killed himself with carbon monoxide in a Kmart parking lot. Though he died by his own hand, by his own volition, the court deemed her guilty of homicide as if a person could kill another by text message.

This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it. — NOS4A2

I remember seeing that case as well, and having a similar reaction. It’s concerning to think that our legal system seems to have no issue equating speech and actions. Free speech has slowly been chiseled away at, and may soon be a relic of the past. I hope not, but that seems to be the direction things are trending at the moment. I have a difficult time imagining how society, a supposed free society, can truly function if free speech isn’t maintained. Especially when it comes to the idea of justice.

So might say an apologist for the worst tyrants of history. — hypericin

And your point?

Are you saying that there is an objective way to measure value? Or are you just searching for a subjective answer? If so, then I’ll oblige.

If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin

Because humans mean more to me than animals. At least usually that’s the case.

How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin

I don’t. It’s simply a fact of my being.

I think value is based in emotion, and therefore irrational by definition. Therefore it’s subjective, and how much value something, or someone, has is impossible to measure objectively. So justification, at least the rational kind, is not applicable.

If you want to take things a step further, try answering why you need a reason to be moral. Honestly, I think determining whether or not one must have a reason needs to be established first before this question can even be approached.

Sure, we don’t care about the physical size of a virus, but rather the size of its impact. And I appreciate that you don’t feel insignificant personally, but there are many of us who do. However, since size is irrelevant, as you claim, then how would you explain the explanation many people who feel insignificant give as justification for their feelings? Namely that we are an insignificant species at least partly because the cosmos is so much bigger than us?

It is to move from agnosticism. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why? To me, you need a reason to believe something. If there is no reason, then disbelief is warranted. That is to say that the truth of the belief in question can be rejected, or denied.

We Didn’t Start the Fire- Billy Joel

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio
Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom
Brando, "The King and I", and "The Catcher in the Rye"
Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen
Marciano, Liberace, Santayana, goodbye

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc
Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron
Dien Bien Phu falls, "Rock Around the Clock"
Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland
Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Krushchev
Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, "Bridge on the River Kwai"
Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball
Starkweather homicide, children of thalidomide
Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, space monkey, mafia
Hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go
U2, Syngman Rhee, Payola and Kennedy
Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasion
"Lawrence of Arabia", British Beatlemania
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson
Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British politician sex
JFK – blown away, what else do I have to say?

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan
"Wheel of Fortune", Sally Ride, heavy metal suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shore, China's under martial law
Rock and roller, cola wars, I can't take it anymore

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
It will still burn on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Yeah, apathy certainly has its downsides. I mean, in excess you get people like Richard Ramirez. I guess I just contrast this apathetic lifestyle with its opposite; the overly-sensitive empath who becomes emotionally distraught over every little thing. To me the former is just more appealing. But there’s still negatives as well. I’m not a very considerate person, and probably come off as being stiff or cold. I have no friends, and really don’t care to have any. This is my only type of “social media” account I have, and I essentially work from home, so I don’t really even have coworkers that I talk with.

But for some reason I manage quite well with just my family and various forms of entertainment. But regardless, when I see how much unhappiness is caused by being emotionally invested in worldly/others affairs and others expectations, where we constantly compare ourselves to each other and tie our feelings of worth to faux popularity and tribalism I just don’t see a reason to do that. For me happiness comes from within, and is achieved through being egoistic. I’m sure lots of people disagree, and would not envy my lifestyle, and that’s fine. Ultimately what matters is being happy, at least in my opinion.

My question is, what is that common denominator that makes one more accurate than the other from philosophical prospective? — Curious Layman

Reliability. Thermometers are objective measures of temperature, whereas a neighbor’s choice of clothing is subjective. What is “cold” is a matter of opinion. Oftentimes I’m cold/hot when others are not. Therefore, by consulting a thermometer I have the ability to decide for myself if X temperature is hot/cold and dress accordingly. Knowing that a stranger thinks it’s cold has no bearing on whether or not I do.

I'm having a hard time pointing out what apathy may be about; anyone care to elucidate? — Shawn

Personally, I’m kind of an advocate for apathy. Within reasonable limits I find it useful for living a happy life. I try not to care about things that don’t involve me directly, or that I’m powerless to change. At least I try to not care that much. There just isn’t a point in getting all worked up over something that ultimately doesn’t matter. I couldn’t care less about Elon Musk hosting SNL, or any of the other sensationalist bullshit.

I also find apathy to be freeing. It’s easier to do what you truly want, and say what you truly feel when you don’t care about possibly being ridiculed, or offending someone, etc. The Nine Inch Nails line “Nothing can stop me now, cause I don’t care anymore,” illustrates what I’m getting at.

I don't have sufficient evidence to claim fairies don't exist. Do you? What is it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It isn’t needed. Do you have any evidence that they do exist? If not, then the reasonable thing to do is not believe they exist.

Remember what you said here: — Down The Rabbit Hole

I just meant it wasn’t a factor for determining burden of proof, but yes it is difficult (I would actually claim it’s impossible) to prove something doesn’t exist. There are exceptions, of course when the scope is narrow (I.e. there is no money in my pocket at this time).

A negative statement can't be discussed/analyzed prior to a positive statement that's subject to a similar treatment. — TheMadFool

I think this is limited to existential statements, but yeah that’s another way to look at it.

@TheMadFool
@180 Proof

For what it’s worth, I think you’re both correct. 180’s example assumes that if a god exists, then miracles (and presumably other such phenomena) must also exist. Kind of like how if mules exist, then horses and donkeys must exist, only you’re reasoning backwards rather than forwards. Maybe that’s not the best example, but that’s all I can come up with at the moment. Anyway, if god’s existence necessarily entails whatever phenomena, and that phenomenon is lacking, then it’s logical to conclude god does not exist.

I think with TMF, there’s no assumption of any entailed consequences of god’s existence. Perhaps something like the Deistic conception of god that doesn’t interact with the physical world. In this case, there are no necessarily entailed consequences of god’s existence, therefore there’s nothing to point to to imply god doesn’t exist. The lack of the existence of miracles in this case doesn’t imply god doesn’t exist.

It's harder to prove a negative existential claim than a positive one; thus, if only because its easier, the burden of proof falls on those making positive existential claims. — TheMadFool

I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim because it asserts something beyond the default position, which is skepticism. I don’t think the difficulty of providing proof is a factor at all.

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Are you also agnostic on the existence of fairies? I think you’re using the wrong razor.

It's time to issue a challenge to theists and atheists alike?

1. Theist, do you have a watertight argument for the existence of god? No, of course not! Why else would there be atheists?

2. Atheist, do you have conclusive proof that god doesn't exist? Certainly not! Why else would there be theists? — TheMadFool

As if people only held rational beliefs...

I’m sure you’re smart enough to realize this isn’t even an argument. Does the existence of round/flat earthers prove we should be agnostic regarding the Earth’s shape? The existence of two opposite ideas isn’t proof that a third one is true.

Also, I’m of the opinion that absolute certainty isn’t required for knowledge, so watertight arguments aren’t necessary in either case. If they were, then in order to be consistent we would have to be agnostic regarding the existence of fairies, leprechauns, Santa Clause, etc. I see no reason to do so in these instances, nor the particular case of God(s).

Regarding your second question, I was taught by my philosophy professor that proving the nonexistence of something, anything, was impossible because in order to prove something you must have evidence, and if something doesn’t exist there’s nothing that could count as evidence. So the question isn’t relevant. Besides, the burden of proof lies on the theist because he/she is the one making a positive assertion.

That being said, I fail to see what makes agnosticism more rational than atheism. We are a very imaginative species, and are capable of coming up with all sorts of wild ideas and theories, the majority of which cannot even be tested. But that doesn’t mean all of them are plausible. The question of God’s existence is really a question about possibilities. For those who believe a God could exist, nothing must seem impossible. For if we are to consider the existence of a being that contradicts all that we are sure of as possible, what could remain as impossible? Until the time when physical causes are shown not to be enough to explain physical effects, belief in God’s existence will remain irrational. And agnosticism conceding that it’s possible for God to exist is equally irrational. After all, it is irrational to think that an irrational belief is possibly true.

Beep — Ladybug

Beep — Ladybug

Are you by chance a Volkswagon? — Sir2u

Or perhaps a Playmate?

How is free will proven? It seems to me that Occam’s razor leads one to assume determinism is more likely correct than idealism. But yes, determinism is assumed to be true, but that assumption is based on evidence.

Does proving determinism require complete predictability? — Ree Zen

Not necessarily. If you have a specific instance of matter interacting in a causal way with other objects, is it reasonable to conclude that all matter interacts in this way? How many objects do I need to drop before I can “prove” gravity exists?

Some actions are predictable, but some are not. — Ree Zen

This is likely, in my opinion, due to our lack of knowledge regarding those particular actions. We’re not entirely sure how the brain works, so any act presumably caused by brain states is destined to have a certain amount of uncertainty involved.

Oh, ok. I think I see what you were meaning. I was just confused. Carry on.

To say that a value is right for a person is not necessarily to say it is true for that person; the person could be mistaken. — Janus

Do you mean a value could be right, yet false?

Note, I'm not saying there is any absolute right or wrong, in the way we might think there is an absolute truth or falsity. — Janus

This..

But if everybody agrees to a moral value then it cannot be wrong by definition. — Janus

seems to claim that if everyone agreed, then the value would be right in an absolute sense.

This is because values come down to opinion. — Janus

What I’m not getting is how opinions can be right/wrong? Especially if you’re not counting their truth value as criteria to judge them as such. For example, I value life, which is to say that it’s my opinion that life is valuable. Is this value/opinion right or wrong, and how can you tell?

Thanks! :up:

I didn't say values are true or false, but rather right or wrong. — Janus

What’s the difference? Doesn’t “right/wrong” depend on “true/false?” If you answer “4” to the question “what is 2+2,” it is right because it is true, right? So if valuing life is right, wouldn’t that have to mean that it’s true that we should value life?

What other criteria for the rightness or wrongness of values could there be than human opinion or some criteria of usefulness? — Janus

None, but that is precisely why they’re not truth-apt. They’re merely opinions, regardless of how many people agree/disagree.

The victims are those in the photos and videos. — NOS4A2

What makes them victims? Your idea that thoughts/beliefs alone cannot harm others is based, presumably, on the fact that thoughts/beliefs are private, and have no causal effect on others wellbeing. Wouldn’t any acts done in private that do not involve others meet this same criteria?

If you’re going to take this topic seriously (that is, philosophically), then you need to start with defining good and evil. My guess is that during the process of attempting to do so you will find them to be rather useless terms; they’re too vague and subjective to be of any use in any universal way. But perhaps you’ll surprise me.

Having said that, I agree that humans are capable of just about any act when placed in the right environment/circumstances. We all have natural abilities and limitations, of course, but I don’t think those are particularly relevant to the discussion. However, I don’t feel the need to label our general inclinations/actions as good or evil in the absolute sense of the terms.

Couldn’t another option be that values are simply not truth-apt? Saying something is true because everyone agrees is just an appeal to popularity.

Right, but suppose there are acts, like masturbating, what then? Is it permissible to let pedophiles accumulate photos/videos/blow-up dolls of children that will then be used for the distinct purpose of getting off to? After all, who is the victim?

:up: