Large scale agreements occur in totalitarianism as well and yes, they're not pure coincidence but how are they morally valuable? — Noblosh

My point was simply that they're not entirely irrelevant. They're irrelevant in ways other than what I had in mind. Totalitarianism, slavery, segregation, and so on, are not counterexamples against what I said. They're relevant because they give us insight. For instance, they give us insight into humanity, and insight into the the effects of our surroundings, and these things are relevant to morality.

Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity. — Sapientia

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at there, but I agree that it requires what the agents are making moral judgments about--certain types of interpersonal behavior, etc., which of course require environments to take place in (people aren't floating in a vacuum). But that doesn't make that stuff literally the moral judgments.

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at there, but I agree that it requires what the agents are making moral judgments about--certain types of interpersonal behavior, etc., which of course require environments to take place in (people aren't floating in a vacuum). But that doesn't make that stuff literally the moral judgments. — Terrapin Station

You're the one who keeps trying to reduce what we're talking about to moral judgements, not me. Perhaps you should ask yourself why. Is it because it's more convenient for you?

Not just that. I'm talking about the bigger picture, and whether it would or would not make sense if certain elements were removed. Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity. — Sapientia

I agree. It looks like you might be describing intersubjectivity, which I would say counts as objectivity in this case--unless one means objectivity in the sense of being entirely independent of minds (which I think you don't mean).

I'm talking about the bigger picture, and whether it would or would not make sense if certain elements were removed. Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity. — Sapientia

So in layman terms: it depends.

You're the one who keeps trying to reduce what we're talking about to moral judgements, — Sapientia

Well, that's what morality is. It's judgments that we make. It's not identical to what the judgments are in response to.

It's similar to painting, say. Painting is applying pigmented mediums to surfaces like canvas. Painting isnt' identical to what the painting is in response to--say if you're painting a still life, a vase of flowers or something. You need the vase of flowers to do that, but the vase of flowers isn't itself painting. It's important to not get confused between the two, not to start to think that the vase of flowers literally is painting.

Yes, although my point was more that it depends on things other than what Terrapin wants to focus on.

Well, that's what morality is. It's judgments that we make. — Terrapin Station

No, that's what moral judgement is. Morality has a broader meaning, and that is evident from the way in which we talk about it.

It's not identical to what the judgments are in response to. — Terrapin Station

That's not a claim that I've made.

It's similar to painting, say. Painting is applying pigmented mediums to surfaces like canvas. Painting isnt' identical to what the painting is in response to--say if you're painting a still life, a vase of flowers or something. You need the vase of flowers to do that, but the vase of flowers isn't itself painting. It's important to not get confused between the two, not to start to think that the vase of flowers literally is painting. — Terrapin Station

Art, like morality, involves subject and subject matter. Neither are entirely subjective.

Art, like morality, involves subject and subject matter. — Sapientia

The vase we painted isn't art. It's just what we've painted.

...all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit — Noble Dust

This is a common fear/misconception--the one-hit menace.

The fact that argues against one-hit addiction is that in fact, addiction is a process which changes brain chemistry and it takes time. Recreational drugs either block neurotransmitters (e.g., heroin), or they resemble the neurotransmitters too closely (meth). Either way, neurotransmitter output and uptake doesn't change so fast that one can get addicted from one use.

Another fact that argues against one-hit addiction is that most people do not get addicted to psychoactive substances that they use fairly often. Take alcohol. Many people drink regularly but don't exhibit any sign of addiction (like reduced sensitivity to alcohol).

However, some people are more prone to addiction (might be heritable) and exhibit reduced sensitivity and drug seeking behavior fairly quickly (meaning over months time).

With respect to pornography (or any other pleasure producing behavior) most people won't develop an "addiction" to the pleasurable behavior, but some people will. People have developed a dependence on aspirin. Aspirin isn't addictive, but compulsive personalities feel they need it, and tend to take it even when advised not to (like, before surgery, with bad consequences). Laxatives are abused by some compulsive personalities, too. It isn't the aspirin and laxatives that trigger the abuse -- its the compulsivity in the personality of the abuser.

You're talking about art in a different sense, so that's equivocation. You're talking about artwork. I was talking about what art must involve in order to make sense, and you can't make sense of art with just a subject and no subject matter.

You're talking about art in a different sense, so that's equivocation. I was talking about what art must involve in order to make sense, and you can't make sense of art with just a subject and no subject matter. — Sapientia

That's fine, but it's different than what art is.

You could just as well say that for anything to make sense, we need a planet that could have supported creatures that are able to make sense of things. Pretty soon you get to everything being necessary, and then everything is everything rather than art being art,and water being water, and east being east and west west, and then if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

That's fine, but it's different than what art is. — Terrapin Station

What art is is not limited to artwork, just as what morality is is not limited to moral judgement.

You could just as well say that for anything to make sense, we need a planet that could have supported creatures that are able to make sense of things. Pretty soon you get to everything being necessary, and then everything is everything rather than art being art,and water being water, and east being east and west west, and then if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. — Terrapin Station

No, it's not a slippery slope. The boundaries are just wider than what you accept.

What art is is not limited to artwork — Sapientia

Why not?

Why not? — Terrapin Station

Because it encompasses more than that. Art can be the activity or process directed at producing artwork. And that involves more than the end product. We call this "doing art".

Why would you need another term if it's art?

For distinguishing more precisely. It still comes under art.

That would be misleading if it were all x.

I'm not sure what you mean or why you think it'd be misleading. Can you clarify?