Correction: replace arbitrary with “subjective”

Not sure what "selected" means in your OP. It sounds something like taking a particular gun out of a gun-case. The problem is that in your construction the rule then becomes a rule, but as the gun was always a gun, so your rule was always a rule - as you observe.

Maybe then the question becomes one of adapting rules to new circumstances, in which case the new parameters matter and themselves rule.

And it seems to me that all rules are arbitrary with respect to raw ground.

Not sure what "selected" means in your OP. — tim wood

I really mean the rule is selected based on certain subjective parameters, or values, only insofar as they determine what rule should be selected that supports those same parameters or values. But is the rule itself subjective because the input is? Or is it mind-independent and free of subjectivity because it has a purpose that appears to be mind-independent and free of subjectivity?

the rule then becomes a rule, but as the gun was always a gun, so your rule was always a rule - as you observe. — tim wood

But which rule is selected is the result of a value judgement much of the time - especially with respect to moral rules. In fact, which rule is selected is a causal relation in this context; it is objectively true that certain rules will help support certain values more than other rules. So maybe a rule exists in the set, but it doesn't become a moral rule until it is selected for upholding certain values, if one says that moral rules flow from values.

And it seems to me that all rules are arbitrary with respect to raw ground. — tim wood

People's values can be described objectively, and, if a moral rule is selected only insofar as it upholds those values, I think the rule is nonarbitrary and objective as a function of a fact - people's intersubjective values. This follows if, once again, one claims that morals flow from values, values that can also be both subjective and reasoned themselves.

Would a rule selected in accordance with arbitrary parameters from a set of predetermined rules be dependent upon those arbitrary parameters in its application after being selected? — ToothyMaw

That'd depend on your meta-rule which governs selecting the rule. If your meta-rule says to change rules according to circumstance, then the current rule depends on circumstance.

The rule chosen will always be based on the arbitrary parameters insofar as the parameter caused the rule to be selected.

Further: is the rule itself arbitrary after being selected? — ToothyMaw

The behaviour based on the rule would be arbitrary. The parameters don't technically change the rule (unless they're also a variable within the rule).

I'm inclined to think not since it was part of a set of predetermined rules. — ToothyMaw

I think this only seems plausible if you imagine having a small number of rules. But if you had 5.000 different rules, and selected one, it'd be hard to argue the result isn't arbitrary.

Or is it mind-independent and free of subjectivity because it has a purpose that appears to be mind-independent and free of subjectivity? — ToothyMaw

I am not sure how a rule could possibly mind-indendent. Rules are a mental phenomenon.

Small steps - for me - to start. It seems to me you have a rules warehouse where rules are stored. But I do not know what that means. Does it mean that all rules exist primordially and that if we keep our warehouse tidy we can quickly find that which we need? And in such a case, how do we know we need one or which one we need? I rather think it does not work that way but that rules are made, created, sometime in the vicinity of the determination of need, and thereafter refined. Taxation, for example, may be the world's fifth* oldest enterprise, but the US IRS code, all eleventy thousand pages and counting, is all a new creation.

And your last paragraph I mainly buy and agree with, but with a caveat. It sounds universal and all-encompassing, while I think it's just a construction within a larger space it does not comprehend.

*In perhaps this order: hunter, soldier, prostitute, farmer, collector of taxes.

That'd depend on your meta-rule which governs selecting the rule. If your meta-rule says to change rules according to circumstance, then the current rule depends on circumstance. — Echarmion

What if the meta-rule were to select a rule via evaluation of a plurality of people's subjective/intersubjective values into which the circumstance is stipulated, along with another stipulation that the actor doesn't matter, that supports those same values? I suppose the meta-rule might be considered relative, however, to the intersubjective values of the plurality.

The rule chosen will always be based on the arbitrary parameters insofar as the parameter caused the rule to be selected. — Echarmion

But if a rule is selected that only exists to support values, and is derived from descriptive facts about people's values, it seems to be absent any arbitrary or subjective content to me. Formally I would frame it like this: "if we have value 'x', then moral rule 'y' supporting it follows." The content of the rule is derived from facts about arbitrary/subjective values, and exists only to further those values.

I think this only seems plausible if you imagine having a small number of rules. But if you had 5.000 different rules, and selected one, it'd be hard to argue the result isn't arbitrary. — Echarmion

Once again, what if the rules are for very specific circumstances? Not to mention if they are part of a set, I don't see how they couldn't be distinct.

Or am I getting my math mixed up with my metaphysics?

I am not sure how a rule could possibly mind-indendent. Rules are a mental phenomenon. — Echarmion

Yeah, you're probably right on that one.

Sorry, forgot to tag you, I just responded to your post.

Small steps - for me - to start. It seems to me you have a rules warehouse where rules are stored. But I do not know what that means. — tim wood

More like different, measurable rules are prepared for evaluation when they are needed proximately, and a selection process...selects...certain rules according to parameters. Their usefulness, if meant to create certain outcomes, can be measured and the rule can be modified, something that is an objective endeavor.

And in such a case, how do we know we need one or which one we need? I rather think it does not work that way but that rules are made, created, sometime in the vicinity of the determination of need, and thereafter refined. — tim wood

I'm proposing creating a set of rules that can then be selected from temporally close to when they would be needed, and then selecting from that set based on certain conditions. As for refinement - there is no reason these rules couldn't be measured and improved before being instituted imo. Maybe even science could give us an idea of which rules would work better.

It sounds universal and all-encompassing, while I think it's just a construction within a larger space it does not comprehend. — tim wood

I think you are imagining a larger space where there is none; nothing save god can provide the kind of morally universalistic obligations most people crave.

Sorry tim, forgot to tag you. Feel like an idiot. Just replied to your post.