Kill yourself' with loving intent — Shamshir

Again, intent, — Terrapin Station

Again, read before replying.

Again, read before replying. — Shamshir

"Kill yourself' would be what's expressed, not intent, right? Intent and what's expressed are not the same.

The justification I'm using is that "correct/incorrect" have a normative connotation, but commonality or consensus do not make normatives obtain. Is that the same justification you're using? — Terrapin Station

The same kind of justification. The elevator example is a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion. What's the problem? Could it, perchance, be my interpretation?

Kill yourself' with loving intent — Shamshir

Use those eyes for once and read before you reply.

Use those eyes for once and read before you reply. — Shamshir

If someone just comes up to you and says "Kill yourself," the way you know their intent is?

The same kind of justification. The elevator example is a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion. What's the problem? Could it, perchance, be my interpretation? — S

What you wrote is "in a sense that I'm making up" as if I were appealing to some unusual sense of the terms.

Better yet, would you like to live in such a world where strangers come up and tell you to kill yourself?

What you wrote is "in a sense that I'm making up" as if I were appealing to some unusual sense of the terms. — Terrapin Station

Yeah. It's very unusual to go by any interpretation which means that people can't get matters like we've been talking about right or wrong. You'll only get that in philosophy, not out there in the world through speaking to normal people.

Yes. I want to live in a world where anyone can express anything whatsoever, in any context.

Meaning anarchy.

Yeah. It's very unusual to go by any interpretation which means that people can't get matters like we've been talking about right or wrong. — S

What you seem to be doing is trying to figure out how to interpret normal folks so that per the exact language they happen to use, they don't have any either bollocksed or unanalyzed beliefs. (Although for some reason you don't really seem to do that when it comes to religion.)

Meaning anarchy. — Shamshir

Not all actions are speech.

Not all actions are speech. — Terrapin Station

I want to live in a world where anyone can express anything whatsoever, in any context.
8m — Terrapin Station

Don't even try to squirm out of this one.
You've made it abundantly clear that you just want to get high on 'freedom' with no regard as to the consequences.

Expression = speech.

Not all actions are speech. Stabbing someone isn't speech, for example.

A reason to use "expression" instead of "speech" in a comment is that "speech" is often read with a connotation that it's only referring to natural language utterances, and sometimes it's read with a connotation that it's only referring to talking, as opposed to writing. "Expression" is more readily read with a broader connotation, where it includes things like artworks, too.

Aside from the fact that you're claiming to know everything anyone has ever proposed — Terrapin Station

You of all people should know that knowledge claims are not based on absolute proof, come on!

you're aware that the measurement standards, per widespread acceptance, have not only changed over time, but there have been competing standards in effect simultaneously at various historical times, right? — Terrapin Station

Again, this is rather disingenuous considering your usual attention to detail. I was referring specifically to the real world length represented by one inch. It is a standard which I have good reason to believe no significant number of people dispute despite a population of 7 billion. That is a serious degree of agreement. I can't even get my family of four to agree where to go on an outing, to get virtually the entire globe to agree what length an inch is puts such a standard in a justifiably different category, one which quite reasonably admits of words like 'correct' even with the normative connotations.

If you just wanted to have a discussion about what the common views are, as if you were doing a bit of descriptive cultural anthropology, then yeah, you'd be less likely to talk about arbitrariness, etc.--or at least that would be a big sidebar for it.

Hopefully you'd not be of a view that a cultural norm amounts to a normative, because it doesn't. — Terrapin Station

Again, you're ignoring my argument re moral foundational principles vs moral 'views'. Abstenence from sex before marriage is a moral view with normative weight, but no one (and I mean no one) is simply born, or grows up with a gut feeling that they should abstain from sex before marriage. The position derives from more foundational ones (we should seek to follow the Bible, we should resist carnal temptation as a virtue, we should not cause harm to others - presuming such an act would result in harm, etc...). Even some of those will be based on even more foundational beliefs.

So when we discuss normative moral positions we make an assumption about shared foundational beliefs (at least within a broad range). It's no different to when we have any other type of conversation, we assume shared principles on things like logical thought, language use etc. If I had a conversation about mathematics I would not assume that the person I was speaking with had a completely different set of mathematical axioms to any I've encountered before. He might. But I hold the conversation on the quite reasonable assumption that he doesn't.

Just because I'm a moral subjectivist, doesn't mean I have to ignore the absolutely startling similarity in the subjective moral principles most people have as foundational. It's not only entirely pragmatic in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, but I have a reasonable mechanism (in the mechanical limits of the brain) to explain such similarities.

We don't have to limit ourselves to cultural anthropology, nor do we have to concede to falling into the argumentum ad populum. To put it simply...

1. The overwhelming majority of people have their foundational morals constrained by the features of the machine which produces them (the brain).
2. It is a reasonable approach to conversation on a subject to assume that your interlocutors hold foundational views in common with you where those views are so widely held as to make it unlikely to encounter alternatives.
3. Further to 2, it is also reasonable to make such an assumption when not doing so would render the entire discussion pointless.
4. We reserve words such as 'correct' for situations where the standard of judgement is so widely agreed upon as to, again, make encountering objections extremely unlikely.
5. We give normative weight on the basis of such widespread agreement, not because of ad populum arguments, but because we have good reason to believe the interlocutor shares those standards even in the light of their refusal to acknowledge this (consider someone insisting the wood was five inches long and on being told they were wrong, its seven, they reply that its five "of my inches, which are different to yours". We'd quite reasonably just not believe them assuming rather that they're frantically trying to save face on their poor guesswork).

You of all people should know that knowledge claims are not based on absolute proof, come on! — Isaac

I'm being sarcastic. There's no way to know that no one has ever had an idea for an alternate measurement standard (again, ignoring that we already know the history of this where it's not the case that there haven't been alternate, sometimes simultaneous measurement standards).

Again, this is rather disingenuous considering your usual attention to detail. — Isaac

You literally wrote, in support of there only being one measurement standard that no one ever has proposed a different measurement standard.

And actually, something else that you're overlooking is the fact that not all rulers, measuring tapes, etc. use 127/500 of the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second for calibration. So it's not at all the case that there's a universal length for an inch anyway. (I'd bet anything that many ruler manufacturers aren't even aware of the official standard that an inch is 127/500 of the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. They probably just use some sort of template they have on hand.)

Again, you're ignoring my argument re moral foundational principles vs moral 'views'. Abstenence from sex before marriage is a moral view with normative weight, but no one (and I mean no one) is simply born, or grows up with a gut feeling that they should abstain from sex before marriage. The position derives from more foundational ones (we should seek to follow the Bible, we should resist carnal temptation as a virtue, we should not cause harm to others - presuming such an act would result in harm, etc...). Even some of those will be based on even more foundational beliefs. — Isaac

I'm not a foundationalist, first off. Not just for ethics, but also for epistemology in general, I more or less buy Quine's "web of beliefs" view. When I talk about foundational view, I'm talking about that in a relative context, where it's something serving as a foundation in a particular instance. That's how I believe we reason. With "moveable 'foundations'" in a complex web of beliefs/stances. ("Moveable 'foundations'" are a bit like "moveable 'do'" in solfege if you're familiar with that.)

No moral stance has to "grow out of" or be based on any other moral stance, especially in a given instance.

The foundational view is another big gaffe that grows out of mathematics fetishism.

So when we discuss normative moral positions we make an assumption about shared foundational beliefs — Isaac

All that it means to discuss normative moral positions is to talk about what we feel should or ought to be the case. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharing anything. Sharing anything has no normative weight. In other words, normatives (shoulds, oughts) don't actually have anything at all to do with statistical norms. Or, another way to say that is that statistical norms (or you could say sharing, including proportionate to how widespread it is) in no way imply, suggest, etc. anything about what should or ought to be the case, or what is correct/incorrect, in the sense of what you ought to or should do.

This is too long already, I've already said most of this stuff, and we're getting nowhere, so I'm leaving it off at that for now. I don't like ignoring parts of posts, but don't drone on and on.

Most people, by the way, would say that an "inch" is more or less "what the ruler says it is."

Well, here's one report on the variances in rulers:

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/MSCProceedings94.pdf

Well the conversation has moved on, but yes you have the basic idea of what Im getting at. Its a distinction which will make the conversation less fruitless, it will help the talking past each other. Thats my goal in presenting it.
Anyway, woke up 3 pages behind so evidently my window has passed.

You're the best candidate around here for an interpreter, so to speak, but I don't know how successful you can be at that.

I'm not going to be able to get why they're so drawn to consensuses, to a point where they think they're correct/incorrect and have normative weight (at least when it suits them (in S's case)), and why they can't see that the latter part of that is fallacious, and they're not going to get why I'm "perversely" denying the normative importance of consensuses.

Simple. Its neither 'weight' nor 'importance' of consensus, its the liklihood of broad confirmity and the usefulness in discussion of assuming it.

Well, there are more disagreements going on than Im attempting to address. I think one stumbling point is how some words are being used and understood so im focusing on that. Im not really sure how the consensus bit makes their points tbh.
Anyway, there are two uses of language here. You are focused on the creation of the standard and agreement to the standard and the subjectivity of it. The other folks arent referencing that when they use the language subjectivity/objectivity, they are referencing something else. This is causing confusion I believe.
What they are really referencing is what I call an objective standard, so thats why im trying to explain that concept. It is a helpful distinction for this subject, though I realise “objective” is a problematic term. We could call it whatever, its the concept that is important.
So when we measure the stick, we reference the standard, not our feelings. Not when we make the standard, or agree to use it (we are referencing our feelings about the standard in those cases) but when we are measuring the stick. (Thats when we are referencing the standard, the tape measure).
Right?

Well, so I agree that there are widespread standards for some things, and individuals can choose to acquiesce to them, but the problem arrives in thinking that the standard in question has any sort of normative weight simply for being common.

Like I said, thats a different issue. I dont find appeals to whats commonly held to be true very compelling either.
Im on the objective standard stuff from pages back still, but I understand that the discussion has moved on from that. (I went to sleep and woke up way behind in the discussion.)
Ah well.

Like I said, thats a different issue. — DingoJones

But what's the different issue they're getting at? Just announcing that there are things that are more statistically common, as if I'm not aware of that? What would be the point of announcing that there are things that are more statistically common?

Simple. Its neither 'weight' nor 'importance' of consensus, its the liklihood of broad confirmity and the usefulness in discussion of assuming it. — Isaac

So just what is the usefulness in discussion of assuming that? Is it supposed to imply something? What?

In regards to hate speech, clearly appealing to the populace regarding laws doesn’t work, especially when applying that fallacy to, say slavery or laws against homosexuality, which were once very common.

I dont know. I thought I was being clear about what specifically Im addressing and its not that. Its fine, your onto this other stuff with them now so have at it.

So just what is the usefulness in discussion of assuming that? Is it supposed to imply something? What? — Terrapin Station

OK, so we may have different ideas of what a discussion is, and I'm sure as soon as I present mine, you'll pick at some specific aspect of the wording, so perhaps you'd give me your wording to work with. I know you've said before that you post here to sharpen your argumentative skills (or something like that), but with matters of morality - like that hate speech should not be banned -why post that? What would be your purpose for posting all the information you have done about that fact that you think freedom of speech should be absolute, that we should not criminalise any non-physical act...(don't get hung up if I've paraphrased your positions wrongly, that's not the point), if it's all just arbitrary. I don't buy it.

Your first comment on this thread was

In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence. — Terrapin Station

Are you suggesting that those two statements are linked arbitrarily? I think anyone could see why I might find that hard to believe. It seems clear that the latter is given in support of the former, ie you believe that the former "yes" is not sound on it's own, but must be supported by an argument that free speech doesn't cause violence.

It's your choice, your responsibility, to follow orders or not. There's no way I'd follow an order to kill anyone if I didn't think it was justified to kill them. And then that's on me, because it was my choice. — Terrapin Station

Again, an argument to support your absolutism - that following orders is a choice, implying that if following orders was not a choice your absolutism would not be so tenable a position to hold. Again undermining your assertion that your absolutism is just a gut feeling as arbitrary as any other. I could continue...every quote I find from you on the matter gives the clear impression that your absolutism is a reasoned position, that you've rationally derived it from (or at least checked it against) other principles that you hold (non-violence, autonomy, responsibility...)

Given the involvement of some rational derivation or checking, it is possible that you have made an error in some or all of those stages, and that, being a rational error, it is something that others who think rationally could reasonably point out.

Now you've not provided us with a full account of all the other principles that you might derive or check your policy opinions against, nor would it be practical to do so.

So, for the purposes of pointing out flaws in your position - which is what we're all here for, whether as a mental exercise, or to genuinely (and in my view misguidedly) convince others of them - it is a reasonably pragmatic assumption for me to make that you share the normal human set of basic moral principles against which you might check your policy ideas.


In addition - I'm in agreement with you re Quinian Web of Beliefs. I tend to go further and believe that our beliefs are mostly genetically or socially acquired and that most rational thought is post hoc justification for the belief we already held. The point is that such though occasionally produces results so overwhelmingly contradictory that we are forced to change our beliefs. Anyway, when I talk about 'foundational moral principles', I'm not using foundational in the inverse-pyramidal Foundationalist sense. I merely mean that such principles act as nodes to the policies being discussed, that the policies are not isolated.

Expression = speech. — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, smacking you across the mouth isn't an expression of discontent for the quibble coming out of it, it's just the sensible thing to do.

Now you just need to find some expressive cavemen who don't have any speech regulations and forge your own country.

What you seem to be doing is trying to figure out how to interpret normal folks so that per the exact language they happen to use, they don't have any either bollocksed or unanalyzed beliefs. (Although for some reason you don't really seem to do that when it comes to religion.) — Terrapin Station

I have no Idea why you'd think that. I reckon that that's basically just a straw man that you thought you could get away with by beginning with, "What you seem to be doing is...".