The problem is that I didn't state an argument. I simply stated what my policy would be. What my policy would be isn't an argument for the policy. — Terrapin Station

I understand you. You stated an argument that you refuse to admit is an argument, and likewise with regard to a position in this discussion. And you apparently lack the self-awareness to see why that's a problem.

I couldn't figure out a more sensible way to read it. Hence querying about it. — Terrapin Station

The normal way is fine, and doesn't lead to gibberish. I find it impossible to believe that you couldn't figure out that, normally, it's considered stating your position in a discussion to enter a discussion and say, "In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist". I can therefore only conclude that you're consciously playing games here, and I think that you should stop.

I understand you. You stated an argument that you refuse to admit is an argument, — S

Maybe I'd agree with you if you could tell me what the argument was.

Maybe I'd agree with you if you could tell me what the argument was. — Terrapin Station

Why are you pretending to be incapable? Don't you think that that's immoral? You know exactly what I'm referring to.

it's a simple fact that if we were to try to control everything that every single person doesn't care for--control it to try to get rid of the things they don't care for--it would be impossible — Terrapin Station

Yes, but you're using this fact to justify a position about harms. The original position about harms was not all harms, so it is a logical error to raise, in support of it, the impossibility of some act to eliminate all harms. The fact that it would be impossible to eliminate all harms as no bearing on whether people should suffer some harms.

I'm just explaining that it's why I don't use something so broad as "caring about the welfare of others" as a basis for any moral stance. — Terrapin Station

But it does not explain it if its not a moral stance. Saying we should not do X because X is impossible is not a moral stance, I'm asking you about your moral stances. Could you give me an example of something you think of as a moral stance you hold, so that I might explain what I mean with reference to it.

Why are you pretending to be incapable? — S

It's as if you can't comprehend that I'm saying that at least on my view, I didn't forward any sort of argument.

Yet, despite that fact, you think it's "immoral" for me to not tell you what my argument was. lol

Yes, but you're using this fact to justify a position about harms. — Isaac

If you're reading this as being anything other than me explaining why I don't use something as broad as "I care about the welfare of others" as an ethical basis, you're making a mistake. That's all I was commenting on. I was explaining why that's too broad in my view.

It's as if you can't comprehend that I'm saying that at least on my view, I didn't forward any sort of argument.

Yet, despite that fact, you think it's "immoral" for me to not tell you what my argument was. lol — Terrapin Station

I understand your position. I just think that it's immoral to feign ignorance and make unnecessary requests of me. You knew exactly what I was referring to without me having to tell you, so cut the crap.

If you're simply not going to believe me and insist that I know what you're talking about, there's not much I can do.

If you're simply not going to believe me and insist that I know what you're talking about, there's not much I can do. — Terrapin Station

Given that the evidence is stacked against you, you have a burden to justify your suggestion that you have no idea what I'm referring to.

Given that the evidence is stacked against you, you have a burden to justify your suggestion that you have no idea what I'm referring to. — S

How would someone "justify their suggestion" that they weren't forwarding an argument and that they don't know what one is talking about re the claim that they were?

How would one even begin doing that?

Part of the problem might be that I really do not do "(foundational) principle-based ethics." I think that approach is a bad idea.

But maybe you're assuming that I would be doing some sort of (foundational) principle-based ethics?

What I typically do when ethical dilemmas arise is think something like, "We could do or allow x versus not doing/not allowing x. Which option do I prefer? Which do I think is okay/not okay to do to other people?" Where I'm very situational/specific about that, where it's not principle-oriented but just practical for the situation at hand . . . and where lately, it seems like I'm usually having to stress that a lot of things people want to do seem like overreactions to me.

How would someone "justify their suggestion" that they weren't forwarding an argument and that they don't know what one is talking about re the claim that they were?

How would one even begin doing that? — Terrapin Station

You would have to explain why you supposedly don't understand what I'm referring to when I've made it incredibly obvious through multiple explicit references. What's your explanation? You haven't been reading my posts, or... what? Even then, you could just retrace the discussion.

bring back the anti-blasphemy laws — Hassiar

You would have to explain why you supposedly don't understand what I'm referring to when I've made incredibly obvious through multiple explicit references. — S

I know the content you're referring to.

What I don't know is what you're considering to be an argument, since I didn't state an argument. Is it that you consider any stance an "argument"?

If someone says "I like Aaron Copland. I'd listen to him every day." Is that an argument?

"We could do or allow x versus not doing/not allowing x. Which option do I prefer? Which do I think is okay/not okay to do to other people?" — Terrapin Station

OK, so what I'm asking, with reference to the above, is whether it's your view that these preferences and limits (what is/isn't OK) just pop into your head without any consideration. Were you born thinking that way, have you ever changed your mind about them (if so what was the experience like of suddenly finding yourself feeling differently about what it is OK to do to others without having given the matter any thought).

Are no ethical stances based on anything, or just some/most of them? Your views on the ethics of taxation, for example. Do they just pop into your head without any prior consideration, or are matters with complicated consequences an exception?

You realise that this approach would be extremely exceptional. Most people give some thought to their ethical positions with reference to broader duties or objectives.

I know the content you're referring to. — Terrapin Station

Then stop pretending that you don't know what I'm referring to. You were pretending that you didn't know what I was referring to instead of just saying that you don't accept that what I'm referring to is an argument.

What I don't know is what you're considering to be an argument, since I didn't state an argument. Is it that you consider any stance an "argument"? — Terrapin Station

You do know what it is that I'm considering to be an argument. You literally just said that you know the content that I'm referring to.

Have you completely forgotten how logic works? Bizarre.

You do know what it is that I'm considering to be an argument. — S

Hence why I'm asking. If it's that you consider any content whatsoever to be an argument, then okay, that makes sense. Again, if someone says "I like Aaron Copland. I'd listen to him every day," is that an argument in your view?

If so, then at least that makes sense. You consider anything anyone says (at least aside from questions, exclamations, etc. maybe) to be an argument.

What about defamation?

What about spreading lies about a competitor causing him to lose money?

What about copyright infringement?

What about psychological abuse?

What about leaking military plans causing a lot of deaths?

What about leaking company secrets to competitors causing loss of income?

Hence why I'm asking. — Terrapin Station

You've been asking the wrong questions. You should have just asked me why I think that it's an argument instead of pretending that you have no idea what I was referring to.

If it's that you consider any content whatsoever to be an argument, then okay, that makes sense. Again, if someone says "I like Aaron Copland. I'd listen to him every day." Is that an argument in your view?

If so, then at least that makes sense. You consider anything anyone says (at least aside from questions, exclamations, etc. maybe) to be an argument. — Terrapin Station

I consider arguments to be arguments. You made an argument. I considered that argument to be an argument.

Your argument was basically that consequences which matter don't matter, just because they don't matter to you.

I think that that's a rubbish argument.

OK, so what I'm asking, with reference to the above, is whether it's your view that these preferences and limits (what is/isn't OK) just pop into your head without any consideration. — Isaac

I'm considering the specific situation at hand.

Were you born thinking that way, — Isaac

I don't think we're born thinking much at all. We're certainly not thinking about speech etc. per se. I'm not sure why that's relevant, though. Do you have a view that's something like "Either you're born thinking x, or x is necessarily built on foundational moral principles?"

have you ever changed your mind about them — Isaac

Is "them" just a way to refer to all moral dilemmas? If so, sure, I've changed my mind about some. An example would be that I didn't used to be against how we treat prisoners in general. Now I am.

(if so what was the experience like of suddenly finding yourself feeling differently about what it is OK to do to others without having given the matter any thought). — Isaac

In the case I just mentioned, it was due to becoming more aware of how we treat prisoners, seeing sentences that seemed like ridiculous overreactions, etc.--just being more aware of the circumstances, the existential situation, and it not seeming like a justified way to control other persons' lives to me.

Are no ethical stances based on anything, or just some/most of them? — Isaac

It's not that they're "based on nothing." It's that I don't take a principle-based approach. "Either 'Based on nothing' or 'principle-based approach'" is a false dichotomy.

From the start of this particular nonsense, I said, "His comment was in the context of someone stating an argument. I didn't state any arguments, a fortiori because I don't even believe there are true or false ethical utterances."

Then I said in the next response to you, "If you're not going to state what the supposed argument is . . ."

And then in the next one, "The problem is that I didn't state an argument. I simply stated what my policy would be. What my policy would be isn't an argument for the policy."

Etc.

I've already acknowledged that you don't accept that your argument is an argument. That doesn't make it not an argument. And you've acknowledged that you know the content (that content being the argument) that I'm referring to.

You're the one turning a molehill into a mountain.

What about defamation?

What about spreading lies about a competitor causing him to lose money?

What about copyright infringement?

What about psychological abuse?

What about leaking military plans causing a lot of deaths?

What about leaking company secrets to competitors causing loss of income? — Benkei

First, if I were king, the economy would not be capitalist. There wouldn't be private companies. We wouldn't have an economy based on money in any traditional sense.

I also don't agree with copyright law as it's currently instantiated. I'd have a copyright law of sorts, but it would be very different than current copyright law (and far less restrictive--it would basically be limited to (a) needing to credit sources, and (b) in the case of material benefits from borrowed materials (the equivalent of monetary benefits in a money-based system), a percentage of those benefits would need to be shared--and that's it).

Re defamation, one of my goals is to get people to put far less weight on speech acts than they do presently.

At any rate, I'd still have contractual law, and I'd still have laws against fraud. I talked about that on page 1 of the thread.

I've already acknowledged that you don't accept that your argument is an argument. That doesn't make it not an argument. — S

Can you answer if you're calling any statement anyone makes "an argument"? Is the example about liking Aaron Copland an argument in your view?

Can you answer if you're calling any statement anyone makes "an argument"? — Terrapin Station

No, I'm only calling arguments "arguments".

Is the example about liking Aaron Copland an argument in your view? — Terrapin Station

No.

No, I'm only calling arguments "arguments". — S

So could you state how you consider me stating what my policy would be on what I'd call "criminal threatening" to be an argument?

Sure. Firstly, it can't even be your policy if you don't think that it should be implemented in any context whatsoever, even if that context is your ideal society. That's a necessary implication, otherwise you're literally talking nonsense. So in expressing your policy, you implicitly have an argument, and that implicit argument can be inferred.

Like I said, you basically think that consequences which do matter, don't matter, just because they don't matter to you. And on that basis, you think that, ideally, the law should reflect your own feelings on the matter, in total disregard of everything else.

You will of course now predictably deny that this is your argument, even though it's obvious to everyone else here that it is.

Over to you.

Okay, so necessarily if you want a preference to be implemented, that's an argument for that preference in your view? (So an argument doesn't have to be anything in the vicinity of a support why the preference is right, correct, etc.?)

And then does the part about feeling that different things do/don't matter automatically make something an argument, too?

At any rate, yeah, I'd prefer that my preferences be implemented, and yeah, part of it is that I'd prefer the consequences my preferences would result in. If that's what Isaac had in mind by his comments about arguments, how would you say that assuming a widespread consensus about ethical normatives would be useful in the discussion?

OK. :brow: Do you have any sensible policy suggestions to deal with these problems given the nature of reality where you're not king? Or are you on the verge of realising the idea is as infantile as any argument starting with "if I were king"?

Suggestions that I feel are sensible, sure. Whether you'll agree, I have no idea. We could tackle one thing at a time. Which one do you want to start with re "these problems given the 'nature of reality'"?