"Objective" means "true for everyone". As in after passing the filter, everyone gets the same thing. That's not very difficult. Example: 2+2=4. — khaled

Mathematics, like language, is a mental game we practice. Saying "2 + 2 = 4" is no different than saying "this is a sentence = this is a sentence". It's a means of communication. These concepts do not exist outside of the human experience, and thus are completely subjective.

The claim is that there is also such an "objective morality", ... — khaled

The question is, how would you ever know that you have stumbled upon objective morality? And second, if one, by some miracle, was able to verify that their idea of morality was objective true,does that give one a right to impose it on others?

I take this to mean you agree that the source of morality is moral intuitions yes? — khaled

The source? Definitely not.

Intuition may give us some hint to what is moral and what is not, but it doesn't create morality, nor is it preferable over reason. Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals.

What happens when those intuitions conflict? — Tzeentch

Usually people fight, sadly. — khaled

It seems that the desire to impose one's opinions on others always leads there, yes. Food for thought, perhaps.

The objective answer would be the one that satisfies the most intuitions. — khaled

That is a very poor definition of something objective. If 51% of intuitions think A, and 49% of intuitions think B, is A objective?

There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. What you're doing is an example. — khaled

Not really.

I'm simply not taking the shortcuts you are taking.

What you're doing is essentially saying "There's all these problems with my ideas, but I'll call them all irrelevant and dismiss them for practical reasons", and then be surprised when things don't work out very well. As you said yourself:

It's completely unjustified. It's a practical limitation. — khaled

What a surprise then that the world is filled with suffering and injustice, if we allow ourselves such liberties.

But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists, and that calling things "practical limitations" is a way we make our methods match our desires.

I believe the benefit is to create a feeling of extreme tension, a blind fury within that recognises the need for a paradigm shift - to 'break the mold'. To an extreme opposition one either dismisses outright or contends with in a fury. — I like sushi

I don't think 'the blind fury recognizes the need....' etc. I think it is like an immune response, imflammation. It wants to fight it off. Which makes senses for an organism. It is probably best, in general, that we do not change our minds easily. Sure, in any given instance - examples we can all come up with related to people we disagree with - it seems like a good thing to change. But they we would be flitting about and undermining learning based on experience. We do want plastic brains but not something like a blank hard drive that anything can writing anything on. It should take time to change the laws of the land. And bureaucracies are rage slowed down to tree-growth speeds. It's already easy enough for a Hitler to sweep through a country of brains, primed to find a simple solution their problems. We don't want it to be easier.

These concepts do not exist outside of the human experience, and thus are completely subjective. — Tzeentch

Non sequitor. Again, "2+2=4" is true regardless of who you are or what you think (assuming you know how to do arithmetic). That makes it objective, by the definition I gave.

If you don't want to use objective like that then let's call it "inter-subjective". Something that is subjective yet is the same for everyone (like 2+2=4). There is an inter-subjective morality.

The question is, how would you ever know that you have stumbled upon objective morality? — Tzeentch

How would you ever know you have stumbled upon an objective anything? You don't, but some guesses are better than others. For instance: "Gravity doesn't exist" is an attempt at an objective statement. It is easily found to be false. "Gravity exists" is a better attempt.

You approach it, but never know you got there. Do you think there is such a thing as "moral progress"? What about progress in physics?

If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)?

And second, if one, by some miracle, was able to verify that their idea of morality was objective true,does that give one a right to impose it on others? — Tzeentch

If they found morality objective and found said objective morality? Of course.

Intuition may give us some hint to what is moral and what is not, but it doesn't create morality, nor is it preferable over reason. — Tzeentch

Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions.

Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals. — Tzeentch

Why?

It seems that the desire to impose one's opinions on others always leads there, yes. — Tzeentch

Non sequitor. There is the word "usually". It is doing something.

That is a very poor definition of something objective. If 51% of intuitions think A, and 49% of intuitions think B, is A objective? — Tzeentch

False. The system that provides as much as it can of both is objective. If for instance, 51% of people think A is the best president and 49% think B is the best president, the best thing to do, objectively, is to have the 51% be under A and the 49% be under B. That’s clearly not feasible, but it’s the ideal solution is it not? Do you have a better solution in mind?

Not really. — Tzeentch

How did you get this? How did you get that there is no such thing as unreasonable doubt?

What you're doing is essentially saying "There's all these problems with my ideas, but I'll call them all irrelevant and dismiss them for practical reasons", and then be surprised when things don't work out very well. — Tzeentch

You're the only one seeing problems. If anything, to you, what counts as a problem is entirely subjective. So what authority do you have to make such a strong statement? Or are you simply stating your opinion?

ANY system needs premises or a starting point. These aren't "problems". For instance: You think impositions are always wrong. Why is that? Whatever answer you give, I can keep asking "why" until you can't give an answer. That's all you did here, acted like a 3 year old. You didn’t point out any problems, only starting premises.

What a surprise then that the world is filled with suffering and injustice, if we allow ourselves such liberties. — Tzeentch

Do you seriously think there will be LESS suffering if the "horrible imposition" that is traffic laws isn't there? All impositions cause suffering?

Ok think of the following scenario:

You must kill at least one person. If you press the red button, Jeff lives. If you press the blue button, Sarah lives. If you press neither, they both die. What is correct here?

There is no choice where you don't impose here. And this is very common if you do some living. How does your "system" address such scenarios?

But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch

Really? So we can all have everything we want without hurting anyone else? Why this is groundbreaking! Would you care to explain your ingenious method by which we can satisfy everyone for all time without any practical difficulty?

If Mr X wants to kill you and adopts a zero negotiation policy, and you want to live, how do you resolve this such that both get what they want without any practical difficulty?

Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict. — Tzeentch

That person would have to give way. That is all the state asks. Give way. Be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others. If only individuals would do that, there would be no conflict.

Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all. — Tzeentch

Those who come to power have to deal with people who think a 1 oz piece of cloth is a trip to the gas chamber. So it's really a battle of wills where the individual refuses to stop imposing and it escalates from there. The state wins so yeah, it appears to the unreasonable loser that the reasonable winner is being unreasonable.

If only all individuals would be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others, there would be no conflict and no state. Utopia!

why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality — I like sushi

I think the answer you are looking for is our Ego.
The closest the issue is to our core beliefs the angrier we get defending our opinions about it, indeed.
From the dreadful fear that we will have afterwards to question-face our own selves and beliefs.
And yeah that fear is more than enough to make us go irrational and totally ignore logic.

"2+2=4" is true regardless of who you are or what you think (assuming you know how to do arithmetic). — khaled

:chin: So assuming you know how to play the game according to the rules that you believe it should be played by, it is true?

Mathematics is not objective.

If you don't want to use objective like that then let's call it "inter-subjective". Something that is subjective yet is the same for everyone (like 2+2=4). There is an inter-subjective morality. — khaled

If the whole world believed the same lie, it wouldn't make it true.

How would you ever know you have stumbled upon an objective anything? You don't, but some guesses are better than others. — khaled

Maybe so, but they're still only guesses, and the brightest minds have been wrong on countless occasions about things they thought were true. Horrible things have been done under the guise of ignorantly believing one has all the answers.

Again, I see no justification for the use of force.

For instance: "Gravity doesn't exist" is an attempt at an objective statement. It is easily found to be false. "Gravity exists" is a better attempt. — khaled

Debatable.

We don't know what gravity is, so we don't know if it exists or not. We found a way to predict how a certain phenomenon works to a degree that is accurate enough for our practical purposes.

It would be more prudent not to fool oneself and state "I don't know if gravity exists". To know one's own ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.

Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled

Are all premises moral intuitions?

Definitely not feasible as a basis for impositions on other individuals. — Tzeentch

Why? — khaled

Because moral intuitions differ of course. If I had a moral intuitions that makes me believe stoning women for adultery is fair and just (In certain parts of the world a lot of people even agree with me - must mean I have some "better guess than others"), should I just start imposing that on the people around me because I believe it is right?

The system that provides as much as it can of both is objective. — khaled

You and I must have a wildly different idea of what the word "objective" means.

If for instance, 51% of people think A is the best president and 49% think B is the best president, the best thing to do, objectively, is to have the 51% be under A and the 49% be under B. That’s clearly not feasible, but it’s the ideal solution is it not? Do you have a better solution in mind? — khaled

I don't need to come with solutions, because I am not in the business of wishing to control other people. I cannot give solutions to fix something that is fundamentally broken.

You're the only one seeing problems. — khaled

You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not.

Ok think of the following scenario:

You must kill at least one person. If you press the red button, Jeff lives. If you press the blue button, Sarah lives. If you press neither, they both die. — khaled

I must nothing.

My tip would be, do not get involved in situations that have only bad outcomes.

So we can all have everything we want without hurting anyone else? — khaled

Sure that is possible, unless one's desires require one to impose them on other individuals. Then hurt is very likely to follow. Sadly, this is the case for much of humanity and the pursuit of their desires will inevitably lead them to cause much suffering.

It's a bit of an ironic question, isn't it? How can I have everything I want without hurting anyone else? Maybe you cannot have everything you want.

That's all you did here, acted like a 3 year old. — khaled

If you feel the need to get personal, maybe it is time you sit on the time-out chair for a little while.

That person would have to give way. That is all the state asks. — James Riley

The example features two fools.

The fact that one of the fools wisens up, does not cure the other of their foolishness.

I'm really interested in your answer to this before we move on:

If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)? — khaled

I see a performative contradiction between what you say and the fact that you're still replying.

So assuming you know how to play the game according to the rules that you believe it should be played by, it is true? — Tzeentch

Yes

Mathematics is not objective. — Tzeentch

Uh, ye it is. <---- This is as valid as the above statement.

Make an argument, or don't say anything. No one is interested in admittedly silly opinions.

If the whole world believed the same lie, it wouldn't make it true. — Tzeentch

But you think "true" in an objective sense doesn't make sense in the first place. Ok. Agreed. Now can something be "intersubjectively true"? As in after passing all the different filters everyone still gets the same thing.

You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not. — Tzeentch

So let me get this straight: Do you believe that we have no right to impose because of a lack of objectivity?

That still leaves you with the problem of what to do when not imposing is not an option. That's the fundamental problem with your philosophy. You believe in every situation there is the "aggressor" or "imposer" and the victim. You believe one can choose "Don't impose" at every turn. What you don't recognize is sometimes inaction IS imposing, like with the buttons example.

Imposition is unavoidable. You can either pretend it's always wrong, and so have no rules to stop you or anyone else from doing it (because stopping an imposition is an imposition so is wrong), or you can actually try to do philosophy.

Maybe so, but they're still only guesses, and the brightest minds have been wrong on countless occasions about things they thought were true. Horrible things have been done under the guise of ignorantly believing one has all the answers. — Tzeentch

So what do we do about this? Not act until we're sure? You're acting right now. If the brightest minds have been wrong before what chance do you or me have of being right? How do you know you're not imposing unknowingly? Perhaps you are. Maybe we should just not act? Another performative contradiction.

You begin by saying we can't be 100% sure of anything (objective knowledge is inaccessible), then go on to say that we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure. Then you act. And when asked how you justify your action you don't respond.

The only disagreement I have is with the "we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure" bit. Clearly you don't believe it, so why pretend you do? Or do you think any action is wrong for it could possibly be an imposition without us knowing? (again, making the whole conversation moot)

Are all premises moral intuitions? — Tzeentch

No, where did you get that?

Because moral intuitions differ of course. If I had a moral intuitions that makes me believe stoning women for adultery is fair and just (In certain parts of the world a lot of people even agree with me - must mean I have some "better guess than others"), should I just start imposing that on the people around me because I believe it is right? — Tzeentch

First off, quote where I said that agreement of a large group is what makes a better guess. Or stop putting words in my mouth. Again, if you want to argue against made up arguments, do so alone.

But no, clearly you shouldn't. Because large agreement doesn't make something right. It's a factor, not the end all be all.

Now let me ask you a similar question: If someone had the belief that women should be stoned, period, and so started stoning a close family member would it be right if you just imposed on him by stopping him just because you believe he's wrong and you're right??!?!??!??!?!?!

We don't know what gravity is, so we don't know if it exists or not. We found a way to predict how a certain phenomenon works to a degree that is accurate enough for our practical purposes. — Tzeentch

How about "things fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path" vs "things don't fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path". Is one a better guess than the other?

Stop being tedious.

You are seeing these problems as well. You spoke about them openly. And obviously there are entire collections of philosophy that discuss these problems; a discussion that is as old as philosophy itself. You're choosing the dismiss these fundamental discussions for practical reasons, and I do not. — Tzeentch

Even if true, there would still be many more problems in your philosophy than mine, as well as a slew of performative contradictions. Why is mine the only one getting critiqued here? Just the pot calling the kettle black.

The problems created by ignoring some "philosophical" issues for practicality (which only you seem to think is what's happening) are much fewer than the problems created by thinking no answers are possible at all.

And I'll ask you the same question again: What gives you the authority to decide what's a problem and what isn't? Or are you simply stating another admittedly silly opinion? What do you hope to gain by doing so?

I must nothing.

My tip would be, do not get involved in situations that have only bad outcomes. — Tzeentch

Ok. Say you got kidnapped in your sleep and forced in that situation. Now what? Should we not sleep so that may never happen?

Stop dodging the question. It's prudent and more wise to recognize the limitations of a broken system than to dodge any attempt at critique.

Sure that is possible, unless one's desires require one to impose them on other individuals. — Tzeentch

Well this seems to be the case. So what is to be done by your system? Or is it so useless it only tells us "if no one has an intention to impose on another then the right thing to do is to not impose, but the second one desires to impose on another..... dodge the question!"

Maybe you cannot have everything you want. — Tzeentch

What was this about then:

But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch

(looking back I took this to mean that you think no practical limitations exist at all, maybe that's not what you meant in which case ignore this)

If you feel the need to get personal, maybe it is time you sit on the time-out chair for a little while. — Tzeentch

What's personal about it? I'm stating a fact. Asking "why why why" tends to stop at a young age as children realize it's a pointless exercise.

If you're getting aggravated maybe you should heed your own words:

Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right? — Tzeentch

The example features two fools. — Tzeentch

How would one not be a fool? To not stand or walk on a sidewalk? I don't like cities; some folks do. But I don't think I or they are fools simply because we walk or stand on a sidewalk when we are there.

The fact that one of the fools wisens up, does not cure the other of their foolishness. — Tzeentch

Which one wised up? The one that gave way, or the one that refused to go around?

Wise Men Speak Because They Have Something To Say; Fools Because They Have To Say Something. — Plato

I had to say something. :lol:

I state my opinion because I get a bubbly feeling in my gut that says: Say it, or wallow in dissatisfaction!
Its never had to do anything with anger/annoyance.

In fact, I have never really cared about whether I was right or wrong. I just like to talk a lot.

Also wouldn't this belief state that all opinions are reactionary? What about opinions that start a conversation?

I'm really interested in your answer to this before we move on:

If you truly think there is no opinion that's better than another, why discuss anything at all? Whatever you end up with will be just as good as what you started with. What do you hope to accomplish in this thread (or any thread)? — khaled


I see a performative contradiction between what you say and the fact that you're still replying. — khaled

I explained already:

I post on this forum to test my ideas, not to convince strangers. Whether people like those ideas or find them convincing is of no interest - only their arguments are. — Tzeentch

_______________________

Now can something be "intersubjectively true"? — khaled

Can many people believe the same thing? Sure. I don't see how that is particularly relevant, though.

Do you believe that we have no right to impose because of a lack of objectivity? — khaled

My view is that you have no right to impose, period.

That still leaves you with the problem of what to do when not imposing is not an option. That's the fundamental problem with your philosophy. You believe in every situation there is the "aggressor" or "imposer" and the victim. You believe one can choose "Don't impose" at every turn. What you don't recognize is sometimes inaction IS imposing, like with the buttons example. — khaled

Non-interference is not an imposition.

Imposition is unavoidable. — khaled

Maybe so. That does not stop it from being inherently wrong, and something that should be avoided at every opportunity.

So what do we do about this? [...] You're acting right now. If the brightest minds have been wrong before what chance do you or me have of being right? How do you know you're not imposing unknowingly? Perhaps you are. — khaled

Indeed.

Another performative contradiction. — khaled

There is no contradiction.

... , then go on to say that we shouldn't act unless we're 100% sure. — khaled

I never stated that.

___________________________

Are all premises moral intuitions? — Tzeentch

No, where did you get that? — khaled

Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled

___________________________

First off, quote where I said that agreement of a large group is what makes a better guess. Or stop putting words in my mouth. Again, if you want to argue against made up arguments, do so alone.

But no, clearly you shouldn't. Because large agreement doesn't make something right. It's a factor, not the end all be all. — khaled

It's what your arguments seem to boil down to every time you try to explain what constitutes a "better guess". But what constitutes a better guess, then?

How about "things fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path" vs "things don't fall to earth when they are within 1 meter of the ground and there is no solid impedance in their path". Is one a better guess than the other? — khaled

The first guess will probably serve you better as a predictive model, but still does not answer the question of what the phenomenon we call gravity is and whether it exists according to our view of it.

Stop being tedious. — khaled

I'll be as tedious as I need to be.

Even if true, there would still be many more problems in your philosophy than mine, ... — khaled

Debatable. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't take shortcuts and apply principles consistently.

What gives you the authority to decide what's a problem and what isn't? — khaled

I don't claim to hold any authority. I state the things the way I see them.

Say you got kidnapped in your sleep and forced in that situation. Now what? — khaled

Try to escape?

This question has already been answered, I guess you simply didn't understand the answer if you claim I was dodging it.

So what is to be done by your system? — khaled

Don't impose.

I find it a bit odd that the idea of not imposing on others seems so alien to you. I've lived most of my adult life according to that idea. It's how most constructive human relations are shaped.

__________________________

Maybe you cannot have everything you want. — Tzeentch

What was this about then:

But I don't believe such a practical limitation exists — Tzeentch — khaled

(looking back I took this to mean that you think no practical limitations exist at all, maybe that's not what you meant in which case ignore this) — khaled

What people believe to be practical limitations are just a projection of their desires. A pretense.

We want things, so we find justifications to want those things.

What's personal about it? I'm stating a fact. Asking "why why why" tends to stop at a young age as children realize it's a pointless exercise.

If you're getting aggravated maybe you should heed your own words: — khaled

:roll: Is a civil tone of conversation too much to ask?

I'll amend the opening post.

My view is that you have no right to impose, period. — Tzeentch

Sorry for buttin' in but how far are you willing to go with that maxim? I guess I'm getting mixed up between regulation and coercion. It happens, right?

Neil deGrasse Tyson's (astrophysicist, science educator, author) advice on expressing one's opinions

Remember:

1. What one wants to say

2. What one thinks one said.

3. What was actually said.

4. What was understood to have been said.

All different things. Bring them into alignment.

Sorry for buttin' in but how far are you willing to go with that maxim? — TheMadFool

All the way!

I guess I'm getting mixed up between regulation and coercion. — TheMadFool

An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. Force can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be mental, etc.

Regulation is coercion, unless the regulation depends entirely on genuine agreement.


Second, to have a right implies a justification. A justification implies goodness. It is my view that ends never justify means and that the use of force is inherently an unjust means, therefore is never good or justified, therefore is never someone's right.


The one caveat I have with all of this is the protection of one's physical body from direct assault. While I don't believe the use of force in such a situation to be Good or just, perhaps it is not unjust either (thus perhaps some form of neutral) since one is protecting that which belongs unequivocally to them from an imposition (which is in itself unjust).

All the way! — Tzeentch

An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. — Tzeentch

Then there is no right to self defense.

Read my whole posts, James. :sad:

Read my whole posts, James. :sad: — Tzeentch

I've been following you in this thread and find what I perceive to be your lack of understanding of your own arguments. Bending over backwards in an effort to make sense of what you say, the best I can come up with, is a notion that "rights" don't exist. There may be no right to impose, but, by your arguments regarding what constitutes imposition, there can be no rights. The sidewalk example was where we left it. Just fools imposing or failing to defend against imposition. Hmmm.

An imposition is the use of force to make an individual act in accordance to one's desires. — Tzeentch

Then there is no right to self defense. — James Riley

The one caveat I have with all of this... — Tzeentch

That will be my last extension of grace.

That will be my last extension of grace. — Tzeentch

There is no grace in your failure to explain your consideration of the fools on a sidewalk, as I requested you to do. Crickets.

:up: I agree with you on all points. It's just that I was thrown off by the fact that both tyrannies (oppression) and democracies (liberty) operate using laws. You pointed out though that in the case of the former, it's not justified while in the latter it is.

↪Cheshire If you have a point to make, make it. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure how compelling you will find it , but the point was to isolate what happens in the physical from your perception and argue these claims of imposing seem to translate as measures of either ego or willingness toward dogmatism. In one case I'm blocking the sidewalk and in the other I'm blocking the sidewalk. However, I am only imposing upon you in one case. So, I submit the definition is problematic.

The upshot of my exchange with is this: I have no right to be right, but he has a right to be wrong.

Where the sidewalk, as a state construct, might be distracting to one uncertain about his own views, lets go to hundreds of square miles of short-grass prairie, 5k years ago. X is standing there, in the middle, minding his own business. Y, completely unaware of X, has been marching west for days. He comes over a rise and sees X, quite coincidentally, standing right in the path that Y is on. The same facts then unfold as we had in the sidewalk situation. Only one need be wise, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his wisdom? Only one is a fool, but which one is that, and what does he do to prove his foolishness? But wait! We are told they are both fools! Hmmm. An unexplained pivot. What do we do with this pivot?

We discern than there is no right of anyone to impose, under any circumstance. But wait, there is a caveat: self defense. But we agree that self defense is imposition in response to imposition. So there was a first? A "He started it" argument, like a child defending his actions to a mommy who is chastising both, for failure to get along? But even if that is a sound argument, which one, X or Y, was the first to impose before a justified self defense was launched in response?

Again, if everyone was kind, considerate, respectful, as in a Utopia, then this would not be an issue. One, or both, would yield to imposition, without defending against it. But alas, we don't live in Utopia. And where imposition need not be physical, but merely mental, or argumentative, the best we can do is say there is no right to be right, but there is a right to be wrong. And two wrongs can indeed make a right. My being right is apparently an imposition and, in being kind, considerate, respectful and wise, wrong has agreed to step aside. I am a fool for being right, and my learned opponent is wise for being wrong.

I guess it's better than mommy coming in and giving both a spanking.

I'm not sure how compelling you will find it , but the point was to isolate what happens in the physical from your perception... — Cheshire

One cannot seperate these things, even if one wanted to. One never experiences the external world directly - everything goes through the mind.

In one case I'm blocking the sidewalk and in the other I'm blocking the sidewalk. However, I am only imposing upon you in one case. — Cheshire

I stated that in both instances there was an imposition.

In the other instance where there was no desire to block the sidewalk, there was no imposition, because there was no desire to impose anything. Desire plays a key role, which I think I've highlighted.

I agree with you on all points. It's just that I was thrown off by the fact that both tyrannies (oppression) and democracies (liberty) operate using laws. You pointed out though that in the case of the former, it's not justified while in the latter it is. — TheMadFool

Did I point that out?

I don't think impositions made by the rulers or electorates of democracies are justified.

Did I point that out? — Tzeentch

I thought you did. it seems implied.

I don't think impositions made by the rulers or electorates of democracies are justified. — Tzeentch

I get where you're coming from. Is regulation just an euphemism for imposition? :chin: Dysphemism is appposite too and somewhere in-between hides the truth.

Is regulation just an euphemism for imposition? — TheMadFool

I would say so. Regulations, when broken, are met with punishments. In the case of state law, when one resists these punishments because, for example, one disagrees with being punished, the punishment will become more and more severe with incarceration as the end station.

As such, law is based on coercion and, in my view, clearly imposition.

I stated that in both instances there was an imposition.

In the other instance where there was no desire to block the sidewalk, there was no imposition, because there was no desire to impose anything. Desire plays a key role, which I think I've highlighted. — Tzeentch

Is this ambiguous or contradictory? You can't always tell whether some one desires to be in the way.

One cannot seperate these things, even if one wanted to. One never experiences the external world directly - everything goes through the mind. — Tzeentch

Sure you can. There is the thing and your beliefs about it. Even the statement above imposes your understanding that a frame of references is not the thing.

If we're just arguing for sport, then that's all well and good. But, it's looking more untenable to deem things unfair do to a perception of impositions when rather convention suggests it's the other way around.

Is a civil tone of conversation too much to ask? — Tzeentch

My apologies

I post on this forum to test my ideas, — Tzeentch

But you believe that any idea is as good as another. What does “testing” mean then? All the ideas are just as good what is there to test?

Non-interference is not an imposition. — Tzeentch

There is no such thing as non interference sometimes. But let’s test this theory. You see a train barreling at someone who’s tied to the tracks. By this principle of non interference, it would be wrong to attempt to remove them. Do you agree with that?

Reason requires premises. Those premises are moral intuitions. — khaled

Context.

It's what your arguments seem to boil down to every time you try to explain what constitutes a "better guess" — Tzeentch

Where did you get that? What argument is the one that boiled down to that?

But what constitutes a better guess, then? — Tzeentch

Closer to truth.

How do we tell when that’s the case? Very difficult. But better than not trying.

Try to escape? — Tzeentch

This would get everyone killed. Have you not been paying attention? Do you still believe this is the right answer?

Don't impose. — Tzeentch

The problem is that you don’t follow this. Admittedly, you would impose sometimes. You just pretend to think it’s wrong to do so in those times.

Debatable. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't take shortcuts and apply principles consistently. — Tzeentch

What shortcuts am I taking?

And no you don’t. Admittedly, you would stop a psychotic killer barreling towards you.

And a separate problem is that these principles cannot be applied consistently. There are situations where inaction is an imposition. Or do you not think so? The example of someone standing in the way and not moving is good. He’s not doing anything to you, is he? How is he interfering? You’re the one that wants him to move. So he’s not imposing correct?

I want to understand how exactly you define an imposition. Because “non interference” doesn’t seem to be it.