How do you believe your conception of beauty is formed? — TimeLine

I don't know how it is formed. It is just there, and that is enough for me.

Explain how you form this 'ethical framework' and why you believe it is correct? Since you think that 'wrong' is what would violate this framework, in order to ascertain what you mean by 'wrong' I would need to understand the validity of your ethical framework. — TimeLine

Haven't we been here before? I have explained that I don't think the word 'correct' applies to ethical frameworks. It's a category error, like trying to measure the length of an idea. The same goes for 'validity'.

With all these questions, you seem to be searching for something, but I honestly cannot tell what it is. If you could tell me what you are searching for, perhaps I could help. But then it is often the case in philosophy that one feels one is searching for something, but one does not know what it is.

How exactly can you say this:

With all these questions, you seem to be searching for something, but I honestly cannot tell what it is. — andrewk

When you say this:

I don't know how it is formed. It is just there, and that is enough for me. — andrewk

This is not good enough. I am not 'searching' for anything, I am merely trying to point out that your position is baseless. You are intrinsically motivated and make moral judgements without any reflection on the cognitive and socio-psychological limitations that may impact on the validity your decision. Hence the Cartesian 'Evil Demon' - as I said earlier, a terrorist could consider himself a freedom-fighter. Not good enough.

Haven't we been here before? I have explained that I don't think the word 'correct' applies to ethical frameworks. It's a category error, like trying to measure the length of an idea. The same goes for 'validity'. — andrewk

You said that a 'belief' is any proposition that is sufficiently plausible to you and where you are prepared to act in accordance with it. A belief is measured by something, something that enables you to believe that the action is 'correct' in order to act thus. What is it?

I am merely trying to point out that your position is baseless. — TimeLine

It is based in my values. If you regard that as baseless then I am not disposed to argue. I would simply observe that, as far as I can tell, every position I have ever seen espoused by anybody else is equally baseless.

Not good enough. — TimeLine

Not good enough for what? To convince you? So I see.

A belief is measured by something, something that enables you to believe that the action is 'correct' in order to act thus. What is it? — TimeLine

Certainly. The measurement is the assessment of plausibility, to which I alluded. That will generally be a process of assessing whether the proposition that is a candidate for the honoured position of 'belief' can be deduced with high confidence from the axioms that I accept instinctively - axioms such as the Principle of Induction, that there are other Consciousnesses, and that Suffering should be minimised.

I would simply observe that, as far as I can tell, every position I have ever seen espoused by anybody else is equally baseless. — andrewk

So, are you saying there no universal morals and that thou shalt not kill is equally baseless? What about linguistics and moral predicates?

Not good enough for what? To convince you? So I see. — andrewk

Values need to be measured in some way as ethics is not about 'me' but about 'us' and it is not good enough that you are convinced in non-objectivism only because you are ok with that. There is observable moral intuitions that people combined hold and it is common sense that one should dispute the reliability of their values since the acquisition of moral beliefs and the motivation to act involves a range of factors that challenge the quality of the agent' cognition.

That will generally be a process of assessing whether the proposition that is a candidate for the honoured position of 'belief' can be deduced with high confidence from the axioms that I accept instinctively - axioms such as the Principle of Induction, that there are other Consciousnesses, and that Suffering should be minimised. — andrewk

Instinctively? Don't you mean intuitively?

So, are you saying there no universal morals and that thou shalt not kill is equally baseless? — TimeLine

Mind-independently it's baseless, yes.

There is observable moral intuitions that people combined hold — TimeLine

People don't think "combined." They think individually. That's not to say that people can't be influenced by things they observe or that they can't utter agreements, but that's not thinking in a combined way. You don't literally acquire moral stances as if you're getting them from somewhere else. You develop your moral stances. Again, there is obviously some influence from one's environment, but that's not the same thing as acquiring the stances from somewhere else.

You are intrinsically motivated and make moral judgements without any reflection on the cognitive and socio-psychological limitations that may impact on the validity your decision. — TimeLine

Moral judgments aren't valid or not. And yes, someone considered a terrorist by some may consider himself a freedom fighter. That's a fact and you can't make it not a fact just because you'd rather it not be a fact.

Adnan Khashoggi, pimp, thief, fraudster, international arms salesman, has just died. He said:

What did I do wrong? Nothing. I behaved unethically, for ethical reasons.
— Khassoggi

Is that even possible? — mcdoodle

It's necessary.

So, are you saying there no universal morals — TimeLine

Yes. I have already said so in this thread several times.

and that thou shalt not kill is equally baseless — TimeLine

I've already answered that too. See first sentence of my previous reply.

I can't help but observe that it looks like almost nobody - except maybe a few Jains - believes that rule, based on their actions and the actions of the governments and parliaments they elect.

What about linguistics and moral predicates? — TimeLine

The question mark at the end of this suggests it's a question, but I don't know what you're trying to ask.

Values need to be measured in some way as ethics is not about 'me' but about 'us' and it is not good enough that you are convinced in non-objectivism only because you are ok with that. There is observable moral intuitions that people combined hold and it is common sense that one should dispute the reliability of their values since the acquisition of moral beliefs and the motivation to act involves a range of factors that challenge the quality of the agent' cognition. — TimeLine

If there's a disagreement on this point, I suspect it's one of expression rather than of substance. I too believe it is important to challenge the moral beliefs and the recommendations of others when I judge that they cause harm. But I do not think of that as questioning the reliability of their values.

In some cases two disputants will share the same values but have reached different conclusions as to how to maximise satisfaction of those values. An example is two politicians arguing about immigration. They may both wish to maximise the benefit to society, but one may believe that immigration will ultimately help that while the other thinks it will hinder it. The dispute is over implementation, not over values, and hence it is possible for one to be right and the other wrong. But often only time will be able to tell us which one it is, and by then it will be too late.

Other disputes may come down to core values - for instance the value of freedom vs that of equality. A socialist will argue for higher wealth redistribution while a libertarian will argue for less. The difference is one of values, not implementation. Neither value is wrong. Neither is valid nor invalid. They are just different. I'm on the socialist side and argue for that, but I don't think that makes me correct and the libertarians incorrect.

People don't think "combined." They think individually. — Terrapin Station

Well, and here I was thinking that an essential for cognition is communication, the epistemic connection between language and knowledge, that our personal values and beliefs are in influenced by others, that ideologically 'individuality' is fallaciously a direct referential, that people blindly move in masses, that introspection cannot be accurately achievable. What was I thinking!

Why not put the following advertisement up in meetup?

'Solipsists unite! Come join a fellow solipsist at a local cafe to have a coffee and chat about mental states and morality."

:-O

You don't literally acquire moral stances as if you're getting them from somewhere else. You develop your moral stances. Again, there is obviously some influence from one's environment, but that's not the same thing as acquiring the stances from somewhere else. — Terrapin Station

The point is whether or not you are aware that your moral stances have been influenced by those around you, such as religiously or from your family etc., and such cognitive awareness requires exercising a free-will that enables conscious introspection, but even then we yield to a socially epistemic framework where our representations of reality is translated from collectively doxastic perceptions.

You are in others; indeed, it is your brain and cognition, but your thoughts, values, perceptions and representations are no doubt socially epistemic, that only through communication becomes justified as having possession of truth-values. The validity is a completely different story to this discussion, whether the properties itself is actually real, but to assume that your moral judgements are entirely your own is gobbledegook.

And yes, someone considered a terrorist by some may consider himself a freedom fighter. That's a fact and you can't make it not a fact just because you'd rather it not be a fact. — Terrapin Station

You are saying that it is a moral fact that a terrorist is a freedom fighter.

So, a terrorist who believes he'll go to heaven if he commits mass murder and thereupon will be granted with a group of lovely young virgins that will keep him company for eternity is in fact a freedom fighter because he believes it? What just happened to commonsense?

Well, and here I was thinking that an essential for cognition is communication, the epistemic connection between language and knowledge, that our personal values and beliefs are in influenced by others, that ideologically 'individuality' is fallaciously a direct referential, that people blindly move in masses, that introspection cannot be accurately achievable. What was I thinking! — TimeLine

Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way.

And it's not solipsism. People don't breathe in a combined way, either.

The point is whether or not you are aware that your moral stances have been influenced by those around you — TimeLine

Whether you think about it or not, you don't literally acquire moral stances from others.

but even then we yield to a socially epistemic framework where our representations of reality is translated from collectively doxastic perceptions. — TimeLine

No you don't. That nice, flowery metaphor perhaps, but it's extremely misleading re what's really going on. (And okay, I'm being facetious with "nice")

t to assume that your moral judgements are entirely your own is gobbledegook — TimeLine

It's gobbledygook rather to claim that they're anything but your own

.

You are saying that it is a moral fact that a terrorist is a freedom fighter. — TimeLine

I never cease to be amazed just how crappy folks' reading comprehension can be here.

Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way. — Terrapin Station

What is communication if it doesn't involve others?

No you don't. That nice, flowery metaphor perhaps, but it's extremely misleading re what's really going on. (And okay, I'm being facetious with "nice") — Terrapin Station

No, it is misleading to assume your individuality as somehow removed from a social system since epistemic quality is indeed a result of our interaction with one another. You are a part of a complex whole; dark matter exists, but just because you are unable to see it does not suddenly make space empty. What would you be if since birth you were hidden from other human beings and fed intravenously? How knowledge is acquired ultimately influences your beliefs and values. It is a combined 'you' and 'others' - both first and second order ethics. It is irrational to be just one.

What is communication if it doesn't involve others? — TimeLine

I mean, that's not even shitty reading comprehension. It's simply a complete inability to read. "Doesn't work via thinking in some combined way" doesn't say "Doesn't involve others."

I mean, that's not even shitty reading comprehension. It's simply a complete inability to read. "Doesn't work via thinking in some combined way" doesn't say "Doesn't involve others." — Terrapin Station

Charming. Clearly you are unable to provide any rational arguments that justify moral anti-realism and now resort to rather pithy retorts. It is not 'comprehension' by the way. :-}

Clearly you are unable to provide any rational arguments that justify moral anti-realism and now resort to rather pithy retorts. — TimeLine

Why don't you concentrate on mastering the basics of reading prior to worrying about how you can stick phrases like "pithy retorts" in a sentence? It's similar to music students who can't play in time yet a la being in the pocket and grooving, but who couldn't care less--they want to learn how to shred and in their minds, sound like Yngwie Malmsteen.

You want a rational argument justifying moral antirealism, but you can't even read a simple sentence like "Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way" without majorly screwing it up. I suppose it's amusing that you wouldn't see the absurdity of that.

:-} Did I poke a sore spot?

Nevertheless, I will concede that I was I was not adept enough to appreciate your red herring earlier on that has lured me to partake in a conversation with someone trying to win an argument rather than actually have one.

You say that people think individually. You then continued with:

Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way. — Terrapin Station

What does that even mean? And then you go harping on about reading and comprehension when it is you that says "no you don't" to arguments on collectively doxastic perceptions, which is no argument at all.

If you believe in moral anti-realism, saying 'yes it does' or 'no it doesn't' before whinging like a child with insults as a way to pretend to yourself that you are winning the argument, well that is just boring now isn't it. Run along now.

Did I poke a sore spot? — TimeLine

It is frustrating that people want to talk philosophy yet can not even reasonably read. That's more frustrating when they have a ridiculous amount of arrogance.

What does that even mean?

Here's another pet peeve. You supposedly read that sentence of mine, and you even quoted it and responded to it. Why in the world would you do that if you're not even sure what the sentence is saying? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm interested in you telling me why you'd do that.

Again, it's completely absurd that you expect someone to feel that it would be worth trying to get into any sort of detailed philosophical discussion with you when these sorts of problems are arising with something so simple. Why wouldn't anything just as simple be met with equal reading comprehension problems, equal "I really couldn't care less whether I understand what you're saying--I'm going to argue with you anyway" problems, etc.?

It is frustrating that people want to talk philosophy yet can not even reasonably read. That's more frustrating when they have a ridiculous amount of arrogance. — Terrapin Station

What do you do with a scratched record?

You supposedly read that sentence of mine, and you even quoted it and responded to it. Why in the world would you do that if you're not even sure what the sentence is saying? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm interested in you telling me why you'd do that. — Terrapin Station

You're playing with words intentionally and you are doing it again.

Perhaps it is semantics, but I have been clearly speaking of social epistemology and not collective effervescence nor the mental properties of conscious states, that our values and beliefs are socially formed through language and we are sometimes unaware that our values are a result of culture or our social environment, hence collectively doxastic perceptions. While 'you' may be thinking, what you are thinking, the contents itself, is collectively formed; 'you' may exist, but the concept of 'individuality' is socially constructed. Introspection is perhaps an attempt to examine the content of your thoughts towards a self-awareness, but this is still limited and never absolutely accurate.

So tell me, what do you mean when you say communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way.

Why wouldn't anything just as simple be met with equal reading comprehension problems, equal "I really couldn't care less whether I understand what you're saying--I'm going to argue with you anyway" problems, etc.? — Terrapin Station

3.2k posts of saying the same thing over and over again? You are like a nagging wife.

Again, the question about why you'd quote and respond to a sentence that in the next round you'd claim to not have any clue about wasn't rhetorical. So why would you do that?

Again, the question about why you'd quote and respond to a sentence that you in the next round claim to not have any clue about wasn't rhetorical. So why would you do that? — Terrapin Station

It is your turn now. What do you mean when you say communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way.

You can't answer it, can you.

Why would you address that sentence as if you have some idea what it's saying if you do not? Why wouldn't you ask for clarification before just plowing on?

This is just golden. You made a statement you don't even understand. That is like spelling your own name incorrectly.

And the reason you'd respond to a statement you don't even understand as if you did understand it is?