Wouldn't the same be true for almost all moralising? Very rarely do the would-be moralisers herd people at gunpoint into rooms before speaking. [...] I can't think of many examples where people are forced to listen to moral arguments. — Isaac

I think a lot of moralising falls into the meddling category, though certainly not all, and there are plenty of cases in which the responsibility lies with oneself to leave the conversation.

A gun isn't necessary though, since individuals can be forceful in non-physical ways.
Think for example of applying social pressure, using misleading rhetorical devices, non-horizontal dialogue, etc.

These are all common, non-kosher ways of discussing morality.

Then there is morality that's implicit in law, which is applied through the threat of violence ('at gunpoint').

And of course, if the intention isn't genuine this is also a problem, and I would argue that's the case for a lot of moralising too.

individuals can be forceful in non-physical ways.
Think for example of applying social pressure, using misleading rhetorical devices, non-horizontal dialogue, etc. — Tzeentch

What is it about these that you find 'non-kosher'?

Then there is morality that's implicit in law, which is applied through the threat of violence ('at gunpoint'). — Tzeentch

Yes, I agree this is different. I'd like to focus for the minute on persuasion, if that's OK.

if the intention isn't genuine — Tzeentch

Genuine being...? I assume if I want to persuade you to give more to charity, my intention is as genuine as if you want to persuade me to meddle less?

Perhaps we take two positions and see where they diverge...

I think people ought give away their excess wealth to charity (assume for now some objective measure of 'excess', say food, shelter etc)

You think people ought not meddle in the affairs of others.

As it stands these both seem of the same kind right now - ideas about how other people ought act.

I see a wealthy person and say "it's really greedy of you to keep all your wealth, children are starving!"

You see a meddling person (for example me, in the above situation) and say "you didn't ought meddle in that man's affairs, it's up to him what to do with his money, morality is about personal virtue, not imposing on others" (or something like that).

Assume all people involved are on a forum, voluntarily.

Are we still both on a par? Have I crossed a line yet in my intervention which you haven't crossed in yours?

What is it about these that you find 'non-kosher'? — Isaac

Their forceful nature.

Genuine being...? I assume if I want to persuade you to give more to charity, my intention is as genuine as if you want to persuade me to meddle less? — Isaac

Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue.

If I make a law out of the conviction that to do such is a moral good, my intention is genuine. If I make a law with as my goal personal gain, or out of a desire to control, a desire to hurt, etc. my intention is not genuine.

I see a wealthy person and say "it's really greedy of you to keep all your wealth, children are starving!"

You see a meddling person (for example me, in the above situation) and say "you didn't ought meddle in that man's affairs, it's up to him what to do with his money, morality is about personal virtue, not imposing on others" (or something like that).

Are we still both on a par? Have I crossed a line yet in my intervention which you haven't crossed in yours? — Isaac

That's not really something I would say, though.

I may think something along those lines (and of course here on this forum, I write down what I think), but the meddling only happens when there's an unwelcome effort to influence someone.

Similarly, I wouldn't accuse you or anyone else of meddling just because they post their thoughts on a forum.

Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. — Tzeentch

Same for an argument here though, no? The argument...

Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. — Tzeentch

... seems to be trying to persuade me of a position you think is right. Is that then unethical?

I may think something along those lines (and of course here on this forum, I write down what I think), — Tzeentch

That seems a very weak distinction. In the example I gave I could simply be 'thinking' the man greedy and happening to vocalise what I think.

the meddling only happens when there's an unwelcome effort to influence someone. — Tzeentch

How would you know it was unwelcome in advance? What kind of action do you think people ought take to ensure their efforts are not unwelcome?

I wouldn't accuse you or anyone else of meddling just because they post their thoughts on a forum. — Tzeentch

That's the kind if distinction I'm trying to clarify. I'm not yet seeing the difference you're trying to get at between a forum like this and any other normal conversation. Any and all moral declarations attempting to influence others will take place during some voluntary conversation. It's an extremely rare event that someone is physically forced to listen to someone else.

The argument... ... seems to be trying to persuade me of a position you think is right. Is that then unethical? — Isaac

I'm not trying to persuade you, or anyone on TPF. My purpose here is testing my views, and looking for interesting insights that I may have failed to recognize.

In the example I gave I could simply be 'thinking' the man greedy and happening to vocalise what I think. — Isaac

If there is truly no intention to meddle, this belongs to the realm of tragedy and ignorance. Unfortunate, but no one is perfect.

I think in general we ought to be thoughtful in how our actions can affect others.

How would you know it was unwelcome in advance? — Isaac

You can't. But a thoughtful approach will ensure no major damage be done until one can discern whether their involvement is appreciated.

What kind of action do you think people ought take to ensure their efforts are not unwelcome? — Isaac

Horizontal dialogue, for example, which is characterized by respect for the other's view point.

Any and all moral declarations attempting to influence others will take place during some voluntary conversation. — Isaac

I don't think so.

One example would be how many moral 'lessons' take place when one is still a child - when one's brain isn't fully developed and one doesn't really possess the tools to give any pushback to the ideas that are being presented.

Another could be how people are repeatedly exposed to moral messages, in the news, in media, in commercials, etc. A lot of this may even take place subconsciously. I would argue that the nature of those things isn't exactly voluntary.

I'm not yet seeing the difference you're trying to get at between a forum like this and any other normal conversation. — Isaac

A normal conversation would be subject to the same criteria, though is generally a lot more personal (and thus powerful) in nature.

If we imagine some type of philosophy conference where people come to express their views and listen to those of others, I would regard it the same as what we're doing here on this forum. People engage voluntarily, and know the nature of what they're participating in.

When people voluntarily join in the exercise of sharing and discussing views, this is of course not meddling.

I'm not trying to persuade you, or anyone on TPF. My purpose here is testing my views, and looking for interesting insights that I may have failed to recognize. — Tzeentch

Yes, but intent is not enough. You sell yourself short. You do persuade. and unless you've been living in a cave for your adult life, you'll know that when you present arguments as you do here, they sometimes persuade. So morally, you're engaging in an activity which you know full well is likely to meddle in the lives of the people involved by persuading them of things. You can't really claim naivety as an excuse, your intentions need to be measured by the likely outcomes.

If there is truly no intention to meddle, this belongs to the realm of tragedy and ignorance. — Tzeentch

Sure. But immoral. That's your claim. A moral action is good in both intent and outcome. Intent alone isn't enough. so any act of conversation which actually does persuade someone (even if you intended it not to) is immoral because it's had the effect of meddling in their affairs.

Horizontal dialogue, for example, which is characterized by respect for the other's view point. — Tzeentch

I'm not seeing the link here. You said earlier that non-horizontal dialogue was one which assumes...

the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's — Tzeentch

... I can't quite see how that's linked to respect. I can respect you and still think you're wrong, I hope.

One example would be how many moral 'lessons' take place when one is still a child - when one's brain isn't fully developed and one doesn't really possess the tools to give any pushback to the ideas that are being presented. — Tzeentch

Not involuntary though. And would this be exactly the same for teaching a child maths. they don't have the acumen to argue against that either, so you're meddling in their current ignorance. If you show a child how gravity attracts objects equally as opposed to by size (which many naively believe) you're meddling in their affairs by persuading them (by use of experiment) of a belief that's other than the one they would otherwise have held.

How is teaching a child morals different from teaching them language, or maths, or history, or biology...?

Another could be how people are repeatedly exposed to moral messages, in the news, in media, in commercials, etc. A lot of this may even take place subconsciously. I would argue that the nature of those things isn't exactly voluntary. — Tzeentch

But people can tun off the TV, no? If we're concerned about the subconscious, then your posts here have more to worry about than their general persuasiveness. There's a whole slew of subconscious messages they might be conveying. Again taking intent and effect.

When people voluntarily join in the exercise of sharing and discussing views, this is of course not meddling. — Tzeentch

I think we can agree here, but as above I'm not convinced that most moral language doesn't actually crop up under these circumstances.

Yes, but intent is not enough. You sell yourself short. You do persuade. and unless you've been living in a cave for your adult life, you'll know that when you present arguments as you do here, they sometimes persuade. — Isaac

What I'm doing isn't persuading, at least not in the way I've characterized it. I'm conversing and exchanging ideas with people on a voluntary basis.

Sometimes that changes people's minds, but the form such interactions take matters, which is why I make the distinction.

Sure. But immoral. That's your claim. A moral action is good in both intent and outcome. Intent alone isn't enough. so any act of conversation which actually does persuade someone (even if you intended it not to) is immoral because it's had the effect of meddling in their affairs. — Isaac

That is not a claim I make though, nor do I claim that any act that changes someone's mind is immoral.

Note also that I have shared my view on what constitutes a moral act, not on what constitutes an immoral act, and I believe the two don't function exactly the same.

You said earlier that non-horizontal dialogue was one which assumes the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's — Isaac

Non-horizontal dialogue is one in which one party expresses their views, and the other party simply listens and accepts or is not allowed to express their views, or their views aren't taken seriously. This usually means the former assumes the correctness of their position, and the incorrectness of the other, which is why I said persuasion seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. The act of persuading someone is typified by a strong belief that one's own belief is better than the other's, no?

Horizontal dialogue on the other hand is typified by openness and respect.

I can respect you and still think you're wrong, I hope. — Isaac

Respect me as a person, perhaps. But I don't think you can respect my views while simultaneously believing them to be categorically wrong.

How is teaching a child morals different from teaching them language, or maths, or history, or biology...? — Isaac

There isn't necessarily a distinction, and the same thing applies (though, in subjects that teach tools rather than views it seems less relevant). The nature and shape of the student-teacher relationship therefore is of great importance, because it too implies a non-horizontal relationship.

But people can tun off the TV, no? If we're concerned about the subconscious, then your posts here have more to worry about than their general persuasiveness. There's a whole slew of subconscious messages they might be conveying. Again taking intent and effect. — Isaac

People 'can' turn off the TV, but also for various reasons they won't, even when they probaby should.

And I wouldn't have these types of conversations with people who cannot push back against my ideas.

So yes, such things should be taken into account.

Yes. Moral views should also manifest in what kind of system one would advocate for or oppose, and how they treat others, in ways that constitute as going beyond the personal. — Judaka

That's right, and I tend to think that personal morality denies a common human nature, by denying that things which are intrinsically applicable to oneself are intrinsically applicable to others.

That's a fantastic insight, I've underplayed these elements. To lessen the blow of one's views on others, for whichever reasons, could motivate the "personal" characterisation. One's moral view might be deemed inappropriate, and mightn't be tolerated by others, and the personal characterisation makes sense there too. I've seen some very passive-aggressive cases of it as well now that I think about it. — Judaka

Thanks. I think that's right. I live in the passive-aggressive midwestern United States, so I see this often.

All that said, I do disagree with your view that "morality is coercive and unrealistic," but hopefully I will eventually find time to reply to you in that thread. :smile:

This is a rather uncharitable representation of those who follow a personal moral code, and one which I cannot agree with. — Tzeentch

If you understand the context, we were considering the separation involved in personal morality. Judaka proposed the idea that the separation is particularly useful to those who resent others' attempts to influence their behavior. I then proposed a motivation for personal morality: the conviction that one should not impose their beliefs on others.

The focus of the sage on self-cultivation is as old as philosophy itself, and perhaps older. We can judge by the nature of their behavior (asceticism, isolation, etc.) and writings that these were in fact genuine motivations towards self-cultivation, and not attempts to 'have it both ways.' — Tzeentch

Yes, but the sage does not adhere to personal morality as it has been defined in this thread. The sage teaches or writes in part because he wishes to influence the behavior of others.

Sometimes that changes people's minds, but the form such interactions take matters, which is why I make the distinction. — Tzeentch

I agree, but it clashes with your idea the morality is about intent plus effect. If the effect is to persuade then the action isn't moral. But then...

I have shared my view on what constitutes a moral act, not on what constitutes an immoral act, and I believe the two don't function exactly the same. — Tzeentch

...you have indeed, and I'd forgotten. So these acts of persuasion are not immoral, but not moral either. So ought we do them or not? Recall, this conversation started with...

it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others — Tzeentch

...so in what way 'pitfall'? If not immoral, then acceptable (but not actually moral). Doesn't seem much of a pitfall. Just a consequence with not value attached. I 'moralise', people are influenced (but I didn't intend that) - no 'pitfall' at all that I can see.

The act of persuading someone is typified by a strong belief that one's own belief is better than the other's, no? — Tzeentch

No, I don't agree. If you and I were carrying a large object through the woods and reach a fork in the road. I think we ought go left and you right, I needn't have any strong conviction about left, nor you right, but we can clearly only go one way, so we must decide I must persuade you, or you I.

Most aspects of community living are like that. We're a co-operative species and we do most things together as shared enterprises, so we can't all be pulling in different directions. We needn't hold our beliefs dogmatically, but we do have to somehow decide which way to go if we're working together on something. that involves persuasion.

I don't think you can respect my views while simultaneously believing them to be categorically wrong. — Tzeentch

Odd. There are loads of views I respect but thing are wrong (I don't see any need for 'categorically' here). A view I respect is one that's been arrived at rationally and with care for others (where appropriate). There are lots of those and they don't all seem right to me, some seem wrong.

There isn't necessarily a distinction, and the same thing applies (though, in subjects that teach tools rather than views it seems less relevant). The nature and shape of the student-teacher relationship therefore is of great importance, because it too implies a non-horizontal relationship. — Tzeentch

But 'of great importance' is a different kettle of fish entirely to 'pitfalls'. If we ought avoid moralising to children because of the potential pitfalls of meddling, the we ought avoid educating them for the same reason. We might meddle in another's ignorance. What's the difference? Why 'pitfalls' vs 'of great importance'?

I wouldn't have these types of conversations with people who cannot push back against my ideas.

So yes, such things should be taken into account. — Tzeentch

I wasn't necessarily speaking about being able to push back so much as the subconscious effects of your posts. You present a very unique standpoint, and repeat it with conviction. That might feasibly subconsciously cause me to doubt my own position. If subconscious effects have to now be taken into account, your posts become a lot more risky.

I can't help feeling all of this is a very long winded post-hoc way round the fact that your posts are fine because you have good intentions. You're not trying to hurt people and you're not trying to use them for your own gain, so it's fine that you post the way you do. doesn't that just seem simpler?

So these acts of persuasion are not immoral, but not moral either. — Isaac

In my view, persuasion is skirting the line. I've explained that. It certainly can be immoral, but it doesn't have to be. Immoral acts depend first and foremost on the intention, and persuasion often serves selfish goals, and some common methods of persuasion, which I referred to earlier, indicate that.

...so in what way 'pitfall'? — Isaac

What I was hinting at with that comment, is that morality is often used simply as a means for exerting power over others - an excuse to interject oneself unwelcomely in the affairs of others.

No, I don't agree. If you and I were carrying a large object through the woods and reach a fork in the road. I think we ought go left and you right, I needn't have any strong conviction about left, nor you right, but we can clearly only go one way, so we must decide I must persuade you, or you I. — Isaac

I don't know why you'd have to be persuaded if you didn't feel very strongly about left or right. I would say "Right" and you would shrug your shoulders and right we went!

There are loads of views I respect but thing are wrong (I don't see any need for 'categorically' here). — Isaac

Obviously if you hold a view and someone else holds an incompatible view, you must in some way believe they are wrong, so believing someone else is wrong isn't the issue.

If one believes there's no merit whatsoever to their ideas, no room for doubt, no room for another's view, then I don't think it's possible to respect their ideas. That is my view.

But this discussion is getting lengthy enough as is, and I don't think there's a need to fret over every word used. Let's try to stick to the core of the matter.

But 'of great importance' is a different kettle of fish entirely to 'pitfalls'. — Isaac

You asked how conversations could take place in a non-voluntary setting, and I pointed out how a child is taught moral ideas largely without their say in things, as an example of a non-horizontal 'discussion' that isn't exactly voluntary.

Now, obviously a child needs to be taught things, but due to this non-horizontal relationship, an asymmetry in power, the nature and shape of such a 'student-teacher' relationship are of great importance. Suffice to say that in my view it puts a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the 'teacher'.

If subconscious effects have to now be taken into account, your posts become a lot more risky. — Isaac

As I said, I do take into consideration the kind of person I'm talking to. I wouldn't discuss this way with someone who strikes me as being easily influenced.

I can't help feeling all of this is a very long winded post-hoc way round the fact that your posts are fine because you have good intentions. You're not trying to hurt people and you're not trying to use them for your own gain, so it's fine that you post the way you do. doesn't that just seem simpler? — Isaac

I mean, you interjected in my conversation with someone else and are showering me with questions. You're of course welcome to do so, but I'm not sure why you're turning this into something I'm trying to do, all of a sudden. :chin:

Immoral acts depend first and foremost on the intention — Tzeentch

I've not heard you rate the two elements before (but I may be misremembering). Intention and effect are necessary but intention is 'first and foremost'. That complicates any judgement a little. How does this 'first and foremost' cash out in terms of moral judgement, for you? If a person really strongly intended a good thing, but a bad thing occurred, is that moral because their intentions is 'first and foremost'? The element of weighting adds a new dimension to my understanding of your moral system.

I don't know why you'd have to be persuaded if you didn't feel very strongly about left or right. I would say "Right" and you would shrug your shoulders and right we went! — Tzeentch

Then I'm persuaded. Otherwise we'd go left.

obviously a child needs to be taught things — Tzeentch

Why? Why meddle?

I'm not sure why you're turning this into something I'm trying to do, all of a sudden. :chin: — Tzeentch

Not my intention (which matters, yes?)

I've not heard you rate the two elements before (but I may be misremembering). Intention and effect are necessary but intention is 'first and foremost'. That complicates any judgement a little. How does this 'first and foremost' cash out in terms of moral judgement, for you? If a person really strongly intended a good thing, but a bad thing occurred, is that moral because their intentions is 'first and foremost'? The element of weighting adds a new dimension to my understanding of your moral system. — Isaac

Consider these examples:

A person intends to harm, but fails to do so. Was the act immoral? I would say yes. In this case, apparently the intention is all it takes.

A person does not intend to do harm, but accidentally does harm anyway. Has this person acted immorally? I would say no. Because the person did not intend for this to happen, this has to be chalked up to ignorance or inevitability, and as such belongs in the realm of tragedy. It's impossible to avoid harm if we are not aware that we're committing it. Apparently, a harmful outcome alone is not enough to class an act as immoral.

Obviously we could fill a whole book with this subject alone, but this is my simple take on the matter and the types of intuitions I'm following.

Then I'm persuaded. Otherwise we'd go left. — Isaac

I think we're using different ideas of what persuasion entails. It seems persuasion to you means the act of changing another's mind. I don't think that's inherently immoral, and in my view, nothing immoral or questionable happens in your example.

Why? Why meddle? — Isaac

I'd appreciate you come to your point.

I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way. — Isaac

Who cares about people discussing things and sharing their opinions, where "agreeing to disagree" is always a viable option, and there's no stigma attached to any views? That's utterly benign.

Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are acts using morality as a justification, where those acts constitute unwanted meddling. Such as finding homosexuality or incest immoral, and then using that belief to justify harassing, insulting, shaming, taking actions to correct the behaviour, or offering clearly unwanted advice and critique.

@Tzeentch's view on personal morality would disarm such behaviours, and it's behaviours like these that he is referring to. There is no contradiction here, and it's bizarre to attempt to use persuasion to show how the view is inconsistent.

I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such. — Jacques

Taking your statement at face value, I agree with you. Morality as a word, for me, refers to so many different, and entirely incompatible ideas that no single definition of it can do it justice. In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, and humans can interpret things as right/wrong or fair/unfair using sophisticated perspectives and arguments. Morality as a word is definitely used to refer to this process of interpretation, besides just the ability I described, and much more than those two as well.

However, within the moral context, the right/wrong value is unordinary compared to elsewhere. It carries strong emotional and psychological factors behind it. This isn't produced by mere intelligence, and the ability to think this way is distinctly part of our human biology. Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it?

Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are acts using morality as a justification, where those acts constitute unwanted meddling. — Judaka

Yes, but to @Isaac's credit, what did the <post> that started this exchange have to do with unwanted meddling or moralizing? Why did @Tzeentch launch off on a diatribe about moral meddling when there was no contextual warrant for such a thing? In particular, that final sentence, which is what Isaac quoted from:

What may make this disposition appear threatening to some, is that it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others, and it disarms those who would. — Tzeentch

The context is that we were stating the causes for one characterising their moral system as a "personal morality", and that you, or we, have given unflattering reasons for it. I interpret his response to be an attempt to defend the decision to follow a "personal morality", by offering a different, competing narrative that paints the decision positively.

Similar to how if one had speculated on reasons for belief in religion and given unflattering reasons, they might get a response listing the negatives of atheism as a counter.

I believe that's why he gave that response, and to clarify, I'm just responding to your claim regarding the context, and nothing else. It seems to me that Isaac has just taken issue here with the counter, just like some passerby atheist might've taken issue with the counter in my earlier example, and has now started arguing against it. That's how I interpret this, as silly as it is.

Thanks, that was a very strong post. :up:

I suppose my difficulty is that the only unflattering words in my post were, "have it both ways," and this phrase is precisely what he jumped on without giving any clear sense of his substantial objection. So in my opinion there was an undue escalation followed immediately by another undue escalation, both of which seized upon something out of context.

(Since I don't want to belabor this, this will be my last post on this tangent)

Consider these examples: — Tzeentch

I'm not seeing outcome making a difference in either example. In both it seems to be intention that matters.

I think we're using different ideas of what persuasion entails. It seems persuasion to you means the act of changing another's mind. — Tzeentch

Yes. Does persuade mean something else to you?

I'd appreciate you come to your point. — Tzeentch

It's not a point, it's a question. You agreed that there were these strong similarities between persuading someone of a theorem and persuading them of a moral, only the latter is problematic. I'm asking what you see as being the difference. You said above that it was something to do with the idea of "obviously" needing to teach a child. It's obvious to me that a child needs teaching but that's because I care about their well-being and have zero problem getting involved in the affairs of others, but that would be immoral to you, so I'm wondering why it is obvious to you.

Who cares about people discussing things and sharing their opinions, where "agreeing to disagree" is always a viable option, and there's no stigma attached to any views? That's utterly benign.

Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are... — Judaka

In my view, requiring (and enforcing) basic moral standards in a community is benign, so how can you expect me to use what's benign as a guide to the charitable interpretation of @Tzeentch's posts? @Tzeentch presents here (and has presented) a very heterodox view of morality (which is partly what makes it so interesting to explore), but its absurd to suggest that, when faced with such an unusual view, I should shy away from any line of questioning which implies an unorthodox belief. Far from it. I'm fully expecting an unorthodox belief. When intelligent people arrive at unorthodox conclusions, it's very often because of an unorthodox foundational belief.

His patience is surprising. Your understanding of his position is willfully misrepresentative, you know the position you're interpreting him to have is idiotic, and you're pushing that interpretation despite being explicitly and repeatedly corrected. Your interpretation never made sense in the first place, he spoke of "Using moral notions as a means to meddle", not moralising. "Using moral notions as a means to meddle" could be used to describe things of extraordinary significance, and implies something of at least some significance.

So why are you talking about discussions in a casual setting as the basis of your inquiry? That makes no sense. Your entire inquiry is willfully misrepresentative, if a reporter did this in an interview, it'd be an extreme case of bias, but it's your standard for philosophical inquiry, apparently. Amazing. Though, hey, he's got an unorthodox view, so it's all good, makes sense.

you know the position you're interpreting him to have is idiotic, and you're pushing that interpretation despite being explicitly and repeatedly corrected. — Judaka

... and what you're doing now, with me, is...?

has already given you a plausible alternative interpretation. I've also explained my approach. Yet here you are persisting with an interpretation of my questioning which, without even knowing anything about me, determines that I'm some kind of ... I don't even know what possible motivation you think I could have for doing what you accuse me here of doing... but "idiotic" would cover it, and you've certainly been "explicitly and repeatedly corrected ".

In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, — Judaka

For me, it's in the evaluation."

Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it? — Judaka

An intelligent reptile would likely make different evaluations than an intelligent chimpanzee, although there would likely be some overlaps, such as: not killing, not harming, not stealing... just to name a few.