https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-look-whos-leading-in-almost-all-of-the-swing-states/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

"The Wall Street Journal, late last night:

The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.

The one outlier is Wisconsin, where Biden leads by 3 points on the multiple-candidate ballot, and where the two candidates are tied in a head-to-head matchup."

I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world. — AmadeusD

That seemed to me your point: that the forum is populated by weirdos and therefore that undermine my project, either due to a lack of reach or then engaging with weirdos is not representative, and so missing the mark of relevancy due to either or both.

My retort to that is that who knows what relevance the forum in itself has to global society, who visits and where those visitors then go and what they do and butterfly effect and all that. Perhaps it's irrelevant in any direct impact on society and policy makers, perhaps not. And my second point being that the project is anyways intended to have a second phase of writing a book or blog more accessible to the general public in anywise.

More power to you. That's a good project! — AmadeusD

Then we anyways agree on this second point, and I appreciate the moral support.

Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier. — AmadeusD

This wasn't in retort to you, just emphasizing what I presume is common ground.

I also am not claiming my project will have some profound effect on society. It's entirely possible our civilization is completely doomed and talking at this point in history will have little effect on outcomes. Again, I think we'd agree that to what extent that's likely, and regardless of whether we agree at all on how likely it is, that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can.

"After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre is probably the best analysis that I've encountered of the discursive collapse of Western society, and his conclusion is basically the problem is unsolvable. He makes a compelling case but I suppose we should try to solve it anyways; give it a go, at least verify he is in fact correct.

Big whup. :wink:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076

that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can. — boethius

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? Too many ideas?

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic. — AmadeusD

Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter?

There's of course a difference between refuting duties one does not see do any good or then outweighed by other considerations or then one would perform the duty if there was reasonable incentive and disincentive binding everyone to do likewise; there's a difference between these positions and refuting all duties altogether. Usually when duties are discussed we're talking about things that are debatable on these various grounds, but the position of no duties at all is quite extreme: there'd be no duty of any kind to children under any circumstances such as the example above, no duty to stop the Nazis carrying out a genocide, no duty to refrain from serial murder and rape for that matter, and so on for all the most heinous acts that we may list and agree upon.

So, agreed we could continue on this topic on another thread, but I am curious if your position really is doubting all duties of any kind.

In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? — AmadeusD

I do not think the West is succeeding, so again perhaps a discussion for another conversation, but to summarize my view I do not view an unsustainable system as successful. Trading short term performance for long term survival is not a successful strategy, but entirely illusory.

For example, if you take methamphetamines to outperform your peers at work, it may appear you are very successful in the short term by working nearly 24/7, but as soon as the drug takes its toll and let's say you don't quit but just keep increasing the meth dose to keep performing until an overdose resulting in death or permanent disability, no one would consider this a "success"; no one would make a speech at your wake explaining that you were extremely successful and exemplary due to performing at a high level for a short period of time and everyone should do likewise.

The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability.

Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it.

I'll try to transcribe some key points from "After Virtue" to illuminate this point of view and what the problem is, but the title itself may give some impression of the core thesis.

Too many ideas? — AmadeusD

The problem is not too many ideas but rather an inability to convert good ideas to good policy.

To give one of the most significant examples, in the 1960s to the 1980s it was not in dispute the "polluter pays" principle. Even Milton Friedman taking the pretty extreme "greed is good" position, agreed that the polluter should pay, that if a power station over here is dirtying your shirt over there then the power station should pay to clean your shirt.

There was a general agreement in principle of how society should respond to facts. If a given pollution is factual then certainly the polluter should pay for the clean up. And it's even easy to see why this principle was not even controversial as obviously you can't just dump trash on your neighbours property and have them pay to clean it up (regardless if it was an accident or on purpose or a side-effect of doing some legitimate thing like pruning your tree): you'll need to pay to clean up your trash. Simple and obvious and a widely agreed principle in which social policy can be implemented and updated.

The dispute at that time was on the facts. All while agreeing the polluter should of course pay, Friedman simply didn't agree that things like power stations produced pollution that did any harm: smog was. a natural phenomenon that even the native Americans talked about.

Likewise, even more generally, 50 years ago there was general agreement that we of course due have a duty to care for the earth, and therefore the disagreements on what to do were factual: how best to care for the earth?

The breakdown of these agreements in principle result in society unable to resolve problems and implement long term coherent policy.

The proximate cause of this erosion of "bare minimum social cohesion" is lobbies that go to work leveraging money to prop up a position that is simply intellectually lost. No one today repeats Friedman's theory that smog is a natural phenomenon that simply has nothing to do with coal power generation, but the fossil lobby can just replace one terrible unfounded theory with 3 new ones.

However, the ultimate cause of the situation, what lobbies are able to exploit, is the loss of generally agreed virtues that were previously supported by religion.

And Trump is a pretty good example of this theory playing out, as in the before times where generally agreed virtues were important to society there would be simply no way a person like Trump could compete in the political sphere, but "After Virtue" it is entirely feasible as there is no longer any expectation for anyone to be virtuous; for example if you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money ... well, why wouldn't you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money? We all want sex don't we? We all want to coverup our indiscretions don't we? The empathy of Western society today, at the end of the day, is with Trump being "a boss" and using money to satisfy his desires. Trump is the penultimate consumer: willing and able to consume even the immaterial political prestige that is the foundation of civil society.

Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter? — boethius

I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion.

The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability. — boethius

I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug*

Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it. — boethius

Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people.

Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing.

Western Culture would, surely, allow for an adaptation and evolution of society following the, lets say, dismantling of a current paradigm. This seems to have happened several times in the last 500 years or so. Major, major changes in governance and infrastructure seems inevitable. We're in the midst of a Kuhn revolution!

5April24

FWIW: my 2024 "election predictions" (based on (A) electoral trends 2017-2023 completely favoring Dems; (B) SCOTUS & MAGA-GOP taking away women's reproductive rights / criminalizing abortions; (C) consistent trend of 20% of GOP primary voters rejecting Loser-1 even after Haley, DeSantis & Christie suspended their campaigns; (D) Criminal Defendant-1 convicted in NY by June/July; (E) benefits of Biden's economy broadly felt by September; (F) etc):

1. Biden-Harris reelected
-gets 5-7 million more votes than Loser-1 again (even with lower turnout than 2020)
-gets more (suburban) women voters
-gets more under 35 year old voters
-gets more minorities voters
-gets more independent voters
-wins 4-5 out of 7 "swing states" (plus 1-2 more "red states" (e.g. NC))

2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)

3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain)

update:

Third-party candidates RFK, J. Stein & C. West collectively will be a non-factor in the outcome of the 2024 election.

gets more independent voters
-wins 5-7 out of 13 "swing states" (and 1-2 "red states" (e.g. NC) again like 2020)

2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)

3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain) — 180 Proof

In terms of independents, I’m not so sure anymore. But the question is will it be enough, given the goofy electoral college?

I’m thinking he loses NC and Georgia, and probably Arizona. But he wins the blue wall — making swingy states like New Hampshire and even Nevada very important. I’d watch Florida too, although I don’t think there’s a great chance there anymore.

You’re way off with the senate. Looks like the Dems are gonna lose that chamber, unfortunately. Manchin’s seat is an easy flip, and Montana and Ohio it’s very hard to say but looks like Republican edge. Not to mention Arizona. I see republican +2 but if not then democrats 50-50 at best.

The house I agree— I think dems take it. New York being de-gerrymandered alone should do it.

(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.)

(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.) — Mikie

:smirk: :up:

I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion. — AmadeusD

I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position: that a police officer could plant evidence on you to make his job easier, a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong, they had no duty to do otherwise; of course you may not like any of these things and want them to desist but that would just be your own feelings about the matter which are no better than theirs.

I will make a thread outlining and defending MacIntyre's critique of this sort of emotivist position and we could discuss if further , but if there's some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it.

I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug* — AmadeusD

The Western enlightenment project has failed. Again, MacIntyre I think succinctly explains why. And it is no coincidence that he appears in my response here again, as it is basically because of emotivism (do what you feel) that virtues become lost and society falls apart.

I disagree with MacIntyre on a few pedantic points, but that the West has entered a new dark ages he clearly foresaw before I was even born.

I don't now have time to transcribe all I would like, but I'll do so for one passage I think particularly apt for this conversation:

The Supreme Court in Bakke, as on occasion in other cases, played the role of a peacemaker or truce-keeping body by negotiating its way through an impasse of conflict, not by invoking our shared moral first principles. For our society as a whole has none.

What this brings out is that modern politics cannot be a matter of genuine moral consensus. And it is not. Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means, and Bakke was an engagement whose antecedents were at Gettysburg and Shiloh. The truth on this matter was set out by Adam Ferguson: 'We are not to expect that the laws of any country are to be framed as so many lessons of morality .... Laws, whether civil or political, are expedients of policy to adjust the pretensions of parties, and to secure the peace of society. The expedient is accommodated to special circumstances ...' (Principles of Moral and Political Science ii, 144). The nature of any society therefore is not to be deciphered from its laws alone, but from those understood as an index of its conflicts. What our laws show is the extent and degree to which conflict has to be suppressed.

Yet if this is so, another virtue too has been displaced. Patriotism cannot be what is was because we lack in the fullest a sense of patria. The point that I am making must not be confused with the commonplace liberal rejection of patriotism. Liberals have often—not always—taken a negative or even hostile attitude to patriotism, partly because their allegiance is to values which they take to be universal and not local and particular, and partly because of a well-justified suspicion that in the modern world patriotism is often a facade behind which chauvinism and imperialism are fostered. But my present point is not that patriotism is good or bad as a sentiment, but that the practice of patriotism as a virtue is in advanced societies no longer possible in the way that it once was. In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a political and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such a government. Where however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community—which remains unalterably a central virtue—becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me. — After Virtue, MacIntyre

Which doesn't contain or summarize all of MacIntyre's criticism of Western society, just particularly topical.

More fundamentally, I do get that Western society allows you to do what you feel like most of the time, even enjoying the pleasure of a sort of general Western enthusiasm or even patriotic warm glow of a sort all while feeling bound by no duties towards it.

When I have more time I shall make a thread dedicated to the topic, but I hope it seems at least evoked from the above passage that a society in which there are no virtues or duties genuinely felt by the majority of the citizenry, is a society that a society that is not going to be able to perpetuate itself (without severe crisis in which duties and virtues sufficient for the maintenance of the institutions of society and the natural habitat reemerge).

For now, it is to me truly remarkable that people manage to pedestalize the West for making relatively few people "feel good" for a relatively short period of time while destroying entire ecosystems and species, not to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism.

Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people. — AmadeusD

That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause.

Where we differ is that you seem to feel this is laudable, perhaps even wise, whereas I characterized it as "most damning" of all (as in worse than the people at least engaged on one side or another).

Again, I can completely empathize that as long as the institutions of society are taken for granted, then as soon as politics "sours" it is far more pleasant to simply ignore politics altogether. However, if enough people paying attention and acting in good faith is required for the maintenance of those institutions (not to mention the natural world) and the consequences of their destruction (and the natural world) is quite enormous and unpleasant, I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult (of course excusing who ignore politics for legitimate reasons, such as being wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there).

Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing. — AmadeusD

Glad my contribution is appreciated.

However, what you are responding to is but the briefest summary of the problem MacIntyre is addressing, basically his starting point.

MacIntyre also doesn't require virtues to be based on religious sentiment, just that obviously it was for thousands of years. Of course it's a debatable point as such, but MacIntyre's account of the virtues is not religious but a tradition starting historically in heroic society (i.e. those kinds of society's that existed at the start of written history). MacIntyre is explicitly Aristotelian.

Now, what is a virtue and vice, and whether an individual should be virtuous or not, is one debate, but what should be clear is that a society devoid of all duties and virtues cannot possibly last.

For example, let's say there's an invasion and you're feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. If no one in society felt any such duty nor possessed the prerequisite virtues then no matter how many people feel it would be preferable that someone deal with the problem of the invasion, it won't be dealt with.

Point being, even if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare, certainly you can recognize that maintaining such conditions requires honest good faith people performing various duties with sufficient virtues to be successful at them, and once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order.

Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way.

I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position — boethius

I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of.

a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong — boethius

Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense.

they had no duty to do otherwise — boethius

They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation.

some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it. — boethius

Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake.

That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause. — boethius

Which entirely invalidates the claims made above, so I'm unsure where to go from here. Your accepting this premise says to me you can't support your previous claims. Odd feeling, tbh.

Suffice to say:

The Western enlightenment project has failed. — boethius

This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way.

ot to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism. — boethius

I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here.

I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult — boethius

Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*.

feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. — boethius

I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation.

it won't be dealt with. — boethius

What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do.

wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there — boethius

if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare — boethius

I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.

I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense.

once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order — boethius

I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. The West is not cogent (ideologically) enough for this to matter anyway. The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour.

How we deal with things like Mental Illness is where it gets interesting, imo. We might have something very interesting to discuss there.

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. — AmadeusD

Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way. — AmadeusD

I don't know about you but I came here for an argument.

Be at ease, you're clearly debating in good faith, which warrants respect.

My disrespect is reserved for people arguing in bad faith, which I define in a philosophical or political context arguing positions they do not actually believe; i.e. not arguing on substance but simply deploying a wide range of propaganda tactics to manipulate perceptions of said substance.

I ask you to clarify your position to both be confident you're arguing in good faith but also to understand your position. Most emotivists or moral relativists, in my experience, generally have moral absolute limits and are just arguing plurality within a limited "nice and acceptable" moral terrain. Which is a perfectly coherent view to have, I am myself an emotivist and moral relativists in this sense, but it is clearly a moral absolutist position in which some plurality and diversity and various internally consistent positions, even if at odds, are perfectly acceptable; as you are clearly aware, it is the moral absolutist framework which is the far more important foundation in such a theory in which adding some compatible plurality can be pretty trivial; such as, in stoicism (my moral point of view), if moral goodness is the effort towards the good then pretty much any expressed moral system in attempting to do so, as either a linguistic / notional system or then simply doing things expressing the moral content, is morally laudable, whatever it is (however wrong it is from some epistemologically omniscient point of view) as long as it's the result of genuine moral effort towards the good (taken as either or revelatory a priori knowledge in stoicism: i.e. once one is ware of there are better and worse decisions, one is duty bound to try to make good decisions resulting in a moral journey throughout the cosmos in which advancing on one's journey, regardless of the starting point of present situation, is what is of moral worth)—to show my cards, as it were, in reciprocity to you showing yours.

I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of. — AmadeusD

I ask for clarification just to be sure my understanding of your position is correct.

The best way to clarify a moral position is to consider the social consequences (as morality is mostly, though not entirely, socially contingent).

However, social consequence is only a clarifying and cannot possibly be an evaluative factor of moral positions and theories. For, obviously we cannot evaluate what social consequences are good or bad without first committing to a moral theory to make such an evaluation. To say this moral or political scheme is wrong because it has these or those social consequences is not a complete argument without first establishing the moral scheme required to make such an evaluation, which if we happen to already know is true then it is trivial that anything incompatible with it claimed to be good will be evaluated to be bad.

Of course, it just so happens that the vast majority of people operate this way as they are unconscious of their foundational moral or evaluative framework in which they evaluate any new moral claims. Therefore, if you take a moral scheme for granted the fastest way to resolve the acceptability of any new moral claim is to work out it's social consequences and decide if they are good or bad based on what one already believes.

The reason I ask so much clarification of emotivist and moral relativistic positions is that most people in modern society explicitly believe they have such a theory while implicitly believing in moral absolute limits (in which case those moral absolute limits are far more interesting and the actual heart of the debate in such a case).

Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense. — AmadeusD

I think it's pretty clear we'll need a new thread to go deeper here. I should have time this week to transcribe MacIntyre's core objections to emotivism / moral relativism, as I'm sure you'd agree his position is worth considering and it would anyways benefit the forum to gain insight into such a powerful thinker. I do not actually agree with MacIntyre's overall framework, but my own position is only a slight upgrade in strength of several of MacIntyre's statements; basically in some foundational places MacIntyre hesitates to simply make an absolute claim all while denying he's simply made moral relativism more complicated. His sort of "riding the line" and very Buddhist "neither is true but it is true" I think is worth considering (and his whole argument is a brilliant insight into how society works and I am 100% convinced by his epistemological claim that moral content can only develop and make sense within a moral tradition), but at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so.

Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake. — AmadeusD

If you mean by mistake using social consequences to evaluate moral positions (i.e. that moral consequences I find unsavoury for exterior reasons is a valid argument against a moral claim, without first establishing my moral theory can be taken to be true to begin with), then I hope that has been clarified above.

If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument. It's only an argument if you also agree that those consequences are unacceptable and you are not assigning equal moral merit to those consequences as compared to others.

They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation. — AmadeusD

Well if your invoking some sort of social contract that is to me a moral absolutist position (that people should do what they give their word to do, as a moral duty): i.e. the cop should fulfil his duty of honest impartiality and not plant evidence because he's accepted that duty, the surgeon should finish the surgery because of the hypocritical oath, and serial murderer has (probably) entered into all sorts of explicit or implicit agreements with society to respect the law and not go around murdering people.

If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either. You can give your word because you feel like it and are of equal moral weight in breaking your word because you feel like that too.

Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*. — AmadeusD

This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis.

Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence:

I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation. — AmadeusD

In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist.

Libertarian oriented emotivists will usually try to solve this problem with hazard pay—fighting a war is dangerous and so soldiers are compensated for it—while ignoring that obviously this wouldn't work in practice for two reasons: first, if every soldier demanded market based hazard pay it would simply be unaffordable to have an army, but second, and more problematic, hazard pay in the market deals with risks in which the plan is not to die (there are no jobs in which the advertisement is "you'll definitely, probably be killed" but we'll compensate you for that), but for a war to be prosecuted successfully almost always involves plans where the risk of death is acute and so a market solution would require increasing the hazard pay as the risk increases. Not only is any actual military far from being hazard pay based, but nearly all states reserve the right of conscription which is as far from compensating soldiers for risk as is possible. If people have no duties then of course they should abandon their posts as soon as the risk to their person warrants it.

This may not be your case, but at least for libertarians "free riding" they view as a bad thing and it usually causes them problems to become aware they are free riding on other people willing to self-sacrifice for their security and comfort all while they claim any self-sacrifice (even in the form of taxation) is not only not a duty but many go so far as to say is evil. In other words, for the market to exist in the first place requires a long list of institutions and whole host of individuals dedicated to refuse economically rational choices (abandon the battlefield as soon as the hazard pay doesn't cover the risk; take a bribe to rule in one party's favour as soon as soon the reward outweighs the risk of being caught by people equally rational and willing to take bribes, and so on).

I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case (libertarians generally have plenty of morally absolute positions such as theft is wrong and contracts are sacred and they are doing "good" by being self interested, and so on, and the cause of the problem above is in relying on soldiers doing in their view "bad" and entering into non-market based labour exchanges and willing to self-sacrificing, paying a life tax, for the benefit of the state and moochers, including people enjoying the fruits of market relations due to the maintenance of the state that makes those market relations possible).

I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here. — AmadeusD

We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense".

However, by "sentiment" are you also referring to all the colonialism in the past? Aka. that the current distribution of wealth and power globally has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past?

This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way. — AmadeusD

This is MacIntyre's starting thesis, so I will transcribe the key parts hopefully this week.

However, insofar as I've represented MacIntyre's position accurately, it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable. He's received criticism from many different schools and many other well respected philosophers and I have yet to hear the criticism that his arguments are laughably wrong. So we'll see if your claim here holds up.

As for the substance of your rebuttal, it's equally bold to simply assume society will simply muddle on despite ridiculous political stupidity. For example, if there was a general nuclear exchange started by the United States due to ridiculous political stupidity, would you evaluate this as a success?

Now, if your definition of success is just whatever happens (for example a nation is invaded, no one bothers to defend it as no one feels like it, they're all killed and this is successful because it happened), then seems there's no content in success or failure; anything that exists or ceases to exist represents success.

More fundamentally, if you have no moral standard, which seems implied in a position in which there's no duties to do anything, then how are you even judging success? So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful, and my feeling is just as good as yours. Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it.

What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do. — AmadeusD

I didn't say anything about forcing.

The alternative to no one defending the interests of society and forcing people to, is a society in which duties are really believed to exist; soldiers feel bound to their duties because they think those duties are morally binding on them, not contingent on insofar as they feel like it or then their hazard pay (insofar as things aren't too hazardous and it makes economic sense). As described above, the moral tensions is if there's expectation soldiers (or anyone taking any risk to protect the interest of society) carry out duties all while denying there are any such duties.

I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.

I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense. — AmadeusD

What's childish?

This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism. If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else.

It's easy to argue moral relativism if the only moral positions under consideration are those pre-selected by the society you live in as acceptable. However, that's no the implication of moral relativism. If every position is equally morally valid (or invalid, but result in equality) then implication is that a serial killer has just as valid a moral position as a honest and compassionate doctor.

You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing.

Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals. Pursuing pleasure by skipping a stone on a lake: acceptable, approved. Pursuing pleasure by torturing little children to death: unacceptable, not approved.

The position that there are no duties (as you say, you'd report child sexual abuse only if you felt like it and wouldn't consider it wrong to not-report it if you didn't feel like it; there's no duty to report crimes against children as there are no duties at all).

Now, if you're willing to "pay the cost", as MacIntyre put it, and just flatly say that though you are happy people perform various duties to maintain your situation of comfort that you feel good in but they are simply wrong if they performed those duties because they thought those duties were real and not because they "happened to feel like it", which seems to be what you're saying, then I fail to see how its childish to point out the consequences.

Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in.

Insofar as people "feel compelled" to actually perform duties due to the social consequences it is because of a history of society repeating to itself those duties are real: you should actually do them, you should actually reject a bribe as a judge and tell the truth as a witness. If those duties aren't real and people shouldn't feel compelled by them and people hear your message which clearly you are happy to share and then they see the light, then what's childish is to then simply assume that things would go on as before.

The adult position is to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome. Which in one comment you seem to accept, that no one has a duty to defend the country and so if no one happens to feel like doing that then there's no way to defend the country and so be it, but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish.

If no one has any duties, then it's clearly perfectly morally acceptable to just lazily go about your day and contribute nothing to the general welfare just as it's perfectly morally acceptable for soldiers to abandon their posts as soon as they don't feel like risking their lives any more. The only difference in the soldier case is your invoking the false dichotomy that the only alternative is to force people to serve (the alternative you leave out is people serving their country because they feel a duty to do so, that they believe is very real and if they didn't believe that they wouldn't continue on based on merely happening to feel like it).

If you fall back to social norms (that we expect a judge to refuse bribes and soldiers to follow orders) and so there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect, well the big incentive to conform to social norms that maintain society (not well by any stretch of the imagination, but not yet totally destroyed either) is the belief of others that those norms are real moral precepts. So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real. Which in a long list of cases is a good thing (according to the new norms of society) because it turns out the basis of those norms (slavery, racism, killing homosexuals, wife and child beating, and so on) weren't well supported: feelings changed and so what people felt compelled to do by social pressures also changed (in a process that is far from complete). However, the feelings changed (historically) not because people started to believe there are no moral truths at all but rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are.

I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. — AmadeusD

As I just explained, this is the philosophically naive position.

If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening.

However, there's a lot more fundamentally wrong with your statement here.

First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest. It is in the collective self-interest for a soldier to self-sacrifice (by explicitly jumping on a grenade or then just taking on extreme risk) but it is obviously not in their own self-interest (as their dead now).

This is the core problem of politics, essentially before any other as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice, starting with both facing extreme risk (risking life and safety for the "self-interest" of society) as well as refusing advantages (bribes and favouritism and so on) but is a tension that goes far deeper (for example we not only expect the judge to refuse bribes, we also expect the judge to put in the work required for a fair trial even if that goes against his self-interest to have a pleasant life or is in conflict to important, but not as important, duties to his own family, such as disappointing his spouse or children due to late nights considering the merits of the case at hand).

"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it).

Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest. Collective is a bad word in Neo-liberal economics so they just ignored what they're doing: confusing collective-interest with self-interest to solve the problem of self-interest being in conflict with collective-interest in the first place; this problem is not solved by simply stating:

"a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest".

This is just wrong. A critical mass of a population, in pursuing their individual self-interest, can definitely act against their collective interest of both themselves and dependents. That is exactly what are environmental problems are: we have no collective interest to have a system in which pollution can be externalized, but we each have an individual interest to externalize the costs of our pollution in pursuing our own pleasures. We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories).

The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour. — AmadeusD

Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected.

Why say things like:

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. — AmadeusD

When you are perfectly sure, quite absolute, in that people have a duty to not interfere with others against their will.

So ok, "feelings" mean nothing, we have a quite strict absolute moral rule to abide by.

Fortunately, all the criticism above is still completely relevant, as your absolute moral rule doesn't really mean anything unless we (aka. a critical mass) have a duty to violate our own self interest in applying this standard to others on behalf of others violated by it (aka. maintain a government, police, prosecutors, judges or then analogous law-enforcement system), which in order to function require a long list of duties that go far beyond simply avoiding interfering with someone. Indeed, if that was the only rule then police and judges wouldn't interfere with the lives of people interfering with people (and there would be no police and judges).

Anyways, you could just say "I'm a libertarian" and so believe the rules that maintain market conditions are absolutely inviolable, the original acquisition of resources that created market conditions being unjustifiable is a "myth", and I want to free ride on soldiers sacrificing their self-interest without market based hazard pay, praise them to keep going all while knowing I (and others) are cheating them of just market relations by manipulating their naive natures.

We've had plenty of debated on libertarianism already, but it's always refreshing to have another: see how you solve the issue of taxes and democratic participation and corruption and externalities and so on without people having a duty to the collective interest under any circumstances (except of course to stop anyone interfering with you, then of course the entire mechanism of the state must be taken for granted to stop that).

Now, I still think we should discuss MacIntyre, but his argument is with actual emotivists and / or moral-relativists where there is no claim to absolutes whatsoever, they "pay the cost" as I've mentioned and simply accept the Nazis had as good claim to moral goodness as anyone else.

Libertarianism is basically agreeing with MacIntyre's framework, just joining the libertarian tradition instead of MacIntyre's Aristotelian "heroic society" tradition, which has prima-facie equal claim to moral justification in MacIntyre's framework. Where we could evaluate one tradition as "better than another", for example in this case libertarianism with Aristotelian heroic virtuism, would be in demonstrating inconsistency in one or the other position or then being able to solve moral dilemmas in one tradition that are insoluble in the other tradition.

Therefore, it is 100% MacIntyrish to pit MacIntyre's preferred moral tradition to yours (something similar to if not exactly libertarianism), or to mine (stoicism), and see if one seems superior to another and we may switch from or then amend our own tradition, all while avoiding moral relativism (we really did believe our tradition at the start was the best available and if that changes at the end then we really do believe that's an even better moral tradition).

I think it's pretty clear we'll need a new thread to go deeper here. — boethius

I would think so too.

at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so. — boethius

As I don't know A.Ms work, I'll take your word for it - but this actually exemplifies exactly what Im talking about. Taking a moral framework pigeon-holes the positions you're allowed to take, and what consittutes a virtue under it. I take no such position so it's somewhat Hard to respond. It all seems incoherent to me without first accepting that Morality is invented and obtains only between the margins of those frameworks.

However, social consequence is only a clarifying and cannot possibly be an evaluative factor of moral positions and theories. — boethius

Agreed. I largely reject the usefulness of thought experiments for this reason, within moral discussions.

I hope that has been clarified above. — boethius

It has. But the mistake in the previous seems to still be live, despite your acknowledgement. But, as with the bit you quoted, I could just be misunderstanding, so it's not too important.

If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument. — boethius

I'm unsure this has to do with my position. I would, in general, agree, but the social consequences have v little to do with my moral position. My intuitive reaction to them is what informs my moral position on any given act. I couldn't predict what I would think morally correct in a novel situation, for example. My intuitive reaction might include some consideration of the social consequences, but that doesn't support my moral, lets say, claim. The claim is just that it makes me uncomfortable, so I wouldn't do it and prefer others didn't. Because It makes me uncomfortable. No other reasons.

Well if your invoking some sort of social contract — boethius

I am not. I am invoking the (probably, largely ignored) fact that the surgeon has taken on the patient's emotional position. If they have not, and are a sociopath, your point would be apt for them. In this way, my personal moral position is just don't hire sociopaths as surgeons to avoid this problem. But that's mechanistic, not moral. The problem is moral and only exists in that I, personally think it sucks the surgeon did that.

If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either. — boethius

No, there is not. I don't invoke one. There is no duty. There is the fact that, upon hte patient's emotional state, completing the surgery successfully would be preferable. If the surgeon actually didn't go in sharing this state, then fine. Walk away. I don't care.

This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis. — boethius

I don't understand this passage, or it's genesis apparently. Suffice to say, I disagree. It might be another discussion, once I get across what you're doing with this part of your response.
that society might end. And that might be good.

Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence: — boethius

Not at all. The quote you present immediately after this is my denying that it matters, or that there would be a 'crisis'. The society would end. So what?

In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist. — boethius

If people choose, collectively to do things, Great. I don't ascribe any duty to it at all. Society is cool. I have no other thoughts on it really.

I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case — boethius

I would say so, as all these objections sit well with me. I'm not a Libertarian.

We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense". — boethius

Yep. I also 100% disagree with your framing of the situations you refer to. But, obviously, this is not hte place Apt for it**. I did anticipate this type of disagreement :P

has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past? — boethius

This is a bit bad-faithy-sounding. I said nothing of the kind, and intimated nothing of the kind. I spoke about hte emotional undercurrent of the discussions. Obviously it 'has to do' with past colonialism. Heydel-Mankoo covers this from the perspective of a colonised minority (maybe not hte right kind, though ;) ).

it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable. — boethius

I disagree ;) Particularly that these issues aren't really philosophical. He's ignoring empirical facts about the political state of most countries - the majority of people take no part, and are not involved. But, as I've not read him, I await your thread/s to discuss that bit further **

equally bold to simply assume society will simply muddle on despite ridiculous political stupidity — boethius

No. This is, exactly, what is actually happening as has happened for the majority of definitely Western Culture - perhaps, all culture.

would you evaluate this as a success? — boethius

Im not sure why you're asking this. I don't think society 'succeeds' or not. It seems odd that your next passage is somehow a reductio to this position. Its not absurd at all. There is no objective measure of success, and I don't have the (socio-political) framework in place to assess the same way you do. Simple :) I could "simply" be wrong about that.

how are you even judging success? — boethius

;) You'll need to figure out where I assessed 'success' in moral terms. I can't see it! If i have implied that, please explicitly point it out because I am uncomfortable with that, if it's the case.

So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful — boethius

This is wrong in terms of my position. I think it is. It isn't successful or unsuccessful. There is no ultimate goal or aim of Western society. It continues to move (forward, backward, whatever). Maybe you can use that as a yardstick in which case my position holds anyway. But that's not me. That's just a suggestion. I don't think it success or doesnt succeed. It just is, or isn't. I admit, entirely, that my asking your view on this was more a poke-the-bear than anything. Defend it failing. I don't think you did, on your own terms. But, that's because I don't recognise what would constitute success or failure in your account/s thus far.

Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it. — boethius

Yep. I've not called you 'wrong'. I think you're making a mistake in moral reasoning. That doesn't make you wrong - and in fact, could only be true if you were convinced of my position - which would negate that conviction :P This is why my position is consistent. It doesn't apply to anything but me and my actions.

I didn't say anything about forcing. — boethius

If no one is willing, and it's morally right to defend the country and you're not inferring that conscription is morally acceptable there... then... What are you suggesting? That seems a dead end.

I take the rest of that passage to be incoherent in light of the above, so I wont touch it yet. Could entirely be me.

This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism. — boethius

What I'm reading as childish, is that it seems your passionate responses presuppose your moral framework. It seems your framework has to take account of your emotional positions. It seems you are enacting the exact same, let's say, discontinuity in your position, that you outlined about moral relativists near the top of the post.

If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else. — boethius

This is the childish mistake you are making. Your underlying point, I would reply to with "Yes. That's correct".
But the fact you've entered a value judgement on the part of your interlocutor is worrisome. I don't think it was laudable, or detestable. It happened. Does it make me, personally, extremely uncomfortable? Even repulsed? Yep. Which is probably what you want to know. But that's nothing but an emotional reaction to hearing certain information. For me that is absolute, in the sense that I can't, currently, feel another way. But that is a state of affairs. Not a moral claim.

You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing. — boethius

Correct. No issues. It makes me uncomfortable. I have nothing to appeal to in telling them no to do it, other than the potential consequences for them - reason with them. Would I bother? Maybe. If i were uncomfortable enough.

Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals. — boethius

I don't. I haven't presented any. You seem to be importing some upper-limit to your conceivable moral behaviour matrix and ascribing those limits to my position. I don't share them. I have limits of my comfort and pursuit of comfort occurs. These are arbitrary, as far as another person is concerned. But, by-and-large people share the same limits of comfort within a society, and so 'getting on with it' can occur without a shared 'moral' framework. This is, probably, what the West does well, compared with many other societies.

If you fall back to social norms — boethius

I don't, other than to say 'Well, this is what's going on". The norms are the norms and tell me about a collective emotional status of the society.

there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect — boethius

This one is troublesome because, prima facie, there shouldn't be. At least not beyond social consequences - which are pretty much arbitrary - and policy is just this, after collective deliberation. BUT, i would freely let you know that the idea of there being no consequences for certain actions makes me uncomfortable. Again, that's just a state of affairs. Not a moral claim. So, I dislike this, and it makes me uneasy, but I take it wholesale to be the case. Legal and social consequences are arbitrary, other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark.

Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in. — boethius

I don't know. It might be. But this has nothing to do witht eh position. It's just another speculative state of affairs. I might not like that society. So what?

history of society repeating to itself those duties are real — boethius

So, arbitrary proclamation served by a historical emotional attitude. Gotcha ;)

The adult position is to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome. — boethius

Please refrain from intimating that not sharing your position is somehow akin to be less developed. NOt becoming.

If that happens, it's perfectly acceptable. I don't think you're right, though. I didn't intimate that a society where no one performed duties would be good, or comfortable for me. I don't think anyone is obliged to do so and noted that we're lucky only humans are moral agents - this being because we appear to share the emotivist basis for our moral claims, being of the same species (I presume - brainstates being similar, or within a certain possible range)

but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish. — boethius

I really don't know what you're referring to here. My position is as you stated, and nothing else. If i've intimated some other position, ignore it. I don't see that I have, though.

The only difference — boethius

It isn't a difference at all. It was baked-in to what you had said - I've tried to clarify this earlier in this comment reply, so I shall leave this. But, prior to any addressing my response, this is just plain wrong in terms of my position.

because they feel a duty to do so — boethius

This is perfectly fine, but 'feeling a duty' doesn't mean on exists. That's a self-implication, and not at all a moral claim. I feel the duty not to let my sons die. That motivates me to act. I do not believe such a duty exists outside of what I just said about myself. If I cease to feel that way, the duty doesn't continue to obtain (well, sure, legally it does...)

So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real — boethius

Yes, it does. I understand what collective agreements are, and I see the consequences of not adhering to some of them. So I adhere to some of them, because I dont want the consequence. There is no duty to achieve it, it's what i want. But this isn't part of the discussion we're having. If I am right, then I am right. You need to explain cogent societies in my terms, rather than saying that my terms don't work because of a speculated failure.

what people felt compelled to do by social pressures — boethius

rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are. — boethius

I reject, quite strongly, that incongruent suggestion. I don't think this is historically accurate or even reasonable. We've not really had these conversations without Divine intervention.

If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening. — boethius

This is entirely wrong. I am concerned about the consequences, for myself. I don't care if it doesn't affect me. And if all the people involved have the same view I do, great!
Even if I did, I would not be int he free-riding group. That requires, on your own terms, that I hold hold absolute moral limits. I do not.

First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest. — boethius

Not at all. If you've conflated them, or I've misspoken sure. I have been very clear - neither issue changes the moral considerations I hold. There is no bait and switch. THe same reasoning holds for both. This may actually be what you're missing: If the collective emotional position on something is X, then policy will be X and that's fine. It's not a moral proclamation other than to say "most people here think this is wrong". Cool man. That's what actually happens in life. What do you think referenda are for?

as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice — boethius

That's true, but this is not synonymous with 'society' and says nothing about morality. Its a state of affairs. A small-enough society would not require this. If everyone's moral outlook aligns, no one sacrifices. They are all doing what is right, on their own terms, to protect that society. This is exactly what I am discussing as is the case. This goes directly to the heart of my position: That whicih makes one uncomfortable, one would avoid. If one is comfortable with the duty to defend one's country, at extreme risk, then great. No sacrifice made. You are doing the correct thing, in your own terms, making you comfortable. Your life isn't a sacrifice in this context. It would be for me, because I don't owe that duty (on my terms, that is).

"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it). — boethius

Any case I can't think of where this is actually true (rare) yep. That's fine. Don't see the issue.

Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest. — boethius

Unless what you're trying to say is that any individual who comprises a collective has no self interest what do you think the Collective interest is? What does it consist in? Purely the survival of the collective? That can't be right. I hear you, and Im not muddling the two 'interests' up here, I just cannot work out how you're getting 'collective' interest abstracted from the interest of the collected individuals. Emergence doesn't seem to me to be apt for that.

Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities — boethius

Yep ahah agree there. Goes to the above retort about collective interest (what even is that?). Getting a little confused with how some of these responses run in to each other.. .

A critical mass of a population — boethius

Is not a collective in this sentence. It is merely a number of individuals pursuing their self-interests . You are arguing against something I did not say. The 'critical mass' is not intended to 'represent' society. It is just more than 50% of the individuals within it (or, whatever the critical mass would be for the moral outlook of the society to change). It doesn't speak about any collective interest. But also, I don't care. Taken in your terms, the rest of the quote defeats the objection anyway. That possibility is so incredibly infintessimal I can't take it seriously. No significant portion of any society will start raping and pillaging because there are no laws. But if they did, fine.

We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories). — boethius

This seems to indicate you are now just making things up about my positions? I recognise nothing of myself here. I don't see that hyte problem needs solving. If enough people want it solved, nice. Im in that camp.

Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected. — boethius

I read this quote (what you quoted of me) and it made me cringe. I reject that entirely. I think it is the way things are. I do not think it is a requirement. I was wrong to say that and entirely reject it now. Not sure how I came to type that though. It is not my position. I may have been saying that this is what Western Culture requires, absolutely. Idk. But its wrong on my account anyway. The discussion didn't 'come' there, anyway. That's clearly antithetical to everything else i've said.

So ok, "feelings" mean nothing, we have a quite strict absolute moral rule to abide by. — boethius

We don't. But i apologise for the waste of time this last part has been for you.

doesn't really mean anything — boethius

Correct. That is the end of my direct replies, because the rest rely on the above being my position, which I hope is now clear, it is not. I misspoke and I'm sorry you went to the effort of responding to something that, fairly, would have appeared to be bad-faith. Aside from direct responses...

If it hasn't become obvious by this stage, let me spell one thing out that might be a puzzle piece objectors look for, and can't find:

We have good reason to enact the rules and laws that we do to achieve stated aims. Agreement gives us this reason. Does it oblige us? No. But that doesn't mean that agreement, while i surives, isn't a good reason to act. It states aims. Those aims being arbitrary doesn't negate that we have collectively deliberated and agreed to certain things. We need not consider them 'duties' but 'rules'. Arbitrary, subject to change, but, regardless, they are the rules. I don't see how this isn't 'good enough' to be getting on with. We don't need morally-perfected concepts to get here. Its a hodge-podge. Why's that a problem? We simply do not need morality to do these things 'well' in the sense of achieving stated aims.

How do these people get elected for office?

God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.

Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.

I pray that our country listens. :pray: — Marjorie Taylor Greene · Apr 5, 2024

Not sure. But there are also elected officials who think people can change sex, so meh. It's all a carousel of stupid.

Arizona Reinstates 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban

So they just clinched a Biden win in Arizona. Cool. :up:

Perhaps. But that seems unlikely given the 2020 result for Biden.
Unfortunately.

But that seems unlikely given the 2020 result for Biden. — AmadeusD

He won Arizona in 2020.

I am aware. Was something other than that to be conveyed by your reply?

I am aware. — AmadeusD

:ok: A+

So, no? Not sure where you're going here.

I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.

You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.

But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.

Clear enough? Cool.

I normally expect world leaders to be reasonably reliable. Not perfect or anything, but reasonably reliable, fairly measured, engendering some minimum trust in what they say, at least giving some reasons to respect as a representative. Some measure of decency and bona fide utilization of smarts accordingly can also help. Whereas old Joe isn't the best, there's a baseline that the Clown doesn't meet. Anyway, that's just my vague inconsequential opinion.

:cool:

11April24 ("4-11")

Today in Trumpenfreude:

Given that over 60% of the electorate (re: 2020 & 2022 elections) are women AND that Criminal Defendant-1 & his MAGA-GOP circus clowns are campaigning on a promise to implement a nationwide "Federal Abortion Ban" (including e.g. The 1873 Comstock Act by presidential executive order) in stark contrast to pro-choice President Biden and the Dems' campaign promise to pass a nationwide "Federal Right to Choose Law", we anti-fascists have to thank ...

SCOTUS (Catholic right wing, MAGA majority) for overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 and thereby

(1) depriving over half of the US population and electorate Constitutional protections of access to safe, reproductive healthcare that also permits (so far 17) states to ban abortion (even without medical exceptions) and to criminally prosecute both women seeking to terminate pregnancies and their doctors et al

(2) causing GOP to underperform in 2022 midterms losing instead of gaining the US Senate and gaining only 9 out of projected 20-30 House seats to make their "red tsunami" into a "red ripple" ... and

(3) causing MAGA-GOP in 2022 to lose anti-abortion ballot measures in Kansas, Kentucky, & Montana, failed to even get on the ballot in Oklahoma and then, in 2023, failed to stop a pro-choice state constitutional amendment from passing in Ohio – all ruby red states with majorities of trumpers, evangelicals, "poorly educated" rural blue collar white men and women.

thank Arizona (swing state) for total abortion ban

thank Florida (barely red state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks

thank North Carolina (swing state) for pro-"abortion ban" and pro-"repeal women's right to vote" MAGA-extremist candidate for governor

thank Georgia (swing state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks

thank Nevada (barely blue state) for pending pro-choice ballot measure to amend state constitution

thank Pennsylvania (swing state) for pending anti-abortion ballot measure to amend state constitution

for mobilizing
Almost All Liberal,
Most Moderate &
also Many Conservative
Woman Voters which, IMO, increases the likelihood of a *blowout* worse than 2020 and reelection of Biden-Harris along with the Dems holding the US Senate, regaining the US House and, at least, 1 governorship (re: North Carolina). :clap: :mask: :party:

addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076

Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up:

@Benkei @jorndoe @Wayfarer @jgill @Fooloso4 @Mikie et al

amen :pray:

And then

Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up: — 180 Proof

amen :pray: — Wayfarer

Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion.

Meanwhile Trump is holding a press conference on Election Integrity on Friday, some he’s said to ‘care deeply about’ :vomit:

Every accusation he makes is a confession. :smirk:

Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion. — ssu

Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong:

Ain’t that the truth

AMEN. But I still ain't placing any bets.