What I am interested in here is whether it is possible to make moral claims from either position. I can certainly see how simple relativism makes it a performative contradiction. Hence the relativist fallacy.

Anti-foundationalists, by contrast, hold that we can still justify our views through shared practices, shared goals and reasoning, even if there’s no single universal truth to ground them.

For instance, morality could be seen as something that grows out of human agreements, pragmatic necessities and dialogue rather than absolute rules — Tom Storm

First of all, Tom, your OP makes a very good point.

But to @Janus -- you touched on the heart of the argument between foundationalism and other forms of moral arguments such as relativism.

The one thing that is always missed in discussions like this is that while the foundationalist view claims that there are universal moral truth, anyone who argued against foundationalism is also making -- though maybe not intentionally and without awareness -- a 'universal' claim, mainly that there is no universal truth and morality is based on cultural differences..

So a relativist has a conundrum -- how to make an argument against foundationalism without making a universal or truth-based claim?

Here is an example, as described by Leontiskos:

Then you're committed to the value of human flourishing and you think everyone should recognize your value whether or not they do. In that case you would seem to be a moral realist, someone who sees human flourishing as an intrinsic telos of human beings. — Leontiskos

Moral realism, just like foundationalism, claims that there are moral truths that are not constrained by one's culture, customs, or society.

Relativism is a peculiar position because it is a view one cannot hold without also claiming moral truth which is the very thing it purports to deny.

To juxtapose another moral claim -- moral intuitionists can actually make an argument against moral realism because the former is not denying that there is no objective morality, only that the discovery of moral truths is self-evident.

if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

You could get arrested or investigated. It's in the context of that moment.

Good luck!

Though it is for Christmas, here's the lunar new year good luck:

Did the OP abandon this thread?

I'm confused. Do we both agree that natural and normal are two different things?

how do you define it? — Copernicus

Natural in the sense that something is natural in a subject due to the subject's existing conditions -- negative or positive environmental factors. That's why it is trendy because its environmental factors could change after a period of time. A good example of this is the human life expectancy over 100 years ago compared to now.

Normal in the sense that it is undoubtedly in the scientific sense that homo sapiens is different from homo neanderthalensis. They cannot interchange each other as differences in cranial and brow bones are significantly different.

[Edit]
So to me, the definition of normal is one of a hard-and-fast condition in which the features or properties of a subject are the benchmark for measurement.

I just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

You just pinpointed what is Hume's empirical observation -- it's not about theory or logical deduction. It's about an ordinary person's direct experience or observation at the moment.

So if that's your criticism on Hume's skeptical account of causality, then you're not disagreeing with him.

No one is ever average... — Banno

There is a pattern here in this thread. Rules are made up as we go.

I don't think normal is equivalent to natural (which resorts to central tendancy). — Copernicus

Normal has a scientific and critical foundation, often an organic, developmental, or evolutionary progression.
Natural is a trend in a given time period -- often studied statistically or probabilistic. For example, there is no 'normal' in life expectancy, only natural.

The driving force was disabled activists insisting that disability is not a deviation from the normal human body, but the consequence of social design. — Banno

I'm still having a hard time putting it this way. It's the same as saying that the infrastructure in place now is discriminatory towards and/or dismissive of people with disability. Or, the design itself makes them disabled.

But, to borrow a word used for workers, ergonomics is exactly the way we design things for the purpose of reducing or eliminating risk of injury based on the natural functioning of the human body.

Engineering and construction focus towards the functionality and usage by the average population. Which means the majority of the population should be able to use bridges, stairs, doors, roads, buildings, and vehicles with ease.

Is there an R?

This means that each word we say in a language is, on one side, understood because it is repeatable, shared, belongs to the system of language. But, on the other side, since each word, the moment it is used, becomes also a unique event, this makes it impossible to totally understand, because uniqueness means that we have nothing to compare it with.

Impossible to understand does not mean impossible to receive. I cannot understand your uniqueness, but still, in the event of communication, it flows to me and I receive it, beyond my understanding. — Angelo Cannata

I understand what you're saying about the uniqueness of person's subjective view. Yes, I will not completely understand being you because I cannot be you. Self-reporting is what receive from you and this is the limitation of my understanding about your being.
But as we all are in this situation, this is a philosophical question that has no solution. Similarly, since we all cannot step outside of our perception, then that question will remain unanswered.

But philosophy does not require that we have an answer for everything. It requires that we examine reality. So, we may just come up with findings to list, but not an answer to a question. Such is the status of subjectivity. We know what it is and we know that each person is limited by their subjective perception and opinions, but we are not required to get into the mind of that person.

Scurrilous?

It's about shifting the narrative from “what’s wrong with you?” to “what do you need to thrive?” — Banno

This is a short-cut to my reply.

"What do you need to thrive" is what our societies have been communicating by putting in place the regulations that help the disabled. This includes, financial and health insurance support, building codes, and workplace laws to prevent discrimination. The point of all these is to help the disabled thrive.

The authentic approach to this reflection lies only in our living witnessing the particularity of subjectivity. Its intellectual understanding, which as such belongs to objectivity, can only touch subjectivity as a contradiction of objectivity, — Angelo Cannata

Good meditation on the subject.

But I disagree with the use of the word contradiction when considering both the objectivity and subjectivity. The objective analysis is a critical thinking used to describe a whole bunch of philosophical questions including the problem of subjectivity. You may notice the elevated status of objectivity here. It is an analytical tool in philosophy to understand the ways of thinking.

Some consideration might give us pause here. A wheelchair user is not incapacitated by ramps, but by stairs. Folk with visual impairment can find their way around in spaces that are accessibly designed, but struggle in spaces designed for the sighted. So it’s not their body that is disabling so much as its interaction with its environment.

This has led to disability being seen as a gap between what a body is able to do and what it has been historically expected to be able to do, the gap between body and social expectation. — Banno

First, I do not agree with your use of the word 'historically' when referring to human anatomy. To say historically implies that it is a practice put in place. Like a history written based on the events that happened.

No. Humans found themselves in such a constitution that they created their environments to fit into this constitution. Nature created the human constitution. It is our choice to further discover that we can do 'much more' with ease and speed, without disabling ourselves -- for examples, removing our vertebrae so we can slither much smoother through crevices that would otherwise be prohibitive.

Second, I agree that the environment can be, not always, a hindrance to the disabled. (societies acknowledge this by creating building codes to make an environment accessible to the disabled).

The presumption that a disability is a deficit does exactly that, no? — Banno

It is a deficit but not in the sense of morals.

I wanted to say the word is solicitous but its definition doesn't sound like it matches the hint given.

SO a statistical average? And that provides an ought here?

Are you sure that's a good argument? How do we go from "you don't have a hand" to "You ought have a hand"? — Banno

Pardon me, but I didn't think you meant morally when you asked that question.

And why is the word normal in quotes? Is this a bad thing now to have normal standards? I think the anatomists speak without invoking the moral ought. If you were told that this baby has a tail, and according to the normal human anatomy, having a tail is an anomaly, why is that a moral/ought stance? I'd say, the doctor would probably tell the parents to get the tail removed. But then if the parents elected not to have it removed, then it should be respected.

I'm not quite sure this warranted a thread, but, perhaps showing my hand, you are vastly underestimating hte liberality of people in general about sex. You more than likely have friends who are absolute freaks, swingers, kinksters etc... but they respect you and so do not intrude on your lifestyle with theirs. A huge number of people are in this position. — AmadeusD

:sweat: lol.

For 'square' type of people I wonder how they ever 'do the do' and actually have sex. I think of very reserved Brits such as Richard Dawkins, or just the idea of the 'stiff upper lip' Brit in general and think 'how did they ever manage to loosen up enough to have sex?' — unimportant

Believe me, there are uptight introverts whose sex acts match their own personality. Are you a quiet personality and don't interact much? Then the way you are in bed with another person would mirror that.

Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

The study of human anatomy is where to start. If you're missing an appendix since birth, that's not normal. But getting your appendix removed later on doesn't cause any anomaly in bodily functions. In the end, you'd be missing an appendix but that's because you had it removed.

I'm probably too corrupted to view it that way. But I like it. It's a completely different matter when others believe and continue to get burned. I sincerely feel sorry for them, but I can't help them either.

The idea of ​​this post is diagnostic. It would be interesting to hear other people's opinions on the existence of such a problem in society. I offered this perspective. Other contemporary philosophers offer theirs. Well, well. But sometimes it seems to me that all this is about the same thing. — Astorre

It would be hard for me to take a societal diagnostic seriously when it's coming from a corrupted view. Pardon me if the juxtaposition is unintentional in your post.

Societal problems are, on a regular basis, defined, analyzed, and remedied. If there was no such system in place, a society would quickly show cracks and weakness functionally.

The picture of the world that is still being taught today (I can see this from my children’s textbooks) looks roughly like this:

1. A problem has one correct answer.
2. Facts are objective.
3. The world is linear, comprehensible and obeys rules.

But the world we live in keeps showing us that something is wrong. Let me give some examples from my own experience. — Astorre

I get your OP. But I sense a dread and weariness in you, like a solo traveler in a jungle of information and online presence. Your example 1-6 are good observations, so long as your feet are firmly planted on the ground. I say this because the information out there can get to us fairly quickly with no filter. And that's the danger. Without us having a sensible mind and firm belief in something, we would all be swept away with the current.

This story is not about me deciding to shout “THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD” or accusing everyone of incompetence. I simply wanted to share my observations about how people like us adapt to all this. Based on what I’ve seen, I have identified the following groups: — Astorre

1. Retreat into denial and traditionalism: “let’s go back to the roots, everything was clear there.”
2. Try to stretch the old picture of the world onto the new reality. They argue and try to prove there is one single cause for everything.
3. Break down: anxiety, depression, apathy. And seem to remain in that state forever.
4. Go with the flow, no longer trying to build anything; this very flow doesn’t even leave time to think about anything. They surf the waves of uncertainty and stop looking for the “true cause” of everything.
5. Contemplate and write long forum posts or books like “The Burnout Society.”
6. Those who instead of the old Newtonian world built a new "solid" world of data, metric and "scientifically proven". They believe neither in God nor in progress, but in tests, randomized studies, effective altruism, AI safety, longevity studies.
8. Those who are looking for an explanation in numerology, astrology, or tarot.
9. Those who are developing their own ontology
10. Maybe someone else I missed. — Astorre

I wouldn't go so far as to confirm that the above are now the state of the world. To be fair, In some degree, people have been behaving like this for some time now. There's superstition, denial, feeling of defeat, stubbornness, dogmatism, and disbelief in everything.

But the stable and firm actions of those who are empirical and practical have continued to influence the world by producing cures for deadly diseases, structural codes for infrastructures necessary for our societies to function, and protections for the food and drinking supplies.

Take this with a grain of salt: have faith in those with a conviction to do it right with the world. It is true, individually, we are not mighty, but with a community of experts, scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, specialist, philosophy scholars, and sociologists who work during the hours we are asleep, we are in good hands.

Count the people you interact daily on a personal level: this is the size of your world and that's all that matters.

What are the bad pleasures according to Plato? Does this really depend on each of us and how we understand Hedonism? — javi2541997

If we follow Plato's good pleasure, then the bad ones are the vices -- where pleasure is mixed with pain, compulsion, deception, or obsession.
The popular "seven deadly sins" can be the examples.

If we are judging "evil" by the size of suffering, then we ourselves are misguided.

The means to an end is what we judge as morally reprehensible or morally good regardless of whether they are committed through the concentrated, legitimate power, or a boorish accumulation of blind adherents.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

You do not need to undermine your own reasoning if you follow Aristotle's method of deliberation. You do not even need to sacrifice your moral principles. Think of your goal first -- what is the end of your proposal? Then compare two or more alternatives or choices and weigh them against your moral principles or reasoning and against your goal. Third, think of the quality of your thinking -- is it good to you but offends others? Does it satisfy others but undermine your preferences?

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step.

It's not causation. It's memory retrieval. — L'éléphant

Could you expand on this? I have Thought A and then retrieve a memory so as to have Thought B? Why that particular memory? — J

Because of the operation of the mind -- thoughts are modes of thinking. If a thought can cause you another thought, are you not removing the mind from the equation?
A thought cannot cause another thought in the way that "causation" is used in philosophy.
You seem to think that a thought that can cause another thought is a starting point of an idea. If you think of an idea then another idea comes up, this thought that you said was caused by the first thought does not enjoy a particular hierarchy in the way actual causation happens. The mind is in control. It is also selective. A thought comes as a presentation from your mind. If further information is lacking or forgetfulness ensues, then another idea will come up.

Causation is physical. — L'éléphant

We can stipulate that, certainly. Do you think there's an argument for why it must be the case, or does it represent a kind of bedrock commitment to how to understand the concept? — J

Because causation is an observed phenomenon. That's why it is the case that it is physical.

The question is whether the movement from one thought to another is a type of causation, and if it is not, how should we describe this familiar experience? — J

It's not causation. It's memory retrieval. With unfamiliar people or territory, however, imagination is the source of continued thoughts.

Causation is physical. Causation is the true measure of empirical observation.

Then the difference between the environmental policies of let's say Trump's US and EU are hugely different. This all makes this seem to be a weak link as the US is one of the richest countries, but as with many other indicators, not at all with the best indicators (health, corruption, etc). — ssu

Correct. The article is suggesting that a targeted environmental policy would be the promising solution rather than looking at the link between wealth and environmental health.

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

Okay, good conclusion.

Not all of us will be thinkers. Solitude and thinking is a predisposition. That's why philosophy is always misunderstood. Yes, there is a point of thinking philosophically -- what is reality, what exists in the deepest analysis of the world, the meaning of what we say such claims, beliefs, arguments, and opinions. We want to know the truth and if truth is knowable.

These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for.

But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? — Outlander

There is actually a marked time when the Christmas tradition was commercialized and that's around mid-1800.

That said, no one is saying that give-giving is frowned upon. In fact, gift-giving has always been a part of the tradition. What I'm pointing out is that the sentiment in the past was the connection to the meaning of gift-giving and sharing. There were rituals such as singing, praying, arranging the table to with goods they made that celebrated the holiday. There were the lights outside the front door to signal the celebration.

Children were happy to receive gifts that were not marked by the manufacturer.
The point is that the affection and the emotion was for the Christmas itself not the brand name or who has the grandest gifts and decorations.

@ChatteringMonkey

IMHO the most important parameter is “carrying capacity”. This is the number of living organisms (crops, fish, trees, people) which a region can support without environmental degradation. This concept explicitly recognises that there are physical limits to growth. However, you rarely hear economists talk about this. — Peter Gray

So true. This is a good specific aspect of economic growth.

I found this article to support the sentiment regarding environmental health:

Environmental Kuznets curve
11 September 2019 by Tejvan Pettinger

Definition: The environmental Kuznets curve suggests that economic development initially leads to a deterioration in the environment, but after a certain level of economic growth, a society begins to improve its relationship with the environment and levels of environmental degradation reduces.
From a very simplistic viewpoint, it can suggest that economic growth is good for the environment.

However, critics argue there is no guarantee that economic growth will lead to an improved environment – in fact, the opposite is often the case. At the least, it requires a very targeted policy and attitudes to make sure that economic growth is compatible with an improving environment.

(Diagram of Kuznets Curve -- no need for a diagram -- self-explanatory. But it can be found online)

Causes of Environmental Kuznets curve
1. Empirical evidence of declining pollution levels with economic growth. Studies found that higher economic growth in the US led to increased use of cars, but at the same time – due to regulation, levels of air pollution (in particular sulphur dioxide levels declined). See: Kuznets curve a Primer

2. Spare income with growth. With higher rates of economic growth, people have more discretionary income after paying for basic necessities; therefore, they are more amenable to paying higher prices in return for better environmental standards.

3. Focus on living standards as opposed to real GDP. Traditional economic theory concentrates on increasing real GDP and rates of economic growth. But there is a growing awareness the link between economic growth and living standards can be weak. Focusing on living standards can become politically popular.

4. Improved technology. The primary driving force behind long-term economic growth is improved technology and higher productivity. With higher productivity, we can see higher output, with less raw materials used. For example, since the 1950s, the technology of car use has significantly improved fuel efficiency. In the 1950s, many cars had very low miles per gallon. In recent years, car manufacturers have made strides in reducing fuel consumption and have started to develop hybrid technology.

5. Solar and renewable energy. A good example of how improved technology has reduced potential for environmental damage is the progress in solar technology. In recent years, the cost of solar energy has significantly fallen – raising the prospect of clean technology. See: Solar technology

6. De-industrialisation. Initially, economic development leads to shifting from farming to manufacturing. This leads to greater environmental degradation. However, increased productivity and rising real incomes see a third shift from industrial to the service sector. An economy like the UK has seen industrialisation shrink as a share of the economy. The service sector usually has a lower environmental impact than manufacturing.

7. Role of government regulation. Economic growth and development usually see a growth in the size of government as a share of GDP. The government are able to implement taxes and regulations in an attempt to solve environmental externalities which harm health and living standards.

8. Diminishing marginal utility of income. Rising income has a diminishing marginal utility. The benefit from your first £10,000 annual income is very high. But, if income rises from £90,000- £100,000 the gain is very limited in comparison. Having a very high salary is of little consolation if you live with environmental degradation (e.g. congestion, pollution and ill health). Therefore a rational person who is seeing rising incomes will begin to place greater stress on improving other aspects of living standards.

Criticisms of Kuznets Environmental Curve
1. Empirical evidence is mixed. There is no guarantee that economic growth will see a decline in pollutants.

2. Pollution is not simply a function of income, but many factors. For example, the effectiveness of government regulation, the development of the economy, population levels.

3. Global pollution. Many developed economies have seen a reduction in industry and growth in the service sector, but they are still importing goods from developing countries. In that sense, they are exporting environmental degradation. Pollution may reduce in the UK, US, but countries who export to these countries are seeing higher levels of environmental degradation. One example is with regard to deforestation. Higher-income countries tend to stop the process of deforestation, but at the same time, they still import meat and furniture from countries who are creating farmland out of forests.

4. Growth leads to greater resource use. Some economists argue that there is a degree of reduced environmental degradation post-industrialisation. But, if the economy continues to expand, then inevitably some resources will continue to be used in greater measure. There is no guarantee that long-term levels of environmental degradation will continue to fall.

5. Countries with the highest GDP have highest levels of CO2 emission. For example, US has CO2 emissions of 17.564 tonnes per capita. Ethiopia has by comparison 0.075 tonnes per capita. China’s CO2 emissions have increased from 1,500 million tonnes in 1981 to 8,000 million tonnes in 2009.

Conclusion
The link between levels of income and environmental degradation is quite weak. It is possible economic growth will be compatible with an improved environment, but it requires a very deliberate set of policies and willingness to produce energy and goods in most environmentally friendly way.

There are countless other cultural traditions, considered 'harmless' and beneficial such as Christmas which I am sure many here indulge. Can't stand that rubbish. I am not against partying but why have it over some stupid thing like that, — unimportant

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending.

So I was wondering, does philosophy and mathematics have anything to say about the possibility, or otherwise, of perpetual economic growth?" — Peter Gray

Economic analysts and researchers have something to say about perpetual economic growth. But since this is a big topic, which requires analysis, name your parameters such as inflation and availability of lending so we have something concrete to argue on.

Can you imagine a moral premise that counters (shows an error in) mathematics? — Mark S

This is presumption.
I have not actually accepted the premise that evolutionary game theory is the explanation for morality.
Remember, religion was the first to spread moral principles.

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible. — Pieter R van Wyk

Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions.

Science does not require proof of it's findings. It is enough that a systematic process of observation and hypotheses has been followed to be called it science. In fact, if after applying the scientific procedure on a hypothesis, that the expected result did not pan out, then to be scientific is to revisit the observation and maybe conclude that the hypothesis could not be supported.

Religion, on the other hand, strives to have evidence and proof for its claims. But their point is to spread faith, moral teachings, and belief in the almighty being -- none of which forces acceptance, but asks you to see the truth of life.

Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

And if we only had one choice at the time, then yes, the answer is no. But I have no idea why determinism works here. I actually do not understand the relationship between determinism and the choices we make. The choices we make in our daily life are nothing compared to what determinism has in store for us.

Here are my examples:
1. We do not have a choice but to be a moral agent (not to say we will be moral, just that we either be moral or immoral).
2. We do not have a choice as to thoughts. We will have thoughts and imaginations. That's determined given our constitution.
4. Perception is determined, unless you're born a lump of flesh. We will perceive, period.
5. Desires are determined -- you can have difference desires, but you will have desires absolutely.

But I would disagree that VOI can “counter” morality as cooperation. The scientific truth of morality as cooperation is in a different domain of knowledge from morality based on assumed ethical premises. — Mark S

Actually I was referring to the evolutionary game theory you mentioned when I said VOI could counter it.
I'm still not quite sold on morality as cooperation. Morality might have that unintended effect of cooperation, but not quite as the goal. There are moral principles that followers do for the sole purpose of their soul and conscience regardless of what the outsiders looking in think. In the one example where a bandwagon effect happens, do I really want to follow a moral principle because it's good for the whole group?

What if I want to deliberate first and eventually come up with a different conclusion that what the group has concluded? Is a deviation from the norm a bad thing automatically?

First, congratulations on your submission. Not an easy thing to write for publication.

I make four main claims that may not have previously been explicitly stated. — Mark S

First, virtually all the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms can be explained by evolutionary game theory and moral psychology as parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

Not all. Tyrannical moral laws were part of the past (and present). There was no "cooperation" strategy, except the laws made by the one person in power. There were also tribes, nation, communities that had become extinct because morality was to serve the almighty being, to the detriment of the population.

Second, cultural moral norms are those norms whose violation is commonly thought to warrant punishment of at least reputation damage. — Mark S

Good.

Third, these explanations imply three cultural-independent moral principles that define what is descriptively moral, universally moral, and immoral within the framework of morality as cooperation. — Mark S

Good.

Fourth, the ultimate source of our moral psychology and cultural moral norms lies in cooperation strategies that are as innate to our universe as the simple mathematics on which evolutionary game theory is based. — Mark S

The veil of ignorance as a hypothesis should counter evolutionary game theory in one way. The VOI theory wants to bring up the least advantaged members of society without the members knowing their own talents and abilities. If wages are the measure of equality, would you agree to equal wages for both non-productive and highly productive members of your society?

In the absence of choice, making a wish for a song or a film becomes easy, when your choices are infinite, making up your decision becomes much harder.
I don't know if this phenomena has a name already, — Bivar

No special name except it's " choice overload". But the psychologist Barry Schwartz wrote about the paradox of choice. There is the danger of paralysis in the decisions we make when there are so many competing alternatives.

We see that it's been happening for some time now. We just go by what the algorithm tells us to watch, listen, and read. So, we're stuck with a narrow view without us knowing or minding it. In the name of comfort, we are happy for an AI to serve us what we watch, listen, and read without us protesting about it.

Good, ranty post!

Not until 85% through do we get more than this summary.
— noAxioms

The problem is, how could a mere physical system experience this awareness. — Chalmers

But this just seems like another round of feedback. Is it awareness of the fact that one can monitor one’s own processes? That’s just monitoring of monitoring. — noAxioms

No. What Chalmers meant by this, which you point out correctly is the gist of the whole endeavor, is that the brain, which is physical, made of matter, can produce awareness or consciousness, which is non-physical. The brain is viewable, the consciousness is not, to put it crudely.

If you believe that consciousness is non-physical, then you agree with Chalmers and the task now is to explain why there's a connection between the material and the non-material. Consciousness affects the brain and the brain affects consciousness.

The hard problem is explaining the bridge between the two.