or sinks them. — Bitter Crank

Hey! Do you mind? I'm trying to be smartarse here? How dare you try to steal my spotlight. Respect your younger!

A rising tide lifts all boats. — Wallows

Not yours. Yours is sinking. And you're too busy wallowing around to do anything about it. :grin:

Oh, okay. Whatever floats your boat. — Wallows

Do you know what really floats my boat? Me, myself and I.

I thought your jokes didn't need so much explaining. Gosh... — Wallows

What jokes? I really am better looking.

Haha, but it isn't all about you, dummy, haha! Be more mature. — Wallows

Nothing in excess. Maturity has its place, as does humour, as does wit. I like to spice things up with a combination of the aforementioned. Only a dummy would confuse which is which.

Me myself and I! — Wallows

My three favourite words. They sound better coming from me.

Haha, me me me. Me too! — Wallows

Respect your elder. I am older and wiser than you.

And better looking.

We just need to revoke our notice of leaving. It's the only sensible option.

Come at me S. — Michael

I relented ages ago. Better that then making a pig's ear of everything. Or rather, even more of a pig's ear.

Good for you. :blush: — Wallows

Yes, it really is. You should take a leaf out of my book.

Well, I don't see how you can be pejorative towards the elderly. Maybe it's true that not all old people are mature, so I guess you can be happy in some strange sense about that. — Wallows

I try to avoid making those kind of generalisations about the elderly, the youthful, men, women, gay people, black people...

Example of being biased towards the elderly or what? — Wallows

Sorry, but what's your point here beyond expressing your biased admiration of the elderly? Is there one? Or is that it? If it's that we should follow suit, then no. I decline.

See my comment here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/264268 — Wallows

Yes, that's another example of what I said. And?

You're biased in favour of the elderly, and I should care about that because...?

Oh, OK. What's your point? — Wallows

That you're biased in favour of the elderly due to a stereotype.

Same question. — Wallows

The point was selfexplanatory.

It is taught from a young age that one ought to respect their elders. A grandmother could be a surrogate mother as the instinctual urge of motherhood never dissipates with age. Think about that for a second and think about maybe calling your grandmother... — Wallows

Think about the fact that not all grandmothers fit the stereotype of a kind and mothering old lady.

My question is that why does Western society display a deficit in the process of respect and regard for their elders? — Wallows

Respect should be given when it is deserved, irrespective of age.

Ok. Some markings are from a language. Granted. You say that the text provides information. Sure. You say that the intent of the author may be lost forever, sure... maybe. I can go with that. I would grant that the author had intent.

So what?

It does not follow from this that the text is still meaningful. — creativesoul

It doesn't follow that it's not, unless your definition makes it so. In that case, the real question would be: why are you doing that? It doesn't seem helpful.

So the current question is what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so?

I'm happy to accept each and every notion of "meaning" here. What makes them meaningful? Certainly they all are. I would posit that it is the same thing that makes anything and everything meaningful that is so.

You see, there's a bit of common sense here. While there is no doubt that there are several different competing conceptions/notions of "meaning", some of which are negations of others and/or are otherwise incommensurate/incompatible with one another, they are all still meaningful. — creativesoul

You've not said anything relevant there again. That is just truism. You've had that problem throughout this discussion.

From this, we can certainly surmise that being meaningful is not a mere matter of definition. — creativesoul

No one even made that claim as far as I'm aware.

Well my good man... Ya know, it's not like you're being physically restrained against your will, arms and legs securely bound, eyelids propped open by toothpicks, sat in front of the computer screen, and forced to do whatever it is that you think you're doing here... — creativesoul

Okay, then continue with your mumbo jumbo, even though it does you no good.

Do you not already know what that means?

:yikes:

I'd be more than happy to discuss what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. — creativesoul

I know what I mean. Do you think that we mean the same thing? :brow:

You might well be more than happy to talk past me, but I think that that would be a problem. We need to get meaning sorted first before you get ahead of yourself.

I think that I mean one thing and you mean another thing, and that your discussion is trivial, because all it does is say that according to your meaning, such-and-such a logical consequence follows. Why do you seem to think that that's significant?

So then do you tell me that my moral judgement is wrong? Or different? — Rank Amateur

It's both.

So if you are a moral relativist, and I am a moral relativist, can we both have different moral judgements on some action, and agree the other judgement is correct for the other person? Or do you believe that your relative morality is right, and my relative morality is wrong? — Rank Amateur

Both. Just don't misinterpret the latter. Think about it how I would think about it, as a moral relativist would think about it, that is. I can help you out if need be, but I'm interested in what you can come up with on your own.

I don't really understand S's position. He says he's a moral relativist. The trouble with relativism is that it ultimately destroys its own ground. But S doesn't like "destruction" or the like, as loaded language. — tim wood

No, that's the trouble with a poor way of thinking about moral relativism.

And he seems unaware that Kant answered moral relativism for all time with his categorical imperative. — tim wood

:rofl:

Kant's categorical imperative is a joke.

Apparently some things are and some things are not relative. I begin to wonder if S even knows what "relative" means. What, S, is an example of something that is not relative - I assume that for you all moral judgments are relative.

Or perhaps by "relative" you mean only that everything is referenced (I..e., "relative") - indexed to - to something else. If that is all you mean, then agreed; but then everything is relative, not just some things. — tim wood

What I think about everything else is entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This discussion is about morality, and regarding that, I am a moral relativist. Relativism, more broadly, is a red herring.

You thought wrong.
— S

certainly not the last time that will happen - — Rank Amateur

What you were describing is amoralism. Moral relativism is not amoralism. Tim wood was making the same mistake. Like I said, these are common misunderstandings.

I think the reason S said it was a non sequitur was the conflation of normative with meta ethics. The opinion of a subjective relativist about what is' right' in some moral question may be of no consequence, but that doesn't mean their opinion with regards to meta-ethics is. Meta-ethical positions are argued by reference to shared standards like logic and reason. Normative ethical positions are argued from a position of shared values (although all too often, not even that, making such discussions hopelessly pointless).

To say that a relativist speaking of a variety of value positions must therefore also speak from an equally heterogeneous position with regards to logic and reason is the non sequitur. — Isaac

Bingo.

The issue I was pointing to is not that the moral relativist shouldn't care, but why would he comment. — Rank Amateur

Why wouldn't he?

My understanding of moral relativism would be something like this " that action is different than my moral belief, oh well, guess his is different ". — Rank Amateur

Then you have a very poor understanding of moral relativism. Unfortunately, these sort of misunderstandings are common. I don't accept that the moral beliefs of others are just different. Obviously I think that, for example, someone who has the moral belief that murder is okay, is wrong - wrong relative to my strong feelings against it. I'm no different to you in this regard.

I thought moral relativity encompasses an acceptance of the moral positions of others. — Rank Amateur

You thought wrong.

So what would be the moral relativists standing - in passing a moral judgement on others be ? In that case he is no longer a moral relativist, he just thinks his moral view is right. That is not my understanding of moral relativism - — Rank Amateur

No, of course he is still a moral relativist, because obviously he interprets his moral view being right in accordance with how a moral relativist would do so, and not in a contradictory way involving a different interpretation. You can't just smuggle in an outside interpretation and pretend that the moral relativist is being inconsistent.

Well, first off, it's obviously not a matter of personal preference. Moralities are systems of values associated with particular societies, traditions, and cultures.
— T Clark

:up: And so we can conclude that morality is a matter of collective (social) preference, can't we? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No, because my personal moral views matter, irrespective of those of society as some sort of "collective". What if I was the only non-racist in a racist society?

If ↪tim wood point was, why should we care about the opinion about morality - from a moral relativist, if he him/herself's core belief is the position only applies to them - than I don't see it as a non sequitur. — Rank Amateur

Why shouldn't we care? Again, your reaction seems to indicate an illogical connection. You wouldn't care if I had the moral belief that black people are an inferior race, or that murder is okay? That's just how morality is - it is relative - and yet we evidently do care. We care because we live as part of a society, and our respective moral views matter socially.

Well, let me not be destructive, then. Perhaps a relativist reply to your comment. Here goes: what you think doesn't matter, because, after all it's all relative. — tim wood

That's a non sequitur.

What do you think? Was that a good and constructive reply? Or do you think it was just a might destructive, in that it was dismissive of your reasoning on a basis that simply ignores your thinking altogether as, well, just relative. — tim wood

I think that it is fallacious. And it is doubly so if it is intended to represent what I'm doing. I've done the opposite by emphasising that morality is no less important under moral relativism.

But why would you care - why do you care? - as you're just a relativist anyway? — tim wood

Why wouldn't I care? You're making an illogical connection here.

And I'm not a relativist, I'm a moral relativist. I haven't claimed that everything is relative.

In societies where FGM is broadly enforced for reasons pertaining to well-being, I wouldn't consider it amoral because it's motivated by the moral value of human well-being (Yes, this may only hold true under a meta-ethical definition of morality as a strategy in service of human moral values, and an ethical definition of human well-being as a fundamental human moral value). — VagabondSpectre

Well it is amoral. Let's be clear. Your evaluation is just that. There's no moral value inherent in anything, and your evaluation doesn't magically make it so. There is nothing reasonable in simply saying that something or other is a moral value in any other sense than that it is so relative to a standard, which is in turn relative to feelings. If I don't feel the same way about this standard, then it simply doesn't apply to any moral judgements or evaluations that I make. All you're really telling me is how you feel about something. Good for you?

It's objectively true that brushing your teeth has moral utility if personal dental health is of moral value, and it's also true that not brushing your teeth has less moral utility. — VagabondSpectre

Personal dental health is not of moral value. It's either morally valuable to you or it isn't. And there's nothing meaningful or relevant in saying that something has moral utility. That's not the issue at all.

If we can say that not brushing our teeth is objectively immoral per our values... — VagabondSpectre

We can't. Obviously it is only so relative to our values, so that's obviously not objective.

My point is that FGM is indeed morally erroneous per the fundamental moral values of the concerned victims and perpetrators. — VagabondSpectre

Okay, so you're a subjective relativist like me.

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I?
— S

It is not about you. You expressed a common sentiment. — Fooloso4

It's about what I said and you quoting it out of context. If you have nothing meaningful to say about that then let's move on.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit.
— S

What alternative do you favor? — Fooloso4

What are you talking about? I just told you what I'd favour.

No. The problem is living without them may be. I do not have high hopes for everybody trying to figure it out for himself. — Fooloso4

Who cares about "maybe"? In some cases, it's not bad to break down social norms, it's actually good, and that's where I have a problem with political correctness, which seeks to maintain them.

I think so but I also think that it is an inevitable thing. People figure out how to live together. Just what that might look like is anyone's guess. — Fooloso4

Rather, it can be a good thing. Sometimes it is better to scrap the social norm or replace it with something better. It's called progress.

No, as I said, it is a symptom. — Fooloso4

A symptom of an illness, yes.

It should be pointed out that we are not at the point where social norms no longer exist. — Fooloso4

Obviously. You don't need to point that out.

That they will be is also in question. — Fooloso4

No it isn't.

As to whether we can do away with them, I don't think so. — Fooloso4

Neither do I. Not altogether. That's obvious. But a particular social norm? Yes, that's possible.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. And in time it too must be challenged. But first it must be created. This is where we are. — Fooloso4

Of course there's a status quo. Don't be absurd.

This misses the bigger picture. It is not about etiquette, although etiquette is certainly a part of it.

It is about social norms, which include but are not limited to behavior. They include values, allegiances, and our relations to others. In short, how are we going to live together?

We live in a time in which social norms have broken down. We are in the process of making repairs. PC is one means by which we are doing this. The extremes, which tend to get the most attention, do not tell the story. What deserves our attention is not the extreme answers but the question they attempt to answer: what should our social norms be? — Fooloso4

Sure, etiquette is only part of it. I never said that it's the whole story, did I? You only quoted one little sentence out of everything that I said. You quoted me out of context. I also mentioned principles, respect, pettiness, frankness, tone policing, virtue signalling, and remaining on point. I gave examples where actions, language, emotional reactions, intelligence, manipulation, attempts to control what people do and say, freedom of expression, liberalism, authoritarianism, and morality, are all very relevant. I spoke of underlying motive and stoical control.

In answer to the question of how we're going to live together, I would say preferably without so much politically correct bullshit, at least as far as my social circle goes. There seem to be a lot of implicit assumptions in what you're saying. Breaking down social norms must be a bad thing? Repairing them must be a good thing? Political correctness is the right way of doing this?

Social norms aren't the be-all and end-all. I'll do what I have to get by, but I'm not going to just pander to the status quo. I don't like being fake and insincere, and I don't like the repression of language and humour. Just because something is shocking, that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Some of the most valuable things are shocking. It can take the form of music, comedy, and art. I love me some Marilyn Manson, Sex Pistols, The Distillers, Nirvana, Courtney Love, Frankie Boyle, and Stewart Lee.

I'm superficial snooty common decency daddy. — Baden

Ah yes, that's why I fell in love with you, like a female black widow spider falls in love with a male of the same species.

The deep salt-of-the-earth guy with tourette's posting syndrome. — Baden

Me or you? :chin:

And then Badenetta's daddy mysteriously expired on 9999 posts. True story. — Baden

Which of her daddies are you referring to? Me or you?

My only child died of sarcasm. — S

Her name was Badenetta. I named her after my one true love. She died when she was just five years of age. She asked me for something to eat, and I replied, "Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that you were starving to death".

It turns out that she was. I thought that she was just being a whiny little bitch.

And just when I was beginning to like you....(Sarcasm) — Anaxagoras

That's not funny. My only child died of sarcasm. Have you no common decency? You should be ashamed of yourself, and you owe me an apology for being so insensitive.

Wonder where your phobia of anything that smacks of common decency springs from? Let's analyze... :eyes: — Baden

Common decency, as you seem to be using that term, is a superficial and snooty concept for superficial and snooty people. I prefer uncommon decency. It has a greater appreciation of humour and is less outraged.

I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless.
— creativesoul

This depends on your definition...
— S

No. It doesn't. It depends upon what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. Meaning is prior to language. That which is prior to language is not existentially dependent upon it. Definitions are. Definitions of that which exists prior to language can be wrong. — creativesoul

This is basically a parody of itself, so I don't really have to lift a finger. But I will, because I can't resist pointing out what's wrong with your reply.

How can we have a sensible discussion about what sort of things can be meaningful and what makes them so, without analysing what is meant by that? It really isn't complicated. It's simple. And it is trivial.

If you mean "meaningful to us", which you basically do, then the logical consequences are easy to work out. Is that all you want to do here? No one will actually disagree with you on that. They'll just question the supposed value in doing that.

Yes, any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless (per your meaning of meaning). That is a trivial logical consequence. Is that what you wanted?

And please, give your mumbo jumbo a rest. I am not the only one who is sick of it.

My sincere apologies to the women of this forum. My language in the “Ayn Rand” thread was reprehensible. As someone who voted for Hillary Clinton, plans to vote for Kamala Harris, and calls my wife “Wonder Woman” (she is much tougher than me); I am disappointed in myself. I should know better, and I’m sorry. — Noah Te Stroete

Ah jeez, Rick. I knew you were a whiny little bitch. :lol:

If I was a woman, I would find this patronising. Your apology is an even bigger insult than the original insult. In fact, I don't even have to be a woman to find it patronising. That's the great thing about being a true advocate of gender equality: what gender you are shouldn't matter.

If Ayn Rand was a whiny little bitch, just say so. Since when do all women need to be protected from crude language from "brutish lads"? Your crude language was clearly intended for comic effect, at least in part. No one is forcing anyone to appreciate that kind of humour, but no one should have to apologise for it either. If you turn up to a stand-up comedian's gig to complain about the material, then you're a bigger joke than anything that he (or she!) can come out with. The Joke Police should take a hike, and it looks like one of their number is planning on doing just that.

I would've voted for Clinton too, if I could've done. Even though I bet she's a whiny little bitch at times. We all are. (But especially Noah Te Stroete. He's Queen of all Whiny Little Bitchdom).

Son, I am disappoint.

FGM is not a maths sum — Isaac

They must either be cruel and want to damage their own children, or they are stupid and can't work out that the damage does not outweigh the gain. Yet you just said that you are not calling the people extorted into carrying it out stupid or immoral. — Isaac

He's got you there, @VagabondSpectre. I think your biggest problem is in not recognising the amoral as amoral, because your feelings get in the way of impartial judgement. That's why you seem to be misjudging others as condoning FGM. But they're not, they're just recognising that there's FGM, and there's relative standards of "correct" and "incorrect", there are related factual and statistical matters, and then there's our moral feelings and judgement. There's no necessary connection linking them all together. There's no inherent moral quality in FGM, or relative standards of "correct" and "incorrect", or in related factual or statistical matters. You seem trapped into thinking that it's somehow more than what it is, without realising that you're projecting.

I think that you're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. It seems obvious to me that you're just making the same sort of classic mistake which is more apparent in saying that it's objectively immoral not to brush your teeth every day, because not brushing your teeth every day increases the risk to your dental health. There's nothing objective in the morality of that.