Do we have an obligation not to benefit from the exploitation of others? — T Clark

It's a weird wording. Prima facie, no. We don't. I don't think exploitation is ipso facto bad, though. I would like to maximally exploit all the talented people around me, and hope i have skills that would lead to the vice verse. There are other rights violations that have my back in certain (though, typical) instances of exploitation.
I don't think we have an obligation to interrogate everything we do/consume for exploitation, though. Its a nice thing to do, of course.

This is a highly inconvenient truth, as far as Trump is concerned. He's right in saying that the process of giving all these unauthorised arrivals their due is highly impractical and he's saying that completely over-riding their constitutional rights is, therefore, justified. That is what is at issue. i think this will be the arena in which the impending constitutional crisis in the form of defiance of the Courts will manifest. — Wayfarer

I think you've nailed this being hte crux of how there could even be an actual 'crisis' of government. Trump is correct, and if they were all criminals, that's a rock/hard place issue. But, given the incompetence with which the policies are carried out currently, I'm unsure where I land. I don't think anyone should have rights simply by arriving (illegally) in the country. But I also think all of what's going on rn is insane, in practice if not in theory.

But isn’t this more or less how ethics already works in practice? Morality, as we experience and debate it, seems less like the discovery of timeless metaphysical truths and more like a code of conduct that is shaped by competing preferences, traditions, and values among different groups. — Tom Storm

I agree that this is what is happening. Though, I add that the majority of people don't think this is what's happening. They think that morality is objective, and they've got the goods (or, they can get the goods). This is, in my view, the problem. There's no issue with differing views, cajoling, adjusting, compromising etc. etc.. But when your interlocutor's don't believe this is acceptable because other views are ipso facto reprehensible, it's not a discussion or anything. Luckily, overall, the Law does this well and so people can cry into their cereal about it, i guess.

it is inaccurate to call it an insurrection, — Brendan Golledge

I agree with this, for sure. It wasn't at all an actual coup (though, I do have to leave open the "What if they got physical control of the building?" type stuff - and I can't be sure. old LSD Jesus or whatever would've done a number, but I imagine most would've gone home.

I don't think women in STEM fields really makes a difference. — Brendan Golledge

I mentioned others, but it also does make a difference. You're saying there's a trend under which women do not achieve in the same ways men do, intellectually. I am showing that, currently, there is a trend in that exact direction. We need another 50 years before we could make a call, is my position there. I don't think you've established what you're claiming, yet.

In my personal experience, all my worst experiences with authority have been from women. It has only been female authority figures who went out of their way to make my life miserable when there was nothing in it for them. There were also a couple who seemed to take an arbitrary liking to me. — Brendan Golledge

Unfortunately, I can't counter this. My experience has also been overwhelmingly that men in positions of power over me are either: 1. Uncaring, or 2. Extremely caring. For women, its generally been 1. They like me; or 2. They don't like me and that has informed their actions toward me. This seems particularly true of the legal field.

That said, my experience isn't much to go on. I think women aren't used to be in positions of power. Goes along with why I think the 'trend' you note probably isn't a fair framing of what's happened/is happening. In terms of optics, I'm right there with you though.

Also, 100% of marriages are initiated by men, but 70% of divorces are initiated by women. — Brendan Golledge

This isn't true. 100% means there is not a single marriage initiated by a woman. Do you care to own that claim? I suggest it is patently untrue.

you'd have to show that women have an objective moral standard rather than just siding with whoever sees weaker or more relatable — Brendan Golledge

No, you wouldn't. You'd just have to show that your final half-sentence is not true. I don't think it is, any more than a majority of men do the same. Men are particularly good at doing that to women. Perhaps the sexes are just evolutionarily, understandably, a bit wary of each other in a moral sense given their differing capacities and strengths.

But sometimes a woman makes up her mind to hate you and there's nothing you can do about it. — Brendan Golledge

Men do this all the time. And women do it to women more often, interestingly.

I'm trying my best to bring you back into a discussion where you're not foot-out-door. IT's making it hard to drill down to what you actually think about these issues, rather htan how you're currently feeling.

And lots of women recently have said that they would feel safer with a bear than a man. — Brendan Golledge

Most women not being paid to say it use this as an apt metaphor for the fact that they've never been attacked by a bear, and neither has the vast majority of women. They have, in some probably small majority, been attacked in some way by a man. Its a bit of a ridiculous click-bait thing, and some younger women seem to have fallen into thinking it was serious. That's lamentable. I don't think that has anythign to do wiwth women's capacity for moral thinking. That seems total non sequitur.

A young child is more likely to be killed by his mother than a bear, so I would rather keep my child in the company of a bear than a woman. — Brendan Golledge

I would think most of those who take the above seriously, would agree with this but want you to do a decent human being and acknowledge, as the law does, that birth often relegates reason to a backseat, thus reducing culpability. Nothing in a man's world can do this, other than some form of argument about how hormones cause men to be overwhelmingly horny and act out of character as a result (I think there's something to this, but not enough to reduce culpability). But, hormones v hormones usually gets an "Oh, I hadn't thought of that" in my experience.

Edit: However, I highly, HIGHLY recommend not reply to Mikie. There's no discussion to be had. He's even right, most of the time. But its not worth the time, and it seems you're already upset by the generally left-leaning nature of the forum. Mikie is exceptional in the degree to which he mimics a Twitter user.

They want to disable services to the undeserving, like third-world people with tiresome diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS, and so on. — BC

You needn't add 'undeserving'. The position doesn't consider deserts. Nor should it, imo. BUt my response still wouldn't be unilaterally removing support. The 'undeserving' aspect seems (and I wanted to broaden this to "us v them" discussions more generally, so read this as a vehicle for a wider, rather than a personal attack) to be added by the critic in order to morally condemn the position.
An example of how this could work would be: are the slaves of North African not deserving of our aid money? Our human resource? Our time? If so, why do Democrats think them undeserving of our aid?

Well, that's simply not what Democrats think, even when arguing for a denial of aid to those slaves. You can reverse this for most positions. That's why I, personally, require a decent discussion about goals before gettign into policy in a political discussion.

We've been cordial enough recently for me to say "Yes, that's true. Not what I was getting at " lol.

dwarfs what was done on Jan 6th — Brendan Golledge

This seems a bit of "whataboutism". I think BC has correctly identified a situation where, for all other viewers, the right-wing action was hypocritical. No?

I have not seen any counter points (individual persons don't really demonstrate anything). — Brendan Golledge

One counterpoint would be that, historically, this hasn't been possible. Currently, the trend is toward more educated/intelligent woman taking up more and more space in our 'important' fields like STEM and politics. Still a disparity? Yep. There would be, on either reading - so it's hard to understand why you think your version is the correct reading?

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers. — BC

In their view, however misguided, they were upholding Law by pushing back against an illegally-won election (I know, I know. Roll your eyes all you want. I did. But this is consistent, at least).
It's the response, post-Jan 6 than gives me quite a bit of inconsistency to go on with.

Smart women have always been a trend, just like smart men. — BC

Could you point to this trend? Noting that I am well aware that that 'smart women" have existed as long as humans have. It seems quite clear to me that what Brendan is getting at is above this level of (fair) glibness.

Rawls would say it did not understand liberalism — J

Perhaps he needs another cultural moment. Certain seems like this sort of thing is trying to be brought into legislative styles. The recent UK court ruling seems to reverse this, somewhat ( in terms of a cultural picture - not that one ruling changes the Western conception of gender per se).

Just a note: we might be closer to each other htan many here, but saying things like this:

I feel like I'm probably wasting my time. It is a common trope of liberals to pretend like they were born yesterday in order to make their opponent explain everything that has ever existed before they will concede a point. — Brendan Golledge

every company that ever had a DEI page was advertising that they hate white men. — Brendan Golledge

but if you cared, — Brendan Golledge

comes across as emotional, dismissive and unhelpful to a conversation. You should assume most people will have a hard time with these topics and not lose patience. Don't fall into the NOS4A2 hole of being lumpen about conversations you apparently are deeply invested in :) If you don't want to reply, don't. But its not good to say "I don't want to reply, but I will" basically. Feels like you've already made up your mind.

I thought you were going? — James Dean Conroy

You've made a separate move (one which takes advantage of My leaving the thread - and perhaps was designed to get me commenting again - I think this is true).

You lied about me in a thread I can read. I don't actually care what you think about the OP or my 'takes' anymore, but lying about what I've actually said is something else entirely. You seem to want conflict, not discussion.

You don't even understand what an axiom is or how to conduct rational discourse. — James Dean Conroy

Both, patently untrue. This is the issue: you're telling me something I know, is in fact, something I don't know. You then go on to make an entire separate, childish sideswipe of post running down what an Axiom is. I know what an Axiom is. Your rejection of my comments on the same only serves to illustrate your inability to converse when someone disagrees with your axioms. You can just say "Ok, well I don't get how you get there" or something and move on.
Additionally, I am sorry, Axioms are arguable. They are not a matter of opinion, but which axioms one accepts is a matter of personal assessment. If this were not the case, we'd have our axioms and your post would be pointless crap. Which it clearly isn't. Axioms are, perhaps the only, aspect of a coherent worldview that must be chosen, not rationalized. You have, apparently, taken my rejection of a (imo, patently silly) axiom as somehow telling you several other things: That I don't know what an axiom is, that i think you are a Randian, that you are relying on Rand etc.. etc.. Never said anything like this.

So, don't lie, and I wont bother. Good? Good.

For anyone else thinking this is a Randian philosophy then attempting to undermine it purely based on that misconception — James Dean Conroy

I didn't do that. A reading of what I've actually said would betray this. So, do not attempt to be dishonest about me in threads I can read. :) You are extremely good at not reading clearly, and then saying someone else did it.

How can anyone be a moral person who waits to be told what to do, or to have others fix things or be responsible for fixing them? — tim wood

This is something that hte theory they're using has to answer for. Is it an objective moral, and can it be articulated? From a religious point of view, they're very-well sorted in that sense.

it seems to me that the political debate these days focuses on the crazies on both sides, without recognising that most people are closer to the centre. Perhaps I'm wrong about this. — Tom Storm

I was under this impression until some recent events had an overwhelming party-political bent to them (Karmelo Anthony, Luigi Mangione, Elon being drawn in to Government etc...) where the position is patently insane (Musk is a Nazi, Karmelo Anthony is a hero, Luigi Mangione is a hero) but correct, as far as the acceptable opinions for that group go. I could also be wrong, though, so your point rings very loud in my ears. The media etc.. heightens that impression, even if it's roughly speaking, correct.

Is moral development a matter of actual progress or simply of changing community values? — Tom Storm

Neither. For me, for that concept to hold much of anything, we're looking for coherence. IFF you believed your gay child was headed directly for Hell, your actions would be clear, concise and obviously toward the end of keeping them out of Hell. Well-developed. Doesn't mean good :P

Again, I wish it were that simple. — J

I'm the opposite. Intuitively, I assume there must be something more. But I cannot find even a coherent articulation of what that 'something more' could even be. I wish I could find it (maybe this amounts to the same thing lol - but I want my intuition to work, instead of be a clear instance of evolutionary illusion.

it would have been dismissed centuries ago. — J

Plenty of examples of why this is patently not the case! Divine Command theory being one.

Ok. Your misunderstandings are noted, and I shall go about my business. Good luck to you.

it's pure unadulterated sophistry. — James Dean Conroy

You're welcome to think so. I have already addressed this (among your issues).

It’s vibes-based dismissal masquerading as insight. — James Dean Conroy

Err nope. BUt again, you're free to think so.

I already did. — James Dean Conroy

You've not. You're still running arguments that are in her wheelhouse, while saying its not Randian. Bizarre.

That’s not a rebuttal. — James Dean Conroy

You didn't say anything to be rebutted. It's a quaint notion. Change my mind?

condescending — James Dean Conroy

No. But this, also, explains a lot. It's not all about you. You seem a little... over-alert.

you mischaracterised my position — James Dean Conroy

I didn't. It seems you cannot see your own position too clearly. Not uncommon.

What does that even mean? — James Dean Conroy

Your first statement is a nonsense in the face of this being hte follow up. Do you want an answer, or nah? Seems like nah.

“You didn’t respond exactly how I wanted, so I’m dismissing you wholesale.” — James Dean Conroy

Ironic. Particularly as I responded to part, and dismissed part (so, not 'wholesale'). I'm not one for pussyfooting: you come across as incapable of a discussion.

Pure gaslighting. — James Dean Conroy

Haha. Okay mate.

isn’t an argument. — James Dean Conroy

It is when your argument is somehow a different one (i.e "you didn't read X"). Its typical. Not interesting.

Your claim of engagement doesn't match the content of your responses. — James Dean Conroy

It does. Your responses match the content of your responses to others, though. I am sorry if you are bothered (it certainly seems so) that I note a distinct, and obvious Randian flavour. It's not my circus. If you reject Rand, you'll need to confront that basic tenet: Life/survival is the fundamental motivator for any value. That is explicitly Randian.

not just state that you "disagree". — James Dean Conroy

If it's an axiom, this is the only available retort. You believe its fundamental. I don't. We don't have a discussion. THis is a genuinely bizarre response.

That is, if I say, "My statement was incorrect," that is equally personal and internal, with no pretense to objectivity? — J

Not quite, but I think this comes into something about when we can even apply the note 'correct'. If it's a question of reportage, then there's a rubric in place. I think the problem of perception means we can never be objective even in this case, but I note a serious difference between that statement when referring to, for instance, the fact of a Cat being in the room at the time (and wrongly saying it wasn't) or making a claim about, for instance, the worth of a policy which you perhaps misunderstood initially. In the latter, its just your position (now). In the former, you can be wrong. That you think your interpretation was off, is what's motivated the latter. That you can now see a Cat in the room motivates the former. They seem different to me. "I was wrong' doesn't actually seem to properly capture either issue, though, so we mayyy be talking past each other.

The distinction — J

Right, so you're delineating desire and practicality. Fair enough. I still cannot understand the choice being 'not preferable' and still the correct choice, all things considered. Plenty of choices fit "undesired" though, which again, boils back to an emotional output in my view. Though, I seems you're trying to say in the one case, it's emotional and in the other not. Hmm. I don't know that I see the distinction.

But I would have said that we all know the difference between doing something we really want to do -- have positive feelings about -- versus doing something quite repugnant, yet morally necessary as we see it. — J

Sure. Based on our emotional statements about the things in question. That seems baked in here.

Or must we always be talking past each other? — J

This seems true. I have never had an objectivist say something I considered particularly rational about the basis for such a view. I assume the reverse is true.

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the image of Brendan sitting in the middle of a group of MAGA supporters and saying to himself “Gee, these people are so much more morally developed than leftists!”. — Joshs

Not hard to imagine. You just have to realise you can disagree with the morals, and still notice that they are more developed (or, better orchestrated/consistent). I think that's patently true (though, most reasons why that's the case are negative in my view lol).

Rand starts with the individual rational man as the root of value. — James Dean Conroy

This is not I, nor any Randian i interact with's take on this.
I have no idea why you're being difficult, dismissive and otherwise abraisive, but you seem to be impervious to other people's takes. If you're not a Randian, why do you care? Just reject Rand and be done with it. I am telling you in no uncertain terms you are using hte same rationalization. It happens, man. No beef.

That’s not shoehorning Rand, — James Dean Conroy

I wasn't talking about you. Perhaps this explains much...

It’s not quaint — James Dean Conroy

My view is it's quaint. You haven't convinced me otherwise.

Value only emerges within living systems, so life is necessarily the substrate of value. — James Dean Conroy

Non sequitur. Living systems often retain nothing like value, so something further must be at issue. Simple.

Where? — James Dean Conroy

All of your values. You aren't addressing what I've said in the next line, so I've ignored it.

Just don’t pretend that critique actually engaged what I said. — James Dean Conroy

It did. You're welcome to pretend otherwise.

I'd appreciate it if you engaged the actual material instead dismissing because of your presuppositions. — James Dean Conroy

I read your OP. I've followed references. These are my takes. If you don't like them, say so. You wont get far by charging anyone who doesn't agree with you with not engaging the material. That said, this isn't particularly interesting to me so I'm not even that keen to engage with you on it. Still, I did.

it’s about life itself as the substrate of value. Rand begins with man qua man. I begin with life qua life. Very different trajectories — James Dean Conroy

fwiw, this is how Randians comport themselves. hence the very apt comparison.

And "ipso facto good"? That’s the point of the axiom: good doesn’t float free. It emerges from the structural necessity of life valuing itself - or it ceases to be. — James Dean Conroy

According to you. I reject it. Brute value exists.

What do you make of the argument that because life is the basis of all value it is therefore good? — Tom Storm

I think its quaint, but very much misguided. I have a friend in the Philosophy Club I meet with who is a strict Randian and shoehorns Rand into literally everything. His take on Ethics boils down to exactly this, based on the Objectivist Ethics. It's never been convincing, even reading the parts of Rand he felt were relevant.

Two Randian threads in ten minutes. Colour me surprised! LOL.

Looks like I was going to reply last week lol.

I don't see how this is ipso facto good. — Tom Storm

(I agree, wholeheartedly!!! And that's my main gripe with any objective ethics, moreso THe Objectivist Ethics of Rand) REALLY?? I'd have taken you for one who needed to ground their ethic in something like this. Nice to know.

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame.

Both the followers of Hitler and Trump, Biden, Clinton, Churchill, Modi, Ceaucesu, etc... believe they were treated badly and their country was being ruined — Athena

Weak. Not even an argument.

But Banno does not accept that difference of meaning, and equivocates in his complaints about my explanations. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see this. I think Banno can be a total dick, so I get the conclusiory notes here, but I cannot see this happening. Sorry mate.

I believe it can be an overwhelming, all-encompassing disposition. In any case are such matters any of our business really? Why does it matter to you? — Janus

Leaving the prior notes aside, as they were vague so we're just going to be going in circles, the above is true. It is also true of severe bi-polar, schizophrenia, true (i.e without the political baggage) body dysmorphia, chronic depression etc.. etc.. etc... These things matter to other people, and we even have provisions to detain people with these mental aberrations because of the heightened potential for harm to self and others. I am not, at least in this meager of a discussion, suggesting there's some direct parallel here, but the logic is the same.

Unfortunately, humans are male or female. That said, I see that part of this discussion isn't quite on the table and that's fine. I don't want a tense argument about htat issue right now.

Additional rights" would have been better. — Janus

then I would need to say things like "this is racist" before any decent discussion could be have about merits. We're justifying racist policies. I am not entirely perched to reject that possibility. I was for some time (and may possibly still be) for policies which afford women additionally (read: advantageous) rights in law above men. So, your points about being 'decent' are not lost on me. I hear those arguments. But 'kindness' does not solve problems. Consider:
We grant additional rgihts,and do what we can to support population X who is a minority, and was historically harmed. Great. They continue to fail and draw resources for generations without ever coming to the table in terms of reciprocity. Perhaps this is somehow morally acceptable: but it would bankrupt a nation and potentially push other demographics into poverty and diseducation, lacking in health care etc... instead of allowing all boats to rise. We need to consider these things instead of just crying and say "oh the humanity".

Do you really believe that most liberals would condone assassination, even of those they disagree with? — Janus

They seem to. Luigi Mangione being a big example. Heck, this white kid stabbed in the heart seems to be another one. Karmelo Anthony is being praised as some kind of hero in (not insignificant) corners of the base for stabbing a kid in cold blood and admitting it. He has raised more money than the fucking victim. It is not a serious conversation if we're going to deny the utterly reprehensible moral compass of the left. It is not lost that sometmes, this is outright racist thinking (the Anthony example is one).
But, to be clear, I didn't even suggest this. It is a significant number. That's all I can say for certain. The above is just blood-boiling so I'm happy to make the point. The sheer number of people who praised the shooter at Trump would be another, including several celebrities and politicians (i'm not going to post instagram compilations on here, but you could find them if you wanted to. Threats and praising the shooter abound).

So, you would include so-called hate speech as being unnecessary to restrict? — Janus

It depends what your definition of hate speech is, and this is always the problem. I am 100% against any kind of hate speech legislation because (even taking the underlying loadedness of your question as legitimate) no one has that authority. We cannot rely on 'perceived hate' because that's utter bollocks, and so we need an objective measure. If that's just slap-dash written up in a Bill, it's going to be insane. And it always is, as the UK has shown over the last few years https://mythdetector.com/en/free-expression-on-the-internet/ This last link because its actually pretending to be counter, but you get lines like this:

"The law also penalizes the deliberate spread of false information intended to cause annoyance or anxiety."

Are you kidding?

Aside from this, I want to know who the racists are. Don't stop anyone from showing their true self. Otherwise they'll do it in the dark.

But why isn't it moral? — Leontiskos

It doesn't require a moral judgment. I am at pains to understand how this question arose.

I think assessing against a rubric requires judgment. — Leontiskos

Feel free. I don't consider that judgment. If i'm marking a student's exam against a rubric of which out of A, B, C or D is 'correct' for each question, i'm doing no judgement at all. I feel the same applies here.

I suspect that what you are really doing is trying to deny that such a moral judgment is objective — Leontiskos

AS above, it should be clear I am not. Though, I agree, It couldn't be even if it were moral/ethical.

It seems that to morally judge someone else is really just to judge their culpability. — Leontiskos

That would be judging their moral culpability. Again, finding it hard to understand how these sorts of things arise. Do you not see that there are any other kinds of judgements going on in life?

I just don't see things this way and find it quite hard to put myself in a position to see it that way.
The 'culture wars' are certainly not a 'tool' of any kind. They spring up out of the the tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing. Its certainly cyclical, and has some hallmarks of a 'game', but that seems patently not what's happening.

People get fired up because its hte future of their country they're debating. Not sure this needs any further justification or explanation. Males in female bathrooms was always something that people got upset about until around 2015 when things got weird (take that negative or positive, doesn't matter to my point). Because more males started being in female bathrooms, for whatever reason. Doesn't need any further to understand why people care..

It is a correlation. You can read the study, though, surely.

If this were true one would discover what a good therapy for liver cancer is solely by investigating people's opinions instead of by studying livers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I haven't read the the rest of this, because I want you to not make this same mistake over, and over, leading me to ignore: This is the not the same assessment as what one ought to do. This is a different consideration, based on the essentially arbitrary goal of 'curing liver cancer' or whatever you want to be done, in the abstract. Whether or not one should do X is not hte same as whether X would achieve such and such a goal. This is why it already seemed obvious to me we're not talking about hte same 'good' and I do not take yours as 'ethical'. I may well come back to the rest of that as I can see Leontiskos has replied also, so might feel the need to put somethign in. But it seems your basis is off from the way I see things (and this seems, to me, patent, not subtle). Its very hard to go through making the same criticism at each point.

The subjectivist (you, perhaps?) — J

Fairly committed emotivist, so yes.

Fwiw, I am aware of that line between O and S ethics. I am discussing it.

Better to say, "It was wrong; I shouldn't have done it." — J

Which expresses that person's personal, internal assessment of their behaviour. There is nothing close to objective about even the assessment mechanism here. This is why these uses of value words are misleading imo, not just inapt.

Perhaps there's a better pair of words to use that reflects the distinction — J

There must be, as I am not seeing a distinction in your elucidations. I see different uses of two words to mean the same thing in disparate circumstances. No worries with that, but it, to me, reflects an emotivist bent. That's fine, I suppose.

I'd be interested to know whether you think this sort of distinction can be preserved from an ethical-subjectivist point of view — J

That would seem somewhat contradictory. Choices and preferences are distinct. They don't need compartmentalizing.

I pointed out that a primary reason people call food "good" is because it is necessary for survival. — Leontiskos

Which tells us nothing ethical. I have tried to be extremely clear, but for some reason both you and Timothy seem to think "This is good, because X" is the same as "This is good". You're either subtly rejecting objectivist ethics, or you're wildly confused from where I'm standing...

hey are the living continuation of families and cultures. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fwiw, this was my only thought throughout your entire post, so i'm glad this was the conclusion lol. I actually take Singer's point, and as a pro-choicer I have some version of "babies aren't self-aware" going on in my set of takes on the various sticking points. But this, above, notion is far, far more important morally than a single baby's life imo. Or even many baby's lives. It's what they would become, in the round - not individually.

Its in the specific section i've quoted. The conclusion that 'design' is involved is a non sequitur. Banno also noticed this.

I think you may have misread the sentence, or that instead of "reject" you read "accept." — Leontiskos

I didn't, but reading back I can see exactly hot it comes across that way. Just had more to say about it, because a rejection would intimate i accepted the premise. Which was a bit shaky. Sorry for that. Should've been much clearer in what I was tryign to convey. I reject it.

This is meant to demonstrate that even if we are concerned with our time, we are still judging others as causes and deciding which causes of dialogue or information are time-worthy. — Leontiskos

I think I'm judging myself in making that decision. What do my values purport to press me into? If I value the Hard Problem over the problem of Infinite Regress, I may go to speaker 2's lecture because I think my existing levels of value are secure and worth maintaining (i'm sure the implicature is clear here). That's a judgement on my own notions of what's worth my time.
Lecture 1 may have pushed me out of that, by being more interesting that my existing judgement and thus creating a new judgement about only that speaker (well, their speaking rather than the speaker). I'm not convinced this is right. But it gets me around the idea that I actually care what either speaker is doing in their respective rooms. I already care about X or Y in varying degrees. The efficient cause might be the literal speaking, but the final cause of any decision of that kind is one about myself, I think. Where I want to be, and what do I want to be doing?

At this point has your "time-worthiness" judgment of the "cause" become moral without ceasing in any way to be a judgment of time-worthiness? — Leontiskos

No. Whether or not I like Comedian A better than Comedian B is not moral (I do, for argument sake). So far, so good. My existing preference is the reason for the choice, not an active judgement. Now you've entered the issue of conflicting elements of these comedians. Interesting...
But I still am under the impression my existing preference for a Comedian who can do such things is probably already built into my preference for Comedian A. I'm not gaining any new position on either comedian in making that decision. It's based on an assessment as against a rubric, and so I'm not actually making any judgement. Just looking at whether it fits the rubric. A does, B doesn't.

I get the distinct feeling this is missing your point though. Either way, I agree its less clear. I currently am comfortable with the above, but its an immature response to your TE so I might realise its nonsense.

Now the experiential angle. — Leontiskos

I am married. We often say this to each other. It is almost always a way to end a conversation without hard feelings. "I don't blame you personally, but this isn't getting anywhere. Lets try again another time" or some such. Perhaps we are weird.
The moral judgement you're talking about I think is just misplaced but it is moral. I think what a person in that scenario means is one of a few possible things that aren't just a complaint about time. It's possible I am somewhat unique in not using the phrase that way.
Some possibilities for an underlying implication could be:

- You are not adequately hearing me;
- You are are wilfully misinterpreting me; or
- You do not care about what I am saying.

Recently rereading Grice's Logic and Conversation recently I might just be being pedantic on how people use their expressions. But, it seems to me, no one could rightly be implying you're literally not listening in those situations. Therefore, the moral judgement (which seems to be there, i admit) is certainly not about it being a waste of time. It clearly isn't, if the complaint is that you're not being listened to. In my case, when i'm not being listened to (properly, rather than implying something else) I disengage. It isn't practically helpful (i.e productive). Again, not entirely sure here but it looks like there is a moral judgement which is not about time-wasting.

That is lamentable, but it does not represent a liberal attitude—quite the reverse. — Janus

Yes, for sure. I think that's the problem - they claim liberalism (which I take as a practical movement. The ideology itself was abandoned decades ago). Unfortunately, I am increasingly not convinced the average (self-professed) liberal can tell the difference between freedom and hate. This seems particularly true of self-professed Liberals in the sense that all manner of extremely socially unacceptable behaviour (racism, sexism, violent threats, actual violence etc...) are played out in the name of the ideology. People thinknig "i'm a Liberal, which means my ends are 'righteous' and justify what means I may pursue". Usually, the means are the result of internalized anger and frustration about one's station in life, and not any consideration of what a 'liberal' might actually do in any given scenario. That may or may not be a legitimate thought but to me, the corresponding up-ending of the apple cart, lets say, is not. It's toddler stuff. Safe to say, i'm far more jaded on this one that you are haha.

What would be the motivation for wanting to do that if not some kind of desire to vilify? — Janus

Because its factually incorrect (disagree, or agree...whatever i'm just giving you the reason). I'll add a second though: Why do we tell children they're not actually Firefighters? Because it will be extremely difficult to go through life believing you are, but at every turn, shown that you're not. I feel this is the case for most trans people. Their mental states at large, and their reports of same, seem to indicate this. I don't think this is society doing anything wrong. They want to be something they aren't, and that hurts. I am not the greatest singer in the world, and it irks me. I love singing and I really wish I was good enough to make something of it. But i'm not, and I don't pretend that i am. I have a huge, rather debilitating sympathy for the mindstate of trans people. But I do not have sympathy for trying to force the world to conform to your internal self-image. Not to mention some of the more controversial issues hereabouts (the overwhelming tendency toward sex crime for trans ID'd males, for instance.... big discussion. I pray you simply laugh and gloss over this if its got your back up. I'm simply laying more points out to show that there are arguments).

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified — Janus

I disagree. But in any case, that isn't in issue. The fact that opinion is not socially acceptable is the problem. You might have a good argument. It's just not for this exact moment to be fleshed out. Same goes for the above trans issue, but there was a lot more meat there.

unless someone wishes to impose their views on us — Janus

Liberals, overwhelmingly, do to the point of justifying abuse and violence. This is simply not arguable in the wake of things like BLM, Occupy, assassination attempts etc.. etc.. (this is not to claim other ideologies don't lead here too. It's to say that the claim of 'Liberal' tends this way, currently)

why should that not be the case? — Janus

I'm sorry, but why should it? If they're seen as injured parties, that means precisely nothing for policy. Even if they are (which, in a general sense, i usually am more than happy to accept on the facts) it cannot be a "sins of the father" situation. Which it is. In almost every case. I also have much better options in mind to deal with that issue (that I, again, for clarity, fully accept in most cases is truly in play).

Mill both predicted, and lamented this situation in On Liberty 165 years ago. Social restriction of opinion being the absolute bane of a civilised society. And it is.

I don't think you're quite framing it fairly. These aren't necessarily considerations of what I can and can't do - I can speak about whatever the fuck I want to. But If i were to, for instance, offer an opinion piece, speak publicly, publish etc.. in a way that received some public review there are several which would result (almost invariably does) in abuse, possible violent abuse, attempts to mar my family, friends and colleagues for associating with me, attempts to end my employment (this one has happened to me twice) among other possible outcomes that are chilling on freedoms to speak):

- trans women are not women;
- Indigenous thinking is not superior to any other kind of thinking;
- You can be objectively wrong about your beliefs;
- That the Treaty of Waitangi needs some serious legal definition;
- That separate rights for indigenous groups and others is wrong;
- That separate standards of assessment for white people and other groups is wrong;
- That the government is doing good (I don't actually hold this view, but its one which has resulted (before my own eyes) in multiple violent responses);
- Prison is a decent response to recidivist offenders;
- That violent Islamic activity is reprehensible and we should be allowed to assess for it;
- That sexual preferences are in fact, preferences, and I need not care what anyone else thinks;
- Thinking the pronoun debate is ridiculous**

Could be worth looking through some of what our Free Speech Union works on for the larger picture:

Police illegally logging - the concept amounts to "If someone is unhappy with what you said, it is hateful".
Professionals increasingly at risk of losing their licenses for personal views
A Mayor silencing political criticism by using a badly-written Act
That our conservative (its actually very much centrist) government has had to table legislation to protect academic freedom in the face of increasing calls for opinions of University workers to be considered disqualifying
And even in the case of lower school teachers, that opinions relayed in private capacities (i.e as a private citizen.. not in private) can be disqualifying, despite being common views.

Obviiously I'm marginally dramatizing a lot of those articles, but the basic notions I've outlined are correct, in my view. It is also possible you do not see these, after looking into them, as curtailing one's freedom of speech. I respectfully disagree and would then thing we are maybe not talking about hte same thing. Probably worth noting, I have increasingly had to stop giving my opinions on these sorts of matters to protect my job, my children and my wife. This is absolutely unacceptable under the head "liberalism".

** I happen to work in a truly liberal law firm. We all have differing views, and we accept them. However, if a disgruntled colleague reported me to a statutory body for at least a few of the points noted above, I would be hauled before a conduct committee and basically have no recourse to defend myself because "the other person was hurt" is the criterion. But more directly to the point linked to, I am aware of several larger law firms who ostracize or even shadow-punish lawyers and executives for not including pronouns in their bio subsequent to a demand from on high via internal email. No, I cannot prove this, but at least one friend has left their firm for this reason and I have seen the email which was sent. It was in no uncertain terms.

For them liberalism is an abomination; becasue it allows difference of opinion — Banno

This is not what it does in practice. It allows a certain range of opinion. And that, increasingly small.

If you're now (it seems you are) making a physics argument, I have to just say you're wrong. This is a physics concept that is widely understood as extant and helpful to physicists. If your gripe is with the use of hte word 'instantaneous' fine, but that's not how the word is used in that phrase. It is a proper name, for all intents and purposes, and so your reading is simply inapt. In any case, the term 'instant' does not mean "zero time" unless you're using a rather unsophisticated colloquial definition. "a very short period of time" is the better way to think of the word, and solves your usage issue regardless of your disagreement with the facts of the matter (i.e that instantaneous velocity is a real, measurable thing which physicists use every day).

"This non-dairy ice cream is worthy of my choice because it's especially creamy and gooey and that's what I like." Or we might say, "You betrayed your partner. That was not a worthy choice, and you shouldn't have made it." — J

Hmm. While I think I'm following your intent, these aren't different claims for our purposes. The latter requires the addition of "because I disapprove" to support the obvious disapproval therein. You think it wasn't choice-worthy and in this case for someone else so there's a second level of preference involved there. But nothing but hte person's opinion makes their disapproval hold any water, I'd think. I don't think we can find examples that support both interpretations. A preference is, definitionally, something subjectively preferred. Not something 'chosen'. That may be why you're seeing a cross-reading available where I do not.

Ah. Perhaps I was a little too charitable then..

I think we have to understand "worthy" simply to mean "ought to be chosen." — J

I have a pretty serious issue with this (and this might relate to your later comment on ordinary language). I cannot understand "choice-worthy" as anything other than an expression of preference. Nothing besides seems to arbitrate what would and wouldn't come under that head.

This does paint me into a partial corner though: I should, really, be committed to accepting the phrase as ethical, while maintaining that ethical statements are emotional ones. Perhaps that the right resolution for someone of my bent.