Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah fair enough - didn't quite grok the subtext, sorry. I do now.

So now that you’ve added your weasel words you have admitted the corollary that words sometimes cannot persuade someone. In those instances, where have the causal powers of your words disappeared to? — NOS4A2

Oh my God. It may be that your determination to ignore the fact of persuasion is due to your inability to read?

The emprical evidence supports (3). The laymen and the psychologists and the neuroscientists who talk about persuasion are not engaging in superstition or magical thinking. It is nothing like ghosts or goblins or gods. — Michael

Guess what (3) is??

3. Words can persuade, and sometimes do — Michael

This has been proved, empirically, time and time and time and time again. In this thread, through examples, and in your own life (obviously. Otherwise you'd not be replying here). Your refusal is just your stupidity being writ large. There are no versions of this than can be boiled down to an argument. You are ignorant. Plain and simple.

an event is impactful if it has a counterfactual effect — Leontiskos

This is how the concept is used in law. It's a bit more complicated than this, but essentially its the "if but for..." rule.

If but for y then the crime, x, would not have happened. Therefore, y is, in some sense, culpable. Whether this means reducing the actor's culpability, or introducing a third party to either share of just diminish the culpability, it's a well-understood concept.

And thanks - i didn't even think to bring that up. Seems far too... childish... to be putting to an assumed adult.

Please forgive me, but it seems to me you have overreacted to something you haven't quite understood.

I believe BC's point is that you cannot run this argument to an end. It ends with the points he's put forward. These are the facts of the matter: x happened in y circumstances. No policy is going to justify the killing of civilians without first accepting some war theory, as he's explained. This is not his belief.

It may be worth remembering that philosophy is often a matter of picking at stitches and getting under skin to test our intuitions. It is not a game of who's belief is better.

It seems pretty obvious that being maimed and extreme suffering is, at least ceteris paribus, bad for animals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Many things seem certain ways, but when you press, they aren't that way.

This, for instance, entirely begs the question of what 'bad' is, and how to put things in that box. It presumes plenty of things. This might be taken as some kind of entire scepticism, but it's really not - there are no facts about good and bad. Just intersubjective agreements. And these regularly butt into each other. There is also the fact that most people have a 'bad for me' and a different 'bad for you' set of beliefs. The murder, if tortured, isn't undergoing something 'bad' even though it is 'bad' for them.

This should be fairly clear now, that 'obviousness' isn't a good way to run this particular issue's arguments. Unless we want to invoke either relativity, or emotivism (both seems reasonable to me). But i take it those making this argument are wanting to escape them.

No. There's no such thing, in this context. We're all people doing shit. That's all really. THe rest is window dressing (window dressing I enjoy, to be sure).

Too bad it went sour, because it would otherwise be a useful word, to describe the necessary set of ideas and ideals one needs to organize one's life. — BC

Really? It seems, and always has, across all eras of my life, to describe something undesirable: inflexibility of belief.

There are plenty of people who enjoy evil, such as masochists. — MoK

but this violates your use of 'evil' as that would not be suffering.

I don't think so. Do you mind elaborating after reading this post? — MoK

I cannot see a reason beyond 'it's unpleasant' to label any given x 'evil'. It doesn't work for most examples I can think of, other than as an arbitrary label for 'unpleasant' which we alreayd have and use.

Depending on the person you are, you are a good person, you only enjoy/like good experiences. I don't know why you are suffering. — MoK

This seems non sequitur.

It is not merely other-regarding. — hypericin

It is. All the follow-on speaks to this. It's just other-regarding. No reason to call it moral (further, but less interestingly, I reject some of those claims anyway).

What is commonly regarded as "moral progress" consists in a widening of the in-group circle — hypericin

It is also commonly not regarded as progress. This is just a perspectival restriction. No reason to think that group is 'right' any more than the one who wants to restrict the circle of care.

As a reasoning animal, I conclude that many of the delimitations defining in-groups are culturally bound, and largely arbitrary — hypericin

I conclude the exact opposite. C'est la vie??

Tell that to a woman or to a descendent of a slave. — hypericin

Setting aside the clear and precisely manipulative intent of such a statement, I routinely mention this to women who tend to agree with me. Descendants of slaves have nothing to say. There is more slavery now. Not owning other people is progress in some ways, and a clawing-back from con-gress in some ways. It is not 'progress' unfettered. This, also, evidence by the extant slavery giving us sound reason to reject universality of "no slaves = morally good".

As to women, you're just not playing the game. Women largely agree: males aren't women and shouldn't be regarded so and afforded the rights of women. C'est la vie??

and who is that?

an invariant moral principle — Showmee

This is highly variable and context-dependent, though. That's why it's clear 'facts' aren't in the area to me. All of these types of statements are obviously no invariant, or universal. Then or now.

I see this has been gone over, though. Just want to add that something being admittedly "bad" is not a good reason to not do it as far as justifications go.

"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him" - Ender Wiggin, Ender's Game(Orson Scott Card)

Enemy could simply be the person doing the wrong, not your enemy.

then human's and ostriches both have legs in the same manner. — Bob Ross

They do certainly seem to. As with chairs.

Well, the standard would be sales, currently. We are pressed to think the 'best' music is the music that the most people enjoy. If we set aside the issue of like, Pink Floyd being available to many, many, many more people than Billie Eilish (in the sense that several generations have lived with PF and only about half of one has lived with Eilish) we see that this is not a standard to do with good it has only to do with preference (sales/charts I mean). That says to me that 'good' and 'I prefer' come apart in some sense - the modern charts giving us a pretty stark insight into this.

Another is the obvious daylight between critic and audience scores for films (generally).

This all to say that things like marketing (propaganda), access, appearance, in-group considerations and many other things contribute to what seems like an objective standard of "This many people enjoy this artist".

That seems to run against the definition, and practical use of 'evil'. It seems a descriptor for that which is particularly unpleasant in an arbitrary manner.

Could you outline how you're using 'evil' here? I don't think many would recognize it.

Yes, some of these ideas were things I had in mind - particularly your final thought.

It's just a temporal agreement, but in order for a standard to function we'd both have to understand and agree to it. — Moliere

Ok, so a formalizing of what I had i suggested. Interesting. That seems an institutional type argument. I'm unsure where the agreements would lie otherwise..

Is this an institutional argument like Danto?
I'm not trying to crap on your admittedly semi-glib notions. I'm trying to understand how we could have a standard, rather than an amorphous, temporal agreement about what's good without naming it... So, the standard would just be the actual reactions, in aggregate, of listeners.

That said, I see all the problems with this when it comes to modern music and how it's sold.

Oh, well yeah, totally my bad.

So in a philosophy forum like this one it would be more suitable... to take a philosophical approach about political debates, take a step back and resist the temptation to... reason in terms of what is right or wrong...but in terms of what one wants and what on can get in a way that equally applies to ALL ideological conflicting views at hand — neomac

Setting side some extremely weak responses about how the conversations actually run, yeah, 100%. Probably my least-enjoyed aspect of this place is the clear ideological capture plenty of posters are under.

something is evil when the person is suffering — MoK

Do you want to maybe qualify this? I suffer every morning when I put my body under immense pressure to achieve a better body.

One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it.

Notice you've not invoked a standard. You've used the word 'good' but fail to define it. It actually seems as if you accept that you cannot?

hen how is it — Showmee

This is just word use. It's not an argument for cognitivism. It just shows us that its logically possible that an objective ethic could exist. Practically, though, there is no reason to think this, on my view. I have never seen an argument that even starts the car. They all stop at "sentences make sense, and we can have sentences that proclaim moral fact". That's simply not an argument for the state of affairs in the claim.

why does the conclusion still seem logically valid in the above argument? — Showmee

This isn't worth answering, in this context. It makes sense because words are designed to fit together, where they have coherence. It's also coherent to say

unicorns exist
Dan is a Unicorn
Therefore, Dan exists.

But that's totally confused as should be obvious. This is also true in your example, given that "is wrong" means nothing as a bare assertion, on my view.

it wouldn’t make for a valid argument to say something like: — Showmee

No. But it would make entire sense to say

Boo! Johnny is stealing (notice there must be a speaker here - this isn't a bare argument of logic anymore)
Johnny is stealing.
Therefore i think Johnny is doing something wrong.

This is actually, on my view, the 'correct' way to make moral claims, given our lack of any reason to think there's something objective about that final statement. We just don't have a logical framework to ascertain any moral facts. Given that "fact", it seems fruitless to pretend we still have them.

“I would approve of x” is a factual claim, which is either true or false, not a non-cognitive utterance. — Micheal Huemer

But notice that claim isn't moral anymore. The non-cognitivist has not made any claim they cannot empirically support, which has no moral weight ("I believe this Unicorn is not Johnny" would be the same). I enjoy Heumer, but this is probably his least interesting area.

latter sentence obviously entails the first — Micheal Huemer

No, it doesn't, unless he's reading the same meaning into both uses of 'right'. In which case, non-cognitivism goes through. This just as inane as any other argument of the kind, unfortunately.

Why not? — Banno

I could only surmise that this is a reaction the admitted absurdity of "infinitely better" or the absence of the concept 'optimal' in place of best, given it would need to be about outcomes and optimizing outcomes seems reasonably plausible.
Still, I don't see any real issue with an open-ended, primitive spectrum of value or best-fit. Sort like metaphysics :P

It seems there are plenty on this website who mope, and do not understand what this is. Justifications abound, but actions to address one's situation seem lacking.

I wonder why that is.....

This isn't even apt to be a 'lie'. Misunderstanding perhaps, but that's not happening either - evidenced by everyone but you being on the same page.

There's something in that, for sure. When Country music only relates to rural lives, it's too niche (though, obviously, sustainable given how many peopleare actually in that category). When it transcends the typical subject matter, it gets through. Think that's true of all genres really.

Music has always moved me pretty intensely. I have seen much of a change, just an expansion of what can do it.

You're still simply not addressing any of hte points put to you. Once again,

Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance). — AmadeusD

Apart from that, I did. Explicitly. You didn't provide what you're claiming. That is factual.

I will not continually repeat myself when it is clear to everyone but you. The situation is clear as day.

Nice, i hope you enjoy! I also think Patsy Cline is a bit of a Cash scenario. definitely country, but plenty of non-country in there just with twang. Big fan.

Europeans and the US should serve Russia's wet dreams, right? — neomac

You're playing the wrong game.

It is wrong for Russia to do what it's doing, on the view of the majority of the geopolitical sphere. No one will support that. It's potentially pragmatic in terms of appeasing a dictatorial weirdo who can't keep his shit together, but otherwise, It would be a very cowardly move. That's why the world wont service Russian's continually hostile attitudes to geopolitics. Sometimes, it is right to deny those what they want.

key to try to live with this mental condition. — javi2541997

Do you truly think this is key, and not trying to overcome it? Depression is clearly not intractable, so this seems an odd position is all.

I could be shown how to listen, what to listen for, and who does it well and who does not do it well — Fire Ologist

I thikn this is a really interesting point.

I enjoy all genres of music i've come across. However, there are only a few where I like the genre. Generally, I like certain artists. For Country, I am also a 'non-fan'. However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. Generally, if I hear that jingle jangle, I'm actively turning it off though.

People like different genres - but people also like different sounds. It's totally possible that someone who entirely rejects, say, metal, would hear like Planet Caravan and change their mind. Or Kingdom by Devin Townsend. Or H. by Tool - or whatever - sometimes its something particular that grabs people rather than the genre. My wife couldn't get on with Choral music until I introduced her to Miserere and Deo Gratias. I think aesthetics are far more nuanced that the sort of crayon/duplo style of lumping things into broad aesthetic categories.

P.S: I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend Evan Bartell's newest lil Ep called To Make You Cry. Particularly the first two tracks, Death of A Good Man and Lulu. Absolutely devastating. That's what country is about to me. Alternately, 'Country Song' by Bo Burnham is hilarious enough that I'm sure you'll get through it.

I think the concept of depression, as pathologized, is utterly demeaning and ridiculous. People get sad. Big fucking whoop. Habit forming behaviour forms habits.

You have to work you mind like your body to avoid deterioration either intellectually or emotionally. This does not reject that depression comes from some chemical imbalance (though, the literature on this is sketchy at best and psychiatry is fucking disgusting and unethical most of the time) and that this is is indeed a condition one can be in. Just like being fat. It sucks, and sympathy is called for. But dealing with depression requires doing hard things you don't want to do. As does almost every worthwhile goal in life. Develop habits and discipline.

Now that that's out of hte way - I was diagnosed chronically depressed when I was 14. I was on heroin at the time. I then moved onto drinking when i quit opiates. I made six genuine attempts on my life during this time (14-about 19). The depression didn't go until i got my shit together and started doing good things for myself. Working out, eating well, forcing myself to socialize, not giving in to irrational and clearly fucking stupid thought patterns. I am not, in any way, saying this is easy. I am saying it is simple. It was this simple for me, and I do not know a single depressed person who has come out of it without doing the above. This says nothing but that this is my experience and in turn, my recommendation. Get out there and involve yourself in the good things in the world.

I think it is folly for the depressive to engage in activist causes which distract and further entrench depressive modes of thinking. Take care of yourself first. There seems to me two very general versions of depression: Narcissistic (most common) and nihilistic (externally fixated). Both can be fixed by engaging with the good as a matter of developing habits. As someone said, it is not exactly bad to feel sad about injustice(though, there is a good chance that if you are depressed you are mislabeling things you don't like as injustice - a rather standard intellectually habitual pitfall) but it is absolutely unhealthy and in fact destructive to focus on injustice over your own wellbeing. One need cultivate resilience, courage and conviction (along with flexibility, honesty and intellectual rigour) before approaching the world and its purported problems in my view.

If all else fails, there is extremely good evidence that structured, supported use of psychedelics is more effective than any known treatment for depression.

Perhaps you don't understand what a non sequitur is. That is a shame, because it is literally the crux of most of your responses. I actually did explain why, also. I can elaborate:

Your responses are not in line with the questions asked of you, or the points put forward. They are AOC type prevarications that do not relate, and do not follow, from what was said or asked. That is the nature of a non sequitur.

This is why I gave an opportunity for you to explain slowly, and like i'm five, why you asked the question, If the above is supposed to answer that question, it does not. It is some unrelated gripe you have with some unnamed person with an amorphous view you're not pinning down vis a vis the actual position being put forward. Non sequitur. Your complaint about your own bad wordings is not anyone elses problem. That's something to either reflect on, or in good faith understand and reject. Up to you.

The fact is people are moved by words. There is literally not an argument you can make against the demonstrable, historical and extant fact that this is so. Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance).

Thanks for your reply. Interesting way to spin it (i do not mean that as in 'deceptive'. Just that we al see things 'a way'). I don't think Trump is a serious enough person for all that, myself. Very much the kind of information I was looking for though; appreciated!

As to the question: I don't know. I am an 'act as if' type person for things that risky, so I don't particularly care about whether its 'true'. I think taking care of the planet is a good idea. It sounds like perhaps you're on a similar track.

While I appreciate you chiming in, this doesn't give me anything that i was after.

I asked a specific question only answerable by those who hold the views I outlined. While I don't expect a good-faith response for the reasons you put forward, I want one.

If you can, carefully, and as if i am five, explain why you asked this double-sided question, I might be able to answer you.

Currently, this doesn't make any sense as a response to noting your non sequitur (given you have no done anything to dissuade me from your plentiful non sequiturs, i am confident enough in that assessment anyway).

On a "totally unrelated" type of basis, both of those things are true.

Ah yep, fair enough. Yes, the whole 'death or taxes' mentality seems ridiculous to me.

As I say, this was not a critique. I just add to your comments.
I shall further add that these other elements are also coercive, of the enforcement apparatus, as to what they coerce the populous into.

There is a clear circularity to the idea that the power of the people controls what coerces tehmselves.

Hey man, sorry it takes me so long to reply. — Jeremy Murray

No trouble!! I sometimes go a couple of weeks without replying here. It takes some effort and time that I don't always have. No harm/no foul my man :)

I don't want to waste anyone's time. — Jeremy Murray

That's quite a hard thing to do, despite what Banno and 180 might say :P

I don't believe that any moral system could ever be universal. It feels to me as if your responses have been towards that premise. — Jeremy Murray

Definitely part of it - most theories are intended to become a universal (i.e realists are of the opinion moral facts can be understood, which is a form of raciocination, being a universal human trait (barring aberration)). It's unique (and something I run with) that theories for morality cannot be universal. Looking for such is a "waste of time" as it serves no moral purpose to do so, under any theory, really.

My argument is that without an 'aspirational' element, moral systems become static and irrelevant, or at least, ineffective. — Jeremy Murray

I see what you mean. Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I think that is true, but I also think that is, roughly, baked-into moral theories. They require that you aspire toward their ideal description of any given decisions/act. No?

Who do you see doing this? — Jeremy Murray

One extremely good example (though, I understand potentially contention) is Islam. The teachings of Islam (and conversely the behaviour of conservative-radical Muslims who adhere) are virtuous, by their lights, in almost every way one would want virtue to manifest. But this is clearly not what Anscombe had in mind.

The average person today is either a utilitarian (often, a moral relatavist outsourcing their morality to experts), or deontological (usually premised on religion). — Jeremy Murray

Huh. Hte most common refrain I hear from anywhere really is "I just try to be a good person". It's rare for someone to come with some 'principled' morality when asked, in my experience. Interesting take on the other two - they seem to be true deliberative systems. I can't see them as lacking a need for critical thought. Divine Command seems the best candidate there.

As a catch-all comment on the sections I missed between those last two replies, I would say I think we are fairly close on how we see 'woke'. But I also hasten to add that this seems to be a result of stupid people doing 'woke'. Those who are 'woke' who can have a reasonable conversation don't seem to fall into these traps. I think its a maturity issue, rather than a particularly pernicious ideological one. That said, there's an added non-moral position which is the whole "in or out" mentality which seems more to do with logistics and avoiding drawn-out analysis than a moral deflection.

I am advocating for people to chose to improve their morality, via practice, whatever method makes sense to them, while also sort of figuring out that virtue ethics might be a path for me personally, having come to a point where I can find no meaning aside from choosing to make a choice. — Jeremy Murray

So, in reverse: Great. That's a good way of working through things Imo, and coming to self-directed conclusions. I do not think people are able to 'improve' their morality without understanding that morality is subjective. Otherwise, it couldn't be improved. It would 'be' and we simply aspire to a rubric. I am an emotivist ethically, and morally I do no follow 'named' systems as best I can tell. Most here have been surprised and even taken a-back by my position.

To me, the problems of deontology are most obvious in terms of informing social policy - whose deontology? — Jeremy Murray

Kantian, usually. Deontology tries to take inarguable obligations and turn them into rules, as best I can tell. So the "who" relates to "everyone" in the system. I reject it, too.

Utilitarianism seems deontological as well, in a sense, because this too promotes a 'correct' moral action, assuming you can calculate the moral math. — Jeremy Murray

The thing Utilitarianism gives us, though, is room to be wrong or to disagree. Utilitarians can simply have different weight on different elements of a calculus. They may come up with totally different utils for the same actions/outcomes. This makes it more flexible imo, and more directed toward actual reality than principle. Deontologists would give up Anne Frank. Utilitarians would not.

Virtue ethics seems the only path that allows for rapid change, at least, on the social side of things. — Jeremy Murray

I agree, but in light of how 'virtue' works socially, I think its more a performance game in practice. Some of the problem wth 'woke' is found here.

Re-reading that list and thinking about other possible names to add, I can't help but note that it appears only black academics can critique wokeness from the left. — Jeremy Murray

I would add a few: Glenn Loury, Susan Neiman, Elisabeth Roudinesco and Ben Cobley. So, not just Black writers. But I see what you mean, and I take your point quite well. The concept that you cannot speak on a topic you aren't directly, and personally embroiled in is both pernicious and clear false. It is the other way around.

And I was curious about VE being higher than the other two, I assume this is just the nature of the profession? Everybody studies the Greeks? — Jeremy Murray

I think it's more that more and more philosophers have come to the realisation that while they may accept that there are moral facts, these are descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, the other theories to hand cannot be worked adequately under that weight. If the descriptive facts are what we need to go by, we can't be 'principled' because the facts have, do, and always will change.

I certainly don't see much evidence of virtue ethics in 'the wild'. I see tribal conformity and almost no disagreement, which is only likely in a virtue ethical model? — Jeremy Murray

Really? Moral disagreement seems to be hte order of the day, locally, globally, politically, socially.... Can you expand on what you mean here?

Morality is just practicing morality, maybe? Always trying to chose morally, even if that is inherently a personal act? — Jeremy Murray

I think this is all the term 'morality' can capture.

He (and you, though this more an addition than critique) are also missing that government speech by way of legislation is clear, highly-effective coercion.