I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely. — Xtrix

I honestly don't think he read my posts thoroughly. He keeps going on about use of the word "cause", when I'm talking more generally about there just being a "connection".

My position is that ... the grounding is nothing more than ... ground.
— Relativist

You make quite a tautology here. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not a point I made. You omitted relevant words, and I think you know that.

If you're hinting that I did the same, I need you to explain. What I left out was your assertion that conceptions of good/evil are arbitrary, but this doesn't seem to change what you consider to be the grounding. You simply indicated it was arbitrary BECAUSE of being "grounded in a knowledge of good and evil". So it sure seemed to me you were saying the concepts were grounded in the knowledge, which makes no sense. If this is a misunderstanding, then please clarify.

I don't think this is really an issue of ignorance on NOS's part but some kind of political positioning. Best just to leave it imo as he seems wedded to the incoherency. — Baden

I won't pester him again to justify his denying a "connection", but his political positioning was shattered when he admitted that circumstances were a necessary condition. For example, access to guns is a necessary condition to most mass killings.

Yes. Guns are part of a culture. Gun people think slaughters are acceptable risks. — Jackson

I suspect they have a mental block - they refuse to see a relation between the proliferation of weapons and gun violence. It's true that mass murderers are mentally deranged, and so they think no further. It is impossible to identify and treat all such potential murderers. Maximizing gun rights assures that some crazies will obtain guns and kill.

All I know is that if I am ever confronted with an armed robber or murderer, I would like to have a gun. — NOS4A2

This is a reasonable statement, and as long as you are a responsible gun owner - I have no problem with you having firearms for self-protection.

The problems are caused by gun owners who are irresponsible, or worse- crazy. That's what gun control measures should address. It would be ideal to seek controls that minimize impact to sane, responsible gun-owners but impede the crazy and irresponsible.

Even today all those B&W TV shows of the '50s and '60s, like Gunsmoke, are available and have followers. But I think there's a trend away from games of gun violence, so there is hope a future America will be less inclined to imaginary and actual violence. — jgill

Living here in Texas, I see a lot of adults who like playing cowboy, and identify with the cowboy myths perpetuated by westerns.

Chris Rock caused Will Smith to slap him, but he didn't have to slap him. Wrap your head around the "could have done otherwise" idea. Head exploding emoji here. — Hanover

NOS4A2 agreed that the circumstances were a necessary condition for the slap: had Chris Rock not been on stage, and had he not made the joke, Smith would not have been in position to choose to slap Rock. Of course this has no bearing on blame or moral accountability. I don't insist he label these circumstances as "cause" or "a causal factor", although at least some philosophers would do so, but it's absurd to say there is no connection between necessary conditions and the event.

Therefore, I conclude NOS4A2 is being irrational, because he insists there is no connection. I'm happy to hear some defense of NOS4A2's claim, but all he's given me is his unsupported judgment ("no connection").

Necessary conditions to an event do not comprise a connection to that event?!?!

Conditions are connections now? I don’t think so.

The birth of Will Smith caused the slap on Chris Rocks face. You heard it hear first. — NOS4A2

I'm not debating the semantics of "cause", and I said that already. You agreed that the circumstances are a necessary condition. How do you rationalize the claim that a necessary condition is not a connection?

I do disagree because it’s also consistent with the criticisms of counterfactual causation. — NOS4A2

You disagree with labeling it a causal factor, but that's irrelevant. There IS a connection: the circumstances are a necessary condition, as you agreed.

Will Smith would not have slapped Chris rock had Will Smith had not been born. If will smith’s birth was the cause of the slap, I cannot agree.

It's absolutely true that had Smith nor been born, the slap wouldn't have occurred- this is another connection.

You're basically saying you disagree with my labeling the circumstances as a causal factor. Regardless, I showed that my view is consistent with David Lewis (and others, BTW). It doesn't really matter what label you use because you agreed with this:

1. The circumstances were caused.
2. Had those circumstance not occurred, Smith wouldn't have had the choice to make.

This reflects a connection between the circumstances and the act. You can't erase this connection by some convenient definition of causation.

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas?
— Relativist

A creature capable of abstract reasoning. — Merkwurdichliebe

Describe a scenario whereby ungrounded abstract reasoning leads to the golden rule. My position is that the relevant abstract reasoning is grounded in feelings. You disagree, and indicated the grounding is nothing more than abstract reasoning itself - no other ground.

Conceptions of good and evil are ... grounded in a knowledge of good and evil — Merkwurdichliebe

Circular.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Leaving the counterfactuals aside, we can examine the video and see that Will Smith animates himself, with no outside force or condition lifting him into the air, no strings attached to his limbs walking him up onto stage to slap Chris Rock. — NOS4A2

You made a good case for Smith's moral accountability, which I never disputed. You have not shown that circumstances are not part of the cause.

My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure, we can say ethics is based on ethical ideas, but it begs the question: what's the basis of the ethical ideas? Moral imperatives aren't merely arbitrary propositions stored in the memory bank. No one needs to instruct you to behave in ways that contribute to self-preservation, nor apply this vicariously. These are grounded in feelings, not in words.

if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid?

All feelings lead us in intellectual directions. Words like "love" and "hate" have no meaning at all without the experience of the feeling. But sure, all feelings are valid and influence our intellectual directions. Hate and fear lead people to rationalize killing in war or for self-preservation.

It doesn’t follow that the circumstances are a part of the cause. The fact that it was the Oscars does not mean the Oscars were a cause of Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock. — NOS4A2

Here's how David Lewis defined causal dependence:

An event E causally depends on C if, and only if, (i) if C had occurred, then E would have occurred, and (ii) if C had not occurred, then E would not have occurred.

Where E= Chris Rock's cheek pain at that date and time, the circumstances (that you agreed were a necessary condition) are part of the cause.

#2 means the circumstances were a necessary condition for the act of hitting to take place - that means it is part of the cause. (As I've said, this has no bearing on moral accountability).

Can anyone give me an example of an argument that we know is deductively valid and has correct premises but do not have knowledge of the structure of? Is there a sub-branch of philosophy that deals with such things? I can't find anything on it anywhere. — ToothyMaw

What makes you think there is such a thing?

It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures — Merkwurdichliebe

If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality.

Sure. However:

1. The circumstances were caused.
2. Had those circumstance not occurred, Smith wouldn't have had the choice to make.

You avoided admitting that the circumstances (in which a choice is made) have been caused

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him? — NOS4A2

Of course not. Smith made a choice in the circumstances he was in. However, those circumstances came into being by factors outside of Smith.

Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated — NOS4A2

I'm astounded that you believe Smith would have hit Chris Rock even had Chris not been on the stage or opened his mouth to speak. That's totally irrational.

A period is a fuzzy concept. It could mean a small, physical mark, of no specific shape, a set of pixels; an abstract concept, a word that English speakers interpret as a semantic clue. I'm only reifying it if I treat it as an abstract object that exists in the world. I assure you, I don't.

The problems with "period" aren't present for electron. I regard an electron as a type of ontic object, -specifically, objects with a certain set of properties (such as -1 electric charge, a specific rest mass, etc). I gather you disagree, so I'd like to understand your point of view.

A ‘kind’ is not a category, object, identity. It is a differentiation. There are no quantities within kinds. — Joshs

Isn't "electron" a kind? Do they not all have an electric charge of quantity -1?

What I reject is the idea that the regularity and consistency of physical relations reduces to differences of degree that are not at the same time differences in kind.
Put differently, quantitative measurement introduces qualitative change at every repetition of the counting. — Joshs

I don't follow you, but I'll elaborate on my view: laws of nature are relations between kinds of things. Kinds are universals, and laws of nature are universals. This is the metaphysical theory of law realists.

Your first sentence sounds consistent with law realism. I don't know what to make of your second sentence, other than that it sounds like an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Please explain.

Are you a nominalist?

I was with you in your first paragraph. But the fact that there is structure to the world does not mean that the world comes to our awareness packaged an ‘inherent’ way that is already mathematical. Nature became mathematizable when we contributed our own peculiar interpretive structures to it. — Joshs

No, it's not packaged in an inherent way, but the success of our inferred mathematical relations suggests there is an ontological basis to it.

As you can see, I’m a mathematical constructivist, not a platonist.

I'm also not a Platonist. I have an Aristotelian view of immanent universals (more directly: an Armstrongian view).

Like I said, what if guns were taken out of circulation yet the degree of violence continued with cases of stabbings that effectively made little difference to the kill count? — I like sushi

Real world experience shows that it does make a difference. See this.

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. — magritte

I don't agree that empathy entails assessing the mental state of others. Rather, it is a vicarious feeling - reacting as if it were happening to ourselves (hence it is also tied to self-preservation).

Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states?

Why think they exist independently of the minds that hold them? The concept of Spider-Man can be shared despite there not existing such a person.

How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.

The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment.

specifically at gun control. My point is why everyone is obsessed with this debate rather than focusing more carefully on what drives someone to kill in the manner they do in the US whilst in other countries this kind of thing is rare. — I like sushi

Mental health problems exist in every country. Access to guns is the distinguishing factor.

Why is math effective? Because there is structure to the world that is describable with mathematics.

Why is the world describable with mathematics? Because there are regular, consistent physical relations between objects that have an inherent mathematical component (like an inverse square law).

Why are these relations present? They just are. We're they not, we would not be here to question.

Why is it more reasonable to expect an absence of such relations?

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent. — magritte

Theists define Objective Moral Values (OMVs) as objectively existing (ontic) objects that exist independently of human beings. By asserting the existence of OMVs, they infer that a God must exist as their source. I don't believe such things exist.

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule".

The golden rule is "objective truth" in the sense that it feels right to all proper functioning humans - all have the root feelings, and therefore agree with it. It's a property of humanness; it's part of our makeup. But the rules don't exist independently of us.

Well science keeps pointing to a Regular and Rational nature of reality. There are mysterious aspects of reality but every mystery we solve tends to verify the above rational and regular nature of our world.
So I don't see any difference between the term supernatural and a label we use as an "answer" to a mystery. — Nickolasgaspar

The supernatural would be some aspect of reality that is apart from the rational/regular nature of the natural world, not merely an unsolved mystery of the natural world. Consider that we don't know what dark matter is, but no knowledgeable person would label it as supernatural.

How did things get this out of hand? And secondly, how much more government redundancy and representation is needed to make Americans feel safe regarding our democracy? — TiredThinker

Enthusiasts want guns for self-protection, hunting, or because it's a fun hobby. The claim that it's to prevent tyranny is cover, to provide a facade of nobility to their hobby, and it's utter nonsense.

How did things get out of hand? NRA propaganda played a big part. They created the memes that created the sense of self-righteousness so many have.

When mass shootings occur, somehow the debate is always about gun control and never about why kids are massacring kids. — Tzeentch

Really? The Governer and Lt. Governer of Texas are talking about mental health problems today. Not that they'll do anything about it, but they'd rather talk about this than the fact that the only recent changes to Texas gun laws were to make it even easier to buy one.

I haven't disagreed about agency - of course everyone is accountable for their own direct acts - irrespective of their information environment. But this doesn't negate the fact that information has influence.

Suppose your next door neighbor has a swastika tattoo, a number of guns, and you often hear him ranting about (n-word)s. Would you share with him complaints about negative encounters you'd had with specific black individuals - knowing that he might take aggressive action against them? If he murders a 10 year old who threw rocks at your car, were your complaints not a factor that led to the murder?

Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values....Animals may show empathy and fairness, — Matias66

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule".

Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. — Matias66

They have limited powers of abstraction and limited ability to speak to one another.

A connection, influence, the words caused me to go buy something—it’s all figurative. None of it negates the conscious, decision-making process, which is the true cause of one’s activity. Words cause none of it. — NOS4A2

Of course we make conscious decisions, and bear responsibility for those decisions. But an optimal decision making process consists of a deliberation based on information that has come to our attention. This information comprises an external influence - it is a factor. In the absence of certain information, the specific decision would not have been made. It is therefore part of the causal chain.

If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith

If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?

It's a hasty generalization for dogs and Myanmar-ites. But you don't have to judge either group to still behave prudently when you encounter another.

In general, your questions are very good. I'll need to think about them some more.

Personally, I would avoid events of this kind. — Wayfarer

Not a problem. At my age, such events avoid me.

It's not the new covid, its the new AIDS, aka 'gay plague'. — unenlightened

It's not even the new AIDS, because there's already a vaccine for it.