Which is an empirical claim and so subject to counter-argument. — Isaac

Sure. That much I agree with. (And of course, that part isn't an ethical claim.)

Have you conducted or read a survey of "everything people don't like" to see how many different things there would actually turn out to be? — Isaac

Just informally, from living and observing people over the course of almost 60 years.

It also contains a logical claim (a known fallacy in fact) that a direction on a scale includes all points of that scale (slippery slope fallacy). — Isaac

? I'm not saying anything about a "direction on a scale" or "including all points," so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

There's no logical link between legislating against some perceived harms and legislating against all perceived harms. — Isaac

I didn't say anything at all like that. Again, it's a simple fact that if we were to try to control everything that every single person doesn't care for--control it to try to get rid of the things they don't care for--it would be impossible, because the control would necessarily involve creating situations that other people don't care for, because people have conflicting desires.

So it's not possible to have a situation where some people are not subjected to stuff they don't like.

Plus, why would that be a moral normative at all? — Isaac

I'm fine with saying it's not a moral normative. I didn't have anything invested in it being a moral normative. I'm just explaining that it's why I don't use something so broad as "caring about the welfare of others" as a basis for any moral stance.

So you're telling me that you're incapable of remembering or looking up your own argument from earlier on in the discussion about throwing rocks off of a building? (Assuming that's what you're referring to, since you didn't quote me in your reply). — S

The problem is that I didn't state an argument. I simply stated what my policy would be. What my policy would be isn't an argument for the policy.

So why are you choosing to interpret it in a way that reads like gibberish? — S

I couldn't figure out a more sensible way to read it. Hence querying about it.

So your claim is what? You were just born that way? This feeling just popped into your head one day? Because I think the same as you, but I quite clearly think it because toughness is a virtue which I have good reason to believe will lead to a society of people better of than otherwise. Ie we still get down to the vague notion of a 'better' society. — Isaac

It's not based on anything like idea of what would "lead to a better society,"

That's based on the fact that anyone could find anything conceivable not to their liking, and it would be impossible to control/put sanctions on everything everyone had a problem with, especially because people often have a problem with conflicting things. (For example, "I have a problem with the truck idling below my apartment window" and "I have a problem with not being able to get deliveries to my restaurant from refrigerated trucks,"--those are conflicting things to control.)

I actually forgot that the first post in the thread even mentioned racism. It seemed weird in the context of where the discussion is now to bring up racism, lol.

Yes. Put (very) simply I believe that you cannot rationally hold an absolutist position about free speech, and also a concern for the welfare of those around you without contradiction. — Isaac

I wouldn't say something like "I have a concern for the welfare of those around me" without qualification. Because that's way too vague. It's like very broad/general statements about "suffering" and "harm," Both way too vague in my opinion.

For example, I think that people should often enough be potentially subject to, and should often enough subject themselves to, things that they do not like, things that they would rather were different, etc.

Many people might call those things "suffering" or "harms" or "negative re welfare." And maybe some wouldn't, but I'd have no way of knowing whether a particular person considers the stuff in question "suffering" etc. without asking them how they categorize. So terms like that are too vague for my tastes, too vague to represent my views, etc.

======================

It's kind of patronizing to think that someone has the view they have due to probably not thinking about the consequences of it. Rather, they probably would disagree with you whether the consequences are acceptable or even desirable.

It's weird that we get someone to come to the board, post an argument like this, post back and forth about it for a bit, then leave the board for good.

There are plenty of people who think both that (a) objective morality exists, and (b) God does not exist.

In fact, some people became quite famous based primarily on their views about this.



It's not a view I agree with, but many people are going to balk at the first premise, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."

And even though I disagree with Objectivism a la Rand, even though I'm an ethical subjectivist, I also think this first premise is false logically. God is not logically necessary for objective morality to exist. (And in fact, if God literally has a mind and morality is a product of his mind, then even with God existing and issuing moral edicts, morality is not objective. Objectivity has to be independent of minds, period, not just human minds.)

Obviously as an ethical subjectivist I think that the second premise is false as well.

"My moral valuings are not necessarily moral values", something which I think you wouldn't accept without justification. — Echarmion

Right. That's the part I disagreed with.

Well, if privileges don't exist for you then no wonder you don't see it as an ethical issue. It seems to me that you're admitting that privileges are subjective. Some admit they exist or not to some degree or another. — Harry Hindu

I don't think that whether they exist is subjective, and the concept of them isn't ethical (though most thinking about the implications of them and all thinking about what should be done about it, when one thinks something should be done about it, IS ethical).

The problem, on my view, is that conclusions about this stuff are made, at best, on statistical data--about things like demographic data re mortgages, unemployment claims, tax returns, etc.:

(a) without critically looking at the many data collection/reporting issues that can make the statistics unreliable, misrepresentative, or even make crucial data unobtainable,

(b) while making very dubious assumptions about connections between different statistics,

(c) while making very dubious assumptions about causes/motivations of anything behind the statistics.

Or like I said--the epistemic methods fueling these claims suck, but not many people care about that. One side likes the narrative they've created and the other side likes combating it on its own terms.

The issue here is with the identity of moral values and values in general. If they are "one and the same", every member of the set "my valuings" is also a member of the set "moral valuings". But that would be an absurd claim. — Echarmion

Ah. Wouldn't you normally just assume that "my valuings" is "my (moral) valuings," but where "moral" isn't repeated because that should be clear from context?

I would rather be surprised to learn that someone who wrote that sentence was thinking of "my valuings" in a literal, context-independent way, to refer to every single thing they value, moral or not.

Was your position in this part of the discussion based on whether you think there was a contradiction?

Ok, so we agree that privileges exist. — Harry Hindu

I'm not even agreeing with that, really, especially not privileges that are at all due to "race." (I'm putting "race" in quotation marks because I believe it's a bogus concept to begin with.)

I'm just familiar with the concepts, and I thought it was odd that you were saying that the concept of privilege is an ethical concept. I was just providing info that conventionally, the concept of privilege is not itself an ethical concept.

Again, I'm not endorsing any sort of view in that clarification.

I think that most talk about these issues is very dubious, because it seems to be pretty uniformly executed with really bad epistemic methods behind it.

If it said: "if moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same."

Then it would be pointless, because that doesn't describe any subjectivist position. It's clearly nonsense to claim that "moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same". — Echarmion

Do you mean just because of "my"?

I read "If moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same" to amount to "If moral valuings and the valuings of subjects are one and the same." I know that "literally" it's not the same, but I don't figure that anyone is going to literally equate all moral valuings with only their own valuings, unless they're also a solipsist, which is unlikely. So I figure that "my" is a way to say "one's," with a connotation that we're talking about every one.

Do let's continue this as my favorite sidebar though: discussing how to discuss things, with an emphasis on criticism of how I discuss things, as if that's going to lead to me discussing things any differently than I do.

what definition of racism are you using? — Hassiar

Interesting first post in context, lol

Well, the evidence of my own experience, for a start. Ar you telling me you don't have a 'position' in this discussion. That if I did a quick poll now asking "what is Terrapin's position on free speech?" the majority of people reading this thread would answer "we haven't a clue, Terrapin doesn't really seem to have a 'position' on this one"? — Isaac

I wouldn't call my stance on free speech a "position in the discussion" and re the context you presented it especially doesn't have anything to do with basing anything on the notion of contradictions.

If I ran a second poll asking people whether they thought you'd expressed any 'position' on the opposite view regarding whether it was consistent, rational etc, you think I'd get a similar answer — Isaac

So then let's present any evidence that I'm criticizing any ethical views on whether they're consistent, or whether I'm criticizing any views at all on whether they're "rational."

I think it's obvious to anyone that you have a 'position' in this, and any other discussion, and that that 'position' extends to, quite bombastically, pointing out what you think are flaws in the opposing arguments. — Isaac

Take my first post in this thread. I said:

"In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

"I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence."

That's just giving a different view, because I have a different view. It's not pointing out "flaws" in the other argument. It's a different view.

My second post, the fourth post after the above on the first page, is just clarifying my view that speech doesn't cause violence in light of a standard question about that. Again, that's not pointing out "flaws" in the other argument. It's further explaining my own view. It's not an argument for my view, just more details about my view.

My third post, in response to a comment about my second, said, "That's not a direct cause because I could just tell him to screw off. I have to decide to do what was asked (well, or 'commanded')"

which is again explaining my view in counterdistinction to the one presented. I'm explaining why I don't consider that causal. It's not an argument for my view. I'm stating (a) how I use the term "cause," and implying that (b) in order for me to think that something is a moral or legal problem, it has to involve causality in the way I use that term. Again, this is simply giving more details. I didn't state that I consider causes to only involve force, but that should have been contextually clear from my comment. At this point we also begin moving away from the ethics discussion, because people begin to want to have an ontological discussion about causality.

My next post, a few below that (I'm not quoting the whole thing because it was longer), was again responding to questions, so I give more details--though not arguments--about my view (this time also re fraud, etc.). So still no arguments from me, no "bombastically pointing out what I think are flaws in opposing arguments." Not that I never point out flaws in other arguments, when someone actually presents an argument (see Bartricks' threads, for example), but much of the time, that's not at all what I'm doing. You might read it that way because of your own biases, and maybe many others do, too, but that's not what I'm doing much of the time.

If you're not going to state what the supposed argument is, etc., there's nothing I can do about it.

Re the "position comment," if he's just stating that we're going to give opinions, express views, stances, etc. okay, but that would be a weird way to state that, especially in the context of "must be based on whether you think there's a contradiction," which just reads like gibberish to me.

Saying that one thing is more likely than something else isn't saying that the more likely thing is the case, unless we're going to argue that unlikely things never happen, but that would be ridiculous.

But your position in any discussion must surely be based on whether you think there's a contradiction, and whether you think it should be avoided. — Isaac

No idea why you'd think I'd even have a "position" in a discussion, much less one based on whether I think there's a contradiction.

My position in a discussion is either (a) that I'm interested in things other people are saying for some reason, so I want to talk with them more and find out more, or (b) I want to express my opinion about something, especially if it's not an opinion that's already been expressed, and maybe someone else will find it interesting for whatever reason and want to talk about it more.

Glad I manged to make an exception to your general rule... — Isaac

The second part you quoted wasn't an automatic assumption. It was a comment made after interacting with you many times.

That you're the sort of person who routinely can't manage things like discerning the difference between an "automatic assumption" and a comment made after interacting with you many times is part of what motivated the second comment.

Yes, and my example shows that. — S

I have no idea where you think you showed that. And again, his comment was in the context of someone stating an argument. I didn't state any arguments, a fortiori because I don't even believe there are true or false ethical utterances.

An event is not the same as an experience, in my view — Possibility

No one is suggesting that.

You had said, "I’m not sure I follow how concepts, ideas, desires, etc are not experiences (albeit internal ones), even according to these conventional definitions"

The definitions in question are about a relationship to events. If you want to argue that a concept is an experience per the definitions in question, we have to be talking about a relationship we have to events when we're talking about concepts. So I asked you if you considered concepts to be events.

If a concept is defined as something about experiences, as you suggest, then a concept can't itself be identical to an experience, otherwise you're defining a term by a relationship it has to itself.

First, what is privilege for one, which is to say what is good for one, may not be good for another. There are many people who don't see material pleasures as a privilege. They can be a crutch. It depends on how you look at life and how you're raised.

The problem you are complaining about is everywhere majorities and minorities exist, across the globe. How can you enforce people from choosing mostly whites for a job when mostly whites are available for the job? How can you force people to "choose" who they associate with? — Harry Hindu

I wasn't endorsing the idea, by the way. I was just saying that it's not an ethical idea. As I said, "Privilege has to do with advantages that someone has--the idea is that it makes it easier for them to get and keep a job, earn more money in that job, rent and buy real estate, deal with the police, etc."

If someone doesn't want to get or keep a job, earn more money rather than less at a job, etc., that's fine. Nevertheless the idea of privilege is that it's easier to get and keep a job, earn more money at that job, etc. That's not an ethical idea.

Citation please. — Bartricks

You're saying you don't have a keyboard? Or maybe you don't know if you do?

And that's why broad agreement is useful — S

What Isaac was saying wasn't that a broad agreement is useful period. (Not that he'd disagree with that, but that's not what he was saying.)

He was saying that assuming widely accepted ethical normatives was useful for having an ethics discussion in a philosophy context.

I’m not sure I follow how concepts, ideas, desires, etc are not experiences (albeit internal ones), even according to these conventional definitions. — Possibility

So in your view a concept that you have is an event?

In posts like this, you imply that the right answer hinges on a consensus. But in other posts, you make it clear that if your view isn't the same as the consensus, the consensus is wrong.

Do you mean people would be less likely to lie cause it would be harder for them to lie without getting caught? — L Michaud

No. Less likely to believe things that people say just because they say them.

absolute freedom to lie, with zero consequences ever. — L Michaud

Well, the consequences would be speech consequences (in other words, responses via speech), credibility consequences, etc.

You have the internet. Do some research — Bartricks

You've got a keyboard. Be able to support claims that you forward.

must they have the same morality?

Virtually everyone - I mean, virtually everyone - gets the rational intuition that they do — Bartricks

To the extent that you've actually done a survey on this--posting your present comments in this thread, it seems like no one other than you thinks they must have the same morality.

Conventional definitions don't interest me. Explain it to me. — Tzeentch

That's fine, but how am I supposed to know what unconventional definition you're using? You'd have to tell me.

Conventional definitions of "experience":

"direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge"

"something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through"

"practical contact with and observation of facts or events."

Could you describe what you think the overall effects on society would be if there really was pure freedom of speech in your kingdom? — L Michaud

It has to just be speculation, but one thing that I'd hope would result is that people would be much more skeptical of speech in general. When it's the case that, for example, slanderous/libelous claims can be prosecuted, people tend to think, "If so and so was allowed to say that without legal repercussion, it must be true." When there's no legal recourse, people realize that something isn't true just because someone said it.

I'm a relatively old dude. I used to watch "Fantasy Island" occasionally when it was new.

Your last point (about not allowing violence in response to free speech) have me wonder about your definition of violence. Are you considering psychological violence? — L Michaud

I don't consider psychological effects to be violence.

If I were king we'd not have a capitalist system. No one would be firing anybody.

Explain to me the difference between mind and experience, then. — Tzeentch

I just did. Concepts, ideas, desires etc. are also mental phenomena. They're not experiences.

Being real is defined as "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" while existing, does not mean that whatever is being discussed needs to be physically present. Therefore, every possible thing that could be imagined, exists, it just may not be real. — Bay3z

If being real is "actually existing," and that's different than just imagining things, then imagined things don't actually exist, do they?

By ignoring what happened after slavery ended — Echarmion

But I didn't say anything like that. I just said that we haven't had slavery in over 150 years. You said that the literal claim is that the present situation is connected to slavery.

That it's connected to slavery . . . — Echarmion

If that's the literal claim then how was I taking it "unreasonably literally"?

You think it's impossible to establish a causal connection between past and present? — Echarmion

When we're talking about something with so many variables and a 150+ year separation, yes.

You're taking the claim unreasonably literally. — Echarmion

In my view, when we're doing philosophy, we need to make literal claims, especially if it's something that's supposed to be important, supposed to have a lot of significance. So what would the literal claim be?

For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery, the next best thing when slavery was no longer possible. For another, to assess the impact of slavery on the current state of affairs, we still need to look at what happened after the emancipation. And it turns out the former slaves were not allowed an even footing even then. — Echarmion

That sounds like you're talking about something historical primarily. If we're trying to connect something about slavery to something about conditions at present, I think it's going to be more or less impossible.

First, regardless of what we're talking about, I don't assume that something that seems like a contradiction to me both (a) would seem like a contradiction to the person who said it, and (b) is something that the person would think they should avoid (just in case it would seem like a contradiction to them).

The reason I so often post where I'm asking someone a question is that I'm literally, straightforwardly asking them a curiosity question about their views and how they work in their perspective. That's because it's not clear to me based on what they said, relative to how I think, but I don't automatically assume that people are morons who are posting something they just came up with two minutes ago.

If the person can't or won't respond to questions in good faith, then I might change my tune, especially if they start attacking me or something.

Considering mind is an experience, and body is a physical object, I'm actually curious what the argument is for these two being the same? — Tzeentch

Minds have experiences . . . and lots of other phenomena, too--thoughts, concepts, desires, etc.

Phenomena, and properties in general, are what physical things in dynamic relations are like. They're qualities or characteristics they have.

The situation didn't end 150 years ago (if we are talking about the US). It ended perhaps 60 years ago, at best. — Echarmion

There weren't slaves in the US 60 years ago.

The claim was that it's connected to slavery.