Because hate speech has consequences, as everything does. But in the case of hate speech, all of the consequences are negative and undesirable. It should not be permitted because it has no positive benefits or attributes. It does only harm. — Pattern-chaser

Consequences such as?

Why would I necessarily defer to someone else's opinion?

As I just noted above, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with.

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with.

Agreed. Which is why you shouldn’t offend people unless you have good reason to believe it will help them later — khaled

?? No idea how you see this as an implication.

For a given definition of "feel", this may be accurate. — Echarmion

But that's all we emotivists are referring to.

But I think it would be wrong to dismiss the different role the justification plays for moral stances as opposed to emotions. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what this is saying.

That's really interesting and l agree with placing truth values on metaethic statements but I think that they belong to realm of logic and language — Wittgenstein

I'd say the realm of ontology, because it's talking about what ethics is/what its nature is, as an existent, so to speak.

At any rate, I'm definitely an emotivist/noncognitivist--or subjectivist as I'd usually put it.

There is nothing to recommend hate speech; it should not be permitted — Pattern-chaser

Why would you say that it shouldn't be permitted?

With certain assumptions/rules yes. So if something like "Lying is wrong" is a starting assumtion then "Lying to your frined is wrong" is true. — khaled

If someone were to say both "Lying is wrong" and "Lying to your friend is okay," then they're probably just not expressing their view very clearly or in enough detail or with enough qualifications. They're probably not saying something they'd agree is false (re "Lying to your fiend is okay") relative to "Lying is wrong" (assuming the idea of that really makes much sense in the first place) if they say both of those things.

If someone doesn't feel that x is morally right/permissible, etc., or that y is morally wrong/impermissible, etc., then I wouldn't say that "x is morally right..."/"y is morally wrong..." is a moral stance that they have.

We can assign truth values to statements about metaethics, for example.

Including that this statement is true:

"Normative ethical/moral stances have no truth value."

How does listening to the bad experiences others went through allow others to understand exactly how the person felt? — BitterClassroomixo

If you can't understand how that works, then you probably lack empathy.

Note that the idea isn't that you literally feel just the way the other person does--you can't even know exactly how they feel (re the other minds problem). It's more that you're able to "put yourself in their shoes" and surmise what something would be like.

In that case I could say you’re making them get past said thing so there is a net benefit across time even if it hurts them right now. This doesn’t count as the example I’m asking for because it has long term benefits which you can argue alleviate more suffering overall than they inflict right now. I’m asking for an example where you can do something that doesn’t hurt anyone, but you choose to do something that does hurt someone and has no net benefit across time. — khaled

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective. Anyone could interpret any arbitrary thing--or everything as a benefit or any arbitrary thing--or everything as a detriment. There's no right answer there. It's just a matter of how an individual feels about it. So there's a net benefit (to a particular person) just in case someone evaluates it that way. There's a net detriment (to a particular other person) just in case someone else evaluates it that way.

I think I understand what you're asking better. Thanks for the added explanation.

The whole point of my view is that talking about the properties of the water in the basin, to use your example, has to be done from some reference point/reference frame (I'm not using reference frame just the same as it's used in physics, just in case someone would think that I am), and talking about it with respect to "the water itself" is just one reference point/frame out of a potential infinity of them, with it not being a preferred reference frame (since there are no objective preferences).

So yes, properties are supervenient (if you like--I think that term can introduce some confusion) on underlying structure, but the underlying structure is "everything in the reference frame." It's only "just the water" from the reference frame of only the water, which isn't a preferred reference frame. (Not that It's not-preferred compared to something else, either--again, there are no objective preferences.)

So, for example, a coin really is round from some reference frames, and it's really oblong from other reference frames.

The idea is a bit like perspective in visual art. Assuming we're trying to do something like realism (or photorealism), the properties of the items depicted will depend on the focal point of the image. From most angles, you can't draw a coin as something round, because it's not really round at that focal point, it's oblong. Or, the coin might really be as large or larger than a mountain from some focal points. That's not an illusion. It's really the way things are at that focal point. The underlying structure is everything in the reference frame, not just the coin, but the relative angle at that focal point, the lighting at that focal point, etc. And on, in, just above etc. the coin are all just different possible focal points.

Focal point, by the way, doesn't imply a sentient creature's perspective. It's simply what things are like (in particular respects that we can represent visually in this case) relative to a particular spatio-temporal points. We can illustrate this sans sentient creatures with any machine that can measure properties from particular spatio-temporal locations--like a camera, for example.

Someone's just skeptical, especially of non-falsifiable claims.

So then it's not a stance about conception. It would be an argument about bringing fetuses to term/giving birth.

If the claim isn't falsifiable, there's no way to say that it's not merely a matter of the narrative that folks want to create, and nothing could possibly sway them from that narrative, even if it has no relation to reality.

Most of this sort of talk--"white privilege, " "male privilege," etc. seems to rest on unfalsifiable claims . . . when it even bothers to make any clear claims about anything that would be empirically establishable in the first place. So it's not at all scientific.

And papers like the Peggy McIntosh paper cited above are loaded with a bunch of subjective evaluative terms like "earned/unearned," "fair/unfair," etc. Those claims are not falsifiable because there are no facts regarding whether anything is earned or not, fair or not, and so on.

What makes anything meaningful is that someone thinks about it associatively. Some x is associated with some y, so that x suggests, implies, connotes or refers to y via thought. The meaning of x isn't y. The meaning is the association, which is a mental act that occurs on a particular occasion.

In terms of definition or reference (which is the y in question), all terms have the ambiguity you refer to re "eternal" for example.

You can take that as pre-birth or pre-conception. — schopenhauer1

Pre-conception, you're not doing anything to anyone by conceiving.

That should be the goal yes. — khaled

Okay, but I don't at all agree with that.

Please give an example where there is a course of action available that produces less suffering for others as well as for oneself and where it is ethical to take anything but that course of action — khaled

You're suggesting a quantification that I don't think is plausible, but at any rate, an example is saying something that offends someone else. I think it's ethical to not avoid offending others, and I think it's often preferable to offend. Offense is a problem with the offendee, something they need to learn to get past. It's not a problem with the offender.

However it is wrong to do something that risks causing someone significantly more risk of harm than the harm it alleviates elsewhere — khaled

Again, I do not agree with this.

Within oneself sounds geographical, are we talking about a location in space? Or does the word "within" have an archaic sense related to the association of a self with a biological enclosed system (body), the primal idea of space? Internality is a concept that needs some explanation. — unreadpages

I'd say that we're definitely talking about something "geographical" as you put it. Yes, it's a spatio-temporal location. Namely, the spatio-temporal location of your brain. Not that everything your brain does is mentality, but all mentality is something that your brain does. Your brain has a location.

Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? — schopenhauer1

Before they're born--but do you mean after conception?

A lot of things that you and khaled are saying now sound like you're fine with conception, but you're advocating necessarily having an abortion after one has conceived.

You're saying what a being perceives at a spatio-temporal location is "what some part of the world is like at that spatio-temporal location".

What do you mean exactly by "including possibly their brain--if they're hallucinating". Are you talking about the being perceiving their own brain, or are you saying that the spatio-temporal location possibly includes their brain? — leo

I wouldn't actually call a hallucination a perception--I reserve perception for information acquired from external things via one's senses. But at any rate, hallucinations give accurate info about the world, information about how one's brain is working. Hallucinations can be related to/in response to perceptions, but the bulk of of isn't a perception.

I understand frame of reference in epistemic terms, but I don't really get how distinct things can have a phenomenal frame of reference. Brains are contiguous and electrons don't care what they are part of. — Forgottenticket

I'm not sure I understand your question. Many properties only obtain via the interactions of many parts/relations.

True, but one bird of influence in the hand is worth two birds of causation in the bush. — Bitter Crank

Huh? :brow:

Speech can influence behavior. — Bitter Crank

Again, influence is different than causing something.

As if either there are correct ways to formulate the concepts, or as if social norms make something correct.

Good points.

Okay.

Just for tomorrow, we could maybe start with these questions:

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.")

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc.

We could also add:

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about.

So we'd need to do something much simpler to start over.

It would help to not approach the simpler start in an argumentative manner.

I see absolutely no resemblance between your chosen policy toward a certain class of beings (a moral principle) and a fact such as which notes are in the key of C major — khaled

I can see that. However, you're thinking it's not your problem.

Sorry this looks messy but I’m on iPad right now. Here you said “because it would create an abnormal situation for that child that would create a lot of problems”. That’s very different from “but not because of any principle” — khaled

It's almost as if you can't comprehend what I'm writing above about nuance, etc.

I'll have a happy burger in response to these threats of imminent violence — Baden

Feel free to send me threats of imminent violence. I'll have a similar reaction to my reaction to your poor attempt to argue via misplaced satire above.

Hold up that wasn’t your response last time — khaled

Hence why there's no way that you're not an Aspie. You're approaching everything like a robot.

You never said you don’t employ your “policy” as a principle. So are you saying you’re fine with changing your policy towards potential people on a whim? — khaled

It was stated as a policy just like stating what notes are in the key of C major.

So if it so happens that the WAY you genetically engineer a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth doesn't involve interacting with the embryo post fertilization in any way I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth for you? — khaled

No, but not because of any principle. I don't do ethics by principle. I think that's a horrible approach, which is why you're spouting the inanities you are re antinatalism, etc.

That's what you said earlier.

Okay, so if not, it doesn't put anyone in an unusual situation.

That's easy, right?

So who does procreating do anything to re putting someone at risk, etc.?

Genetic engineering puts WHO in an unusual situation. — khaled

Is this under what you said earlier where genetic engineering is done on a fertilized egg?

That’s not what I’m asking you to explain. I’m asking you to explain how having a “policy” towards certain actions against certain classes of beings doesn’t count as a moral principle — khaled

The nuances are that I don't use a principle-based approach, why I don't actually employ that as a principle, etc.

If I'm teaching you music, I'm going to explain that the set of notes C D E F G A B (C), centered on C, are the key of C major. I'm not going to explain to you at first that you might just as well find the five notes that aren't included in that list in the key of C major, and it would just as well be C major. That's nuance that's left out.

It's the same idea here.

I said risks putting someone — khaled

Procreating risks putting WHO in an unusual situation? Antinatalism is a stance on procreating, isn't it?