You can’t explain something “every time” if you have never explained it before. Please enlighten my stupid mind with the difference between “having a policy towards certain actions against certain beings” and a moral principle — khaled

I didn't explain that I don't use a principle-based approach to ethics?

Who are you putting in an unusual situation by procreating?

You’ve never stated the nuance between “It is immoral to do X to Y” and a moral principle. Because there is none. — khaled

As you hold up a sign announcing that you don't understand what not stating every nuance every time amounts to. Nice.

Here's what I mean by "selectively stupid," which suggests trolling. You apparently can remember some things I wrote 15-20 pages ago, but you can't remember something I wrote three or four posts ago, and you can't remember that you just wrote, "It doesn't matter what YOU think of life you have no right to take the risk for someone else. "

That's almost as funny as your reading comprehension abilities.

“It is immoral to do certain action X to class of being Y when it is abnormal” is principle based ethics. It is amusing to me that you can’t understand this — khaled

So re you being stupid, didn't I just write, "I'm not going to restate every single nuance in every single post"?

Not to be crass but this is almost laugh out loud funny. "Can you imagine if other people's speech were to be influences on other people? — StreetlightX

Imagine if people couldn't understand the difference between influence and causality. That would be funny, wouldn't it?

When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, which must then be controlled by another external power, then I think we’re going backwards, not forwards. — Possibility

Exactly.

Speaking of being stupid, you're still bringing up the notion that you're "taking a risk for someone else" by procreating.

There's no way you're not an Aspie, by the way. Maybe that's why you're an antinatalist.

You could do that by not replying but you're still replying. That tells me this isn't actually your goal and instead, you just do not believe in any principle morally (subjective or objective) and are literally just trolling everyone on this thread as you proceed to do principle based ethics while claiming you don't like them. — khaled

But I'm not doing principle-based ethics. It is amusing to me that you can't understand this, which is probably why I keep responding to you, but on the other hand, you're also annoying, and kind of stupid in select ways--which suggests that you're rather the one trolling.

But you're employing a principle based approach when you say "My policy on X is Y". — khaled

I'm trying to get you to stop talking really. "What will make this guy finally stop responding to me?" basically.

The reason why is because, for example, I told you 20 pages ago that I don't follow a principle-based approach, yet you can't recall that, you don't care that I told you that, etc.

And yet you started your comment with "My policy on". That's a moral principle if you ask me if a personal one. If you'd said "My temporary policy on" I wouldn't be talking to you in the first place as there would be no point. — khaled

Because I'm not going to restate every single nuance in every single post--that's like having to write "in my opinion" for every sentence. All the way back on page 6, I said to you, "Personally, I'm not a fan of principle-based approaches."

But you expressed a moral principle — khaled

Actually, I explicitly told you, a number of times, that I do not do principle-based ethics.

Okay, but you do say that what a being perceives is what the world really is like from their spatio-temporal location, correct? — leo

It's what some part of the world is like at that spatio-temporal location, sure, including possibly their brain--if they're hallucinating, for example.

So how can you distinguish between perceptions that are accurate and perceptions that are mistaken? — leo

I already addressed this. So why are we going through it again? Keep your responses shorter and let's settle one thing at a time so we don't have to repeat stuff.

So let's stop here for a minute and make sure there's no issue with the first part ("It's what some part of the world is like . . .") so that we don't have to repeat that bit.

That's the point. It doesn't matter what YOU think of life you have no right to take the risk for someone else — khaled

You know that rights are something we make up, right?

I suspect the "you can't even step into the same river once" quip was somebody's attempt to top Heraclitus. — Bitter Crank

Right, and it's fun as something like a Woody Allen joke . . .

Because the forms exist within the divine intellect, which is eternal. From what I understand this is the case with both Platonism and Aristotelianism, but there might be an important distinction I’m not aware of. — AJJ

Ah, so you're not arguing that in general, "the forms that matter takes must (since both accounts posit a divine intellect) have existed prior to - and so also be separate from - their instantiations," you're saying that per your understanding of both Aristotle and Plato, they both are basically asserting this?

If so, I misread you as changing scope for a moment, from a discussion of Aristotle and Plato per se to making a general comment outside of that context.

the forms that matter takes must (since both accounts posit a divine intellect) have existed prior to - and so also be separate from - their instantiations. — AJJ

Because?

In a natural process, the matter (hyle) is never a thing or a stuff. — Dfpolis

Yet another incoherent idea. Nothing exists aside from "things or stuff."

"Imposed form" would refer to forces applied to something (that already has a form, and the forces are applied from something that has matter/form, too.). It's not "passive." See Newton's third law.

I started learning martial arts when I was really young. Through a couple teachers with an interest in it, that led to an interest in Zen, which I still have, though a very casual interest. Through interest in Zen, I of course ran into the "To be born human is to constantly . . . suffer" idea, but that never made any sense to me, and it still doesn't--at least not if "suffering" is supposed to have a negative connotation.

Any idea why we tell students that you can't understand formal logic by plugging natural language into it?

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded. — T Clark

Right, what always happens is that people want increasing restrictions. They keep pushing the envelope on what they think is okay speech to prohibit.

Where is he getting anything wrong? — tim wood

If it's the case that a fact in this case, "I want x," implies an ought, "I ought to do y," then he'd be getting "I ought not do y" wrong--his logic would be faulty, because supposedly it's a fact that "I ought to do y" is an implication of "I want x"

Maybe, but some values are certainly more useful than others. — Baskol1

People subjectively feel that way sure, and they feel that way about different things, for different reasons. There aren't right answers there, just ways that people feel.

I think it is very important to decrease suffering. — Baskol1

I don't. I think that "suffering" is way too vague, too.

That's not a term I'd use because it's too vague--too many people use it to denote too many different things, with a lot of them being equally common.

I don't believe that there are any objective values, objective meaning, etc.

There are certainly subjective values, meaning, etc.

Its not rational to avoid suffering? — Baskol1

Rationality doesn't have anything to do with preferences.

Because it is the only rational conclusion. — Baskol1

I don't think that any ethical stance is a rational conclusion. I'd say that's a category error.

But when you say that what a being experiences is what the world really is like from their spatio-temporal location, it seems like you're saying that as long as people don't lie then what they claim is what's the case. — leo

When you brought up hallucinations the first time, I said, "So first, hallucinations and illusions are real hallucinations and illusions. (Where we're not using 'real' in the traditional manner to refer to something objective or that exists extramentally.)"

I'm not saying anything like "Whatever someone believes to be the case is the case where that's not a hallucination, not an illusion, etc."

I'm not saying anything like "Perceptions can not be mistaken."

What I'm saying is "Perceptions can be accurate." Contra claims that they can't be or that there's no reason to ever believe that they are.

rather you're referring to a spatio-temporal location in addition to what is present at that spatio-temporal location. — leo

There's no difference. Space and time never exist "on their own."

So for instance two beings present at approximately the same spatio-temporal location could disagree about what the world really is like not in virtue of their different spatio-temporal location, but in virtue of them being different beings. — leo

That would be possible, but it's important to remember that I'm not focusing on creatures. When I say something existing at a spatio-temporal location it can be something like a proton or whatever.

Which implies that in your view, what the world really is like doesn't just depend on spatio-temporal locations, — leo

I never said anything like "what the world really is like DEPENDS on spatio-temporal locations." I said that properties are different at different spatio-temporal locations, and there's no way to be absent a spatio-temporal location. I'm not talking about dependencies, though. What things are like depends on properties, and everything has unique properties, including beings.

It seems to me your ontological primitives are spatio-temporal locations and things such as beings, rather than a world that contains spatio-temporal locations and beings. Is that correct? — leo

My ontological primitives are matter and relations, where the relations are often dynamic.

I'm a bit lost in most of that. I'm approaching this purely from a skeptical philosophical perspective, where I don't buy a claim that it's somehow a fact that having a want implies any ought, contra a claim that it does.

If it's a fact that there's that implication, then we should be able to support that it's a fact somehow.

So that when Joe says, "I want to eat an ice cream, and it's necessary for me to go to the store to buy an ice cream to be able to eat it, BUT I ought not go to the store," we can say that he's getting a fact wrong, and we can somehow justify that he's getting a fact wrong.

If people could simply overcome orders,there would be no authority in this world. Is the world like that now, No. — Wittgenstein

Right. No. But we should try to make the world better.

Why does making them solely responsible make them less likely to do it? — Hanover

It's a step in changing the culture.

I'm up for giving both the organizer and the trigger man the maximum sentence. — Hanover

Okay, but I'll fight you (literally) to avoid that. ;-)

A contract isn't a speech act? — Hanover

I explained this already above. Why am I having to repeat it? You're not prohibiting any speech. The issue is with someone promising to deliver something they're not delivering. The issue is with not delivering what was promised. The issue isn't speech qua speech.

Do they really decide and have a free will. — Wittgenstein

Yes, of course.

. Let's say you are a nazi soldier who is ordered to kill an innocent Jewish women and if you refuse to obey the orders, you could get yourself executed. — Wittgenstein

Sure. And I'd not only get myself executed in that situation, I'd get myself executed if I were ordered to torture a cat or something like that.

When a person of authority commands you to do a certain act, he is using you as a tool for his crime like a murderer using a gun to commit a kill someone. Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ? — Wittgenstein

Yes. I've already said a couple times that people shouldn't follow orders just because they're given. That we have a culture like that is a big part of the problem.

We don't have a world like that. — Hanover

Right. But it's what we need in my view. And we're not going to get it by keeping some speech illegal.

We'll better have a world where people can't organize a massacre just because of speech if no speech is illegal and we foster an environment of people not following any speech just because it's uttered. Make the people who carry out the actions in question solely responsible.

Speech can't literally cause anyone to do anything. Speech isn't the problem.

By falling l never meant out of their control, l meant being influenced to a significant effect. — Wittgenstein

Okay, but the issue is that they're deciding to do something that should be illegal in my view.

It's the same thing with fraud. Contracting to deliver something you don't deliver should be illegal in my view. The person who decides to do that is the person doing something wrong. The problem isn't with "lying" per se. It's contracting to deliver something you don't deliver.

If someone lies to you and you fall for it, it will be on you just as you argued in case of murderers who fall for hate speeches and carry out the act of murder. — Wittgenstein

I'm not positing anyone "falling for" anything there. That implies it's out of their control. It's not out of their control. They can make a decision to carry the act through or not.

Since I'm having to repeat this, I want to get that part straight first.

try reading the definitions provided. Try reading my posts, Try for some comprehension.

Maybe this. If you want to saw a piece of wood, than you ought to use a saw.

Why ought someone do something if they want something? — Terrapin Station

If they want to achieve it, maybe that's what you're dropping out. — tim wood

It seems to me like you're not understanding something very simple, and I suppose it seems like that to you, too (that I'm not understanding something you consider very simple).

If they want to achieve it, then they should do what's necessary to achieve it, because?

I'm not sure how else to ask you. It seems like you just take it as a given that if you want x, you ought to do, or at least try to do, what's necessary to do x . . . but I don't think that's a given at all.

Aside from that, it's worth emphasizing that "y is necessary for x" is NOT the same thing as "one ought to do y (if one wants x)" . . . I mean, you could use language unusually and say that you're using them to mean the same thing, but then it doesn't have anything to do with the normal connotation of "ought," or what anyone is talking about when they say you can't derive an ought from an is.

It's just like you could say that God exists if God is your toilet, but then that wouldn't capture what anyone else is talking about, really. No one was wondering if your toilet exists.

So you agree that the statement "there is a real way the world is from a particular spatio-temporal location" is true from your spatio-temporal location, but this statement might not be true from another spatio-temporal location? — leo

Yes. That's what the word "yes" is doing in this sentence: "Without getting into issues about truth, yes."

So for instance one could say that "there is no real way the world is from some particular spatio-temporal locations", and it could be true from their spatio-temporal location? — leo

It's hard to get into that without getting into a big tangent about truth theory.

Trying to avoid that, I'm not saying anything like, "Whatever anyone claims is what's the case." What I'm saying is something about the relativity of mostly objective properties (I'm only saying "mostly objective" because I'm not excluding that we can be talking about persons' perspectives, too).

What I'm trying to understand is, do you consider you would have seen a ghost as well if you were at their spatio-temporal location, do you consider that there really was a ghost which could be seen from that spatio-temporal location? Or that if you were at that spatio-temporal location you wouldn't have seen one? — leo

Although I love the fantasy of ghosts, it's difficult for me to say what would be required for me to believe that I actually saw one. Chances are that I'd be skeptical of it no matter what, because I can't figure out how to make the idea of them coherent.

By the way, what you're asking about doesn't have much to do with realism per se. You're asking about what I call my ontological "perspectivalism" (for want of a better, less misleading term).

Again, in my view, "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "

if we have people who'll follow orders to kill someone just because the orders were given, that's the problem. Having laws against speech isn't going to change that.

Would you regard fraud as being a crime — Wittgenstein

Yes.

I'm not saying that people who are murdered are responsible for their own murder because they "fell for it."

Fraud is a crime not because of speech, but because you're promising something that at some point you have no intention on delivering--it's a contractual issue, not a speech issue.

Fraud being illegal isn't banning any words. It's banning there being no intention of delivering/making good on something something that one contracted to deliver/make good on.