More people did vote for Hillary than Trump (2,868,686 more), but Presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote. — Michael

The point was that more people should have voted for Hillary when it was Hillary vs. Trump compared to Biden vs. Trump. Hillary should have won by a larger margin than Biden did. If you want to actually believe that Biden received more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her, then I guess you'll believe almost anything.

However, if you can admit that Biden did receive more votes, but they were misinformed votes, based on the unchecked character assassination of Trump over 4 years, that hadn't happen when he ran against Hillary, then we can probably agree on something.

Because Biden was competing against Trump, not Hillary or Obama. Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science. — Michael

Using this logic, Hillary should have beat Trump. So it appears that at least one election was rigged - the 2016 or the 2020? We already know the Dems were rigging their own primary in 2016.

Because Biden was competing against Trump, not Hillary or Obama. Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science. — Michael

So it was more for a hate for Trump than a like for Biden. That is no wonder considering the assault on the man's character throughout his tenure. Just imagine if you or I became president looking to change the way things are done in DC. Those in power are going to hit back hard if you try to put a halt to their gravy train. The system is rigged against an outsider trying to come in and change things.

In this case, it was the voters that were rigged, not the actual votes.

To be consistent, if it's possible for people to be influenced to do things that they normally wouldn't do - like engaging in violence and theft, given that they were told that they were being oppressed in some way, then it is just as likely that people can be influenced to vote a certain way given the barrage of negativity that the media has generated over the last four years.

This is nonsense Harry. The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft. There was accusations of illegal foreign interference, which were investigated and proven as true accusations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do I have to think independently for you, MU? This was just the tip of the iceburg.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294

The Dems did not steal the primary from Bernie. What could that even mean? It's the primary of the Democrats, how could they steal it from themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover

The foreign interference showed that the Dems were rigging elections to ensure their guy was the one that made it to the top. To think that the Dems were the only ones engaged in such activity would be just as blind as one who thinks the Dems possess a monopoly on morality.

Right. So, please tell me why Biden got more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her and Obama? And Kamala came in last place in the 2020 primary. It seems to me that the elitists are determining who leads the party, not the actual voters.

You're fooling yourself if you think that there were 15,353,129+ illegitimate votes. — Michael

I didn't say that. How do you reconcile what I actually said with what you just said?

That's not true at all. All of Trump's actions following the election, especially his incessant claims that the election was "stolen", ought to be considered as evidence. The event of January 6th was planned long in advance, so it is not just a matter of looking at what happened on that particular date.

If the election wasn't really stolen from him, then the inciting of his followers to protest, is a matter of fraudulent behaviour. And wherever there is fraud there is the intent of wrongful gain. Therefore we need to ask what did Trump intend to gain by inciting his followers to protest at that particular place, on that particular date. — Metaphysician Undercover

This type of response it what is expected of someone that is indoctrinated with group-think.

The Dems were incessantly claiming that Trump stole the 2016 election. The Dems DID steal the 2016 Primary from Bernie and did it again in 2020. The Dems failed to call back their violent constituents and even encouraged them and people died and property was destroyed.

So please don't try to pass yourself and the Dems off as holier-then-thou because they pull the same shit as the Reps.

If you think that Biden, who came in last place in the 2012 primary, got more votes than Hillary and Obama in the 2020 general election, then you're fooling yourself.

The reason why the Reps aren't fighting the results is because they rig elections too and any investigations would likely expose them too.

Just listen to Tulsi Gabbard who said that after new representatives finish their orientation the Reps and Dems go their different directions and each work separately to get wins for the party. In DC, political party comes first and the needs of the citizens are a distant last.

If you were watching any of the impeachment trial you would see that proof.

If you are listening to both democrats and the republicans which are saying different things how do you reconcile what they are saying? Is one side lying in the other side telling the truth? How do you know which one is lying in which one is telling the truth - that they have a D or an R next to their name? Are they both lying?

If you look at the evidence without being politically swayed by one side or the other, it is obvious that the accusers are hypocrites and trial is a farce.

The only evidence needed is Trump's speech on January 6th. Specifically, what part of it was inciting violence?

So it isn’t 1) that change implies time, but 2) that time implies change. But, as Rovelli points out, this doesn’t mean time is an illusion. — Possibility

I never said it was. I did say that time is a measurement which means that believing that time exists independently of your mind would be an illusion. Change is more fundamental than time. Time is a type of change.

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

Depends on the human. Some non-human lives are more valuable than some human lives.

Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time. — TheMadFool

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change.

That's surely false. If the rule says no running or diving, this applies to the life guard as well, unless it's stipulated that there are exceptions. If the lifeguard runs and dives, then clearly the rule has been broken by that action if there are no stipulated exceptions.

And if your argument is that rules are just guidelines, and meant to be broken, then we're not talking about following rules anymore. We're talking about looking at suggestions for action, or something like that, not following rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

The exception is a given because lifeguards are there to save lives. Just as there are various contexts in which to use some word, there are various contexts in which to apply some rule.

What you don't seem to realize is that I am agreeing with you and you are contradicting yourself. If words can be used without rules, then why are you bending over backwards in trying to apply strict and rigid rules for how you use the word, "rule"?

It might be similar to how we reason, but it isn't reasoning, because it's dome habitually without recalling memories. We know which words to use in a particular situation without recalling similar situations in the past, to figure out which words to use. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that your appeal to "similar situations" is the answer. So many of the situations I find myself in are completely new, not really similar to anything I've already experienced at all, but this doesn't leave me at a loss for words. So i don't think my choice of words comes from recalling similar situations. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is patently absurd.

What you are saying is that you can speak any language without knowing the rules. Can you speak Swahili fluently, MU? Why or why not?

You are also saying that you have no reason for why you use the scribble, "I" to refer to yourself rather than some other scribble, like, "you".

Conscious memory is learning memory. Once you learn something well enough, whether it be walking, riding a bike, driving or a language, it can become automatic. The steps, or rules, are no longer routed through conscious memory. That isn't to say that they aren't still there. If you thought real hard, I'm sure you can remember going to grade school and learning how words are spelled and the basic rules of grammar.

A rule is not "an action". It is a generalization which may apply to numerous actions. If you say that a particular action should be carried out in a specified set of circumstances, then to justify the "should" you might refer to a rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

A rule is a generalization of actions that should be taken in a particular instance, or circumstance based on prior observations of those actions working in similar instances or circumstances.

"No running at the pool" is a generalization of actions to be taken in a particular circumstance. That isn't to say that the lifeguard can't run to the pool and dive in (even though there is also a rule stating that there is no diving) to save a drowning person. The rules at the pool are meant to be a guideline for being safe at the pool. That doesn't mean that following the rules will keep you safe in all circumstances, or that running at the pool is prohibitive in all circumstances.

You'd have to go back and read the thread, but I don't argue that there's no guidance, I argued that in the majority of instances of natural language use, we do not refer to any such rules. So I argued that rules are not fundamental to language use, they exist as part of specialized language use like math, logic, and writing. Therefore it's wrong to characterize language as a rule following activity. I discussed with Josh at one point, what type of guidance is employed at the fundamental level of language use, since it ought not be called a form of rule following. But this was just speculation, there is no real understanding here. What we can say though, is that it's not a matter of rule following. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you are actually talking about here is simply reasoning. Applying knowledge of prior actions taken in prior situations similar to situations in the present moment is how we reason. Judges have the power to interpret law/rules. Not every rule is applicable to every situation. They are only meant to be a guide. I think we are talking about the same thing here and it's just a disagreement on terms.

I avert it because I see it as an oversimplification which is simply wrong. And using such words which create "a picture", model, or representation, which is actually wrong, is misunderstanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand this part.

Actually, the misconception is in thinking that such a situation can be described as rule following. If rules are not being rigidly applied, say they exist there to be consulted, and the person looks at the rules and decides whether or not to follow them at each individual instance of judgement, then we cannot say that rules are being followed, because the person often decides not to follow. We cannot even say that such a rule would serve as "a guide", because when the person decides not to follow, it provides no guidance.

What is glaringly obvious, is that there are no such rules which we consult during natural language use. When we speak in most ordinary circumstances, we speak the words which rapidly come to our minds, designed for the particularities of the circumstances, without consulting general rules. So this whole conception, that language use is based in some sort of rule following activity is a misconception.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rules are only followed if they are enforced in some way, either by gunpoint, or by recalling what action worked in similar situations. Reasoning is the act of providing reasons, or rules, for your actions. Knowledge itself is a set of rules for interpretting sensory data. The rules can change, but there will always be some rule (reason) for why you acted some way in some situation.

. IF physicalism is true THEN p-zombies are impossible. — TheMadFool

This is assuming that consciousness isnt physical, hence begging the question.

Do you know enough about consciouness to assert that it is physical or not? What does it even mean for something to be physical or not?

The point is that in the majority of instances when we use language, when we speak, the circumstances are very particular and unique. The combinations of words chosen are therefore specific to the particular circumstances, chosen specifically for that particular, unique situation. And in the majority of cases there is no evidence of any general rules or protocols being referred to for guidance. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is a rule if not an action that should be performed given a particular set of circumstances? The rule, "Dont run around the pool" only applies in a particular circumstance of moving around a pool.

To say that there is no guidance, when we have books on proper grammar and spelling, tests for measuring ones skill and professors that teach you the rules, is just absurd. I really dont get your aversion to using the term, "rule" when using language. Rules of logic must also be applied. Rules are not set in stone. Rules can be broken and adapted. Thinking that rules are always rigidly applied is a misconception if rules. Rules can also be like a guide and not necessarily a dictator.

If p-zombies are like humans in every way except that they dont posses consciousness, then how do p-zombies know that they know anything? What form would knowledge take in p-zombies head?

One simply needs to point to blind-sight patients as evidence that lacking conscious visual experiences has a noticable impact on a human's behavior.

P-zombies are simpler than normal humans for they're missing consciousness. That should mean that since humans are not only possible but also real, p-zombies should also be possible. — TheMadFool

We do have something simpler than humans that we can probably say doesn't have consciousness - bacteria and viruses - but none of these are humans. So are you saying that newborn infants are p-zombies and we eventually develop compexity through our lives that then becomes consciousness, or what? How does that happen? I really don't get what you are trying to show here.

You said that your argument shows that p-zombies are possible. Well, where are they? Who is a p-zombie - newborn infants?

The conclusion indicates that we cannot make the generalized claim that conventions are rules which are followed. In other words, we cannot truthfully assert "conventions are rules". Therefore we ought not describe conventions as rules which we follow because this would be a faulty description. In no way does this imply "conventions are never followed". Furthermore, following that conclusion, I explicitly stated "there are some conventions which serve as rules that we follow". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think, "protocol" would be a more apt term to use when explaining how communication works.

It seems nit-picking to me. We all use reasons for our actions and thoughts. Arguing over whether or not we use the terms, "rule" or "convention" or "protocol" when these terms represent the reason we use some word rather than another, is trivial.

How do you learn a rule as opposed to how you learn a convention or protocol, and is any of that really different than, say, how you learn to play soccer?

If you have followed any of my posts on this forum, you know that I assume the position others are making and then integrate it with the rest of what we know. When it doesn't fit with the rest of what we know, I ask a question to try and reconcile the discrepancy. If you find it difficult to answer the question then maybe we should re-think what was said. Some people simply assert things without integrating the assertion with the rest of what they know.

Strangely enough, a bird has to learn from other birds how to be a bird.

If it doesn't do that in a narrow window in childhood, it will never learn.

Mammals are different. They can learn throughout their lives. — frank

Yes, that is very strange to consider. You seem to be forgeting about instincts.

So if a woodpecker was raised by a penguin, then the woodpecker would waddle around and dive into the water and swim like penguins? :chin:

I don’t know Jack, I think we can say that since houses are social constructed, marriage is socially constructed, and economics are socially constructed, it’s hardly logical to suppose our maneuvering of those things in genetic. — Uglydelicious

Are birds nests and bird mating rituals the result of the birds genes or upbringing?

how do you do that if you cant determine whether or not some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all. — Jack Cummins

Right. So how do you determine whether or not some behavior is the result of a social norm or the individuals own choice? If a large group of women decide to be house-wives how do you know that is the result of social norm and not just an inclination many women have? In other words, how can you determine if some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

Most people don't think any longer that men should be the breadwinners and women as housewives. However, there are some who think that way, mainly those from a generation who were taught this value. — Jack Cummins

So if any woman chooses to be a housewife, then that can only be because she was brought up in a such a way to be ignorant if anything else? The same could be said of any person. We are all products of our genes and upbringing. A woman that works away from home and chooses to never marry or have kids is as much a product of her genes and upbringing as a housewife. Who gets to tell either of these women what is best for them?

In asserting that someone that shares some quality with you, like skin color or sex parts, must then act like you and approve of the things that you approve of, is the essence of bigotry. A woman choosing to be a housewife isnt a threat to some other woman's liberty, just as a man choosing to wear a dress isnt a threat to every man's masculinity.

:up:

Nobody's against men being as masculine as they want, so long as it's a healthy positive conception of "masculinity" that they're going after. — Pfhorrest

In other words, you can be as masculine as you want as long as your version of masculinity conforms to someone elses version if masculinity. :roll:

Should we also consider extreme feminism as a problem? What about when opposing extreme feminism is deemed extreme masculinity? This is what is happening: opposing extremism is now considered extremist.

Elsewise, looks a bit like folk noticing their previous privilege and not liking a bit of equity. — Banno

What does "equity" mean - an equal number of each race and sex which isn't representative of the local population or an unequal number of each race and sex that is representative of the local population?

The former will allocate unequal power to each individual, and the latter allocates power evenly to each individual. It seems like we are headed for the former-where certain groups are over-represented, while others are under-represented. I thought that was what we were trying get away from. It seems that people like you really aren't interested in equity at all, just more of the same of one group oppressing others. You are essentially fighting racism with racism.

The problem is in thinking that groups have more rights than individuals.

Thats not what I asked or implied.

Your "meaning is use" is either too trivial or too vague. Either way, it isn't useful.

I doubt that we've been talking past each other this whole time, but if that is how you want to finally admit that you're agreeing with everything that I said, that's fine with me.

Its name is useful. — Banno

How/why is a name useful? Useful for what? What are scribbles and sounds from your mouth useful for? To use something means that you have a goal. What is the goal in the mind when using names?

This is one of the odd things pointed out by Old Wittgenstein. It seems that words can be quite useful without previously agreed on definitions.

It's the use that is important. — Banno

How did you learn to use words? For instance, how did you learn to use the scribble/sound, "shrub" or "tree"?, if not by your teacher pointing to these things, or pictures of these things and then showing/saying the scribblee/sound that points to it? Using words isn't much different than using your pointer finger. Saying, "It is raining." is redundant when I'm looking out the window and I see it raining.

Pointing to pictures is easier to define words for those that don't yet know how to use most of the words in a language (like first graders). Once you do, then dictionaries become useful for learning the definitions of the words that you still don't know the meaning to.

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. — Benj96

Why would you use a word for your own personal use? If you see that it is raining outside, do you also need to tell yourself that it is raining outside? Words are only useful to tell others who don't see that it is raining outside, that it is raining outside.

what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone.
— Harry Hindu

Where does he say anything like that? — Isaac

It was you who interpretted his words in that way:

I don't understand how this could possibly work as an assessment of a disagreement about an idea you currently think is right. How could it possibly be the case the reason they disagree with you (according to you) is because you're wrong? If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't hold the idea in question. So we have to only include categories which assume you're right. The question I understood the OP to be addressing is "assuming I'm right, why might my interlocutor think the way they do?" — Isaac

The question is not what might, later, turn out to be the case, but what I now consider the case to be. That I might later be wrong is trivially true of every position I hold, so it's useless as a distinguishing property.

The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac

And Pfhorrest agreed with your interpretation:

I'm pleasantly surprised to see Isaac of all people being my staunchest defender here, but yeah, he's basically said everything I'd want to say in response already. Thanks Isaac. — Pfhorrest

The fact that I have to do you homework for you and remember what you said for you, just shows how lazy of a thinker you are.

..so what do you call the solution arrived at via working through this conflict, after we've talked to everyone, asked them all what's right for them, devised some compromise which best meets everybody's views...? That solution is the _____ solution. Fill in the blank for me because I'm having trouble filling it with any word that isn't just a synonym for 'right'.

And what would you say to someone determined to have their solution implemented despite it not being the (right) one we'd just painstakingly worked out.

I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want to pick. — Isaac

So NOW you finally have come around to seeing things as I have been explaining them. The problem is that you believe that compromises can always be reached. If they could, there would be no such things as moral dilemmas. You need to give me an explanation as to what moral "truth" can be true for all in the same way that gravity is true for all. We all fall at the same rate, but how hard we hit the ground depends on our mass, and there is no compromise in that.

What would you make of synethesia which is word based... for example you always see the word green as The colour green or you always smell petrol when you read the word petrol. — Benj96

How would that even happen if the person didn't make an association between the scribble or sound and what it points to prior to seeing and hearing those words?

Also the word “I” can only ever be referential to the thing saying it. Only “I”s say “I” — Benj96

So? Who is speaking to whom about what is a type of context in which we use scribbles and sounds. "I" is still pointing to something.

Establishing context is no different than a computer running an IF-THEN-ELSE statement in its memory. If the self refers to itself, then use "I" else use "you".

Constructivism claims that all assertions of supposed facts are in actuality just social constructs, ways of thinking about things put forth merely in an attempt to shape the behavior of other people to some end, in effect reducing all purportedly factual claims to normative ones. — Pfhorrest

Then Constructivism is just another assertion of supposed facts that is actually just a social construction, ways of thinking about morality put forth merely in an attempt to shape the behavior of other people to some end, in effect reducing all purportedly factual claims to normative ones. So you never assert facts,, like what Constructivism entails,, only normative claims in an effort to manipulate others?? Why do you keep making this same mistake? You keep pulling the rug out from under your own argument.

Yeah, pig-headedly refusing to address an issue doesn't make the issue go away. We're talking about moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are almost exclusively social which means that any answer cannot be individually tailored. There can only be a single right answer and it must apply to everyone sharing the common interest that isvthe subject of the dilemma. — Isaac

And that is what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone. Every time you post a reply you contradict yourself, just like Pfhorrest. Its impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.

What I've been saying is what you assume to be right or wrong can only be the case for yourself and that you have to talk to others to discover what is right or wrong for them.

Moral dilemmas are the result of conflicting goals. They are a dilemma because every individual is considered equal and should have the equal right of achieving their goals. So moral dilemmas are the result of the idea of equality.

Ironic how the idea of an objective morality stems from the idea that not everyone is created equal - that there are some that have the power to determine what is right or wrong for others, that there are some that can realize their goals sooner than others.

So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access? — Isaac

Like I've been saying all along, but your not payng attention, you can only claim what us right or wrong for yourself. Are you saying it is right for you to infringe on other peoples rights? :roll:

Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was. — Isaac

Then we have been agreeing all this time that Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? It was you asserting that Pfhorrest is right in their assumption that they know what is right for others. It was me telling you that assuming that you know what is right for others is the wrong way to go about engaging others about what they consider right or wrong.

You seem to be incapable of maintaining a consistent thought in your head.

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean that we can't come to an understanding of what is right or wrong for an individual and why. Going into the discussion already assuming that you know what is right for them isn't going to get you anywhere in understanding that.

Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously. — Isaac

Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality).

So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide? — Isaac

That's your problem, not mine. Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me.

To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...

The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each. — Isaac

My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go.

There are many variables that can affect what type of compromise can be reached. Whose car is it and who is driving? You can always go to both places, but not at the same time. So if one isn't in a hurry then the other gets to go where they want to go first. These are but a small fraction of variables that can be in effect, and they are not all the same in each and every instance where occupants of a vehicle cannot decide where to go.

Like I said, it's the problem of induction. How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? Well, the problem is that every other instance is unique. States-of-affairs can be similar, but never exactly the same. The amount of similarity and difference between states-of-affairs is dependent upon the level of detail (measurement) we are talking about, or that is useful in some particular instance.

No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns? — Isaac

Again, you are conflating carrying a weapon with using it against innocent unarmed people. Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? Does driving a car make you want to run people over? Not everyone that owns a hammer, car, or gun harms innocent people with those things. In fact, most people that own those things don't harm innocent people with those things. Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. This is no different than racial profiling, which I think you would agree is wrong. So, why would you want to be inconsistent in your application of the rules, if not because of some political bias?

No, Rousseau, I use words. These are a subset of the scribbles and sounds. — Banno

Not much different than what said. What makes a subset of scribbles and sounds words and not just scribbles and sounds?

You use scribbles and sounds. HOW you use scribbles and sounds is what makes them words or not. Are you writing or drawing? Depends on how you use the scribbles.

Sure you have, and you haven't gotten anywhere. So maybe it's time to think about it differently?

You make an assertion. I show you how your assertion is wrong. You say you aren't interested. Predictable.

You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each. — Isaac

It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependent upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries.

I didn't ask for the answers people would give. — Isaac

LOL! I know! Because you don't give a shit what other answers people would give. You already assume that you know what the right answer is for them. That's my point!

I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't. — Isaac

Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? Your examples are stupid.

Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone. — Isaac

Carrying a weapon in public does nothing to infringe upon your right to be happy and healthy. Using a weapon on an unarmed person is wrong as it goes against what I said in infringing on other people's goals of being happy and healthy. So you are confusing the distinction between carrying a weapon in public and using one on innocent, unarmed people. Carrying a weapon can prevent you being a victim of an armed attack. Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Sure, they do. Beliefs exist only in minds for a period of time before you think of something else. Thinking takes time.

Not helpful.

:roll:

I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. — Isaac

Thats is where you are wrong. If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? It's like asserting that there is only one god, but then all I have to do is point to all the other gods that are believed in. Which god is the right god?

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual? — Isaac

That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume.

Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person?