It's a fact that it is afternoon here. Soon it will be evening. It will no longer be a fact that it is afternoon, but it will be a fact that it is evening. — Banno

Doesn’t this mean nature is inconsistent? Consistent means “same,” or something close to that, correct? If the thing you’re talking about changes, then it is no longer the same. Therefore it’s inconsistent; sometimes one thing, sometimes another.

The Bishop example is a neat case in point, and there are plenty of others. Maths provides ample. — Banno

I don’t understand the Bishop example. Someone most certainly can be wrong about where the Bishop belongs. Regarding math, can’t you doubt whether or not you added, multiplied, etc. correctly? We are fallible, so the possibility of making mistakes abounds.

The world changes, facts change, which statements are true changes. If that bothers you, add a few indexicals. — Banno

It doesn’t bother me, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said “facts can’t be false,” but here you agree that they can change. If a fact changes so that it is no longer true, doesn’t that mean it’s false?

Also, keep in mind I’m only trying to establish that all statements, beliefs, explanations, observations, etc. can rationally be subject to doubt. All of these have the possibility of being incorrect, or becoming incorrect (perhaps this is the background of certainty you alluded to earlier “I’m certain all beliefs, etc. can be false.”?), and therefore have grounds for being doubted.

I don't assume that facts are "absolute, universal, and static". — Banno

So the truth value of facts can change, but the fact that the fact is a fact doesn’t?

But there are facts. Such as that this post is a reply to your post, which was in turn a reply to a previous post. Or that this sentence ends in a full stop. — Banno

But suppose I delete my post, or a mod edits yours and deletes the punctuation. Then the fact is no longer true, which in my mind means that it isn’t a fact.

This assumes there are facts, which itself assumes a rational (comprehensible) world. That doesn’t have to be the case. Why assume that these “facts” are absolute, universal, and static?

Because consistency is non-contradiction, and contradiction occurs in language. — Banno

Contradiction occurring in language isn’t evidence that it doesn’t occur in nature. I’m not asking if language is consistent. Nature is constantly changing, so why insist on the existence of static fundamental laws?

Doesn’t this:

Calling reason into question is self-defeating; any argument against rationality presupposes rationality. — Banno

contradict this:

But yes, reason is not infallible — Banno

?

↪180 Proof showed how we change our descriptions to understand things we find strange. — Banno

I understand that. I’m not arguing against doing that.

Doubt requires a background of certainty. — Banno

Hmm... You may be correct, but I’ll think on it some more. I’m not finding what global skeptics would consider certain. In any case, then what is your position on doubt? Are any arguments/explanations beyond doubt?

Descartes took the language in which he formulated his meditations for granted. — Banno

Do you mean that he took the meaning of the words he used as certain? I’d agree with that, but it is still possible to doubt language, regardless of whether Descartes did or not.

You cannot be wrong about the bishop always remaining on the same colour, you can only stop playing chess. — Banno

So, if we’re playing chess and you move the bishop incorrectly that’s not a wrong move? Can I not simply correct you?

Randomness is subject to precise statistical analysis, and is not directly related to cause. — Banno

Then what makes something random? If the analysis is so precise, then why can’t we predict things like the stock market, or lottery numbers, or random number generators?

If you feel like your life can't be better, you become depressed. — I don't get it

Or, you could just become satisfied. Do you think no one ever feels satisfied with their life?

If you feel like your life can be better, you can't rest until you improve it. — I don't get it

Or, you just accept it for what it is. My life would be better if I had become a professional basketball player, for example. That isn’t going to happen, but I’m fine with that. I’m no longer trying to become a professional basketball player.

Is life even worth living in light of this view? — I don't get it

I’m of the view that things like happiness, satisfaction, and contentment are what makes life worth living. So, answering whether or not this view makes you incapable of feeling happiness, etc. will answer this question as well.

Again, it's descriptions that are consistent, not worlds. — Banno

Again, how do you know? Are you just claiming this because the term “consistency” only applies to language? If so, then feel free to replace that term with another that suits you. Regardless, we seem to be stuck. The OP was about doubt, and seemed to me to imply that the most reasonable explanation is always the best. My comment was meant to call reason itself into question, because it isn’t a given that the world is reasonable, or necessarily ordered. I think the fact that all (?) of our physical laws are limited in their explanatory power illustrate this point. In some ways quantum physics contradicts general relativity. This is what I mean by being “inconsistent.”

However, I’m not trying to imply that we should just give up when we discover something that seems contradictory (inconsistent). Of course we should try an alternative explanation. But the insistence that every explanation must be reasonable may be faulty, because the world may not be rational, or uniform, or parsimonious. Therefore, the possibility of being wrong is always a possibility. Therefore doubt, depending on what’s exactly meant by that term, is justified (paradoxically via reason).

On the contrary, chaos and randomness have quite sophisticated mathematical descriptions - they need to be complex in order to accommodate what they are describing. — Banno

True randomness is uncaused isn’t it? And uncaused events are irrational. If a cause could be determined, then it could be explained, predicted even, but then it wouldn’t be random, and would therefore be rational.

Because that's how language works. The question is not "is the world consistent?" but "is that a consistent description?" - and if it is not, then we re-think the description. — Banno

Doesn’t having a consistent description of the world depend on whether or not the world is consistent to begin with? Reason relies on order, so when we approach the world using reason, an order is assumed. But, if there is no order at the fundamental level of reality, then we could never arrive at a reasonable (consistent) description. Chaos, or randomness, cannot be comprehended through reason.

We find a description that is consistent - quantum mechanics and special relativity. — Banno

Right, but I think it’s telling that neither theory suffices on its own. IOW’s they aren’t universal, so it’s doubtful that there can be a unified theory; a strict set of laws that the universe follows at all scales from the quantum to the astronomical. If the universe was completely reasonable, then it would have consistent rules, and we could use reason alone to explain everything.

An apparent contradiction means that our description is wrong, not that the world is inconsistent. — Banno

How do you know?

Is it? A contradiction is when one statement is the negation of another, yet both are asserted.

Is nature is made up of statements? That's what you seem to be asserting. How else could it be that "contradictions can exist in nature"? — Banno

No, that’s not what I’m trying to say. I didn’t realize the definition of contradiction was strictly limited to statements. I was meaning facts in nature may not be rational, thereby contradicting reason. Also, that fundamental laws (I.e. physics) aren’t necessarily required to be reasonable. The universe does not have to be ordered to the extent that fundamental laws are constant and universal.

Throwing reason away because someone disagrees with you seems an overreaction, Pinprick. — Banno

Right. The point I was trying to get across is that a belief isn’t necessarily true simply because it’s reasonable, logical, etc. It would have to match up (correspond) to whatever the object of the belief is. It may be reasonable to believe it’s raining outside, for example, but the only way that belief can be true is if it in fact is raining. The bottom line is reason isn’t infallible. So any belief based solely on reason has a chance of being wrong.

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable and everyone has differing beliefs (on this site and elsewhere). So by definition some of these beliefs would be unreasonable. — khaled

It could also be that they’re all unreasonable; that there is no absolutely reasonable belief. Actually, considering that humans are not perfectly reasonable creatures, I’m not sure perfect reasons could even be an outcome. I mean, why is it that this:

Doesn't lead to contradictions, has supporting evidence, is the simplest alternative for explaining things, etc.. — khaled

is what determines what is reasonable? It’s certainly possible that nature is not uniform, and that contradictions can exist in nature. I think it’s pretty well accepted that nature is constantly changing, so why insist on consistent fundamental aspects of nature?

The question is: What degree of doubt is reasonable? How do you know if you're doubting too much or too little? — khaled

If you doubt reason itself, then where does that leave us? Does doubt need to be reasonable? Why, or why not? Also, what exactly do you mean by doubt? Is anything less than 100% certainty doubt? Is simple open-mindedness about the possibility of being wrong doubt?

Either way, I think to answer your question we first need to determine whether or not, or how likely, the world is intelligible. The reasonableness of beliefs about the world depend on how accurately we can access the world.

Cool thread.

For me, I lived a sheltered life in childhood, growing up in rural West Virginia. As a result, I presume, I was very naive and ignorant well into adolescence. A combination of weed, George Carlin, and Marilyn Manson lead me to begin questioning Christianity. Once I renounced religion, I became increasingly curious about all the other beliefs I may have held that were wrong. I started with Nietzsche, and probably understood very little of it. However, I really enjoyed trying to discover fundamental aspects of reality, meaning, behavior, etc. It just felt really exciting, like I was learning powerful secrets about the world. I also realized that a lot of philosophy is simply over my head, and there’s some I find uninteresting. So, I switched majors in college to psychology and just minored in philosophy. Which was probably for the better. I’m more interested in things like how the brain works, or how environment affects behavior, and the place where philosophy intersects these topics (consciousness, ethics, etc.).

Not to say that I don't pay taxes but I have no clue about taxes by which I mean I haven't read up on the rationale of taxation as a government policy. — TheMadFool

Same here.

All that I can say is that to oppose taxes seems to be irrational. What happens to all the tax revenue a government accumulates? It goes into essentials such as infrastructure development, maintenance, revamping, paying government employees, financing activities of national importance and so on. In other words, taxes are spent on the taxpayers and the "best" part is the tax-funded projects outlined above not only benefit the individual but also society as a whole and that too for generations to come. — TheMadFool

I think it’s at least debatable that tax-funded projects benefit everyone equally. For example, not all public schools are equal, and it too often is the case that schools in predominantly low income and black districts are not funded enough to support quality education. That said, I can see the rationale of low income and/or minority families not wanting to pay taxes, since they aren’t seeing the benefits that they so desperately need.

Slawec Gruca paintings:

By doing instead of (over)-thinking, we are able to transcend the mistakes made by human misinterpretation and miscalculation (normal thinking) and live a better life without ever asking, "What's next?" — synthesis

You seem to be omitting the fact that we first must learn how to “do” X. The first time you get behind the wheel of a car you aren’t able to just drive without thinking about driving. You have to consciously think through each step. Anyways, you seem to be describing what’s known as flow states, where individuals seem to lose themselves in a task they find meaningful and rewarding. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s book “Flow” is specifically about the importance these states have on our overall happiness and well-being.

Worth noting here that in the Roman era a "genius" was a kind of spirit (in the modern sense of a magical non-corporeal being) that a person had, not something that a person was. — Pfhorrest

:up:

I came across an interesting book on this subject, if anyone’s interested. The link is commentary about the book.

Divine Fury

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." — Gospel of Thomas

I’m nowhere close to being informed on religion, so my thoughts are few, but this reminded me of Socrates’ midwife analogy, where being troubled=labor pains. It makes me think that people of the era in which this is written had a different conception of “knowledge” than we do today. Knowledge itself seems to be divine, mystical, and difficult to obtain. Hence all the literary devices used to describe it. Whereas today obtaining knowledge seems much more straightforward via scientific method, logic, reason, etc. So lacking the ability to apply these methods to knowledge caused them to seek it through other, more spiritual/mystical, means.

Same here. I hadn’t heard the song you posted before, but wondered if anyone else had made this connection (between the two songs) before.

Why don't we just rob, kill and rape each other? I hope it's moral intuition, and not just because we're scared to. — counterpunch

Ok, but then you have to allow, and account for, questions like why do we rape, rob, and kill each other in certain circumstances. The fact that we do act in this way illustrates that we may not have similar moral intuitions.

I'd like to think there's some prohibition from empathy, — counterpunch

There may be, but there may also be emotional drives to kill, etc. Impulses, as their commonly called. So why do you cherry pick things like empathy and use it to justify universal moral intuition, but exclude things like anger, lust, revenge, self-preservation, etc.?

It's remarkably similar to all peoples because the relationship of the human organism to the reality of the environment is remarkably similar for all peoples. — counterpunch

I don’t see hunter-gatherer tribes’ culture as being very similar to modern culture. Are you meaning in the more general sense that all people try to adapt to their environment to ensure survival?

Just as all human cultures invented art, music, pottery, agriculture, architecture, jewellery - albeit in culturally specific ways, they all have a moral sense expressed in culturally specific ways; because otherwise, the human organism could not have survived. — counterpunch

Ah. Ok, but I would argue that the moral sense itself is determined by environment, a la natural selection. This sense has to be broad enough to encompass all expressions of it, which renders the idea essentially powerless. Everyone has the capacity to have a multitude of different moral intuitions. It seems like you’re just saying we all have a will to live, which causes us to behave and think differently depending on the obstacles encountered in our environment.

Morality isn't just an opinion. Any particular expression of the moral sense is an opinion. But the moral sense predates intellectual intelligence - if chimpanzees are anything to go by, and so is a behaviourally intelligent adaptation, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe made up of moral individuals. — counterpunch

I see what you’re saying, I think, but it seems tautological. A moral fact for you would be whatever particular moral sense is evolutionarily advantageous for a particular group in a particular environment. In this way, there is no possible wrong morality, since any disadvantageous morality that would happen to develop wouldn’t last very long. This, of course, leads to the conclusion that there is no one correct morality either. Your idea is so general that it excludes nothing, and thereby says nothing of importance.

Compare the lyrics with this song....

[Verse 1]
Well, the crickets get it
And the ants get it
I bet you the pigs get it
Yeah, even the plants get it
Come on now, and get with it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Oh!
Yeah, I just want you to get with it

[Chorus]
'Cause every worm that's under your shoe
And every bird and bug in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do

So why don't you?
Yeah, why don't you?

[Verse 2]
The flies get it
And the frogs get it
And all them big jungle cats get it
And I bet your little dog gets it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Yeah, come on, and get with it
Whoo!
Yeah, I just want you to get with it

[Chorus]
'Cause every worm that's under your shoe
And every bird and bee in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do
So why don't you?
Yeah, why don't you?

[Verse 3]
And all the chickens get it
And them singing canaries get it

Whoo!
Even strawberries get it
I want you to get with it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Yeah!
Yeah, I just want you to get with it

[Chorus]
'Cause every worm that's under your shoe
And every bird and bee in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do
So why don't you?
Yeah, why don't you?



Inspiration? Or rip-off?

Political allegiances are complex. They are not a simple matter that can be boiled down to some obvious exercise of moral intuition, so it's not a good example. — counterpunch

Ok, that’s fair.

But if...

The moral sense isn't dictatorial of human behaviour. — counterpunch

Then this...

When we talk about similar moral intuitions, I take that to mean we don't go around killing, robbing and raping each other. — counterpunch

Can’t be used as evidence for having similar moral intuitions. IOW’s just because we don’t rape, rob, or kill doesn’t mean that’s due to having similar moral intuitions.

How do you know what half the people in the US think? — counterpunch

Because of their actions.

No, it's not - because you cannot possibly know why people voted the way they did. — counterpunch

Not in any specific way, no. But I can deduce that had they found Trump’s actions intolerable, they wouldn’t have voted for him. It could be that they found his actions justified, it could be that they disagreed, but were willing to tolerate it, it could be that they were unaware of his actions or didn’t believe them. But, the fact remains that they were willing to overlook these issues, provided they were aware of them of course.

You are imposing your moral judgement on their choice. — counterpunch

I’m in no way trying to show one group as being morally superior to the other. That’s irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they have different moral intuitions about what is moral.

You are a clear demonstration of tribalism and herd mentality; if that's what you were seeking to show, job done! — counterpunch

You seem to be assuming a lot regarding my motives, but yes, I believe we all have been influenced morally by social norms, upbringing, etc., and therefore have different moral intuitions.

I actually prefer not to get into politics, and I’m not trying to virtue signal, I didn’t even say which side I agreed with. That isn’t the point. It’s just a good example of how large groups of people can seemingly have very different moral intuitions. Maybe that can be explained by other factors, but even if it can it shows how easily our moral intuitions can be influenced by things like tribalism, or herd mentality in general.

I agree, that people's moral intuitions are remarkably similar. — counterpunch

I’d like to agree with this, but I’m not so sure. For example, right now about half of the US sees things like discriminating against particular groups of people as tolerable, if not outright justified. This is illustrated in the amount of people who voted for Trump in the recent election, despite his obvious immoral (at least according to the other half of Americans) treatment of women, Muslims, immigrants, blacks, etc. Treating others with respect and decency regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. does not seem to be an overwhelmingly common moral intuition.

Yes, consent can be manipulated, or coerced, but that’s not the ideal we would be striving for, so I’m not sure that’s really a counter argument. The point is to strive to obtain fully informed consent, but the government does not try to do so. Instead, the onus is on each citizen to seek out and learn the law, which is asking a lot. I would actually be surprised if there was anyone, be it a lawyer, police officer, judge, or whoever, that actually knows what every law is. Therefore, I find punishing people for violating rules they weren’t even aware of to be immoral. I feel the same about forcing people to live by standards they don’t agree with. Fully informed consent would seemingly resolve these concerns. In at least some areas, consent is considered necessary to obtain for act to be moral. So, the real question is is it wrong to punish others for breaking laws that they were never fully made aware of or consented to? Why, or why not?

and it is the latter in which we inform ethics. — Cobra

Not only that though. Not all harmful acts are immoral. Some harmful acts are permissible, specifically those that are consented to.

BTW, I’m not trying to make the case that consent is the only thing needed to consider, but that when consent is obtained the act cannot be immoral. Also, that if consent can be obtained, then it should be. Hence the questioning of the justification of laws. To me, an explanation needs to be given for why consent is not obtained. If you could provide an example where consent is obtained, yet the act is still considered immoral on other grounds, then my argument would be refuted.

It's not increasing your overall well-being just because you enjoy it. — Cobra

For the sake of argument I’ll agree with this, but this fact alone doesn’t make the act immoral. Perhaps I value enjoyment more than wellbeing, therefore it isn’t “retarded.”

I suppose you're right but what if the relaxed criteria for the capacity to give consent, i.e. not having to be as rational as philosophical standards demand, is used for nefarious ends by unscrupulous parties. This, I believe, is the modus operandi of con-artists who lure people into seemingly lucrative deals, all with full consent, only to defraud them on the basis of some loophole that only the con-artist was aware of. — TheMadFool

If you deceive someone into consenting to something, then they haven’t actually given consent, as they were not fully informed.

Given these circumstances we must assume, to err on the side of caution, that people are, as of now, completely out of their depths on most matters that require their informed consent. — TheMadFool

I think most people are reasonably capable of figuring out what they do or don’t want to happen to them. Their reasoning may be irrational or illogical, but reason is irrelevant when it comes to emotion. Not wanting to shake hands due to an irrational fear of germs doesn’t mean we should force them to shake hands anyway because it’s irrational.

But anyway, the alternative (letting others decide for us) seems worse. I’d rather be in control of deciding what I like or don’t like, rather than relying on the benevolence and omniscience required for someone else to decide for me in a satisfactory way.

I'm saying that malicious intent (moral blindness) is typically what distinguishes between the boxer and a perpetrator. — Cobra

So...that’s a yes then?

Just like rape roleplay is a vice, not necessarily a wrong conduct, but it's not consent that distinguishes the two. — Cobra

So consent isn’t needed to role play raping someone? Isn’t doing so actual rape?

The former involves no defenseless agents or victims — Cobra

Precisely because everyone has consented.

There are "willing victims," and we see these people often. Children, Stockholm Syndrome, psychological traumas, abuse, date rape, etc. — Cobra

I don’t see how this is relevant. I’m using Meiwes’s case as an example because it illustrates, to me at least, the nuances involved in consent. Typically, harming someone against their will is considered wrong (assault), and harming someone with consent is considered permissible (boxing). Yet, Meiwes’s case seems to contradict this, as the “victim” was harmed with his consent, but the act is still viewed as wrong.

The victims in the examples you give are not capable of giving consent, because they are either mentally disordered, and therefore not thinking clearly, or are not capable of understanding what they’re consenting to.

It is not the fact that he agreed that would make this action right or wrong. — Cobra

Then what is? It isn’t malicious intent either, because Meiwes considered the victim’s wishes.

You are not forced nor coerced to do anything. — Cobra

I am forced to accept the punishments, which seems wrong since I never consented to being punished for these actions. Just like an assault victim never consented to being assaulted.

Whatever the case, laws should not be confused with morals. While the two can be informative to each other, your reasoning for being jailed is exclusive to the rules of the law and justice system in which you breached. There is a process for overruling bad law and changing laws. — Cobra

That’s all well and good, but that’s part of what I’m asking. Are laws justified since they don’t require consent? Or, is consent not needed in the case of laws? If not, why not, given that in ethics it is typically required?



Do you think this...

Boxing is a sport that is practiced ethically — Cobra

Because of this...?

it involves close medical treatment/examination, rules/regulations, and physical conditions that must be met — Cobra

but what makes the practices ethical are not determined by what the boxers "agree" or disagree to. — Cobra

Again, then what is?

It is a fact that constantly getting punched in the head has long-term effects, but this is not the same of being a victim of useless and reckless killing (i.e. murder, assaults, etc..). — Cobra

The only difference I’m seeing is consent.

We also have "ethical killing" with humans, it is called euthanasia, but it was not consent that distinguished this from being harmful or unharmful, or "right killing" and "wrongful killing". — Cobra

Well right, it’s harmful regardless, but the fact that it’s harmful isn’t what determines whether or not it’s permissible. Consent is the determining factor that decides that. I suppose you could argue intent is the determining factor, but if the doctor euthanizing the patient happens to enjoy doing so, and in fact desires to do so, the act suddenly becomes immoral.

It was the fact that denying this persons' right to die caused more harm than forcing them to live. — Cobra

But that can only be determined by the person wanting to be euthanized, and therefore requires their consent. I can’t just decide that you’re better off dead because you’re terminally ill and then euthanize you. We have a right to live, and to die, but only according to our consent in the latter case. Meiwes’s victim also had a right to die, did he not? Apparently he did not think wanting to be cannibalized was senseless, he must have had his reasons, and who are we to judge them as inadequate?

Some guy that consents to be cannibalized as a science experiment is not euthanizing himself. The act is unreasonable and senseless, so just an infliction of unnecessary harm on themselves. — Cobra

Do I not have the right to inflict unnecessary harm upon myself? If so, then there’s no reason why I don’t have the right to let you do so to me as well.

It is why we do not amputate the limbs of people with body integrity identity disorder. — Cobra

Yet if they consent to genital mutilation it’s ok (genital reassignment surgery).

Professional fighting occurs in structured and organized environments where both parties engage in fighting under rules and regulations. The intent is not malicious, nor done to a defenseless agent or necessarily to cause harm. — Cobra

Yeah. So are you saying malicious intent is why beating someone is wrong, and that since boxers lack that their actions in the ring are ok?

A malicious act is so because the agent is either indifferent to - or - willing disregards the others' lack of desire to be harmed/brutalized i.e., rendering them defenseless, thus 'victimizing' them. — Cobra

But what if the “victim” is actually a willing participant, as in the Meiwes case I mentioned? The “victim” agreed to be killed and eaten, so what makes that act wrong? Meiwes did not willingly disregard the victim’s wishes, so his act, according to your definition, was not malicious.

Furthermore, what determines what harms another person is not a matter of consent, agreement or consensus. — Cobra

I agree, but harming someone seems to be ok if they’re ok with it. Actually, in the case of criminals, it seems ok even if they aren’t ok with it. What makes it ok for me to be fined, jailed, etc. against my will for committing crimes I either disagree with, or may not even know exist? I never consented to that. If I choose to harm someone because they do something I don’t like, it’s wrong; but the enforcement of laws seems to be an exception.

For example, "consent to be a beaten 3 inches of their life" is completely independent of the fact that these acts can/do cause psychological affects overtime - either (depleting) the quality of the agent and their well-being or increasing it, although the latter is doubtful. Even boxers for instance, have left over remains of demonstrable harm and impact done to their bodies. It is a fact that disregard for their regulations and properly learning to fight will cause some problems in the end. — Cobra

I’m missing whatever point you’re trying to make here.

Whether or not "boxing is wrong to participating in," now that we know this does not apply to the above, because boxing is regulated with intent to minimize as much long-term damage as possible, therefore, can be done ethically. — Cobra

Are you saying consent in boxing in inconsequential? That it would be ok to make people box, so long as there were structure, and rules, and attempts to minimize any long term damage? If not, then why is it ok to force me to abide by laws that I never consented to?

A couple thoughts. Perhaps requiring consent would cause more people to think for themselves? If an official came and explained the country/state’s laws and expectations of behavior, that would at least cause everyone to ponder about what they do and don’t agree with. Also, I don’t think stringent philosophical standards are needed for someone to be able to say “I disagree with marijuana being illegal,” or any other issue. Or saying that they disagree with a particular form of punishment, or a particular punishment for a particular crime.

I agree that knowing your limitations are important, but I’ve always, for whatever reason, been more interested in the opposite; knowing how far I would go. Questions like “am I capable of murder, suicide, deception, etc.” have always intrigued me. I feel like this type of questioning has lead me to find some common humanity with virtually anyone. I seem able to see the human rather than the monster, so to speak. So, I guess what I’m getting at is that through attempting to “know thyself” I’ve been able to gain a deeper understanding of others as well, and I would consider that to be wisdom.

so why has humanity torn itself apart over and over again to define what is what and who is who? And for what? — Anopheles

In a word, insecurity. I would tentatively argue that we are biologically driven to be insecure. Insecurity spurs one to gather food for fear of starvation, to attack for fear of being attacked, to become tribal/conform for fear of excommunication. I’m convinced that as a whole we are helplessly insecure. No matter how much we have, or what we have, it isn’t enough. This could also be construed as a survival instinct, but it manifests as insecurity.

Because just having a range of acceptable possibilities doesn’t mean that that range is unlimited. We can be sure that some things are definitely wrong no matter who thinks they’re not, without having to know exactly what the optimal course of action is for everyone. — Pfhorrest

I agree with this, but it’s missing my point somewhat. I’m wanting to know how you justify that there is only one absolutely correct answer in any given circumstance. There always appears to be more than one acceptable answer, but you seem to try to claim that out of all the acceptable answers, there is one that is clearly better than all the others. I guess something like “limited relativity” is more in line with what I meant. But what is the criteria you use to determine which answer out the the acceptable ones is best? Assuming listening to music and exercising both relieve my anger equally, what could there possibly be to make one of these options better than the other?

In both cases, we approach objectivity by replicating each others' experiences, and if we can't, by seeing what is different about us that results in different experiences in the same circumstances. — Pfhorrest

So, if I’m angry I should just use trial and error to see what relieves it? In this case, what would an incorrect (immoral) act be? One that doesn’t relieve anger? Also, I would say that we’re never in the same moral circumstance twice, and that no two people are ever in the exact same moral circumstance.

and likewise the moral equivalent of that question is not one of what states of affairs are good, but about what the right course of action is. — Pfhorrest

How could I know what the right course of action is without first knowing what state of affairs is good? A good state of affairs is precisely what I’m trying to achieve by acting in the first place.

TG

liber(al|tarian)ism in deontology says that all actions that have not yet been ruled out (e.g. that don't harm anyone else) are acceptable. — Pfhorrest

Ok, so it’s basically the golden rule, at least the Wiccan version of it. That probably answers some of what I just wrote. But, if you’re willing to accept that there are many “correct” answers, or at least not wrong answers, then why not just say moral truth is relative? Why insist that there is some unknowable absolute correct answer? A belief in that seems faith based, as opposed to evidence based. That’s like insisting Bigfoot exists, and using the existence of other Bigfoot-like creatures as evidence.

Hmmm... a bit more complex than what I was imagining. I was thinking something like this. Since it’s called “walrus” I thought maybe the goal would have been to find artists and songs that both began with each letter in the word “walrus.” So, to start we would try to first find an artist that starts with “W” and also one of their songs that start with “W” as well.

Anyway, I’m not sure how a mod would feel about their inbox getting blown up with songs that they have to keep track of distributing, but you could always tag one and see. If they agreed. I’d suggest making the game it’s own thread.

The question of what is moral is the question of what ought we do. We all have those feelings that call for something or another to be done (our appetites), and our immediate, unreflective opinions about what that something or other should be (our desires), on the basis of just our own such feelings. But an objective answer is an unbiased answer. So an objective morality is one that takes into account all such feelings (all appetites). But -- and this is the really important part that saves the whole thing from your usual criticism -- we don't have to take into account everyone's opinions about their feelings (all desires). — Pfhorrest

Don’t mean to interrupt or be another distraction, but I’m curious about this.

How would one arrive at an unbiased position on a particular moral dilemma, when all the data points available are subjective? I can get that “everyone feels anger” is objective (unless you want to argue that we can never really know if what I call anger, and what you call anger, feel the same/similar), but this doesn’t lead to any sort of resolution on what I should do when I’m angry. The issue seems to be trying to determine what is an appropriate desire for a particular appetite. Anger can be relieved/released in many different ways, I just so happen to prefer a handful of options over others, so how do I figure out which one is best?

Also, note that there is more than one option that refrains from causing harm, either to myself or others, so simply saying “whichever option causes less harm” doesn’t fully answer the question. If there is an objectively correct answer, then that answer, whatever it may be, can be the only correct answer. So, someway or another, I need to figure out if it is better to exercise to relieve my anger, or to listen to music, for example. What exactly is the criteria I should use to determine which answer is objectively correct?

If there is any interest in a subjective music sharing game, I know a fun one called Walrus. Not sure if games are allowed on this forum but it might be something people here would enjoy. — Uglydelicious

Sounds fun. How do you play?

We thought Newton's theories could predict outcomes reliably for the longest time. Turns out they couldn’t and we were making a mistake. — khaled

Newton’s laws of physics are still useful for predicting most outcomes. We were just mistaken about it’s scope. It cannot predict accurately at the quantum level, but that’s where quantum theories come in to play.

How is anybody sure of anything? — synthesis

Does this mean you’re not sure?

Facts are relative to a specific set of circumstances that can only occur one time, so is it really a fact? — synthesis

The Earth has revolved around the sun many times, not just once.

Is it always painful when you get kicked? What does the ball do if you drop it out in deep space? — synthesis

Due to our knowledge of all the relevant facts, we can predict these outcomes. We can account for why a person may not feel pain if they’re kicked, provided we’re aware of their medical history, pain tolerance, force of the impact, etc. We can do the same for deep space gravity.

A long time ago people thought all kinds of crazy things and made it work. The things we believe today will be just as crazy to the folks in the future. — synthesis

I’m pretty sure this is a logical fallacy, but I’m horrible with remembering or knowing they’re formal names. The inaccuracy of previous people’s theories have no bearing on the theories of today.

It's always been my impression that what we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in. We just know like a bird or wolf or termite just knows. It is our intellect that mostly distorts this knowing into all kinds of gibberish. — synthesis

I’m not understanding what you mean here.

I would bet that we are well down on the list of animals in terms of weather predicting skills, don't you think? — synthesis

No.