Is it that difficult to understand?

Perhaps herein a distinction between law and justice. — tim wood

I suppose for actions that are considered absolutely free and incredibly selfish justice might be more relevant; a cogent, mentally healthy person who murdered someone because they wanted their wallet should be treated differently than someone who was speeding and hit a mentally ill person who jumped in front of their car. For the first case a severe punishment would be desired, but for the latter, a lot of counseling; they were a victim themselves. Laws could also dictate behavior yet include no content that regards whether or not justice should be served and in what way.

I think that even with the more substantive view, however, the "something" is ontologically different from the potential original cause that can satisfy the conditions that dictate that the meta-rule should be applied. .

the choice just happens and the man must not have been able to choose otherwise; the man is absolved of wrongdoing. — ToothyMaw

I thought about it: I suppose the action is being viewed as an accident of free choice, and that I'm not engaging with the fact that it is, on a substantive level, caused by something inherent to a free choice that can cause causal chains. But I still don't see what could possibly be the "something".

And yet it seems to me that Law at its base acknowledges and must acknowledge free choice - although what exactly that means is here left undefined - because, e.g., whoever is punished either for gravity or violating gravity? Or for breathing, or for any other thing where free choice does not apply. Further, there is a general saying that necessity knows no law, implying that free choice must be present. Not a part of any actual code, but (imo) informing justice. — tim wood

I think laws should exist only insofar as they create social cohesion, human flourishing, animal flourishing, etc. I think that compassion should inform our laws more than a desire to see justice done - as satisfying as justice is. But I definitely see where you are coming from; our current legal system is indeed informed by the idea of free choice.

You represented it well. Wish I could read a post on the fly and understand it like that.

Well, I wrote this, but it took quite a bit of thought. Had to do a lot of googling.

Corollary: breaking any subordinate rule breaks all the rules super-ordinate to it. But not subordinate to it. — tim wood

Breaking a subordinate rule can be a free act that could have been otherwise. At the superordinate level, however, it is the fact of the act itself that operates, irrespective of freedom. Thus the act is neither free nor not free. Because qua the act is is not free, then it is not a free act. Thus justice precludes freedom. — tim wood

You put it so simply; elegant writing really.

It would seem the meta-rule is that if some subordinate rule is broken, then some machinery should come into action, in particular the remedies for the particular rule's being broken. And in particular cases, the breaking of the rule is what triggers the operations of the rules. So far so good? — tim wood

Perfect.

Breaking a subordinate rule can be a free act that could have been otherwise. At the superordinate level, however, it is the fact of the act itself that operates, irrespective of freedom. Thus the act is neither free nor not free. Because qua the act is is not free, then it is not a free act. Thus justice precludes freedom. — tim wood

Yes, that is correct. But this only applies for rules that are very specific; they must have circumstances that are distinct built into them.

Is this yours, or not? — tim wood

Do you mean did I copy it from somewhere? Or are you asking if this represents my argument?

But off course in practice it's actually very hard, if not practically impossible, to make a set of sufficiently specific rules that are distinct and non-contradictory. — ChatteringMonkey

If that's true then how could moral rules follow from values at all, something you are a proponent of? Values spread across a people are contradictory and confused, and would lead to equally confused rules. Maybe some basic, distinct, non contradictory rules that support people's values could be formed and reasoned with/measured and experimented with to create more rules as needed that are distinct, non contradictory, and support people's values? Perhaps a science of morality (I have heard of such a thing but don't know where the idea originated from) would help determine if the outcomes of rules support people's values. However, I don't know how to guarantee that they would be distinct, except insofar as they don't produce the same outcomes.

And so I think, as a matter of practicality at least, it makes perfect sense to have meta-rules. In the legal system of my country for instance we have the following meta-rules to avoid these problems :
- laws passed by higher authorities trump those passed by lower authorities.
- for laws passed at the same level of authority the specific law trumps the more general. — ChatteringMonkey

I see what you mean.

Reason is, at the very least, one of the most valuable tools we have, along with the science, and has done immense amounts of work in terms of our understanding of the world, and it doesn't appear as if it will stop doing so. That it hasn't explained everything as of yet, and that it can't be understood in the context of some ineffable entity, doesn't mean much imo.

"fucking retards" — Hippyhead

When the fuck did I say that?

If the Dems win the Senate and we shove all of this down the Repubs throat, they will simply repeal it all the next time they are in power. — Hippyhead

But if we don't get that stuff passed it won't even exist to be repealed. I'll respond to this tomorrow.

If we are to achieve anything truly sustainable we'll have to find common ground with at least some Republicans. — Hippyhead

Common ground with respect to how hard we should get fucked by corporate interests?

Many or most Republican voters are actually pretty reasonable people who have some valid concerns. — Hippyhead

Most republicans voted for Trump, but I admit that there are some reasonable, misinformed republicans, yes.

Many Republicans voted for Trump because WE lost them, as the Democratic Party has gotten in to the unfortunate habit of often ignoring and even insulting the average working person. — Hippyhead

What about Bernie? He never belittled working class people; he quite obviously had nothing but respect for them.

The election of Trump was OUR failure. — Hippyhead

I would say it was a failure on behalf of the neoliberal part of the democratic party.

we need to reach out to these people, show them some respect, and try to win them back. — Hippyhead

I have trouble believing ardent Trump supporters can be "won back". Maybe the more moderate ones can, however.

It's called democracy. — Hippyhead

Yes, I'm not suggesting seizing power and instituting autocratic rule, I'm talking about pushing for the policies that are popular with most everyday people, such as Medicare for all, a living wage, etc. If anything that is the democratic thing to do.

What high school do you attend? Perhaps we could talk to your guidance counselor about this? — Hippyhead

edit: do you want to have a conversation? Or are you just going to flame me?

I should also add: many are emotionally invested in a narrative in which personal character and intention mean more than the consequences of actions. That being said, and you didn't ask me, I would unequivocally choose Obama over Trump or Bush.

Trying to bring the country together somehow = fucking spineless. Emphasis on civility and compromise = fucking spineless. Hysterical emotional pose. Sophomoric. — Hippyhead

Do you really think we should compromise with the GOP? With Neoliberals? Do you think we should withhold our honest opinions or express them civilly just because we might hurt some war criminal's feelings? I don't even know what it means to unite the country; what does it mean to you? Because it sounds like the kind of shit someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about people would spew to justify compromise with even worse people.

Political discussion on this forum, perhaps every forum, tends to be overwhelmingly dominated by emotional poses. — Hippyhead

Almost all of the criticisms of Obama made by progressives are entirely factual and indicative of a conscience, not emotional fragility. People who are resistant to such criticisms are themselves deeply emotionally invested in the idea that the ends always justify the means and that constant moral compromise is necessary. This is not the case.

making him the biggest coward recent memory - because he still thinks he is a 'good man'. Obama fucking sucked, and he continues to suck. — StreetlightX

I just can't stand the emphasis on civility and compromise being presented by the centrists, trying to unite the country somehow, as if that would be a good thing. Fucking spineless. That's why I love Nina Turner; she knows who the enemies are. Would have written her in if I didn't live in a swing state.

edit: Trump and the GOP are also enemies, and I voted for Biden, if there was any ambiguity.

You are right philosophim, we weren't disagreeing, and I just posted some bullshit about representativeness and truth values. My bad to anyone reading this.

I should specify: by religious beliefs I mean believed characteristics and actions of god, not ethics and rules and such.

The problem of the language, is that the language is making a claim about reality, without evidence to reality. I am specifying what the specific problem of the language being used is: It intends to convey reality without any evidence of it. I don't believe we are in disagreement here. — Philosophim

The point I was trying to make, mostly for argument's sake, is that religious language, while conveying meaning, is so confused that religious beliefs cannot be subject to truth values and cannot even be potentially representational; the fact that no physical evidence supports what the language intends to convey is irrelevant. But I see where you are coming from.

One needs to find a balance between precision and accessibility. The more obscure and technical the topic, the more precise the language generally needs to be, without being so abstruse that it cannot be understood by the intended audience. If the intended audience is more general, then accessibility will generally win out, especially if the consequences of misunderstanding or not communicating the ideas incredibly precisely is not too important. But if the audience is general and the consequences of not communicating the ideas precisely is great, people should just do the requisite reading to understand the language imo.

The final stage is essential and the most difficult, it is the religious stage. Here you take a leap of faith, you belief in something that you can't possibly justify. It's for that reason alone called belief. You discover your meaning in life by resigning to the paradox of faith. — Wittgenstein

That sounds interesting. I'll definitely read some of him. I am inclined to think faith is undesirable being a humanist, but maybe faith does have a place? I'll have to think about that.

The primary purpose is moral/existential assurance from a divine being. You can sort of infer the intention/tacit agreement among religious people as a necessary condition. — Wittgenstein

Yeah, I agree to a certain extent. I still think religion has outlived its usefulness, and that viewing it as a collection of stories/metaphors/sources of existential assurance is the minority view, but still better than telling young children that they are bound for hell.

Here is the thing about language. We can invent whatever terms and ideas we want. But if we are going to claim these terms represent reality, we must show their actual or necessary existence in reality. — Philosophim

Why would someone need to demonstrate anything about reality if they are making a baseless claim?

In fact, Wittgenstein was brought up because it seems unlikely that religious people can demonstrate or describe anything about god. He is, as you say, imaginary. Your argument might be relevant against a theist, but we were not disputing whether or not religious people's claims actually represent physical reality; what is relevant is that they aim to represent reality and fail to do so due to problems inherent to the language used, which is, once again, where Wittgenstein comes in.

edited for coherence, sorry

Otherwise, you would need to explain how people seem to understand a paradoxical langauge. — Wittgenstein

What says that they understand it? There is nothing saying that there can't be dissonance.

I don't agree with Wittgenstein still. — Wittgenstein

Did Wittgenstein actually talk about religion? Or are you just applying what he had to say? Did some research and you seem to just be applying Wittgenstein's theories about patterns of intentions.

l think Wittgenstein was trying to make a more subtle point. It has got to do with psychology. The normative claims won't have the same force to them if you remove the existence of God from religious text but the faith in God according to Wittgenstein primarily serves as source of hope/salvation/peace/courage, it isn't a representation of reality but only used as such for its effectiveness. — Wittgenstein

Well, I can't disagree with that. I think religion serves practical purposes, and I also agree that religious people tacitly agree to use religion for its effectiveness. However, this psychological claim has nothing to do with how we should parse religious language in its usage by religious people when they talk about religious norms except insofar as it reflects on the psychology behind their beliefs; it is just an evaluation of religious language in terms of its effectiveness and psychological components, a way of understanding it from the outside.

If you rob religious language of its explicit, representational meanings religion is no longer religion in the commonly understood sense; it becomes less about a set of norms established by a divine creator and more about preserving a collection of backwards values by packing them into a loosely defined, metaphorical structuration.

I think you misunderstood what l meant by representational view. Wittgenstein thinks we should not see religious language as a reflection of reality (the world out there ) and for him it is perfectly okay to view religion as a collection of commands,hope, ethical viewpoints etc. You can strip away the metaphysics around it. I obviously don't agree with Wittgenstein. Religious language is actually a representation of reality ( according to religious people ). — Wittgenstein

I agree. People often consider the norms established by god to be part of reality, (god is omnipotent, so he could make them an objective facet of reality).Thus, I tend to think that Wittgenstein's view is incompatible with most religious people's beliefs. If they believe god has created objective norms, the representativeness of such commands or morals to those people is real; the metaphysics around it can't really be stripped imo for people who believe in representative norms established by god.

That doesn't really resolve the issue at hand. We don't understand such functions or attributes of God anymore than the word "create" in "God created the world". — Wittgenstein

I suppose so, but it makes sense to me that god's actions would be atemporal if god exists outside time. This can be understood, even if it is impossible to understand what it means to exist outside of time, so I think it is possible to understand the "create" in "god created the world".

I think it would be a misunderstanding to confuse our kind of love with God's love. — Wittgenstein

A totally subjective thing - and lots of religious people I've met seem to perceive god as having a loving nature not unlike themselves, even if it is a perfectly loving nature.

I think you misunderstood what l meant by representational view. Wittgenstein thinks we should not see religious language as a reflection of reality (the world out there ) and for him it is perfectly okay to view religion as a collection of commands,hope, ethical viewpoints etc. You can strip away the metaphysics around it. I obviously don't agree with Wittgenstein. Religious language is actually a representation of reality ( according to religious people ). — Wittgenstein

I'm saying that if you strip the language of its representativeness, its claim on reality, then you also deny revelation's explicitness; the commands, ethical viewpoints, etc. have no special weight; they are neither dependent upon a creator or commanded by a creator. Normatively it just isn't the same. This comes into conflict with the overwhelming majority of people's ideas of religion, something you seem to agree with.

Seriously? Only jews'/muslims' ideas of god?

If God is a transcendental being, existing outside of space and time, how do we make sense of religious language when it talks about the actions/attributes of God. For example, "God created the universe( along with time) " is not a usual statement. The word "create" in its usual/universal use implies a time before creation and a time after creation. — Wittgenstein

But even though the word "create" is incoherent in that context, bringing into play the fact that he/she exists outside of time makes sense of it; it seems to me that god's atemporal actions can be understood as a function of his/her attributes, namely being outside time and space - in this example. Whether or not it is possible for things to exist outside time and space is open ended I think; I am agnostic with respect to such a possibility.

The essence of God is beyond our mind, we cannot comprehend it. The attributes we give to God are unlike our attributes. Our understanding of personal attributes rests on the idea of having a conscious/mind etc but we are not capable of understanding what consciousness means with respect to God. It isn't like ours. As a whole, we don't really understand what we mean by God. — Wittgenstein

I think that people assign plenty of human attributes to god, such as a loving nature. And yes, omnibenevolence, for example, is unlike anything we possess, but it can still be understood and defined.

We should not take a representational account of religious language but try to see its appropriate use in a religious life in form of metaphor, paradox, expectation, commands etc. — Wittgenstein

That robs it of any normative weight. Revelation makes explicit statements that can only be understood in representational terms, such as: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

If you rob religious language of its explicit, representational meanings religion is no longer religion in the commonly understood sense; it becomes less about a set of norms established by a divine creator and more about preserving a collection of backwards values by packing them into a loosely defined, metaphorical structuration.

Sorry tim, forgot to tag you. Feel like an idiot. Just replied to your post.

Small steps - for me - to start. It seems to me you have a rules warehouse where rules are stored. But I do not know what that means. — tim wood

More like different, measurable rules are prepared for evaluation when they are needed proximately, and a selection process...selects...certain rules according to parameters. Their usefulness, if meant to create certain outcomes, can be measured and the rule can be modified, something that is an objective endeavor.

And in such a case, how do we know we need one or which one we need? I rather think it does not work that way but that rules are made, created, sometime in the vicinity of the determination of need, and thereafter refined. — tim wood

I'm proposing creating a set of rules that can then be selected from temporally close to when they would be needed, and then selecting from that set based on certain conditions. As for refinement - there is no reason these rules couldn't be measured and improved before being instituted imo. Maybe even science could give us an idea of which rules would work better.

It sounds universal and all-encompassing, while I think it's just a construction within a larger space it does not comprehend. — tim wood

I think you are imagining a larger space where there is none; nothing save god can provide the kind of morally universalistic obligations most people crave.

Sorry, forgot to tag you, I just responded to your post.

That'd depend on your meta-rule which governs selecting the rule. If your meta-rule says to change rules according to circumstance, then the current rule depends on circumstance. — Echarmion

What if the meta-rule were to select a rule via evaluation of a plurality of people's subjective/intersubjective values into which the circumstance is stipulated, along with another stipulation that the actor doesn't matter, that supports those same values? I suppose the meta-rule might be considered relative, however, to the intersubjective values of the plurality.

The rule chosen will always be based on the arbitrary parameters insofar as the parameter caused the rule to be selected. — Echarmion

But if a rule is selected that only exists to support values, and is derived from descriptive facts about people's values, it seems to be absent any arbitrary or subjective content to me. Formally I would frame it like this: "if we have value 'x', then moral rule 'y' supporting it follows." The content of the rule is derived from facts about arbitrary/subjective values, and exists only to further those values.

I think this only seems plausible if you imagine having a small number of rules. But if you had 5.000 different rules, and selected one, it'd be hard to argue the result isn't arbitrary. — Echarmion

Once again, what if the rules are for very specific circumstances? Not to mention if they are part of a set, I don't see how they couldn't be distinct.

Or am I getting my math mixed up with my metaphysics?

I am not sure how a rule could possibly mind-indendent. Rules are a mental phenomenon. — Echarmion

Yeah, you're probably right on that one.

Not sure what "selected" means in your OP. — tim wood

I really mean the rule is selected based on certain subjective parameters, or values, only insofar as they determine what rule should be selected that supports those same parameters or values. But is the rule itself subjective because the input is? Or is it mind-independent and free of subjectivity because it has a purpose that appears to be mind-independent and free of subjectivity?

the rule then becomes a rule, but as the gun was always a gun, so your rule was always a rule - as you observe. — tim wood

But which rule is selected is the result of a value judgement much of the time - especially with respect to moral rules. In fact, which rule is selected is a causal relation in this context; it is objectively true that certain rules will help support certain values more than other rules. So maybe a rule exists in the set, but it doesn't become a moral rule until it is selected for upholding certain values, if one says that moral rules flow from values.

And it seems to me that all rules are arbitrary with respect to raw ground. — tim wood

People's values can be described objectively, and, if a moral rule is selected only insofar as it upholds those values, I think the rule is nonarbitrary and objective as a function of a fact - people's intersubjective values. This follows if, once again, one claims that morals flow from values, values that can also be both subjective and reasoned themselves.

Correction: replace arbitrary with “subjective”

Sure, see ya around!

"If 'we' value X, 'then' Y moral/rule follows" — ChatteringMonkey

This reminds me a lot of the consensus view of morality I came up with. And I see what you mean about intersubjectivity; it is pretty much all we have absent revelation.

What is objective is the 'then' in the moral argument. This is basically a causal relation, certain moral rules will be better at attaining certain values than others, and this could in principle be measured. — ChatteringMonkey

The "then" really is objective. I also agree that certain rules would be better or worse at achieving desired outcomes, and that this could indeed be measured.

What is also objective about morality is 'enforcing' the rule, once you have established the rule. It's objectively true that once has follow or broken a rule. — ChatteringMonkey

I also think that the rule, once codified, is absolute, and that it is also a fact if one has broken it or followed it. I suppose that it would be objective; whether or not it has been broken or followed is an observable fact. And breaking the rule would be objectively wrong. So there is some room for justice.

Overall I couldn't agree more. I get the feeling you either read my consensus morality post or just happen to have an interest in almost exactly the same stuff as me. But I don't really care I guess; a good discussion is a good discussion.

If people bring their values to a vote and the plurality votes in such a way as to create rules for humanity that can be measured and lead to desired outcomes, then what obligates the rest to follow along is that the enforcement of the rule is objective and the rule itself is absolute; not only is there justice but there is such a thing as objective wrongdoing.

I think I can agree to this. There are certainly some objective parts to the process of developing morals, I won't deny that. — ChatteringMonkey

It's more a principle of non-arbitrariness; the definition of objective you are using is the more common usage of the word, not the way it is used in most of the philosophy I've read, which is "independent of the mind".

How are values, if not descriptive, not arbitrary? If it isn't descriptive and it's a value it must be arbitrary it seems to me. Trying to ground it in the social contract does nothing; even if one enters into a contract to uphold certain values that doesn't make the values non-arbitrary. It just means you are contractually obligated to uphold values that, while useful, are, once again, not descriptive.

we get educated in a certain culture and that socio-cultural context is vital for the devellopment of those values and morals. — ChatteringMonkey

Are you saying that since culture provides a system of values that abide by reasoning of some sort, cultural values are not arbitrary?