Moral condemnation versus punishments aimed a deterring future antisocial behavior are not mutually exclusive. That is, it is possible that the condemnation will result in deterrence and it is also possible that we can both morally condemn and additionally offer pragmatic solutions to deter the behavior.

If we do believe certain acts are immoral (and you indicate you do, in particular those that do not lead to a safe peaceful society), I don't see why it would be inappropriate to call it immoral, condemn it, and declare it bad if it in fact is. From there, I would agree, we now need to decide how to resolve the issue, but I don't see why identifying it and calling it what it is is a incorrect first step. — Hanover

Moral condemnation is easy and cheap, but I don't think it has any significant role in achieving the practical goals I identified. I would go further - I think it distracts from effective action. In order to effectively deter and prevent the harmful actions we want to address, it's necessary to come to an imaginative understanding of our enemies. In practice, that can come dangerously close to empathy. We have to be able to see our adversaries as people in order to combat them.

I don't have any criticism of people who judge and condemn those who have harmed them. I just don't think it does anything productive beyond helping them deal with the situation emotionally. There's nothing wrong with that, although I don't personally find any satisfaction in it.

I hear you. I'd privilege the first one over the second, but rewrite it as - a set of rules used to help keep us safe, implemented with minimal judgement and dogmatism. — Tom Storm

I don't disagree with this, although I have a somewhat different perspective. For me, the purpose of social control; including enforcement of rules, laws, customs, and etiquette; is to prevent people from causing avoidable and undeserved harm and seeing to it they face the consequences of their actions. If you want to call social control "morality," that's fine, but making moral judgements about people isn't an effective way to protect others. That's the important point for me - moral judgement leads to ineffective social control. Is righteousness and retribution more important to you than a peaceful, safe society? Not for me.

I'm not interested in people's personal codes — Tom Storm

This is the part of morality that interests me. The rest is just engineering, or at least it should be.

Sounds similar to Christianity where preachers will often say that morality is 'written on the human heart' by god. In other words, we already know what is right and wrong. I've worked with too many hard core criminals to accept this — Tom Storm

I think there are two ways of looking at morality 1) As a set of rules that we can apply fairly rigidly to other people to judge them or 2) As a set of principles we can apply to ourselves to guide our lives. I've never really felt the need for the first of these. I try not to judge people. I've never found it a very useful way of seeing things.

That morals must work is indisputable, but that some are inborn, or tied to human nature, and others learned, says little about whether or not those morals are justified. That is mostly what I am concerned with.
— ToothyMaw

Isn't the point that TC is arguing there are no moral facts, just ideas which work or don't in context? This means justification is moot and context dependent, for we do not have access to some transcendental realm of moral truths. — Tom Storm

I agree that we don't have access to transcendental moral truths, but we cannot rule them out, which is the point of my OP. Many arguments that are not as cogent as TC's misfire because they argue some newfangled combination of (1), (2), and (3). TC's argument is honest, simple, and makes sense. — ToothyMaw

Here's a broader perspective I find convincing. First, you'll have to put up with another quote from Lao Tzu. This from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 38 of the Tao Te Ching:

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos

To me this means we know the right thing to do from our hearts, from inside. When people lose touch with their authentic selves, they start to depend on more and more rigid customs, rules, and laws. Somewhere along the path down this ladder of increasing artificiality, the need for rationality, justification comes into play.

I don't want to distract from the questions you want to discuss, so I won't take this any further.

I have come across the claim in another thread that no moral claims are true because all extrinsic moral claims rely on unverifiable or untrue moral axioms and, thus, that the only truth moral claims are subject to is relational to other claims and the axioms those claims are based on; extrinsic justifications for moral claims just pass the buck until a(n) (incorrect) moral axiom is reached.

Therefore, if we cannot produce correct axioms, then we must have no objectively correct moral claims. — ToothyMaw

As I see it, morals mostly express human values, not facts. Morals are not true or false, they work or they don't. Where do those values come from? I think some are inborn and some are learned.

A functional human brain free of disease knows what is moral and immoral long before it is fully developed. It is ingrained and hard coded. — Outlander

I think this is overstating the case. There is evidence there is a gene-based tendency to make judgements about people, but there is a lot of morality that is learned.

Hey @Baden, @Hanover, @Jamal - To be fair, you should move this thread to the anti-natalism thread where all the posts that take a positive view of anti-natalism are sent.

This whole thread is a set up job to give smirky posters a chance to shit on anti-natalism one more time. If moderators were fair, they'd move it to the anti-natalism ghetto where they've put all the posts which take a positive view.

My favorite books, books that influenced me the most, and books that blew my mind:

• "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad.
• "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People" by John LeCarre.
• "The Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu.
• "The Panda's Thumb" and other books of collected essays on evolution by Stephen Jay Gould.
• "Freedom, not License" by A.S. Neil.
• "Subtle is the Lord" a scientific biography of Einstein by Abraham Pais.
• "The Collected Poetry of Robert Frost".
• "Life's Ratchet" by Peter Hoffman.
• "Self-reliance" by R.W. Emerson.
• "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood.
• "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov.
• "The Autobiography of a Slimy Weasel" by Donald Trump Jr.
• "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.
• "The Culture of Narcissism" by Christopher Lasch.
• "Titus Groan" by Mervyn Peake.

I just became aware of this. A new survey of 1785 English-speaking philosophers from around the world on 100 philosophical questions. — Banno

As I went through the questions and answers, my main thought was "Geez, no wonder people think philosophy is bullshit."

I am clearly wrong — invizzy

Hey!! No fair. When you're gracious, I don't get to feel all smug.

These are my actual beliefs. — Leftist

I didn't doubt they're your actual beliefs.

I am looking forward to your thoughts and feedback! — AntonioP

Say what you will, large scale institutions, including societies and nations, can not operate without governance. It's not a matter of what's right and what's wrong, it's a question of what will work and what won't. If your solution is to somehow prevent development beyond the scale of a village, good luck with that.

There are no correct moral claims. People only have incorrect opinions on what's good/bad, what should/shouldn't exist. — Leftist

You are clearly just trying to raise a ruckus on your first post on the forum. Not a good sign. Still, welcome to the forum.

Moral claims are statements of value and as such have no truth values. "True" and "false" do not apply.
"Right," "wrong," "good, and "bad" do. Those terms are human normative judgements. You can disagree with them but, if things work as they're supposed to, the International Criminal Court will incarcerate your ass.

I think the difference between you and me on this issue is one of emphasis, not primarily substance.

What I don't know is who or what controls the community. — Vera Mont

The people who live there control the community. That's the point. Even if the choices the community makes aren't the ones we would like them to.

Of course, as is also the case with each locally administered system: it's designed on some philosophical basis; somIe central idea of the purpose of educating children. Hence the need for democracy without too much corruption and voter suppression, so that a true majority of the people decide. — Vera Mont

The point I've been trying to make is that each community, each school system, should have input in deciding what is and isn't taught in its own schools; what is and isn't included in its library.

the proposal I considered was not simply an isolated child sitting in front of a screen, as many students did under quarantine, but something far more sophisticated: — Vera Mont

I still think person to person, teacher to student, contact is needed for true learning.

I'm not rejecting the kinds of plans you and @universeness are discussing, but I am skeptical.

Is that a valid comparison or a valid standard to measure by? — universeness

I don't know.

As for your other responses to my comments, I remain skeptical, but I'm don't have any specific knowledge.

create a balanced, unbiased, virtual, educational, electronic system — universeness

Another thought. I think any centralized, standardized education program will be subject to political and social pressure to conform to a particular vision of what education should be. That's already a problem with regular school systems.

Do you think we could create AE systems (artificial expert systems) that could do a lot of the heavy lifting, when it comes to the balanced academic and social education that children need in today's world? — universeness

Some thoughts:

In the US, studies show that distance learning that took place as a result of the pandemic has seriously undermined the quality of education for students involved. I know of teachers who say the same thing. I think this has to be taken into account in any program that deals with learning from home.

I am skeptical that there is some sort of technological solution to improving education. It seems to me that a program generated and implemented by artificial intelligence would be more rigid and limited and less responsive to students than regular schools are. That's based on my own assumptions, not any specific knowledge.

When I think back to the good parts of my experiences in school, it is particular teachers that come to mind. Mrs. Coepcke, my 11th grade English teacher. Mr. Polychronus, my 12th grade biology teacher. Professor Deandre, my geotechnical engineering professor. I don't think any educational program will work without active involvement by adults who care about the students and their education and are prepared to provide the work and effort required.

I know no sane philosopher who claims experimental philosophy is not philosophy. — invizzy

So, someone would have to be insane to think experimental philosophy is not really philosophy? This from the SEP:

Finally, it might be objected that experimental philosophy simply isn’t philosophy at all. On this view, there are certain properties that differentiate work in philosophy from work in other disciplines. Research in experimental philosophy lacks these properties and is therefore best understood as falling outside the philosophical tradition entirely. Note that this last objection is not concerned with the question as to whether experimental philosophy has any value but rather with the question as to whether it should be considered part of a particular discipline. As one recent paper puts it,

… what is at issue is not whether there is room for such empirical study, but whether there is room for it now as a branch of philosophy. (Sorell forthcoming: 6) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I don't provide this as evidence that X-phi isn't philosophy, only that there are sane philosophers who claim experimental philosophy is not philosophy.

True, I asked what you prefer. And you have been very clear. Thank you. — Vera Mont

What I meant was that what either of us prefers doesn't matter. It's the community's values that should be taken into account.

But encouraging basic civility is not out of place in a classroom or a textbook — Vera Mont

Schools should encourage basic civility by enforcing it in their facilities. Don't teach it. Do it.

I would prefer parents to teach values, courtesy and empathy, but I don't feel they are always the best source of useful information - especially on subjects of which they are either ignorant or ashamed. — Vera Mont

What you prefer isn't the question. In general, we have to trust that parents and families are the best people to look out for their children. I certainly believe that. Sure, there are bad parents. Human social behavior is not perfect. I still think it's our best bet.

As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. — Vera Mont

Teaching biology is fine, although I think there are limits to what should be taught at younger ages. Sex education, on the other hand, is not just biology. It also expresses values and may recommend practices that parents consider inappropriate. Community concerns should be taken into account.

I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

I get what you're talking about. It would be a shame not to recognize such an accomplishment. There is something profound, sublime, in the shamelessness.

Can we choose how much insulin our pancreas secretes? If not, does this rule out free will?

The brain does what the brain does in the same manner that the pancreas does what the pancreas does. Neither is under our direct control. That fact says nothing about free will.
— T Clark

If the brain does what the brain does in the same manner that the pancreas does what the pancreas does, then the brain makes its choices automatically without any input from us as well. — Paul Michael

[metaphor]The brain is a gland that secretes the mind.[/metaphor] Are you asking if the mind controls the mind? How would that work? To oversimplify, the mind perceives, feels, thinks, believes, and decides. It is us.

Can we choose our thoughts? If not, does this rule out free will? — Paul Michael

Can we choose how much insulin our pancreas secretes? If not, does this rule out free will?

The brain does what the brain does in the same manner that the pancreas does what the pancreas does. Neither is under our direct control. That fact says nothing about free will.

I don't think there is any controversy over that one. I didn't realize what you meant by commonality. Some facts are just facts, but some facts are disputed and become controversial. — Vera Mont

I was picking out math because it is probably the most social value-free subject. When I was talking about commonality, I wasn't just talking about facts, I meant values too. As far as I can see, I share a lot of common values with most Americans, including those who voted for Donald Trump.

When I was in second grade, no adults would discuss any aspect of sex, which made it so much more confusing when a friend of the family made some lewd advances. (Yes, those kind of people have always existed.) As for reproduction, I was told by a fourth-grader, who was herself woefully uninformed, which resulted in a good deal of unnecessary anxiety - exacerbated by the secrecy and shame with which adults shrouded the subject, so I couldn't ask anyone who actually knew. Thank goodness for the encyclopedia! — Vera Mont

It's not the schools job to teach children everything they need or want to know. That's especially true for value-laden topics such as sex and religion.

Curiosity about the world and how things work hasn't been killed out of them yet. It's a good idea for parents to be prepared for this, so that when (not if) their children ask, they can probe for exactly what aspect of the process the child is interested in at the moment, and answer specific questions directly and truthfully, without laying out all the biological detail at once. For many parents, the subject is uncomfortable, because it involves them personally. If it's taught in school, they're spared that long, speculative stare. Plus, all the kids of the same age get the same facts and can't misinform one another, that's a bonus. When my children were that age, we went to the library and found a very useful picture-book aimed at their comprehension level. — Vera Mont

As ham-handed as my first efforts into sex education for my daughter were, I still think it was good we had that conversation. It makes a good story now and it was evidence that I respect her curiosity and intelligence. I'll say it again - not everything children need to know has to be taught in school.

This is an intriguing position. I would have thought it really does matter what philosophers have decided in the last few decades. Especially ABOUT philosophy. And especially to people in a philosophy forum. — invizzy

Philosophers can't agree on anything, especially about philosophy and especially those of us on the forum. I doubt you'll find many philosophers today who think x-phi is worthwhile. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

What if RBG didn’t die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived? — NOS4A2

She was 147 years old. Of course she was going to die. But she thought her career as a SC justice was more important than maintaining balance. If she hadn't died until 2021, I guess the court would be 5 conservatives to 4 liberals. Perhaps Roe vs. Wade would still have been overturned, but Roberts' more moderate changes might have won out.

He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see.... — Mikie

I've been predicting that Trump would fade away ever since November of 2020. We've all seen how that worked out. Early in 2016 he was given a 5% chance of winning the presidency. I think this election was the first one where the Republicans have had to face the consequences of what Trump and others have done to their party. My hope is that he will continue to be a monkey wrench in their machinery, but I am not confident that is what will happen.

Counterfactuals. Such speculation is fun, no doubt. — NOS4A2

Blow it off with a smirk if you want, but I can tell you with some certainty that if Hillary Clinton hadn't blown the 2016 election, there would be a 6 to 3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade would not have been overturned.

He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey. — Michael

Yes. This is what I meant.

What is it that would be harmful in a math book that meets the educational standard?
How is a math book, or a short story collection supposed to present 'commonalities' in a deeply divided nation? — Vera Mont

Why would you possibly bring anything political or social into a math textbook. 8 x 4 = 32 is definitely what I would call a commonality. If the train is leaving Station A at 12:00 noon and travelling 126 miles to Station B at 70 miles per hour, and if I want to know at what time it reaches Station B, what difference does it make if the engineer is a man or a woman or gay or straight? The US is not that divided. It's just that people on the left and right ends raise a ruckus and the media plays it up.

why should elementary school students have the truth concealed from them? — Vera Mont

There's a story I always tell about my daughter and me. When she was about 7, in second grade, she and I were in my bedroom lying on the bed. My wife was working. She asked me the stereotypical question - how are babies born. I remember vividly being a bit taken aback, then thinking, well...just tell her. So I told her that the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina and... At that point I looked down and saw a look of complete shock on her face. I immediately realized the mistake I had made. I don't remember how I did it, but I brought the discussion to an end quickly.

It's not "concealing the truth" to only talk about issues with children when they are old enough to deal with them. Sensible liberal and conservative parents don't want their second graders to have to figure out what it means to be transgendered. I remember what it felt like to be in elementary school. We boys didn't think about sex much at all till 6th grade when girls started to have breasts.

Would they not notice on the street or on the news that everybody isn't the same, and wonder why their school books don't reflect reality? — Vera Mont

What would they see on the street? When I was a kid, the elementary schools were segregated. I don't think any of us, the white kids at least, thought about it much. Now schools generally aren't segregated, although I live in a suburb of Boston and there aren't a lot of non-white students. Even so, all three of my children went to school with black, Jewish, Hispanic, and Asian children. Should we be teaching fourth graders about the class struggle and the oppression of blacks and other minorities. How would you feel if you were the only black kid in a class when people were talking about your ancestors being slaves? Do you think other kids might tease you about it?

We don't have to indoctrinate our children into our political persuasions. We shouldn't be indoctrinating, propagandizing, them at all. They're children for God's sake.

Independent Scotland — universeness

The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would.

Then you mentioned Supreme Court decisions, for some reason. — NOS4A2

You said there is no difference between the parties. I disagreed and noted that if Congress had been Democratic when the most recent SC judges were appointed, the right to decide to have an abortion would still be protected nationwide. There's a direct connection between party and an important social and legal outcome. Then you brought up a constitutional amendment, which does not follow from the previous discussion.

We don't have to go back and forth on this. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

I’m not sure how. As I understand it SCOTUS ruled that abortion was not a protected right under the Constitution in that case. — NOS4A2

It was a non-sequitur because a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the discussion you and I were having. We were talking about the recent election and the effects of congressional elections.

Does that mean the state/church should dictate what children under - what age? 12, 13, 14? - cannot know about? — Vera Mont

What they can know about and what they should learn in school are not the same thing. In school, especially elementary school, it makes sense to me that the focus should be on commonalities in understanding and values among the citizens of the country.

It would not have happened if there was an amendment to the constitution affording people the right to an abortion. — NOS4A2

That's quite a non-sequitur.

I could not use an ID such as Bitter Crank. I don't find it ironic, and I have told him that I don't understand his choice of 'handle' based on his postings. — universeness

I wasn't saying you are bitter or a crank. I was saying your politics is nearer his than mine.

I can only hope you will be convinced differently in the future — universeness

It doesn't matter whether or not I'm convinced. It matters what will work and what won't.

None of which was legislated in congress. — NOS4A2

Dobbs would not have happened if the Senate was Democratic during the last half of Obama's second term or while Trump was president.

I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. — universeness

We're both pretty liberal. I think you're a bit more on the @Bitter Crank branch of the party though.

Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote. — universeness

I'll go back to my original argument. It doesn't matter what would happen if we had our druthers. It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either.