Let's start with psychological abuse. You can basically verbally abuse your kids because protected by free speech and child protection services can't intervene.

Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/health/scream-at-your-own-risk-and-your-childrens.html

Some context.

The answers to your questions in your first and second paragraphs were apparent from my previous reply: no, minimally, an argument is of the form "X because Y", and yours was of that form.

Your question in your third paragraph about usefulness isn't significantly different from your previous questions about usefulness which I've answered multiple times now, so I'm not answering it yet again just because you've slightly changed the wording. Find the answer I've already given, and then ask a question about it. Don't just ignore the answer and repeat what's basically the same question.

Do you have a view that's something like "Either you're born thinking x, or x is necessarily built on foundational moral principles?" — Terrapin Station

"Either 'Based on nothing' or 'principle-based approach'" is a false dichotomy. — Terrapin Station

So what's the alternative? It's like getting blood out of a stone talking to you about this. I'm obviously asking about how you form and change moral views and you're just giving me a list of things it isn't (namely, everything I happen to suggest). So what actually is it, in your view? You're not just born with an opinion on prison sentences, one does not just pop into your head spontaneously, yet you claim that no other principle or objective connects your view on the matter (such that you could be wrong about the logic of that connection). I'm struggling to see any other way in which these very specific policy choices you have come about. They're all very libertarian, for example. But you'd have me believe that libertarian values are not in any way foundational. That the strong libertarian bent to all of your policy preferences is what...coincidence?

Some people just like being difficult, I think. I don't believe that he doesn't have any moral principles or foundations. And I don't believe that he doesn't generally accept the things you put to him about harm and consequences and the welfare of others and so on, irrespective of whether he can rather pointlessly come up with an exception to every single thing that you say to him.

I think that his priority is not giving any ground in this discussion, and coming up with ways around any perceived challenge to his position, over and above intellectual honesty. If intellectual honesty was really important to him, you'd think that we would've been able to agree on a lot more things. Right? But it's more like when we say "up", he says "down"; when we say that the sky is blue, he says that it's red.

The answers to your questions in your first and second paragraphs were apparent from my previous reply: no, minimally, an argument is of the form "X because Y", and yours was of that form. — S

With respect to my "criminal threatening" policy? I suppose the policy was x, but what was y?

Please try not to lose track of our discussion and make me repeat myself. See here.

So you'd say that the argument is "My policy would be such and such because I'd prefer this to be implemented"?

So you'd say that the argument is "My policy would be such and such because I'd prefer this to be implemented"? — Terrapin Station

So you can't read?

Let's start with psychological abuse. You can basically verbally abuse your kids because protected by free speech and child protection services can't intervene. — Benkei

I'd not have any laws based on psychological effects period.

Just out of curiosity, how would you enforce any laws against psychological abuse? How would you establish that there has even been psychological abuse against kids?

So you can't read? — S

I suppose not. I sure can't figure out what you're saying the "because" would be. Can't you just straightforwardly tell me rather than having to play a game about it? I feel like I'm taking crazy stabs at what you might think it would be, because you don't seem to be plainly stating it.

I suppose not. I sure can't figure out what you're saying the "because" would be. Can't you just straightforwardly tell me rather than having to play a game about it? — Terrapin Station

You're the one playing games, and this one seems to be your favourite: the game of playing dumb. So you followed my link, read what I said, including the part after the word "because", yet you somehow can't figure out what I'm saying the "because" would be?

You're not just born with an opinion on prison sentences, one does not just pop into your head spontaneously, yet you claim that no other principle or objective connects your view on the matter (such that you could be wrong about the logic of that connection). — Isaac

Re the prisoner treatment example, my view was influenced by experiencing the way we treat prisoners, the sorts of sentences we give, and intuiting whether I feel that's a just way to treat people. That's not a view I'm born with, and it's not principle-oriented, but it's something that thought goes into, too.

I'm struggling to see any other way in which these very specific policy choices you have come about. They're all very libertarian, for example. But you'd have me believe that libertarian values are not in any way foundational. That the strong libertarian bent to all of your policy preferences is what...coincidence?

My disposition is very libertarian on a lot of things, sure. That's a way that I naturally am. When I first discovered libertarianism when I was in my later teens or early 20s (I don't recall exactly when I learned about it, but it was around that time), I thought, "Holy cow! There actually are some other people who feel the same way I do about this stuff!"

But my disposition isn't just libertarian. I have a lot of dispositions that are socialist, too. So that's why I consider myself a "libertarian socialist," although I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist. Re my views about how the economy should work, how social assistance should work, etc., I've yet to run into anyone where I've said, "Holy cow! There actually are some other people who feel the same way I do about this stuff!"

Okay, so there's one "because" in that post: "because they don't matter to you." Your "they" stands for "consequences which do matter." So you're saying that the argument I forwarded was:

<statement of what I'd do policy-wise>
because consequences which do matter don't matter to me.

Is that right?

Let's cut right to the chase. Are you a human being or a brick wall? Because I'm talking to you as though you are the former, when perhaps you are in fact the latter. The test would be that a human being would be capable of understanding why the consequences matter, but a brick wall would not. Do you at least understand why the consequences matter?

Let's cut right to the chase. Are you a human being or a brick wall? Because I'm talking to you as though you are the former, when perhaps you are in fact the latter. The test would be that s human being would be capable of understanding why the consequences matter, but a brick wall would not. Do you at least understand why the consequences matter? — S

Well, things mattering are to an individual, and it's because the individual cares about it/is concerned with it/feels it should be taken into consideration. That's what "mattering" is.

In this case, sure, the consequences matter to me. I wouldn't have preferences for things like this where I'm not thinking about practical upshots of them.

Well, things mattering are to an individual, and it's because the individual cares about it/is concerned with it/feels it should be taken into consideration. That's what "mattering" is.

In this case, sure, the consequences matter to me. I wouldn't have preferences for things like this where I'm not thinking about practical upshots of them. — Terrapin Station

I'm talking about the consequences which matter, generally (yes, to people, obviously), but which don't matter to you. Do you see any problem at all with that? Are you capable of understanding why this is a problem?

I'm talking about the consequences which matter, generally (yes, to people, obviously), but which don't matter to you. Do you see any problem at all with that? — S

Do I see any problem with something mattering to other people but not to me? No.

Do other people have a problem with things that matter to me but not to them? Why?

Do I see any problem with something mattering to other people but not to me? No. — Terrapin Station

That's the whole problem, here and in many other discussions.

Do other people have a problem with things that matter to me but not to them? Why? — Terrapin Station

Yes, because this is ethics, and you have the wrong ethics, meaning that some things, like free speech, matter to you too much than they should, and other things, like the welfare of others, don't matter to you enough as they should.

Ideally, we'd get to a point where you'd realise this.

Yes, because this is ethics, and you have the wrong ethics, meaning that some things, like free speech, matter to you too much than they should, and other things, like the welfare of others, don't matter to you enough as they should.

Ideally, we'd get to a point where you'd realise this. — S

How much anything should matter to anyone is a matter of individual opinion. There is no correct answer.

It's no different than saying, "You don't like Yngwie Malmsteen's guitar playing as much as you should, but you like Neil Young's guitar playing more than you should."

According to whom? People have no requirement to feel the same way that you do about it.

How much anything should matter to anyone is a matter of individual opinion. There is no correct answer. — Terrapin Station

You are extremely predictable. And a dead end, apparently.

You are extremely predictable. And a dead end. — S

Well, consistent. I've had the same view literally for decades. You'd need a pretty good argument that I've not heard hundreds of times before for me to be persuaded that my view of what ethics, what normatives, etc. are ontologically is incorrect.

How do you view operating from axioms? You see axioms as being neither correct or incorrect, but what about operating from axioms? You don’t think that something can be correct or incorrect according to operating principals/axioms?

That's one of your worst qualities: consistency over good sense.

Cue the line: "What's good sense is a matter of individual opinion". :roll:

How do you view operating from axioms? — DingoJones

Do you mean for ethics? Or in general?

For ethics, I see it as a principle-based approach (unless you're talking about relatively arbitrary, regularly-changeable axioms . . . that would be pretty unusual, though), and I think that principle-based approaches tend to lead to what I consider to be draconian overreactions to things that should be basically written-off or treated with kid gloves. I hate invoking "common sense," but basically I think that principle-based approaches tend to ignore common sense. We should wind up saying, "Hold on a minute. We're advocating doing such and such to person A just because they did that? Are you crazy?"

At any rate, sure, something can be in line with an axiom or not, but I wouldn't say that it's "correct" just because it's in line with some axiom.

Do I see any problem with something mattering to other people but not to me? No. — Terrapin Station

Imagine if free speech mattered to other people, but not to you. Now do you see a problem?

In this case, sure, the consequences matter to me. I wouldn't have preferences for things like this where I'm not thinking about practical upshots of them. — Terrapin Station

Right. This is as good a definition as any of what I'm talking about. The consequences matter to you. The consequences of some policy are an empirical question. It is possible to be wrong about them. That is what ethical arguments are about.

Imagine if free speech mattered to other people, but not to you. Now do you see a problem? — S

No. What do you see as the problem that different things matter to different people? Apparently you're thinking that the same things should matter to everyone? Why?

Right. This is as good a definition as any of what I'm talking about. The consequences matter to you. The consequences are an empirical question. It is possible to be wrong about them. That is what ethical arguments are about. — Isaac

Sure, it's possible to be wrong about them, although basically we have to argue counterfactuals and counterfactual truth values are close to impossible.

Of course the consequences aren't the same thing as the ethical stances, but sure, someone might change their ethical stance given different consequences of it.

In the cases at hand, it's not an issue of disagreeing over what the consequences would be, but feeling differently about the consequences regarding whether they're acceptable/desirable or not.

No. — Terrapin Station

So, the real you, now, with your free speech absolutism: you see no problem if free speech didn't in fact matter to you, and other people were trying to explain the merits of free speech absolutism, and why free speech matters, and why it should matter, and you were just not getting it at all, and were in fact boasting about how consistent you are in not getting it? You hadn't got it for decades, in fact.

Well I would say its correct/incorrect according to that axiom at least.
I don’t think principal based ethics make much sense either, for similar reasons, but I think that certain axioms can inform ethics. Ive been trying to articulate to myself where exactly you and S (and others) are diverging and its something about where each of you are at structure wise, in a linear sense. (By way of analogy, I think you two are getting off at different stops along the track, and S might be transferring from other tracks you don’t acknowledge as existing)
I won’t hold referencing common sense against you, sometimes to zero in on something you have to start with a less than ideal ambiguity like that. I know what you mean by common sense, generally, so its enough to make your point. Anyway...