Right, because we are referencing a standard of what an inch is, that we’ve agreed upon.
So 7” inches is what the length is in inches, and 5” is not what the length in inches. Right?
So if a person agrees to the standard of measurement of an “inch”, their feeling about 5” can be shown not to be the case as it doesnt match the standard being used. (The measuring tape will show that 7” is the length in inches).
The subjective feeling, in other words, of 5” inches is not correct according to the standard being used. — DingoJones

Per the particular standard it would be 7" , sure.

That's equivocating the sense of "feeling" or disposition I was using, however. Because in this case we're rather trying to get an objective fact correct. When we're talking about moral stances, there is no objective fact to get correct.

Per the particular standard it would be 7" , sure. — Terrapin Station

Correct.

That's equivocating the sense of "feeling" or disposition I was using, however. Because in this case we're rather trying to get an objective fact correct. When we're talking about moral stances, there is no objective fact to get correct. — Terrapin Station

It's not equivocating. You seem to be forgetting once again that we don't all speak Terrapinese by default. Just because you interpret things that way, that doesn't mean that your interpretation is grounds for your generalised comments, like that it's equivocation, or that we're talking about this or that, or that something or other can't be correct (where you're going by your own interpretation of why that is, and what it means to be correct).

This is where the problems stem from. There are a lot of other people who don't interpret things your way. To them, or rather to us, it comes naturally to say that this is right and that is wrong through ordinary language use. That's the default. But then you come along and say, no, nothing is right or wrong here (because you interpret things differently!).

Ok, so we get 7” not from a reference to anything subjectively (*edited from “subjective”) but rather from referencing the agreed upon standard. Right?

Edit (again): changing the word doesnt help now that I look again. 7” inches of length doesnt change because someone feels differently about the length. Hopefully you can see past my poor wording at what I actually mean.

Also, Im not ignoring your comments, but I have a point im trying to make so Ill get to them after.

As to the original post... free speech is necessary to progress. Stupid speech needs to be expressed to expose the stupidity of it and lessen stupid action because generally hearing stupid speech - helps it be corrected. If someone keeps their stupid ideas to themselves and just acts on them without bouncing them off others, that tends to be more problematic than saying words that offend someone.

Ok, so we get 7” not from a reference to anything subjective, but rather from referencing the agreed upon standard. Right? — DingoJones

??

It's from something subjective. The standard is simply something we make up by thinking about it and making decisions about what we're going to name the measurement, what we're going to count as the measurement, etc. It's not like you discover standards under rocks.

The measurement isn't subjective, but the standard certainly is.

It's not equivocating. — S

Yeah, it is. It's taking a term I was applying to one idea, one reference, and applying the same term to a different idea, a different reference instead.

Yes, thats how the standard is created/adopted, subjectively. Im not talking about that.
Once that is done, it isnt our feelings that we reference, its the standard. If we feel like its 5”, that feeling is incorrect. The measuring tape is what tells us the length of the stick in inches, not our feelings. We are not making a reference to how we feel (subjective).

Here is Karl Jaspers’ opinion on censorship. Very important.

Yes, thats how the standard is created/adopted, subjectively. Im not talking about that.
Once that is done, it isnt our feelings that we reference, its the standard. If we feel like its 5”, that feeling is incorrect. The measuring tape is what tells us the length of the stick in inches, not our feelings. We are not making a reference to how we feel (subjective). — DingoJones

That a standard is created doesn't make the standard correct. It's the case that 5" per one idea of an inch isn't the same as 7" per a different idea of inch, but there's not a correct idea of an inch. In order for there to be a correct idea of an inch, there has to be an objective normative, a normative fact, but there are no normative facts, and we can't create any.

I addressed this above with S on the previous page. If we're claiming that all we're saying by "incorrect" is that someone isn't using some standard, some conventional approach or stance, then it would just be met with a response of, "And?"--in other words, what would the relevance of it being unusual be? "Correct" has a normative connotation. But there's no factual normative with respect to conforming to any particular standard. It's not wrong to be unusual. It's just unusual. It's not as if there's a fact that one should be usual.

Im not talking about whether the standard itself is correct, Im talking about whats correct according to the standard.
The “inch” is not under a rock somewhere, its something we make up and agree to reference when measuring things. Right?

Yeah, it is. It's taking a term I was applying to one idea, one reference, and applying the same term to a different idea, a different reference instead. — Terrapin Station

I'm disputing that the interpretation of "correct" with regards to morality has to mean that there's an objective fact. The correct answer is that it's 7”, regardless, because that's the standard determining the answer in this case, and you both agreed to that. The wrong answer would be that it's 5”, because you felt that way or because that's what you reckon after having judged it by eye, because that's going by the wrong standard in this case.

In order for there to be a correct idea of an inch, there has to be an objective normative, a normative fact, but there are no normative facts, and we can't create any. — Terrapin Station

And here it is again. This is an arbitrary premise that I haven't accepted, whether we're talking about morality or the imperial system of measurement. It shouldn't be accepted because it leads to unacceptable consequences. The conclusion that there are no right or wrong answers with regard to morality or the imperial system of measurement is a much, much bigger problem than adjusting the interpretation of "correct" and "incorrect".

I think I see where you're going with this, but if I'm right it will run into the problem I highlighted (with no success) above. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) comparing some foundational moral view to the standard inch. Once that foundational moral view is established and agreed on, it is possible to be incorrect about one's rational (or guesswork gut feeling) about moral principles aimed at upholding this foundational view. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would have a foundational moral view about something as specific free speech, I simply don't believe that such a view is not some rational (or guessed) principle aimed at upholding or achieving some more foundational position about autonomy, harm to others etc..

Terrapin is maintaining, however, that his position on free speech is nevertheless, foundational. That someone could have a foundational feeling that "all people whose names begin with 'M' should be imprisoned" or something like that. I don't see what can be further argued from that bizarre position.

If any and all views can be taken to be foundational, then there's no point in discussing anything using rational argument. Parliament need not have debates because there are no facts of the matter to be discussed, Councillors need not talk to each other about the implications of their various policy ideas because implications are irrelevant if the policy ideas are foundational.

All discussion ends up futile unless we assume some shared foundational position. such an assumption is possible if we accept that foundational positions are wide-reaching and vary little among most people. The moment we accept that foundational positions are very specific and vary widely, we can't rationally discuss anything.

Agreed. Even if something is foundational for someone, that's effectively overruled if it leads to absurd consequences through reason. And as I've said a few times now, ignorance or indicating a mere difference of opinion, in itself, is no argument at all. If that's all that is within their armoury, then they'll have no chance of success in a debate on the topic.

The contrary opinion of a single person clearly doesn't mean that it wouldn't be absurd to legalise all crimes beginning with "m", or anything of that sort.

The correct answer is that it's 7”, regardless, because that's the standard determining the answer in this case, and you both agreed to that. — S

I said that per that standard, it's 7" , but the standard isn't correct. Per other standards, other definitions of "inch," it's a different number.

Parliament need not have debates because there are no facts of the matter to be discussed — Isaac

There are no moral or normative facts. But that's irrelevant to persuasion via rhetoric at any rate. There, you're appealing to what and how particular individuals think, with the aim of moving things closer to your preferences. Facts need not apply for that.

I said that per that standard, it's 7" , but the standard isn't correct. Per other standards, other definitions of "inch," it's a different number. — Terrapin Station

Oh my goodness, you and your problematic interpretations! Why are you causing unnecessary problems?

If that's the standard you're going by, then in that context it's the correct answer, and other standards are completely irrelevant. What you're doing is arbitrarily changing the context to absolutism, or removing the set context, or going by a different system of measurement, in order to say that it's not correct.

Don't do that, and the problem will go away. That's the simple solution.

f that's the standard you're going by, then in that context it's the correct answer, — S

That's fine, as the measurement is an objective fact and you can match or fail to match an objective fact. Moral stances are not objective facts.

Per other standards, other definitions of "inch," it's a different number. — Terrapin Station

But there are no other standards. That's the point. In the real world (the one in which laws must be made), absolutely no-one is seriously proposing a slightly different system in which an 'inch' is a bit smaller. 7 billion people and not one alternative definition of an 'inch' has come to the surface. For all practical purposes there's only one definition of an inch and it looks like there's only ever going to be one, so we need not waste any time assuming there might be.

Foundational moral principles are similar (although they vary more widely). The core of them is so widely agreed upon that when discussing normative ethics we do not need to take into account variations widely outside of that core, anymore than when measuring something we do not ever say "what do you mean 'six inches'? Your inches, or my inches". The issue never arises, not because inches are an objective value, but because they are so widely agreed upon.

This is a normative ethical discussion. We might well have someone psychopathic turn up, someone whose brain is damaged and has no empathy. They would have different foundational views, and would not be 'incorrect' for that. But thus is unlikely and assuming it all the time stifles meaningful normative discussion.

But there are no other standards — Isaac

You can invent them all day long. "Standard" doesn't imply a widespread consensus (ignoring the sorites problem there). But at any rate, to avoid quibbling over that, since it's not the point, that's why I added "definition."

Did you miss all of my comments about normatives, re how it's not correct to conform to the norm, etc.? We're not disagreeing over whether there's a norm or what it is. We're disagreeing that the norm is correct or that it implies a normative a la what anyone should do, etc.

That's fine, as the measurement is an objective fact and you can match or fail to match an objective fact. Moral stances are not objective facts. — Terrapin Station

I've already stated my objection to that, so I won't repeat it. It's up to you whether or not you decide to address it.

Your objection amounts to either an endorsement of conformism or an ego-oriented fiat, depending on where the pendulum is.

The core of them is so widely agreed upon that when discussing normative ethics we do not need to take into account variations widely outside of that core, anymore than when measuring something we do not ever say "what do you mean 'six inches'? Your inches, or my inches". The issue never arises, not because inches are an objective value, but because they are so widely agreed upon. — Isaac

"Your inches or mine?".

This highlights the absurdity, the big problems, which can arise as a consequence of Terrapinism. Terrapinism should therefore be rejected. He gives us the very means to put together a reduction to the absurd. And not just on this issue, but others as well.

Your objection amounts to either an endorsement of conformism or an ego-oriented fiat, depending on where the pendulum is. — Terrapin Station

If that's what you call being sensible instead of a crackpot, then yes.

Must. Not. Be. Too. Different.

Must. Not. Be. Too. Different. — Terrapin Station

Anyway, good to know we've once again reached that point where you're effectively throwing in the towel and handing me the victory. You will laugh and refuse to believe it, but that's how it works in debates. You might not want to accept defeat, but if you're unwilling or unable to come up with a proper response, then that's a defeat. You've conceded whether you come out and say so or not. This is also, I've noticed, the only way you ever concede.

The laughter is at your ego.

The laughter is at your ego. — Terrapin Station

That in itself is laughable, because you could just as well be looking at your own reflection. Your ego prevents you from conceding anything at all. Ever. Your ego leads you to your free speech fundamentalism. Your ego is behind your biting of the bullet in many a situation on this forum when you should instead recognise absurdity and act accordingly.

Even when you become the butt of jokes as a result of some crazy bullet you've bitten, your ego prevents you from seeing sense. Do you still maintain that you don't know whether or not I believe I'm on the moon? Do you still maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective? Including these very words?

You can invent them all day long. — Terrapin Station

I'm not saying you can't invent them. I'm saying it's hugely significant to the process of normative discussions (like the one this thread is about) that no one ever has. Inches are obviously far more settled a matter than foundational moral principles, but in a world of 7 billion people, it is of huge significance that there is not one single functioning alternative to the agreement about what length an inch is. It means that for normative discussions (say, teaching a child to measure, or how long we should make some timber component) we need not at all go into the fact that the length of an 'inch' is arbitrary. It would be a foolish sideline.

With the caveat that foundational moral positions do vary, such that we have to talk about a range rather than a fixed point, it is equally the case with normative moral discussions. It is a foolish sideline to point out that some people might have some utterly bizarre moral foundation. They might (although, as per our other concurrent discussion, I think there are limits). But people might have a different idea of how long an inch is. It's just the same. Both are so unlikely that we ignore them in normal discussion.

Did you miss all of my comments about normatives, re how it's not correct to conform to the norm, etc.? We're not disagreeing over whether there's a norm or what it is. We're disagreeing that the norm is correct or that it implies a normative a la what anyone should do, etc. — Terrapin Station

The term 'correct' applies here to that which does not go beyond an assumed range of moral foundational positions (what @S is describing as "absurd conclusions"). And you're right, it does have normative weight. That's because we assume whilst having this discussion (the one about free speech, not the one we're having now) that you, along with everyone else taking part, have foundational moral principles within that range, and as such claiming a course of action was consistent with them (which again, we assume you are doing by advocating it), when such a course of action is actually not consistent with them, is 'incorrect'. To make a claim that something is consistent when it is not is 'incorrect'.

Now - the assumptions.

First, assuming that you have foundational moral principles that are within the normal range. This assumption is not only warranted on the grounds of reasonable expectation (positions outside of this range are rare and usually accompanied by other signs of mental disturbance), but it is necessary. It is reasonable that normative moral discussion needs to be had (we live in a community and so must find some mechanism of reaching consensus if only to make the behaviour of others more predictable). We cannot have normative discussions at all unless we assume some shared moral foundational principles.

Second, the assumption that you advocating a position is equivalent to you claiming it is consistent with your moral foundational principles. Again, this is a necessary assumption for discussion to take place. I agree, it might not be the case, someone might advocate a position and not give a fig that it doesn't match their foundational moral principles. But in such a case discussion is pointless, they might as well not take part.

As to the original post... free speech is necessary to progress. Stupid speech needs to be expressed to expose the stupidity of it and lessen stupid action because generally hearing stupid speech - helps it be corrected. If someone keeps their stupid ideas to themselves and just acts on them without bouncing them off others, that tends to be more problematic than saying words that offend someone. — Amore

The topic is about hate speech, not stupid speech. No one is suggesting that statements like, "I'm a free speech absolutist", should be banned. That's not hateful at all.